NY Governor Kathy Hochul Doubles Down, More Gun Control for Law-Abiding New Yorkers

Ammoland Inc. Posted on April 8, 2025 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

Albany, NY — Governor Kathy Hochul signed three new gun control bills into law last week, claiming they’ll help reduce violence in New York. But for lawful gun owners, it’s just more government overreach that chips away at constitutional rights without addressing the real causes of crime.

The new laws, rushed through Albany and signed late Thursday, add more restrictions on firearms, ammunition, and now even how you pay for them.

Here’s what Hochul just signed:

• Ban on Pistol Converters: One bill adds “pistol converters”—devices that can allegedly turn a semi-auto pistol into a full-auto—to the list of banned “rapid-fire” mods in the state. Think bump stocks, binary triggers, and now… simple plastic blocks. Lawmakers say it’s about Glocks, but critics say it’s another excuse to vilify a popular brand and scare people with rare, fringe modifications.
• Credit Card Tracking of Gun Purchases: Another law orders credit card companies to create a special code for firearm retailers so purchases can be flagged and tracked. Hochul claims it will help stop mass shootings. But civil liberties experts and Second Amendment advocates warn this is financial surveillance—targeting people for exercising a constitutional right. Big banks will now be the gatekeepers of your rights.
• New Dealer Warning Signs and Paperwork: The third bill requires gun shops to post big warning signs and hand out papers to every buyer about the “dangers” of firearm ownership. The new language is more aggressive and clearly designed to stigmatize lawful gun ownership.

Hochul Says It’s Working—But At What Cost?

The Governor celebrated what she called a “53% drop in shootings” since 2022, crediting her administration’s $2 billion spending spree on law enforcement and gun control programs. But many question those numbers and whether that drop had anything to do with policies like credit card tracking or warning posters in gun stores.

Critics say the real goal here isn’t safety—it’s control.

“This is just more harassment of legal gun owners,” said one upstate dealer. “People who follow the law aren’t the problem. But Hochul and her team don’t seem to care about that. They just want headlines.”

Background Checks for Ammo Still Broken

New York’s background check system for ammunition, launched in 2023, is still plagued with delays. Even for a single box of .22s, buyers are often forced to wait days. As a result, many sportsmen are now buying larger quantities less often—ironically, the same behavior Hochul now wants banks to flag as “suspicious.”

Despite that, the Governor insists gun owners have nothing to worry about.

“It’s not about you,” Hochul said Thursday. “It’s about patterns.” But in practice, these laws cast a wide net that hits every legal gun buyer in the state.

“People Over Profit”… Or Politics Over Freedom?

Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon (D-Brooklyn), who pushed two of the bills, took direct aim at gun manufacturers, singling out Glock. She accused the company of ignoring its supposed role in gun violence despite the fact that criminals—not the tools—cause crimes.

“It’s time to put people over profit,” Simon said. But for many New Yorkers, it feels more like putting politics over freedom.

Bottom Line

Once again, Governor Hochul is doubling down on feel-good legislation that scores political points but punishes the wrong people. Law-abiding citizens who follow every rule are being treated like suspects, while violent criminals still walk free thanks to soft-on-crime policies across the state.

New York isn’t getting safer. It’s just getting more hostile to your rights.

Should Lead-Core Bullets Be Banned?

All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

The campaign to ban lead ammunition for hunting is based on the far-reaching claim that there are no known safe blood lead levels (BLLs) for neurotoxicity, particularly for children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, Environment Canada, and the UK’s Food Standards Agency have singled out game harvested using lead ammunition as exposing children and pregnant mothers to an unacceptably high health risk.

Arguing that “a conservative approach” is appropriate when characterizing risk, the Canadian government is studying additional measures to further reduce exposure to lead. Lead has been banned from other products, including gasoline and paint, and banning lead-core bullets and sinkers is under consideration. A ban of lead bullets and shot would undermine civilian firearms ownership by making shooting extraordinarily expensive for many hunters and target shooters.

There is no disagreement that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, particularly for young children and fetuses. Low levels can harm children’s developing brains, causing learning disabilities, per the CDC. Research has shown that consuming meat contaminated with lead particles increases BLL. However, the research to date does not clearly demonstrate that the risks of lead poisoning from eating game harvested with lead ammunition are severe enough to justify a general ban.

