frontlines

By Jeff Knox 

(January 1, 2015) It is mind -boggling that we’re now living in 2015. I like to think I’m not so old, but I also remember when 2001 was a distant date in a science fiction movie. I’m still waiting for the flying car I was promised. But flying cars weren’t the only things we were promised back in the good old days. Looking back at when we were looking forward to these days, I remember predictions about a coming ice age, a unified world government, and the end to crime, hunger, and poverty. There were also lots of predictions about the end of gun ownership. Back when groups like the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc. were new, they openly proclaimed they were going to completely destroy the “gun culture” by slowly adding one little restriction on top of another over a couple of decades. More than 40 years later, they are sticking to that strategy with new language and new tactics – along with new names for their groups – but the objective remains the same.

They’ve made some progress on some fronts, but rights supporters have been working hard too. Our successes have pushed the anti-rights extremists to back completely away from open demands for banning and confiscating guns, and instead calling for thinner and thinner slices off of the Bill of Rights. Instead of calling for national registration of all guns and gun owners, they now call for “universal background checks,” something that sounds completely different, but accomplishes much the same thing. Under their “background check” proposals, government records would be created for every firearms transfer – records that could, with a minor legislative adjustment, be computerized to identify almost every legal gun and gun owner – thereby accomplishing a major step in their goal of universal registration.

The anti-rights crowd depends on misleading language, hidden agendas, and a gullible, uninformed public to accomplish their goals because they know they will never win if they openly express their true objectives. They have the financial backing of self-righteous billionaires like Mike Bloomberg, George Soros, and Bill Gates to inundate the uninformed masses with their emotion-laden propaganda, and the full cooperation of the mainstream media to reinforce their misleading message.

But anti-rights groups consist of a few paid staff members, a few deep-pockets “angels” who fund their endeavors, and a few supporters who might show up for a rally or write an occasional letter to a politician. The anti-rights support is broad but shallow, with few supporters who actually know much about the issue.

Rights groups, on the other hand, range from the NRA with its 5 million-plus members, to local gun and shooting clubs in almost every community. There are state associations and genuine grassroots gun rights groups in every state as well, along with several smaller, national rights organizations like The Firearms Coalition. Beyond these single-issue groups, gun owners also enjoy the support of a variety of broader interest, conservative and libertarian organizations.

Gun control groups have demonstrated that they and their media friends can produce polls showing broad popular support for their carefully worded proposals, but rights groups are able to turn out truckloads of mail to politicians, thousands of activists at rallies, and game-changing numbers of voters in elections. In short, the anti-rights “movement” has money and an emotionally appealing, though misleading, message, but few committed supporters. Conversely The rights movement has tens of millions of active supporters, hundreds of small and large organizations, and a message that doesn’t resonate as well with the general public. Simply put, that message is: We, and our guns, are not the problem. Leave us alone and focus energy and resources on actual problems and workable solutions.

The one thing gun owners and supporters of liberty can do in 2015 and beyond to protect our rights and prevent the tyranny of an illinformed majority, is to sign up for email alerts from state and federal rights groups, and resolve to make a phone call, send an e-mail, or post a letter every time those groups raise an alarm. That sounds simple, but rarely do more than 10% or so of alert recipients take the few seconds needed to accomplish even that simple task.

If you care about protecting the Bill of Rights, be sure you’re tuned in to groups that can keep you informed, and make a resolution to take action every time your local or federal rights groups call for your help. You can find many active, state and local rights groups listed at www.GunVoter.org and you can sign u p f o r o u r a l e r t s a t www.FirearmsCoalition.org. Education, organization, and action are the keys to defeating assaults on our rights. Resolve to make a difference in 2015. Be informed, be involved, take action, and be part of the solution. ©2014 The Firearms Coalition, all rights reserved. Reprinting, posting, and distributing permitted with inclusion of this copyright statement. www.FirearmsCoalition.org.  

By Tom Rood 

On Friday, February 6, a meeting organized by Yates County SCOPE chapter President John Prendergast was held in the Big Flats Town Hall for leaders of the southern tier SCOPE chapters and our elected officials. The purpose of the meeting was a frank interchange of comments regarding our efforts in Albany to repeal Gov. Cuomo's so-called SAFE Act and future directions in resolving this issue. Officials present were Assemblymen Phil Palmesano (132nd district- Chemung, Seneca, Schuyler, Steuben), Assemblyman Chris Friend (124th district- Broome, Chemung, Tioga), State Senator Tom O'Mara (58th district- Chemung, Schuyler, Steuben, Tompkins, Yates), and Joe Sempolinski from Congressman Tom Reed's 23rd congressional district office. With the exception of Broome County, Congressman Reed represents these counties as well as Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua and Ontario.

The meeting room was pretty much filled and while no attendance list was taken, nearly all, if not all, of the eight Southern tier SCOPE chapter counties were represented.

The meeting kicked off shortly after 2:30 pm with opening comments from Yates County SCOPE president John Prendergast. John thanked everyone for coming and explained the reason why the meeting was set up and that if others had issues they wanted to bring forward, an opportunity for them would be made available at the conclusion of the program.

