Author: Curtis

From downtrend.com:

Rep. Kathleen Rice, a Democrat from New York attacks conservative gun rights advocate and commentator Dana Loesch. Labeling her and the millions and millions of NRA members across the country an increased terror threat.

“I’m just going to say it. #NRA & @DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.”

— Kathleen Rice (@RepKathleenRice) August 11, 2017

CDSCOPE:  She is from The U.S, House of Representatives’ New York’s 4th Congressional District on Long Island and needs to be voted out.  We really need SCOPE chapters in NYC and on Long Island!

from our friend Mert Melfa on FaceBook:

https://www.facebook.com/wkbwtv/videos/10154723786791892/

SCOPE was there.  Second Amendment Guarantee Act

Commentary.  Stick with me here.

The anti gunners have been pushing lately to “ask” the parents where your children go to play “Do you keep any guns in the house”.  They also say to ask what type,  are they secured properly, and what level of safety training do you possess?”  Even Dear Abbey is in on it.

I really don’t think the anti gunners go far enough, after all it is for the safety of the children.  You should also ask, what type of drugs are in the house?  Are all your prescription pill vials equipped with a lock instead of a safety cap, and do you store and lock them all up separately in a safe.  Can I look in your medicine cabinet? What about the illegal drugs you may have, what kind do you have, where is your stash and are they locked up too?  What experience or training to you have with taking drugs?  Do tell.  Don’t mind my asking, it’s for the safety of the children.

There’s more, you should also ask if there is any porn in the house, what type do you keep here: books, magazines, videos, toys, fetish materials? Are they all locked up separately,  and what level of experience or training do you have with them.  Come on now.  It’s for the safety of the children so I’m entitled to ask.

Those “none of your business” questions really worked and I’m glad I asked.  Now the children are safe.

In reality, just say, hey is your house childproof, my kid gets into stuff, bigly. Double check for me.  Thanks.

From our twitter site:  Smart Gun Beaten by Dumb Magnets

twitter.com/cdscope

https://www.facebook.com/CapitalDistrictScope/

Mont Vernon changed it’s policy to not allow concealed carry holders to enter Mount Vernon when it previously did.  You can do something, read below and see a sample letter to complain.

From the Freebeacon.com web site:  http://freebeacon.com/issues/virginia-gun-rights-group-protests-new-gun-ban-george-washingtons-home/

From Virginia Citizens Defense League:  Mount Vernon “no guns” policy
************************************************************

Member Ron Klein called the Mount Vernon main number – 703-780-2000 – and asked to speak to a manager or director about their new “no guns” policy. He pointed out that such a policy would only affect law-abiding citizens, while criminals will ignore the sign. George Washington is no doubt rolling in his grave over such a restriction!

Here is a page on their prohibitions:

http://www.mountvernon.org/plan-your-visit/tips-for-your-visit/guidelines/bag-inspection-policy-prohibited-items/

There is a page showing their senior staff names and email addresses at:

http://www.mountvernon.org/about/senior-staff/

http://www.mountvernon.org/preservation/mount-vernon-ladies-association/mount-vernon-ladies-association-board-members/

I suggest both emailing them and calling, too.

Example letter already sent by a member of CDSCOPE:

Hi. Thank you for doing a great job maintaining and running Mount Vernon. You truly deserve to be recognized for such commendable work and I thank you for it. I do have one problem that sincerely bothers me that I hope you can contemplate and fix. I read with dismay recently in a freebeacon.com web site article that you recently changed your policy regarding letting concealed handgun carry holders carry their concealed handguns on site. There are nearly 17 million concealed carry holders in this nation and your policy is bigoted against them. Each concealed carry holder undergoes a background check to purchase a firearm, you couldn’t ask for a more law abiding and trustworthy patron. Concealed carry holders just want to be prepared in case of an emergency. It is the same reason you would have a fire extinguisher in your house, you assume a fire is never going to happen to you, but just in case you want to have a fire extinguisher around to be prepared. The right to keep and bear arms was decided to be an individual right, a civil right, by the supreme court in the Heller case and your policy is denying concealed carriers their constitutional right to protect themselves. This new policy of denying entrance to concealed carry holders exercising their constitutional right, if you think about it deeply, is just as bigoted as a storeowner denying entrance to someone due to the color of their skin, even after the supreme court ruled it was unconstitutional to do so because it was a civil right. I’m sure you would be very angry if someone denied entry to a place today based on their skin color, and these two issues have equivalence. The argument of the safety issue is moot because concealed carriers are safer than the general public and safer than police officers too.