Outdoor organizations (American, British and European) reject the necessity of banning lead ammunition, arguing that the health risks of lead are being exaggerated for political reasons and that individual hunters are well able to make informed choices about what is best for them and their families. “The use of traditional ammunition does not pose a health risk to human beings,” said Ted Novin, director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Novin added that “there has never been a documented case of lead poisoning among humans who have eaten game harvested with traditional ammunition.”

In an abundance of caution, state wildlife agencies (such as Minnesota and Wisconsin) have increased efforts to educate hunters about the best practices of preparing game that minimize the risk of lead poisoning. Some tips are: always trim a generous distance away from the wound channel, and discard any meat that is bruised, discolored, or contains hair, dirt or bone fragments. Hunters are also encouraged to consider higher quality (and more expensive) ammunition such as copper or lead-core bullets that have high-weight retention.

To better understand the risks to human health from eating game meat it is necessary to examine the research behind these claims. Let’s look at two studies to see if their conclusions are justified:

1. Iqbal and his colleagues examined 736 people in North Dakota who lived in various locations in ND, holding a wide range of occupations, from welder to refinery worker. Most had lived in same household for over 10 years. Those who reported eating wild game were found to have 50 percent more lead in their blood than those who did not. The lead exposure was highest among people who consumed not only venison, but also birds and other game. Those who ate wild game meat had average lead levels of 1.27 micrograms per deciliter, compared with 0.84 for those who ate no game. Statistically, these differences are significantly different. This study was used to ban donations of game meat to food banks by generous hunters.

Analysis: The study did not examine alternative explanations for higher BLL, including hobbies and occupational differences. Despite finding higher BLL in those who ate wild game, the BLLs of both groups were well below a CDC threshold of 5 micrograms per deciliter. Importantly, both groups were at or below the US national average of 1.6 micrograms per deciliter. Unsurprisingly, no deleterious health effects were reported for hunters or their families.

2. A recent Canadian study is cited as supporting the dangers of consuming game harvested with lead ammunition, and it illustrates some of the methodological problems in studies linking higher blood levels with game harvested using lead ammunition.

Fillion and her co-researchers focused on three small Inuit communities in Nunavut (an arctic Territory in Northern Canada) where participants in the Inuit Health Survey in 2007–2008 had the highest blood lead levels (BLL). The study first examined the lead levels in game meat, house dust, paint chips and types of ammunition used by study participants. Blood samples from the 169 participants in the study showed that those involved with hunting, living in houses undergoing repairs or re-modelling, or eating game harvested with lead shot had higher BLLs than other participants.

To assess the lead level in game meat, samples were obtained from game harvested with lead ammunition from at least two parts of the animal. The researchers were surprised to find that lead levels in the game meat were generally low and did not exceed the guidelines for lead levels. They concluded that it was unlikely to be the major source of lead exposure for this population. Nevertheless, BLLs were highest among those who ate birds shot with lead pellets. No information was given if samples were taken from the wound channel or if visible lead fragments were removed before analysis.

In the second section of the study, the researchers assessed the isotopic profiles of each possible source of lead in the participants’ blood. Analyses showed that lead in house dust, paint chips, and ammunition had similar isotopes to those found in the blood, while differing from the isotopic profiles found in wild game. This suggests that exposure could have come from the dust from old paint, decrepit walls in the houses, or direct from the ammunition, but not from consuming wild game.

Analysis: The first point to note is that the participants in this study are not typical North American hunters; rather they were deliberately selected for having the highest blood lead levels in the earlier Inuit Health Survey. Second, the small size of the sample and the wide diversity among the participants (particularly in housing quality, hunting involvement, and game consumption patterns) made interpretation difficult.