John pointed out that SCOPE is working hard organizing new SCOPE chapters, and registered voters- regardless of political affiliation - to support those political candidates that recognize our Second Amendment Rights and to continue to keep control of the NYS Senate. SCOPE stated position is full repeal of the SAFE Act. SCOPE is stronger now and is a recognized voice in the political arena and is being heard.

Phil Palmesano has always been a strong Second Amendment supporter and a strong SCOPE supporter as well and his opening comments were pretty much in that light.

Assemblyman Chris Friend, in his opening remarks, pointed out that while a couple of years ago there were only 14 counties that had active SCOPE Chapters, there are now, as a direct result of passage of the SAFE Act, 43 upstate NY counties with SCOPE Chapters and three more counties with organizing committees (Chris had done his home work well before the meeting). SCOPE is making a better connection in getting people registered to vote and getting them to the polls. Chris went on to mention that several races are decided by just a handful of vote differences and that absentee ballots are important and we need to work to get more people to send them in if they are away during actual voting periods.

Joe Sempolinski said that if Tom Reed had been a member of the state legislature, he would have voted against the Safe Act. Tom Reed is in favor of the reciprocity bill and, according to Joe, has an excellent voting record where the Second Amendment was the issue. As for the .223 green ammo situation, congress is working on the funding for the DHS; but the president is using executive orders to get around congress.

Senator Tom O'Mara took over from here and gave us a lot of insight as to the workings of the legislature. Getting full repeal of the SAFE Act is nil as the downstate dems control the assembly and they are not going to vote for repeal and the governor will never sign a bill doing it. State Senate Chair Dene Skelos told a group of senators that passage of the SAFE Act was a mistake. John Predergast pointed out that while Skelos might say that now, in the past he was anti-gun.

Senator O'Mara pointed out that the budget for NY is not a line item budget where specific items can be crossed out. Various agencies put in the budget the things they want the money for and they get a pool of funding as a result. From this money, they can move things around pretty much as they see fit. For example, while the ammo purchase background check software technology required in the SAFE Act is not currently available, there is no way to prevent funding for it in the budget process.

Another SAFE Act issue regarding the State Police controlling the 5 year renewal of concealed carry permits, getting it put back into the hands of county clerks where it is now would become another unfunded mandate from the state.

There might be some light at the end of the tunnel regarding definition of the assault rifle definitions. Pistol grips will probably remain, but the thumb hole in the stock might be eliminated (I took a rifle apart and brought a thumb hole stock to the meeting for the legislators to see just in case they were not up to speed on just what it was. My question to all of them was just how does this make any rifle more of an assault rifle?).

Comments from here went onto some other Albany issues. Cuomo sees teachers, in effect, corrupt as well as his own legislature. He actually believes it, which brought a bit of laughter from the audience. Just about every group that has to deal with the governor's office sees him as a bully- his way or the highway. Both sides of the aisle see it the same way and feel the pressure from it.

As for using the NYC rent subsidy issue as a bargaining chip to get some SAFE Act changes, Senator O'Mara pointed out that true, this was a big issue for NYC; but at the same time, upstate people look for property tax rate caps and they are not a NYC issue. So there goes the standoff.

It was pointed out from the audience that the state constitution does not have Second Amendment provision. Getting one as an amendment is not going to happen. However, the proposed state constitution convention in 2017 would be the place to handle it. Senator O'Mara would like to see this and may promote it.

Senator O'Mara is also in favor of mandate relief. Additionally the state rules concerning the Passage due to Need of Necessity (which Cuomo used to push the SAFE Act to a vote) needs to be revised. But getting 60 down state assemblymen to vote SAFE Act repeal is not going to happen.

From the audience - There are some who would like to see a senate and assembly vote on the repeal of the SAFE Act so we could get feel of who those legislators that vote against it. While this was not brought out at the meeting, upstate senators and assemblymen are listening harder to SCOPE and other Second Amendment groups like it. The reasoning is not hard to find. In November 2014, 28 NY legislators were not reelected. Some chose not to run for reelection. But 21 of those who voted for the SAFE Act were voted out of office! Fifty two county legislatures passed anti-Safe Act resolutions. Two hundred red sixty five Town Governments did likewise.

My final personal comments:

SCOPE plans to continue to organize new chapters and recruit new members in significant numbers and its Albany voice will continue to grow. Governor Cuomo has awakened a sleeping giant and he knows he shot himself in the foot with the passage of the SAFE Act. He badly misread his constituency, thinking he would ride into Washington on the SAFE Act's coat tails, but he torpedoed his own ship for all time. He might be governor of NY for another 4 years, but his political career is over. 

By Al Belardinelli 

Nozzolio to Cosponsor Senator Marchione’s FULL Repeal Kolb to Cosponsor Assemblyman DePietro’s FULL Repeal.