Thank-you for taking the time to read this and I urge you further debate on this issue among your board and to reverse your policy immediately…..because you can. Please forward to all the members of the board and senior staff.

Gia M. Arnold, the former State Senate candidate who ran on a pro-Second Amendment platform and was arrested for not using a turn signal, possession of an assault rifle, a high capacity magazine, public obstruction, an air soft pistol (originally charged as a handgun), an air soft face mask, and a knife, later charged with second degree obstructing governmental administration and second and third degree criminal possession of a weapon was sentenced to five years’ probation Friday after pleading to possession of an illegal assault rifle.

Articles here

http://buffalonews.com/2017/07/21/gia-arnold-former-state-senate-hopeful-avoids-jail-gun-case/

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/news/local_news/arnold-receives-probation-in-gun-possession-case/article_c65a2dee-3557-5359-bbe1-b5dfb3870966.html

http://www.dailypublic.com/articles/02132016/gia-arnold-and-triggering-ammosexuals

From our Twitter feed twitter.com/CDSCOPE   and

Summarized from the 7/18 Guns.com web site:

According to court documents, the Johnsons were asked by officials to be foster parents to their grandchild, but when the grandfather, concealed pistol license holder, arrived to pick up the youth from the Michigan Health and Human Services’ custody, caseworkers searched him and said he had to provide the serial numbers to all his firearms.  When he questioned caseworkers about the legality of the policy, Johnson was told “if you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights”  (more of the story here)

Comment: they need a list of the serial numbers of all his firearms? The MHHS contact information is here in case you want to call or mail them…..  http://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/0,5885,7-339–352302–,00.html

Personal comment:  This one makes me angry.  Whether you agree with the Bundy Ranch revolt or not, a judge in the Bundy retrial should not tamper with the jury’s ability to use nullification if they see fit.  This is more erosion of the rights of the people.

Update 7/22:  so much more information about the case from the NRA-ILA, read here, It has been 5 years since this woman’s guns were seized.

Update 7/20: this story has a pay wall so you might not be able to read the entire story.  To get around it, cut and past “Circuit Opens Door to Gun Recovery After Order Expires” into Google and the entire story should appear when you click on it.

From the July 18th New York Law Journal:

A federal appeals court said there is “no clear reason” why a Nassau County woman whose rifles and shotguns were taken away as part of a now-expired order of protection should not receive a hearing to determine if her weapons should be returned.  (more here)

….After Panzella’s ex-husband withdrew his petition to extend the order of protection in March 2013, Panzella asked to have her firearms returned. But the sheriff’s department refused to do so unless it received a court order, which is its policy.

Call or write Sheriff Sposato and tell him his policy of retaining firearms after a court order has expired violates civil rights and they need to change their policy.

Michael J. Sposato, Nassau County Sheriff, 100 Carman Ave., East Meadow, NY 11554.  Civil Enforcement No: 516-571-2120 (no email address was found)

More:  The Albany County Sheriff’s Department was contacted and they informed SCOPE that their policy is that after an order of protection has expired, and there are no other court documents, the firearms are returned.

here is an example letter:

date

Sheriff Michael J. Sposato
Nassau County Sheriff
100 Carman Ave.
East Meadow, NY 11554

 

Dear Sheriff Sposata:

I recently read in the 7/18/17 New York Law Journal and on the 7/21/17 NRA-ILA web site how your office confiscated firearms from Ms. Panzella in 2012 over an order of protection against her. I also read the order of protection did not require the confiscation of the firearms. When the order of protection expired, your office kept the firearms and refused to return them without a court order as was your policy.

I also read that since then there has been a federal court ruling stating that your office could not rely on your retention policy to keep the firearms without due process. Your case is now being discussed in Law Journals.

Change your policy! What you are doing by retaining the firearms is stealing. You Sheriff’s Office people that refuse to change the firearms retention policy should be ashamed of yourselves. Other sheriff departments do not have this policy. The fact that your case is being discussed in law journals and has gone to federal appeals court shows how wrong your policy is. Once it gets that far, it is government overreach.

CHANGE YOUR POLICY AND RETURN MS. PANZELLA’S FIREARMS PLEASE!

I am a gun owner and I belong to a gun rights group and this case is getting gun owning voters riled up. As the sheriff I know you can change the policy, please do so and stop making a mess out of this case and Ms. Panzella’s life. Thank-you for your time.

Cordially,

 

 

 

from the July 18th Rome Sentinel:

A firearms ownership advocacy group has raised $500 to
reimburse a local man for expenses incurred after his firearms were mistakenly confiscated through a state gun control law following a Social Security number mixup, the organization has announced.  (more here)