Republican Party primaries in New York, 6.25.24

A Republican Party primary takes place tomorrow, Tuesday, June 25, to determine the Republican candidates who will run in the general election on November 5, 2024. It is a “closed” primary meaning only registered Republican members are allowed to vote. 

This message is meant to provide necessary information to our WCS members who plan to vote. It is a rating of the two candidates for the Republican primary in the 24h congressional district. The two candidates are the incumbent Claudia Tenney and her challenger Mario Fratto. 

SCOPE, as a nonprofit organization is unable to endorse candidates. However, we can rate them based upon their stances on the Second Amendment. Each candidate was provided with a questionnaire which was returned and reviewed by your Political Action Contact Team (PACT). Be aware that the questions were multiple choice. 

Both candidates returned answers that were identical. Was this due to their ability to ascertain the exact answer we would expect from them? Understand that the questions were based upon a statewide set deemed acceptable to state SCOPE officers. 

This left us in a bit of a quandary. Since there were no differences in their answers, it was felt that their ratings should show no distinction. Thus, each candidate was given a rating of A. 

PACT member Roy Franks, esq. suggested that future questionnaires be more open-ended. The state officers agree and will develop a new questionnaire that will allow the candidates in the future to provide feedback on questions such that we can hopefully distinguish more clearly their respective positions on Second Amendment issues. 

Your Chairman,

Don

BELLEVUE, Wash. — June 21, 2024 — The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s prohibition against allowing young adults aged 18 to 20 from acquiring a license to carry a firearm (LTCF) for personal protection. The case is known as Brown v. Paris.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. SAF is joined by three young adults, all who are SAF members. They are Taylor Brown, Shawn Palmer and Max Ness. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince at the Civil Rights Defense Firm in Bechtelsville, Pa., and Adam Kraut at the Second Amendment Foundation. Named as the sole defendant in the case is Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, in his official capacity.

“Our individual plaintiffs have no criminal backgrounds and would like to procure a LTCF,” said Kraut, who also serves as SAF’s executive director. “However, the state law precludes them from carrying firearms, whether openly or concealed, in public for self-defense. Yet, a look back at history reveals young adults between 18 and 20 were fully protected by the Second Amendment at the time of its ratification. Indeed, at the time of the founding, young adults in this age group were actually required to keep and bear arms.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted, “As we explain in our lawsuit, SAF has members and supporters all over the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and we are bringing this action on their behalf. Our young adult members would lawfully carry and legally transport firearms for personal protection and the protection of their loved ones, and others, but for the defendant’s enforcement of the laws we are challenging.”

The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, followed by a permanent injunction. 

I suspect other like lawsuits will follow involving ownership of AR-15s. 

Anyone seen this headline lately? “Guns are now the Leading Cause of Death for American Children”? We are being told that guns are now responsible for more deaths of “children”’ than automobile accidents  

The problem lies in the meaning of the word “children” and the source(s) of the data. Children are identified as those in the age bracket of either 1-19 or 1-24 depending upon the source. 

What they fail to mention is that the deaths may have been the result of drug or gang activity. One source of such misleading information is the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), a nonprofit that has a penchant for sensational headlines. 

Unfortunately, the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, USA Today as well as a number of other media outlets use GVA’s broad definition of “mass shootings”. It includes both deaths and wounded, excepted for the shooter. The FBI, on the other hand, uses “mass murders” or “mass killings” which includes only deaths. 

Thus, the difference in data for a recent year whereby GVA listed over 400 mass “shootings” versus the FBI’s total of 30 using its much narrower definition.

In a classic example of the New York’s legislature’s signature style of “pass gun control laws first, figure out if they work later,” it became apparent once the SAFE Act was passed that the ammunition background check mandate was unachievable at the time. The-then police superintendent advised that his agency lacked the technology to implement the requirement and had “no idea when ammunition background checks… will begin across the state.”

A further complication is that the entire ammunition background check database project was placed in abeyance due to a 2015 memorandum of understanding (MOU). The agreement, entered into by the Cuomo Administration and then-Republican Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan, promised that no state money would be spent on implementing the ammunition background check database until a cost plan had been approved by the parties. The MOU further stipulated that any certification of the database as operational would not be made until the parties had approved a plan on its implementation. Last year, however, Governor Kathy Hochul indicated she was aware of the “old MOU that was signed related to ammunition sales after laws were passed the decade ago, it was an administration document between the prior administration and the Senate Republicans,” but decided to ignore it – “we are literally tearing it up and New York will now require and conduct background checks for all ammunition purchases.”