Sunday, March 8, 2015, a packed house at the SCOPE presentation hosted by the Seneca Sportsmen Club greeted Senator Nozzolio and Assemblyman Kolb. Both men stated their continuing dedication to repeal of the SAFE Act and further stated their efforts to at least repeal many of the clauses within that bad statute. They “privately” outlined the legislature’s strategy being used to accomplish OUR goals. While the effort described sounded pretty good, at that time, it fell short of full repeal… but that quickly changed. After this meeting, we formed an alliance between US and legislative efforts, which gives us great hope for FULL Repeal of the SAFE Act. By the way – OUR lobbying / calls / letters are a HUGE factor.

After the initial presentations by the legislators, a motivated and knowledgeable audience engaged in a Q&Q+A that was really more of a brainstorming conversation. WE detailed the overwhelming facts for FULL repeal, along with the changing perception of the SAFE Act. OUR points were well taken by the legislators and they agreed to incorporate OUR “details” into their “tool bag” going forward. This week, WE will further “strategize” with them and they will help us with “legislative details” and give US names to effectively pursue additional legislators to gain the majority support needed for a positive vote for FULL Repeal of the SAFE Act. The “numbers” show WE are very close right now!!!!

Besides the obvious self-defense issues that the SAFE Act brutally curtails, is the fact that the SAFE Act was and is a mass of corruption. The corruption surrounding all facets of the SAFE Act is equal to the crimes uncovered by Preet Bharara. The blemish of the SAFE Act MUST be erased for the sake of Albany’s integrity . FULL Repeal of the SAFE Act will be a big step in Albany’s realization that the corruption in Albany is ending. NOTE: the budget …well – let’s just say it’s the job of the legislature, NOT the dictate of Cuomo. (WE did not remove you Andy – but your days of dictating are numbered.) 

By Donald H. Smith

I am a law abiding NY citizen of 73 years. I was born and raised in the foothills of the Allegheny Mountains near the PA border. My parents worked hard to provide us with a minimal standard of living. Life was good to any kid growing up in that environment.

The family shotgun rested in the wash room next to the door. A box of shotgun shells were kept separately in the dining room cabinet on an upper shelf. My friends came and went on a daily basis and none of us even considered playing with the gun. It was “off limits,” and so were the shells. It was not until my father passed that I discovered a revolver in the dining room buffet beneath a pullout drawer. Its ammunition was found in a separate location.

I recall my father and brother going hunting on weekends. I was too young and stayed home. This suited my mother who grew up on a farm and detested the killing of animals, especially farm animals. She considered them her pets. I remember her telling about Papa killing “her” chickens for Mama to cook. She never ate meat, although she cooked plenty of it for the rest of the family. This may have contributed to her longevity. She lived with my wife and I until she passed at the age of 102. I eventually became old enough to take a Hunters Safety course. It was taught by my shop teacher who was also one of my paper customers. He was a strict teacher and took the course very seriously. Believe me, so did those of us who took his course.

Safety is not necessarily a natural instinct. It requires a parent’s or instructor’s diligence and the undivided attention of the student. I had been forewarned at home of the importance of taking gun safety seriously. So I was a willing student in the course.

I passed the course and was allowed to join my dad and brother when they went hunting. We couldn’t afford an extra gun, so I just tagged along. The best part was just being in the woods. When I was in high school, I was able to hunt alone. I often shouldered the shotgun and walked up the street past our K-12 school building. It was not unlike carrying a fishing rod in the village. Others did the same. A short walk and I was on the nearest hill.

I have never considered myself a “killer.” I have shot and killed a grouse, squirrel with a shotgun no less; never did that again, simply no sport to it, a turkey, a few pheasants and a deer. I’ve proven to myself that I can shoot accurately, so my shooting today occurs at the range with clay pigeons and paper targets.

I still look forward to hunting seasons so I have a good excuse to be in the woods. I enjoy the camaraderie of my friends, along with the beauty and solitude of the forest. Listen to the birds, see a few animals, especially when they don’t see me. My camera is now my “weapon” of choice. The last time I recall firing my shotgun was at a coyote chasing a deer while I sat in my chair trying to stay awake (naps are great in the woods).

My college roommate was from Smithtown, L.I. He grew up in a different environment and with a vastly different viewpoint on guns. We shared many interests, but one of them was not guns nor hunting. I can’t say he feared guns, but he could not see the logic of owning one. Our commonalities were in the field of science, music and food.

I believe this helps explain why the NY SAFE Act was acceptable to so many legislators from Downstate NY. This is not meant to be critical of those with a different point of view. But surely we all recognize that the same set of values are not shared by those in Upstate vs Downstate. What justification is there for a Downstater to subject those of us in Upstate to a set of regulations that may be suitable in New York City but make absolutely no sense to the majority of the state's Upstate citizens?

I sat recently with Senator Boyle and discussed that very issue. He explained that 2 of 3 of his constituents favor the SAFE Act. I believe this is due to their lack of understanding of the Act and its intrusions on the lives of law abiding citizens like myself.

It is my opinion the SAFE Act is NOT about gun control, but it is certainly about CONTROL.