Despite the disparity in isotopic profiles of lead in participants’ blood and wild game, the authors conclude, “Blood-lead concentration results were consistent with the hypothesis that lead-contaminated game bird meat is a significant source of exposure . . .” This conclusion is based on the significant increase in blood-lead concentrations of the main study group after the spring harvest of water birds. However, as the authors recognize, this ignores the possibility of lead contamination from alternative sources. The authors speculate that this contamination might stem from handling lead shot shells, and urge that lead shot shells be banned for all game hunting. There are plenty of game hunting tips on the internet, but this is probably one that you should put into practise until there is a full ban.

The recommendation of a ban is based on speculation, not the research findings. While the researchers note that participants made (cast) lead sinkers, they ignored this information. Nor did the researchers investigate the isotopic nature of the sinkers. Had they done so it would have been possible to discover if the higher BLL in men who hunt could have come from their reported activity of casting lead sinkers. Casting lead has long been known to be a dangerous activity and requires proper handling procedures and particularly extensive ventilation. Appropriate ventilation would be even more crucial in the arctic.

Meat preparation is a key determinant of the amount of lead residue found in game meat, but handling practices were inadequately reported. To know if a study adequately reflects the risk facing hunters using lead ammunition, it would be necessary to utilize procedures that follow best-practices, thereby ensuring lead is adequately removed from game. Information on best practices is available from various organizations in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Conclusion

These vulnerabilities in the claims about the dangers of lead bullets identified here imply that concerns about lead have been exaggerated. The case against lead bullets remains inconclusive. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game at typical consumption levels. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handing techniques.

Hunters have long recognized that hunting entails a variety of threats and have learned to “adapt and overcome.” Clearly, outdoor activities are more dangerous than playing video games or watching television.

Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with the threats facing hunters – from wilderness survival to possible CWD to lead toxicity. To the extent that lead contamination poses a threat to those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition, hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. Whether that is mixing up their hunting methods like using a deer feeder similar to what you can learn more about at Feed That Game to lure them into floor traps or whatever gets the job done to reduce the chance of the neurotoxins entering inexperienced hunters mouths.

Traditional outdoor organizations are well placed to educate hunters about the best practices for butchering game harvested using lead ammunition or to help them decide if they wish to use non-lead ammunition. Such groups have long provided information about best practices for casting lead sinkers or bullets.

Groups willing to throw the ammunition baby out with the supposedly toxic bathwater reveal their true purpose is opposition to hunting and not concern for the welfare of hunters or their families.

How Dangerous, Really, Is Lead Ammunition?
All DRGO articles by Gary Mauser, PhD

A variety of authorities such as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UK Food Standards Agency, as well as the Centers for Disease Control warn that there is no known level of lead exposure that is considered safe. If true, then literally any exposure to lead should be hazardous. These authorities warn that blood lead levels (BLL) even lower than 5 micrograms per deciliter are a matter of serious concern. Scientists confidently assert that using lead bullets for hunting endangers human health, particularly that of children, and should be prohibited.

Such Draconian claims have important implications for hunters and their families, particularly families who rely upon game as a primary source of meat. Warnings about lead poisoning by anti-hunting activists are preventing generous hunters from donating wild game meat to food banks. Hunters are estimated to have provided over 1.3 million meals in 2014 to food banks across North America.

But is the science really settled? Is it universally accepted that no known level of lead exposure is safe? No. Respected scientists in Norway, Australia, and the UK, are skeptical that low levels of exposure must be considered dangerous, pointing out that the research remains unclear whether blood lead levels under 10 micrograms per deciliter have any meaningful health effects. Because the available studies do not provide reliable evidence to draw confident conclusions, these skeptics insist that more research is needed before any governmental restrictions are imposed on lead ammunition. It is not a stretch to compare the dire warnings about lead ammunition to the exaggerated claims of the Alar scare in the 1980s that unnecessarily frightened apple consumers.

Here are brief summaries of a few alternative assessments:

Norway

In 2013, the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) assessed the risk of lead exposure in Norway from consuming cervid meat (which includes moose, deer and reindeer). Many (70%) Norwegian hunters reported eating cervid meat at least once a month, and approximately 5% of the Norwegian population has a hunting license.