FFLs are being targeted federally by Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms anp Explosives (ATF) which is revoking FFL licenses at an unprecedented rate, many for minor technical violations. 

Under NY State’s CCIA, Governor Hochul and her allies in Albany are also driving FFL’s out of business.  It has been reported that we have lost seventy-three 2A businesses in NY State last year.  Those are businesses that will never come back in a state that is generally unfriendly to all businesses and hates 2nd Amendment businesses, in particular.  The longer this drags out, the more FFLs that will close.

We have lost three (3) gun shops locally since the state implemented the new law requiring state background checks in September. It is reported that the state has a goal of keeping only a fraction of the existing FFLs and their shops open.

The new law is intrusive, and I believe unconstitutional. We, as gun owners, need to protect the remaining owners of local gun shops by purchasing an item(s) on a regular basis. It may not be a gun or ammo. The shops carry many items worth purchasing such as magazines, scopes, holsters etc. let your next shopping trip be to your local gun store.

There are many ways to defend the Second Amendment from this bunch, but the most effective is to vote against any member of the gun ban party at all levels —town, county, state legislature and especially both houses of Congress — if they refuse to follow the Constitution. The time has come to put gun prohibitionists out of our misery.

Keep this in perspective: If anti-gun politicians are not in office, they cannot make their policies into law. This includes RINOs as well.

This should need no explanation, especially after New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s debacle last summer when she grossly overstepped her constitutional authority in an attempt to prohibit lawful firearm carry in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County. She exploited three tragic fatal shootings of three young people as an excuse to declare a “public health emergency” for which she wanted to suspend the Second Amendment.

Fortunately, gun rights groups quickly took Grisham to court and a federal judge stopped her cold. I have communicated with a former Monroe County Assistant DA who now lives in New Mexico and asked for materials he can use to start a SCOPE-NM.

Other examples include Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution which would — contrary to his claims otherwise — essentially nullify the Second Amendment. He knows this and he hopes we are all as stupid as the Californians who voted for him. The ultimate goal is to peddle this plan to all the other states. 

Nearly three years ago, Joe Biden admitted during a televised town hall forum broadcast by CNN he not only wants to ban so-called “assault weapons,” but also 9mm pistols. This guy is relentless, and despite all of his gaffes, this is one thing he has never gotten confused about. Recall he suggested “going after the ammunition”.

Understand this — these three people represent policies too oft advanced by their party. The only reason their colleagues have publicly pooh-pooed these notions is because they don’t want the general public to realize this is really their agenda.

Gun bans, suspension of a constitutionally protected right and a constitutional amendment turning the right to keep and bear arms into a strictly regulated government privilege are on their wish list. Assume otherwise at your own peril.

The late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who never saw a gun control measure she didn’t love, allegedly provided the proper postscript to the nonsense of her party. The website “Wealthy Gorilla” quoted Feinstein stating, “Once you sacrifice your rights, it’s hard to get those rights protected again.” Well worth remembering. 

• RENO MAY, et al., v. ROBERT BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the

  State of California (May v. Bonta)

  This is a huge 2A victory. Federal judge Cormac Carney entered a preliminary injunction enjoining virtually all of California’s “sensitive places” laws from being enforced on the grounds that they violate the Second Amendment.

  Judge Carney says the Second Amendment provides a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The judge is correct that there are no historical analogue laws with the particular laws litigated in this case at the time of the founding in the early eighteenth century.

  The 3 places designated as “sensitive places” per the Bruen decision were designated as such because the government provides comprehensive security in all three. They are:

• ·      Court Houses
• ·      Legislative Assemblies
• ·      Polling places

Schools, at the time of the founding, were not gun free zones. Adults were allowed to carry guns but students might well have been restricted from carrying guns by adults because of the “loco parentis” doctrine.

Likewise there were no laws at the time of the founding against guns in hospitals and medical facilities.

I agree it’s simply absurd that people can’t carry a gun in a facility that serves alcohol when at the time of the founding the entire American revolution was really planned in taverns like Sam Adams taverns in Boston and Francis tavern in New York City.

The assumption was that people would bring their guns into places like churches due to fear of an Indian attack. However, public transportation can regulate the absence of guns on their private property because they, unlike governments, are not restricted by the Second Amendment. 

I suspect the inconsistencies and governmental infringements evolving from attempts by governments to utilize the Bruen examples of “sensitive places” to designate as many gun-free zones as possible will evaporate when SCOTUS revisits the issue.