Gun control in this state and country is not simply an attempt to outlaw 'scary' firearms. Autocratic states like New York have successfully regulated common sporting rifles and magazines under the guise of improving the safety of its citizens. But what is their ultimate agenda? Listen to the words of Sara Brady: "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Source: Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

These are disconcerting words coming from the mouth of an American. Recall:

1] Chancellor Hitler in 1933: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

2] Senator Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.” 

3] Governor Cuomo in December 2012: "Confiscation is an option".

Governor Cuomo claimed the federal government and other states would follow suit upon passage of the SAFE Act. He was wrong and remains so today.

California first introduced a so-called “assault weapons” ban in 1989 followed by Connecticut in 1993. The Connecticut ban did nothing to stop the horrific event in Newtown. The town had built a mental institution in 1933 where Adam Lanza might have been housed. Unfortunately the state closed it in 1975. NY State has followed a similar pattern in closing such facilities and exposing the public to potential danger. Consider these thoughts by David Kopel, who is research director of the Independence Institute in Colorado and co-author of the law school textbook, “Firearms Law and the Second Amendment” [Aspen, 2012].

His article in the Wall Street Journal, dated Dec.17, 2012, is entitled Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown. It points out that “none of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was on the ban list since those bans concentrate on guns’ cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function”.

Yes, the Bushmaster AR-15 and even the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style"—they are similar to military guns in their cosmetics, but not in the way they operate. The guns covered by the original ban were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military, but semiautomatic versions of those guns designed for non-military use.

The civilian version of the Bushmaster uses essentially the same types of bullets as small game hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The civilian version of the AK-47 is similar, though it fires a much larger bullet—.30 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .223 inch rounds used by the Bushmaster. No self-respecting military in the world would use the civilian version of these guns.

The large-capacity ammunition magazines used by some of these killers are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun capable of holding a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining. The 1994 legislation banned magazines holding more than 10 bullets yet had no effect on crime rates.

I have watched a demonstration where 3-ten round magazines were duct taped together side by side. Thirty rounds were first shot from a 30 round magazine. Then the 3-ten round magazines were used with the shooter interchanging magazines as quickly as possible. The time difference for the total of 30 rounds was approximately 2 seconds...barely noticeable.

Let's consider how effective the Clinton 1994 Assault Weapons ban was on curbing crime in the US. A series of studies concluded with a 2004 study led by Christopher S. Koper for the U.S. Dept. of Justice and this statement by Koper: “In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.”

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades. Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

Mass shootings are a matter of great public interest and concern. They also are a relatively small share of shootings overall. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics review, homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.

Safety can simply not be legislated with so-called “feel good” gun bills. Note that the Newtown, CT crime occurred in a “gun free zone”. Kopel continues: “Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones such as schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, etc, where law-abiding adults [who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class] are still disarmed. These pretend gun free zones are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon”.

Again Kopel: “People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill and stop kidding themselves that pretend gunfree zones will stop killers. Safety can simply not be legislated with so-called ‘feel good’ gun bills”.

I find it interesting that the national media chooses to magnify some shootings but ignore others. The ones they ignore involve armed citizens who were at the scene and thwarted the shooter’s attempt to continue killing. These include the Shoney’s Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. [1991]; the high school in Pearl, Miss. [1997]; the middle school dance in Edinboro, PA [1998]; and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO [2007] where our son and his family live. These are but a few examples.

A deranged man with a gun entered the Clackamas Mall in Oregon a week before the Newtown, CT shooting. He killed two people, then saw a shopper pull a handgun on him and committed suicide before being shot. The shopper had a concealed carry permit.

Most recently there was a shooting in San Antonio, TX. A disgruntled boyfriend entered a restaurant and shot his ex-girlfriend. Patrons ran to a nearby theater (i.e. “gun-free zone”). The shooter followed them, intent on shooting them as well. An off-duty county deputy was in the theater. She pulled out her handgun and killed him. What is the lesson to be learned here? “Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns”.

“The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow’s Headlines” was written by Loren Coleman in 2004. Kopel claims it shows that the copycat effect is as old as the media itself. He goes on to say that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s 1774 classic, “the Sorrows of Young Werther” triggered a spate of copycat suicides all over Europe. But today the velocity and pervasiveness of the media make the problem much worse. Again, the exceptions are when a “good guy with a gun” shoots a “bad guy with a gun”.

Why does this discrepancy in reporting exist? Perhaps the media, like the legislators mentioned above, has an agenda of gun bans at the cost of our God-given rights protected by our Constitution. The same Constitution elected officials took an oath of office to defend. Many of our forefathers defended it with their lives. Now it is your turn, with your votes.

I respectfully request that you co-sponsor the FULL Repeal Bill in your house if you have not already done so. Then lobby your colleagues to vote to repeal the NY SAFE Act. Finally, vote to bring the repeal bill to the floor of your house for an up or down vote. 