No association was found between game meat consumption and BLL in two of the four Norwegian studies reviewed. However, a significant association was found in two studies. No link was found for women, but men who consumed cervid meat monthly (or more often) had about 30% higher average BLL than those with less frequent consumption. The increase in blood lead concentrations appeared to be associated with consumption of minced cervid meat, particularly purchased minced meat. Blood lead concentration was found to be significantly higher in participants who reported hand-loading ammunition. However, there was a wide range, and many participants with high or long-lasting game meat intake had low blood lead concentrations.

The authors found that, “The number of years of game meat consumption was inversely related to blood levels, with about 5% decrease per decade of game meat intake. The phenomenon illustrates that game meat intake over time is not necessarily associated with higher lead accumulation in the body.”

VKM concluded by identifying serious data gaps that cast doubt upon warnings about the hazards of lead exposure in game meat. The data on lead concentration in Norwegian game meat, particularly in commercial minced meat, were inadequate. There was a wide range in the number of lead fragments found in commercial minced meat samples examined, apparently due to the manner of meat preparation. More research is required about the fragmentation pattern of bullets in moose. It was difficult to assess the bioavailability of metallic lead in food. Despite concerns about lead exposure from game meat consumption in children, it was impossible to conduct a risk assessment because no blood lead data or consumption data for children were available.

VKM reiterated concerns about heavy consumption of game meat, and urged that the lead exposure from cervid meat consumption could be reduced by removal of sufficient meat around the wound channel, and recommending increased educational efforts about the best practices of preparing game meat. They also encouraged hunters to use lead-core ammunition with low fragmentation such as certain types of bonded expanding bullets, or non-lead ammunition.

Australia

The prestigious Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a “comprehensive evaluation of the evidence on the health effects of lead” and issued a report in May 2015 titled, accordingly, Evidence of the Effects of Lead on Human Health. Despite their concerns about exposure to lead, the NHMRC remained somewhat tentative about the harmful effects of low BLL.

The NHMRC recommended that any Australian, particularly a child or pregnant woman, having a blood lead level greater than 5 micrograms per deciliter should investigate and reduce the source of exposure. However, the NHMRC cautioned:

“It is well established that blood lead levels greater than 10 micrograms per deciliter can have harmful effects on many organs and bodily functions. . . .

“The evidence for health effects occurring as a result of blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter is less clear. NHMRC’s comprehensive review of the health effects of lead found an association between blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter and health effects, including reduced Intelligence Quotient and academic achievement in children, behavioral problems in children, increased blood pressure in adults and a delay in sexual maturation in adolescent boys and girls. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that lead at this level caused any of the health effects observed.”

The NHMRC was primarily concerned with lead exposure due to industry (such as lead mining or smelting) and recommended that communities should take steps to identify and control the source of lead exposure to reduce the risk of harm to the individual and to the community. In a companion report, the NHMRC cautioned Australians that casting lead fishing sinkers or eating game harvested with lead ammunition were activities also risking exposure and recommended that people take steps to reduce any potential dangers.

United Kingdom

Following concerns about the health risks of consuming game shot with lead ammunition, the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) set up the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) in 2010. This group was charged with identifying the most serious risks and recommending possible solutions. The resulting LAG report in 2015 found that consumption of wild game meat killed using lead ammunition posed risks to tens of thousands of high-level consumers of wild game in the UK. LAG concluded that public education was unlikely to improve the situation and that the only way to guarantee an amelioration of human health concerns would be to replace lead ammunition with non-lead alternatives.

Concerned about procedural irregularities, a group of prestigious scientists withdrew from LAG, eventually deciding to issue their own minority report. They objected that LAG would “result in conclusions and mitigation recommendations which are not necessary, not appropriate or not proportionate in relation to real risks.” Their minority report reviews the evidence provided to the LAG and makes recommendations to address existing and new potential risks identified.

The independent scientists made several key points:

a) It is unclear whether blood lead levels less than 10 micrograms per deciliter have meaningful health effects, because available studies (cross-sectional) do not provide reliable evidence needed to draw confident conclusions.

b) Evidence from studies in other countries may not directly apply to a specific country’s people.

c) Findings from population data cannot be applied directly to individuals (e.g., individual BLL higher than the national average does not necessarily correlate with reduced IQ).

d) A small difference in a group’s average for a specific health measure may not be health effects doctors can diagnose for people exposed to lead.