CCRKBA: ‘SEATTLE’S NEW MURDER RECORD PROVES GUN CONTROL A DISASTER’

Nov 30, 2023

BELLEVUE, WA – The City of Seattle—home to a billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group which bankrolled two gun control initiatives that have been dismal failures—hit a new homicide record this week, ironically with the death of a June stabbing victim, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said the time has come to repeal the laws that only impact law-abiding citizens and take a new course against criminals.

Seattle has now posted 70 murders, and there is still one full month remaining for the body count to rise even more.

“Seattle, and the whole of Washington State, is proof positive that passing laws which only impact honest gun owners accomplish nothing to reduce violent crime,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We warned people in 2014 that Initiative 594 would not prevent murder or mayhem, and we were right. We told Seattleites in 2015 the tax on guns and ammunition in their city would not prevent shootings or slayings, and we were right. We cautioned voters in 2018 that Initiative 1639 would not keep guns out of the wrong hands, and we were right, again. In fact, we have consistently been right about public safety issues while the other side is only interested in public disarmament.

“How many more people must die before the gun ban bunch publicly acknowledges they’ve been wrong all along,” he wondered. “What will it take to compel Gov. Jay Inslee, Attorney General Bob Ferguson, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell and their wealthy elitist anti-gun cronies to admit their agenda has failed miserably?

“The time has come for Washington State lawmakers and voters to roll back the extremist gun control measures, stop penalizing law-abiding gun owners and gun buyers for crimes they didn’t commit, and try a different tack,” Gottlieb suggested. “Almost three decades ago, we championed Hard Time for Armed Crime and Three Strikes laws. The public overwhelmingly supported both measures because instead of punishing the good guys, they concentrated on the bad guys. It’s time for that spirit to be revived.”

Instead of making it harder for Washington citizens to legally exercise their Second Amendment rights, Gottlieb said Washington lawmakers must make it easier to lock up criminals, especially recidivist outlaws who illegally possess and use firearms in crimes.

“Criminals can’t commit crimes when they are in jail,” he observed. “Thugs can’t kill or injure people from behind prison bars. If we want safe neighborhoods, we need solutions that work, not headlines that only offer false hopes. We will happily help with any good faith effort that doesn’t impair the rights of law-abiding citizens. This is our community, too, but we know the difference between good guys and bad guys. Anti-gunners obviously don’t.”

The Supreme Court will hear a case involving a NY Official’s Attempt to “Blacklist” the NRA despite a controversial judgment issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“This is a historic step forward for free speech, the NRA’s millions of members, and for all who believe in freedom,” says NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre.”

Former New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Maria Vullo initiated two unrelated actions against the NRA, allegedly at the request of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, one of which successfully shut down an NRA program. DFS opened an investigation in 2017 into “Carry Guard,” an NRA-endorsed insurance program. 

What limits should we expect to be placed upon governmental officials with regard to their ability to weaponize their office against their so-called political enemies. 

The NRA alleges that under the guise of advancing a gun-control agenda, “Vullo: (1) warned regulated institutions that doing business with Second Amendment advocacy groups posed ‘reputational risk’ of concern to DFS; (2) secretly offered leniency to insurers for unrelated infractions if they dropped the NRA, and (3) extracted highly-publicized and over-reaching consent orders, and multi-million dollar penalties, from firms that formerly served the NRA.”

The Vullo-endorsed campaign began with an investigation into the NRA’s involvement with certain widely offered affinity insurance products. New York failed to investigate other similar insurance offerings – and was the only state to take such action against the NRA.

This is not thefirst time state officials have leveraged their regulatory power to suppress a disfavored civil rights organization or choke off disfavored speech. The NRA's petition emphasizes a long line of First Amendment cases – from seminal decisions involving the NAACP, to the Supreme Court's storied Bantam Books decision – that forbid such tactics.

“The Second Circuit’s opinion…gives state officials free rein to financially blacklist their political opponents – from gun rights groups to abortion-rights groups, to environmentalist groups, and beyond,” states the NRA in its petition. The Association argues that the Second Circuit has erroneously opened the door to unrestrained harassment of advocacy groups by state officials and seeks to have it closed.

Even the ACLU supports the NRA stating “If Cuomo can do this to the NRA, then conservative governors could have their financial regulators threaten banks and financial institutions that do business with any other group whose political views the governor opposes. The First Amendment bars state officials from using their regulatory power to penalize groups merely because they promote disapproved ideas.”