By Daniel Meyers 

Before the SAFE ACT I did not see very many AR (Armalite)- 15’s. I must assume that they were kept out of sight by those who feared this day would come. Probably due to the assault rifle misnomer that was applied to it. To those gun owners who say they have no use for these very enjoyable target rifles, I predict your favorite deer rifle will soon be labeled a SNIPER rifle. We should know that during the early years of Viet Nam the military cleaned out many sports stores of Winchester 30- 06 rifles for their new sniper program. An argument can be made that since most deer are taken within 40 yards the need for a rifle capable of 500 yd. accuracy is not necessary. Now do you see how leftists work? Label it, demonize it, register it and then confiscate it from the Sheeple.

Another observation I’ve noticed is our politicians telling gun owners how they are trying to help end this draconian law but, procrastinate with many and various excuses as to why nothing can be done. As soon as you hear them say “not at this time, we don’t have the votes right now, etc.” it should be your signal to vote for someone else. Because leftists don’t wait, they keep pounding the point (usually behind closed government doors) until they get their way.

It has been shown how easy it is to take taxes, property or anything from hard working, law abiding, polite, taxpaying people. Perhaps watching on television how minorities in Baltimore, Missouri, NYC, Mississippi, etc. get government to work for them should be paid attention to. After all ISIS, Iran and Russia will be getting our nuclear material without being very nice to our government or troops. I’m sure they will send it back to us in some form when they are ready. At the very least it will be a great bargaining chip for UN inspired international gun laws that Amerika will be required to comply with; like the mandates that come down on us from Albany.

I would not consider moving out of state as that pampered, pompous, punk from Albany has suggested. The ease at which he has ignored the Second Amendment is being closely watched by other states. So one thing they have noted is that “Liberals vote, Gun owners don’t”. The state has gone quiet I think, as many fear attracting law enforcement attention. I recommend going to your gun cabinet or safe and taking a hard look at what you have. Realize that some firearms (that list will grow) can never be used for self defense, fired or repaired as you would be the one in trouble for having it. The powers that be, will quickly inform you that you have brought this all on yourself. Freedom has a sound and it should be very loud and ring true, fear is quiet. Well, I am fearful of being outed as a gun owner.  

By Michael Caruso 

Do you remember the time when a hand shake or the word of another was as good as gold? Many of us who are old enough do remember. Many people now find it easier to say whatever has to be said at the moment, to appease the audience.

This certainly rings true for many politicians. It is easier to appease the masses by saying hollow words with no action to back those words up. With the questionnaire we sent out last year, it was no shock to us that very few actually spent the time to fill it out. With the 2015 Legislative Session finished for the year, we now know why they didn't.

When one of your representatives tells you to your face they support the 2nd Amendment, you expect them to fight any form of infringement upon that right. You didn't vote for that candidate or incumbent to have them approve funding, not introduce bills in defense of the 2nd Amendment, nor vote for the wrong leader of the State Senate. Sadly, and not to the shock of many, the opposite actually happened.

We had the State Senate with a “Republican” majority mind you, pass the budget. This had funding for the unSAFE act deep inside its pages. We had the same majority fail to introduce any form of a repeal bill to be voted on. When you have the majority you have the power to shape legislation, which is the norm. Well, we apparently live in the Twilight Zone, for the norm is the opposite of what you think.

The novel “1984” also comes to mind as well, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, and Ignorance is Strength. To continue the “Twilight Zone” episode, our elected officials failed to listen to our demands that a Senator from Syracuse be elected as the new President Pro Temp of the State Senate.

We then get to the “Big Ugly”, our elected officials who supposedly support the 2nd Amendment had a good chance to get full repeal. Instead we were handed the “Big Ugly”, with not a whimper in regards to the unSAFE act.

Our Founding Fathers are turning in their graves right now, for they stated the following at the end of the Declaration of Independence. “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

We must hold every elected official accountable for not living up to pledges they sign, and for not following up the words they speak with action. Most importantly we must hold anyone who fails to keep their oath accountable. Many politicians love it when the public is not involved; to them it is better to have a mass populous worry about insignificant matters. Remember this, many elected officials fear a populous that is awake and is part of our participatory form of government. The movie “A Bugs Life” has a great scene which describes how many politicians feel. Hopper, the leader of the grasshoppers explains how things are to his fellow grasshoppers:

“You let one ant stand up to us, then they all might stand up! Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line.”

In closing, the fight for the 2nd Amendment is a fight for all of our rights. It is not a one issue movement, nor is it one of those “trendy” movements that pop up now and then. Our movement is founded on truth, honor and the foundation laid by our Founding Fathers. A foundation where everyone is bestowed upon them certain inalienable rights, not by a group of men, nor by three men in a room, but by our creator.

We must not give up. We grow stronger each and every day. To give up now is to let the ones whose only desire is to take all of our rights away, win. It might not seem like we are making progress, but trust me, we are. Continue to wake up the people who are still under the induced stupor sponsored by the ones who want to take our rights away. If you are a member of a gun club, encourage them to begin a legislative committee. Many clubs have decided to stay below the radar, now is not the time to do so. This is another avenue to educate the public, even some gun owners. Never accept the simple answer, that “I support the 2nd Amendment!” 

By James D. Tresmond, Esq., Buffalo

It is time to put a final nail in the coffin of New York’s so-called “Sullivan Act”.