The key concern over the LAG human health risk assessment is that it was prepared by people with little human health or lead toxicology expertise, but who are themselves publicly antagonistic to lead ammunition. They made uncertain and non-transparent use of only some of the relevant literature. From this they concluded adverse effects of spent lead ammunition on human health, which appear to require substantial mitigation measures to control. However, the whole assessment is subject to many uncertainties which have not been confirmed.

These points drastically undermine LAG’s recommendation that lead ammunition should be urgently banned. Instead the dissidents advised improved game handling and processing efforts to minimize lead entering the human food chain through game meat, and encouraged consumers to take additional steps to reduce lead exposure through better methods of preparing game meat.

Conclusions

The reviews summarized here identify serious data gaps that undermine warnings about the seriousness of consuming game meat shot with lead bullets. It would appear to be more political than scientific to assert that prohibitions are the only solution, when training in best practices would show more respect for individual rights and might even be better for the health of consumers. Education, not bans, is the most appropriate way to deal with lead contamination for those who eat game harvested with lead ammunition. Hunters need to understand they should take reasonable precautions. It is telling that none of the assessments of the potential health risks associated with lead exposure from game meat were compared to the benefits and nutritional value of eating game meat.

So the case for banning lead bullets remains inconclusive. These assessments of the dangers of lead bullets do not ignore concerns about the health risks, but they do imply that the dangers have been exaggerated. Despite agreeing that lead is a dangerous neurotoxin, there is as yet no clear evidence that lead-core ammunition poses serious health risks when harvesting deer or other big game. Risks are reduced by proper butchering and meat-handling techniques, although researchers also warned that greater precautions are required when casting bullets or hand-loading ammunition.

Finally, it is not easy to find an alternative to lead. Not only are all possible substitutes more expensive, but it has proved very difficult to achieve ballistic and impact equivalency using lead substitutes (like steel, copper or barium) that do not damage the firearm nor cause greater dangers to the environment. Lead is not the only toxic element—ingested iron, copper and barium are, too.

Banning lead for bullets and shot is not an easy solution—unless the end game is really to eliminate hunting with guns. And the point of that would be to undermine the Second Amendment.

Massie and other Republicans push 'National Constitutional Carry Act' to protect Americans' gun rights

The measure would protect Americans' right to carry guns in public

Alex Nitzberg By Alex Nitzberg Fox News

Published January 24, 2025 9:33am EST

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and a slew of other House Republicans are pushing a proposal that would compel states to allow Americans to carry guns in public areas.

The measure, dubbed the "National Constitutional Carry Act," would prohibit states and localities from limiting U.S. citizens from carrying firearms in public if they are eligible to have the weapons under state and federal law.

"By prohibiting state or local restrictions on the right to bear arms, H.R. 645 upholds the original purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure the security of a free state—while safeguarding individual liberties against government infringement," Massie noted, according to a press release.

Specifically, the text of the measure stipulates that "No State or political subdivision of a State may impose a criminal or civil penalty on, or otherwise indirectly limit the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by residents or nonresidents of that State who are citizens of the United States and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law."

"Any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a State or a political subdivision of a State that criminalizes, penalizes, or otherwise indirectly dissuades the carrying of firearms (including by imposing a financial or other barrier to entry) in public by any resident or nonresident who is a United States citizen and otherwise eligible to possess firearms under State and Federal law, shall have no force or effect," the measure reads.

The measure would not apply to locations "where screening for firearms is conducted under state law," and it would not block the owners of privately-owned facilities from banning guns on their premises.

Massie and others had previously pushed such a proposal last year as well.

In 2021, Massie shared a family Christmas photo in which each person was holding a gun.

"Merry Christmas!" the staunch gun rights advocate wrote when sharing the photo, adding, "ps. Santa, please bring ammo."

In a 2022 post, he criticized the term "Gun Violence," asserting that it "is part of the language leftists use to shift blame away from evil perpetrators of violence" and that it "suggests that guns are to blame instead of people, which sets the table for their anti-second amendment agenda."