The Sullivan Act affixed enormous criminal punishments for possession of a handgun without permission of New York state officials. If you own a handgun, and keep that handgun in your home for selfdefense, you are guilty of a “Class A” misdemeanor if you did not obtain a license from your county licensing officer before obtaining that firearm.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that handgun possession within the home, independent of military service, is a fundamental. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This right is incorporated against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). In other words, states may not prohibit law-abiding American citizens from keeping handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Why then does New York require that you obtain a license to keep a gun in your home? Moreover, why does your handgun license expressly state that your right “is revocable at any time?” Something is seriously wrong with this picture. After all, rights are not rights if some bureaucrat can revoke your right “at any time.” What’s going on here, and what is being done to protect your constitutional rights?

BACKGROUND

Most people may not realize that the Sullivan Act was not passed for any legitimate state objective such as public safety. Rather, Timothy Sullivan sponsored the act as a way of intimidating and penalizing Italian immigrants to New York who, like many Americans to this day, often carried revolvers. Sullivan was a notoriously corrupt politician associated with the infamous graft machine known as Tammany Hall.

The law was passed such that licensing agencies had the capability to grant or deny pistol permits on an arbitrary, case-by-case basis as so many residents throughout New York are familiar with today. Those chosen as political favorites would obtain a carry license, while the immigrants would be denied the same right.

The same licensing scheme established under the Sullivan Act remains in effect today. Egregiously, the Sullivan Act is more than bad legislation; it is unconstitutional legislation. It is unconstitutional because it converts your constitutional right to keep a handgun in your home into a privilege “revocable at any time.”

This despicable denial of citizens’ fundamental rights has exploded out of control. All Americans living under the current New York regime must ask state permission to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS EXPLAINED

The elevation of handgun ownership in the home to a “fundamental right” has particularly important conseq uences in la w. T he ter m “fundamental right” is a special term within federal and state law used to describe a particular right necessary to preserve a free and open democratic society.

Fundamental rights are those rights “essential to a scheme or ordered liberty (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 [1968]) and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 [1997]).

The Supreme Court has consistently held that fundamental rights are not up for debate; your fundamental rights belong to you regardless of what any transient political majority decides. Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Western New York’s own Justice Jackson wrote: “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

Plainly stated, fundamental rights are afforded the highest degree of protection under our system of laws and are not easily encumbered. “The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution” that “requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the persons so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.” Obergfell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____ (2015). Those rights enshrined within the Bill of Rights are fundamental. To that end, Heller and McDonald have settled the issue that your right to keep a handgun in your home is a fundamental right.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S IMPORTANCE IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The importance of the Second Amendment as a basic human right is as old as our nation. Federalists and anti-federalists alike unanimously agreed that the right to keep and bear arms worked as a prophylactic against the creation of a despotic regime. In the days following the Civil War, self-defense was the central focus of the Second Amendment’s scope. White supremacist groups terrorized freed slaves and their families.

The clear and present danger posed to freed slaves prompted the 30th Congress to pass legislation guaranteeing equal rights to all people. The Freedman’s Bureau Act of 1866 protected “The right to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all citizens without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery” (emphasis added).

New York, once a beacon of freedom and progress, has paradoxically made the wrongful choice to side with the position of former slavery-supporting governments. New York thereby converts its residents’ constitutional rights into mere privileges, revocable at the mere whim and caprice of unelected bureaucrats. In the coming days, we are going to take affirmative steps to bring a swift death to the Sullivan Act.

THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW

I urge each and every one of you to contact your state assembly members and senators and demand a full repeal of both the Sullivan Act and the SAFE Act. Explain to your friends and family members that, while they may not own guns, carve-outs and exceptions to one area of the Bill of Rights expose other rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, protections against warrantless searches, to the same acts of casuistry and tortured reasoning that will make all of us less free. It is the only practical approach to save our republic.

We will continue to pursue legal challenges in the courts. You may remember my client David Lewis, whose pistol permit was wrongfully suspended after the New York State Police targeted him, despite his never having done anything wrong. David’s experience gave him the deep understanding between what happens when a government treats rights like privileges.

The damage to David far exceeded the denial of his Second Amendment right. David was subjected to public embarrassment, his privacy rights were violated, defamed as danger to society — again, something that was never the case. That is why David retained me to represent him in mounting a constitutional challenge to the Sullivan Act.

Like many of you, David understands that the Bill of Rights has to be respected and enforced as a whole. The erosion of one fundamental right necessarily triggers the erosion of other fundamental rights. The protection against warrantless searches and seizures is abrogated when the Second Amendment is not respected. Likewise, wrongful exceptions carve-outs in one area of constitutional law may be applied to others. Your government rarely violates a single right at a time. History and experience tell us that once our rights are eroded, governments violate entire categories of them en masse.

The time to act is now. In the words of Winston Churchill, we shall never surrender. It is a pleasure, and an honor, to defend your rights. 

By Budd Schroeder  

As expected, the action of one evil person in South Carolina has the anti-gun advocates calling for more gun control on all Americans. They want more restrictions to limit Second Amendment rights. The words of the Constitution are “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” All the restrictions are infringements on this vital right.

Looking at the media one would think there is a huge percentage of gun owners who are not fit to own firearms, but using simple math disputes that. For the sake of convenience let’s use the figures of gun owner numbers as one hundred million. Most experts estimate that there are more than that. Then let’s use the figure of 100,000 gun violence events. The actual crime rate is lower, but simple division shows that .001 percent of gun owners are violent.

We could hope that figure would describe the percentage of corrupt politicians in government, but we, unfortunately know that is much higher. Yet, it is the corrupt politicians who grandstand and call for more gun control.

The fact is that no gun control laws stop evil criminals from committing their horrible crimes. South Carolina law forbids carrying a gun in a church without the permission of a church official. That gave Mr. Roof a perfect killing field because there would be nobody there capable of stopping him. Reportedly he reloaded five or six times to kill nine people. Not having a high capacity magazine didn’t hinder him in his mass murder either.

The S.A.F.E. Act in New York is another example of gun law failures. It requires the registration of so called “assault weapons.” If estimates of the number of guns that meet the state’s definition is correct, divided by the number of guns actually registered, the result is a meager five percent.

That would highly suggest that there is a lot of civil disobedience in the state. This brings up the concept of Prohibition. That was a law that was obviously unpopular and created even more problems. The public didn’t look at it as a good law and they didn’t obey it.

It had to be repealed as the SAFE Act should be repealed because it has no effect on reducing gun crime. In fact homicides increased, including two policemen being shot to death while sitting in their car. Politicians don’t seem to grasp the obvious. Criminals don’t obey laws and good people don’t need restrictive laws.

E. J. Dionne talked about guns and suicides, blaming the ownership of guns as a factor. Japan has virtually no private ownership of guns and their suicide rate is more than double that of the United States. Go figure. There must be something else that causes suicides.

Gun bans won’t work to keep them out of the hands of criminals any more than drug bans prevent the use of illegal drugs by addicts. If there is a demand for something, there will always be a provider using illegal means.

The only thing that makes a gun dangerous, is the person holding it! Cars and alcohol are not the cause of drunk drivers. They are the products being misused by the drunken driver. The laws should focus on people and not the potential means for evil or tragic events. Gun control is actually an attempt at people control, and politicians like to control people. “Gun control” is a good press release for politicians who prefer slogans to solutions.  

Firing Lines, Volume XXIV, Issue IV   August/September 2015 

Sheriff@SaratogaCountyNY.gov - PRESS RELEASE-FOR RELEASE: IMMEDIATELY INTERNET DISTRIBUTION AUTHORIZED

Twitter: @Saratogasheriff

Facebook: SaratogaCountySheriff

SHERIFF MICHAEL H. ZURLO ANNOUNCES FORMAL PATH TO UNRESTRICTED PISTOL PERMIT FOR SARATOGA COUNTY RESIDENTS

Kevin P. Mullahey, Undersheriff

Richard L. Castle, Chief

Ballston Spa, NY – June 17, 2015 –Sheriff Michael H. Zurlo today announced that since taking office in January 2014 he has worked to improve the pistol permit process in Saratoga County. His efforts have resulted in a reduction of processing time from over a year to less than three months in many cases while at the same time working toward a path for those wishing for an unrestricted concealed carry permit to obtain one.

Following recent meetings with representatives from area gun clubs and county firearms instructors, a plan has been devised that would allow law-abiding and responsible gun owners to obtain an unrestricted concealed carry permit upon completion of a live-fire safety and qualification course as well as classroom training on the legalities and responsibility of carrying a concealed firearm. To be eligible to obtain an unrestricted pistol permit in Saratoga County a person would first need to possess a restricted pistol permit for a period of one year and successfully complete the live-fire safety and qualification course. Upon successful completion of this course a certificate of completion will be provided to the permit holder who may then request that all restrictions be removed from his or her permit. It is anticipated that an unrestricted pistol permit may be issued by the County’s pistol permit licensing officer to anyone who successfully completes this course, provided that all other statutory requirements are met.

According to Sheriff Zurlo “A recognized path for obtaining an unrestricted pistol permit in Saratoga County is long overdue. I am pleased that through a collaborative effort with responsible gun owners in Saratoga County we are finally able to bring this to fruition.”

Saratoga County firearms instructors are in the process of designing the required training course in the hopes of starting to offer the course later this summer.

Led by Sheriff Michael H. Zurlo (R,I) the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Office, with more than 240 personnel provides law-enforcement protection and community services across Saratoga County, an area that covers more than 815 square miles. For more information visit: www.SaratogaCountySheriff.org 

By N. Keith Kappel 

There are two things to do when you’ve made a political calculation that backfires. The techniques apply regardless of whether it’s a law you’ve touted that caused unintended consequences or when an appointee or elected official you supported turns out to be an embarrassment.

In the case of unintended consequences, simply unleash a barrage of statistics to support that you have done the right thing – and they don’t have to be accurate or relevant. If it’s an individual who is a problem, then circle the wagons, heap praise on the person’s accomplishments and see that they are given prestigious awards and praise.