"There’s a reason you never see a Communist, a Marxist, or even a Socialist politician support the right of common people to keep and bear arms: Those forms of government require more submission to the state than armed citizens would tolerate," Massie also tweeted in 2022.

Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Second Amendment Guarantee Act to Defend New Yorkers 2A Rights

January 15, 2025

Press Release

Washington, DC – Congresswoman Claudia Tenney (NY-24) today introduced the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) to ensure that states are prohibited from banning the manufacture, sale, importation, or possession of any rifle or shotgun that is lawfully permitted under federal law.

Additional cosponsors of this legislation include Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-1) and Nick Langworthy (NY-23).

New York's SAFE Act, signed into law under disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, prohibits law-abiding New Yorkers from purchasing, transferring, and owning certain firearms. If signed into law, this SAGA Act would nullify the SAFE Act and prevent New York and other states from passing unconstitutional gun bans.

"The Constitution clearly established our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The SAGA Act nullifies New York's unconstitutional SAFE Act and prevents other states from enacting laws that violate the Second Amendment. This legislation upholds our country's founding principle of protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans, even from liberal states with anti-gun policies," said Congresswoman Tenney.

"No matter how hard radical Democrats in Albany attempt to limit lawful gun ownership, the New York Congressional delegation will stand firm to protect law-abiding New Yorkers and manufacturers in protecting their constitutional rights. I am proud to join Rep. Tenney and my New York colleagues in Congress to ensure these rights ‘shall not be infringed, and I will never back down in my fight to protect the Second Amendment,” said Congressman Langworthy.

Poll: 3/4 of American Voters Want Pro-2nd Amendment Judges Nominated at Federal Level

AWR Hawkins    18 Dec 202476   3:03

A poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and released by the Second Amendment Foundation shows three-quarters of American voters believe it is “important” to see pro-2A judges nominated and confirmed at the federal level.

The poll asked, “How important is it to you to get judges confirmed and nominated to the federal courts who make it a priority to try their best to strictly follow the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”

Seventy-six percent of respondents said it is “important.”

Another question asked, “How important is it to you that our political leaders in Washington, D.C. protect and defend the 2nd Amendment Rights in the U.S. Constitution of law-abiding gun owners?”

Seventy-seven percent of respondents said this is “important” as well.

When asked, “Do you think that President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” 63 percent of respondents said “yes.”

Jim McLaughlin commented on the poll’s results, saying,

Overwhelming majorities of voters want their political leaders in Washington to defend Second Amendment rights (77%). Furthermore, three out of four voters (76%) say it is important to nominate and confirm judges to the federal courts who will make it a priority to strictly follow the Second Amendment and nearly two-in-three voters (63%) think President Donald Trump will make it a priority to protect and defend the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

A fourth poll question asked, “Who do you think will do a better job of protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners in America…the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?”

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said “Republicans” versus only 24 percent who said “Democrats.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb also commented, saying, “This survey underscores the prevailing public perception that Democrats have become the ‘party of gun prohibition.’ The numbers also justify SAF’s commitment to defend the Second Amendment in our various court challenges, winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, a Pulsar Night Vision pro-staffer, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly: awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

New York’s “Vampire Law” Gun Free Zones Struck Down Again

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 12, 2024 by John Crump

A federal judge in the Western District of New York issued summary judgment for the Firearms Policy Coalition striking down New York State’s “Vampire Law.”

The order read:

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED with respect to the State’s restriction on private property open to the public. Defendants’ motion is DENIED as to this issue.

New York State’s “Vampire Law” made private property open to the public “gun free zones” unless the owner posted signs or gave express permission to carry a firearm on the property. This law was a part of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). The CCIA was a concealed carry law passed in an emergency session shortly after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Many believe that New York State was thumbing its nose at SCOTUS.

Instead of becoming less restrictive at Bruen, the state became more stringent, making it a felony to carry firearms in most of the Empire State. The “Vampire Law” made it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to fill up their car with gas while carrying their gun unless the gas station posted “guns welcome” signs. After the CCIA passed, multiple lawsuits were filed against New York State, challenging different parts of the regulations.