A year after the passage of New York’s infamous SAFE Act, a spokeswoman for the governor declares that the numbers are indisputable – the SAFE Act has enabled the state to better protect New Yorkers. “There have been 1,291 charges under the new law, with 1,155 for felony firearms possession, formerly a misdemeanor, with 1,041 of these cases (81 percent) in New York City, mostly Brooklyn and the Bronx. Separately, 17,751 people have been charged this year with misdemeanor weapons possession, almost 90 percent in New York City. These charges includes other weapons such as switchblades, blackjacks and brass knuckles.” No cause and effect correlation is provided to demonstrate which components of the SAFE Act were responsible for these enforcement actions.

Said proclamation of the SAFE Act as a success is unsupported, transparent nonsense and a shallow attempt to provide cover to the governor.

Details of the felony weapons charges noted above have not been disclosed. Interestingly, the ban on so-called assault weapons didn’t take effect until Jan. 15, so I suspect the 1,291 arrests were primarily for possession of unregistered firearms, which would have occurred without the SAFE Act. Also not reported was the disposition of these cases in terms of follow-up prosecution. Law enforcement I’ve spoken with often state their frustration with weapons charges being used as plea bargaining chips. In addition, the announcement fails to provide a breakdown between firearms, switchblades, blackjacks and brass knuckles. The 17,751 number sounds like a red herring thrown in to obfuscate and pump up the law’s effectiveness.

As Nancy Pelosi said, “...we have to pass the law to find out what’s in it!” Pass it the governor did, in the dark of night with no opportunity for debate or input. The response from the public was and continues to be loud and strong – Repeal It! Note that tens of thousands of Repeal the SAFE Act signs permeate front yards across the state. In addition, 52 of 62 New York counties and 225 municipal governments have passed resolutions in opposition, and sheriffs across the state have said they will not enforce. Billboards have been placed in Albany as a constant reminder to our legislators of what upstate thinks about this legislation. Seems like a lot of folks found out what’s in the bill.

Let’s take a look at independently published crime statistics and assess where this law is directed and whom it truly affects:

• Homicides in New York state in 2011 totaled 767. Of these, only 5 were committed with a rifle of any kind and 76 percent occurred in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and New York City.
• Nationally, of 12,996 homicides in 2010, only 2 percent were committed with a rifle of any kind.
• The 1994-2004 assault weapon ban was a failure which did not contribute to a reduction in crime. Violent crime in the U.S. has continually declined from 1990 to the present – it is down 49 percent, while the number of firearms has increased by 100 percent.
• The vast majority of violent crime occurs in cities with populations of 250,000 or more and is primarily drug- and gang-related.

There is a cultural component to violent crime that the politicians want to deflect attention from because it speaks to the failure of many government policies and programs. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, FBI.

Uniform Crime Report and the National Youth Gang Survey show that, clearly, the crime problem is primarily an inner city demographic occurring in larger metropolitan areas and are drug- and gang related. Instead of dealing with this the politicians demonize an inanimate object with an emotion charged label of assault weapon. The SAFE Act fails to deal with the real issues and instead criminalizes people for what they lawfully owned prior to its enactment. It further penalizes and encumbers the law abiding for the simple acts of buying ammunition or giving a firearm to a family member.

Key components of the SAFE Act include a ban on so-called assault weapons, a ban on magazines that exceed 10-round capacity, a requirement that firearms be loaded with no more than seven rounds, background checks for ammunition purchases, severe restrictions for firearms transfers unless a background check is performed, confiscation of private property (without compensation) from the owners upon their passing and registration with the state of ALL firearms owned by a person upon their passing.

There is no justification in any statistics or independent study to indicate any of these elements are, can be or have been effective in addressing crime or criminals. On the contrary, there is substantial evidence that these make criminals out of the law abiding. Case in point is the singular arrest for the illegal sale of a so-called assault weapon when the seller was co-opted into consummating the sale the day after rather than the day before the law took effect.

The so-called assault weapon ban is absurd on two counts. First and foremost, no one can define an assault weapon beyond certain cosmetic features. Second, such firearms are used in an insignificant number of crimes, unless you count those given by the U.S. Department of Justice to the Mexican Drug cartels.

According to the SAFE Act, a firearm is prohibited if it is a semiautomatic with a detachable magazine and any one of the following: bayonet lug, a flash suppressor, muzzle brake, barrel shroud, grenade launcher, protruding pistol grip, protruding forearm grip, thumb hole stock or adjustable stock – characteristics which have nothing to do with the function of the firearm. I had to dispose of the thumb hole stock that came with my M597 Remington target grade 22 and replace it with a standard stock to “de-Cuomo” it and avoid registration and eventual confiscation.

The SAFE Act trashes the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding and ignores the fact that the law will not be obeyed by criminals. Unfortunately, it is not about crime and criminals, but it is about control.

(Editor’s note: Keith Kappel is a former board of directors member for SCOPE –Shooters’ Committee on Political Education.)