One of those cases was Christian v. James, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation in the Western District of New York. The plaintiffs were able to get a preliminary injunction against the law. This injunction was just one of a few injunctions against the prohibition of carrying firearms on public property open to the public without express permission. The injunction enjoined New York State from enforcing the new regulations.

Both New York State and the plaintiffs asked the District Court for summary judgment. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the law. The state was fighting an uphill battle since the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the law in Antonyuk, which was filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA). Judge John L. Sinatra ruled against the state on the private property issue, stating that the law was Unconstitutional.

According to the Bruen standard, a gun law has to be consistent with the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. There was no question that the right to bear arms was part of the text of the Second Amendment. Judge Sinatra was weary of the state’s historical analogs for tradition and history. Most dealt with plantations and hunting. Although Rahimi said a historical analogue must be similar, it doesn’t have to be a historical twin. The state provided multiple laws about hunting and trespassing on plantations, but the judge believed these laws were too different from the “Vampire Law.” The state also tried to cite laws from after the ratification date of the 14th Amendment, but the judge rejected those, too. Anti-gun states liked to use the ratification date of the 14th Amendment in 1868 because there were a lot more gun laws on the books to prevent formerly enslaved black people from obtaining firearms.

The judge declined to rule on the second part of the case, which dealt with carrying firearms in public parks and public transportation. He highlighted that those issues were appealed to SCOTUS in Antonyuk. In Antonyuk, the Second Circuit upheld those restrictions, leading GOA to file for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The writ would be granted. The Second Circuit’s decision was vacated, and the case was remanded back to the lower court, where they would get another chance to get it right.

New York State asked for a 14-day stay on the court’s decision to give them time to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sinatra rejected the request, stating that the injunction has existed since 2022, so there is no irreputable harm, and the defendants are not likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Also, the Second Circuit already upheld a similar injunction in Antonyuk.

“This is yet another important victory for Second Amendment rights and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights organizations like Everytown and Giffords. We will continue to fight forward as we work to restore the full scope of the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Hopefully Kathy Hochul is ready to write another check for legal fees.” — FPC President Brandon Combs

“This is an important victory. SAF is winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.” — SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb

New York State is expected to appeal the District Court’s decision to the Second Circuit even though the Second Circuit has already upheld an identical injunction.

 Proposed Constitutional Amendment: The So-Called “Equal Rights Amendment”
• Governor Hochul and Albany Democrats adopted a proposed state constitutional amendment: the “Equal Rights Amendment.” A recent Appellate Court decision ruled it will appear on the November ballot as Prop 1 .

• Partisan policymakers claim this amendment is needed to protect abortion rights in New York. This is not true. New York legalized abortion in 1970 and this law is not under any genuine threat of modification or repeal.

• What Does it Say? The amendment’s broad language would create “new” constitutional rights.

• Among these new “rights” are “gender identity” and “gender expression.” The language would cover all persons including minor children. If voters approve Prop 1 in November, it will grant minor children the right to medical transgender interventions without parental consent/ notification. Several laws currently under consideration in Albany would likewise not require parental consent such as treatment for STDs. European regulatory authorities have walked back initial policy recommendations for gender affirming care cautioning a far more conservative approach. Why has New York NOT learned from these experiences?

• The NYS Department of Education released guidance in 2023 entitled “Creating a Safe, Supportive, and Affirming School Environment for Transgender and Gender Expansive Students”. Accordingly, a minor child will now decide if parents should be informed of their decision to transition and school administrators are not permitted to inform parents of their child’s desire to change genders.

• Prop 1 would protect this and future laws now under consideration that would allow minor children to have medical procedures and receive medications without parental consent. Yet parents will remain legally responsible for managing the emotional consequences and physical side effects impacting their minor children.

• Passage of Prop 1 will prohibit schools from barring biological males from participation on female sports teams, jeopardizing the fairness of such contests. Girls who are vying for athletic scholarships will be disadvantaged as a result. Prop 1 goes further than impacting school sports teams as it will disallow all single sex activities –in locker rooms, bathrooms, and sororities. Prop 1 would question the viability of single sex public or private education• Prop 1 will also govern free speech -- for religious organizations and charitable groups providing medical,
educational, and other services including adoptions and foster care. Multiple reports exist from other states where children are being denied to loving foster care parents because of the parents’ religious beliefs on gender expression and other faith-based teachings.

• Governor Hochul and the legislature enacted a law to protect minors from abuse on social media. Yet she is a proponent of Prop 1. Why? Because by falsely portraying abortion rights as under threat, there will be enhanced voter turnout for their side – and at the cost of our kids.

NYS GOP - ERA Fact Sheet - July 1 - PDF with Banne_240702_135424.pdf

How States Can Use Existing Laws To Find Foreign Nationals On Their Voter Rolls

BY: BRIANNA LYMAN

JUNE 25, 2024

To find foreign nationals on their voter rolls, states can use two little-known federal statutes to verify whether a registered voter is an American citizen through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), according to America First Legal (AFL).

AFL sent letters on Monday to each state’s chief election official — along with a copy to their respective governors and attorneys general — highlighting two statutes that the legal group says allow states and localities to request information about a person’s citizenship and immigration status. If requested, AFL contends, DHS is required to provide such information.

AFL first points to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c), which requires the former Immigration and Naturalization Service — which was replaced by the DHS — to “respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

AFL also points to 8 U.S.C. § 1644, which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

“Accordingly, States and localities should submit requests to DHS to verify the citizenship or immigration status of registered voters on voter rolls where there are any reliable indicators that a voter may not be a U.S. citizen,” AFL summarized in a press release.

AFL President Stephen Miller pointed to the record-high number of illegal aliens crossing the border under President Joe Biden, calling it an “extraordinary threat to our elections.”

“Any leader who wishes to protect the franchise of their citizens must act to implement these recommendations with haste,” Miller said in a statement. “Patriotic officials must act at once to stop Biden’s illegals from voting — and this action plan from AFL tells them exactly what they must do.”

Alien voting in federal elections is illegal, but the federally-mandated registration process doesn’t meaningfully prevent it. A potential voter who registers via a federal registration form simply must check a box affirming he is a U.S. citizen. Republicans have introduced the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which would require documentary proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

Currently, Arizona is the only state that has some mechanism in place besides the honor system to keep foreign nationals from registering to vote. The state requires potential voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in state elections. But thanks to federal government interference, individuals who cannot prove their citizenship for state registration can still register as federal-only voters.

New York: End-of-Session Typically Means More Gun Control

NRA-ILA Wednesday, June 5, 2024
New York is entering the final days of the 2024 legislative session and a flurry of gun control is swirling in Albany. With anti-gun super majorities and limited debate, the unrelentless appetite to penalize gun owners and ignore actual criminals continues. It's critical that gun owners engage by using the take action button below to contact their Assembly members to help stop this last-minute surge.

On Tuesday, the Senate passed several more gun control bills which include:

S.4818 establishes a 10-day waiting period for the purchase of any firearm. The bill passed the Senate 42-19. The Assembly companion bill, A.5696, is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.8479 requires payment card networks to use certain merchant category codes for firearms dealers. This intrusive bill is dangerous and a massive invasion of privacy. This type of data collection is used to create registries and blackball gun owners. The Assembly companion bill, A.9862, is still in committee in the Assembly.

S.2086 establishes a voluntary waiver of the right to purchase firearms, rifles, and shotguns. The Assembly companion bill is A.565 and is still in committee.

S.138A, which strikes a blow to NRA-certified instructors, requires certification of instructors to be done by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Assembly companion bill, A.6663A is still in an Assembly Committee.

S.7392A relates to the creation of a public nuisance created by the sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, and marketing of firearms. This bill and its Assembly counterpart, A.7555A, have both passed.

S.8589/A.7717B relates to extreme risk protection orders. New York already has an ERPO law, but this legislation expands the class of petitioners. The bill has passed both chambers.

There are other bills that remain in the hopper, which are equally bad. Among them, gun owners should be concerned about a lead ammunition ban on state public hunting lands and legislation to certify “personalized firearms” or “smart guns” as technologically viable. This, of course, is nothing more than an attempt to ban the new sale of traditional handguns.

Again, contact your Assembly Member and urge them to oppose any new gun control in the final days of the 2024 session!