Posts

Posted on

Still think the SAFE Act doesn’t affect YOU? – Think again.

SCOPE Web Site
07/25/2018
By Don Smith
The handgun license you obtained, oh those many years ago, with the recognition that it was valid for your lifetime has now been reduced to a FIVE [5] YEAR permit. NY State now requires “license holders to re-certify their status every five years”. That’s right, you must now RENEW your pistol permit EVERY FIVE [5] YEARS or face revocation [permanent] of the license.

All thanks to Mr. Cuomo and his so-called “S.A.F.E”. Act. This “Act” modified several laws in this state. One of them is the NY PENAL LAW that was amended to RESTRICT Y OUR RIGHTS. How you say? Part (b) was added to Section 10 of the Penal Law. It converted your once life-long pistol permit into a FIVE [5] YEAR permit with the swipe of Cuomo’s pen.

You are now required by law to provide the NY State Police with not only several pieces of your personal data but also an affirmation that you are not prohibited from possessing Y O U R O W N f i r e a r m s [HANDGUNS ONLY]. Better yet, the UNSAFE Act offers the opportunity to complete the form for RE-CERTIFICATION ONLINE at a State Police website.

Let’s see if I have this right: I “certify” myself as NOT being prohibited from owning a handgun in NY State. But why must I report my recertification of myself, by myself, to NY State? Oh, I get it now!! The State wants a database of all handguns! Isn’t this tantamount to a registration of all handguns? History teaches us that registration leads to one thing, confiscation!

Consider these statements:

• Former President Clinton: “Only the police should have handguns.”

• Illinois Rep Schakowsky: “…the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun…”

• Retired NY Rep Owens: “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.” [Does “acquisitions” remind you of the word “confiscation” used by Gov. Cuomo and others?]

• Nelson Shields, former Chair of The Brady Campaign: “Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handg u n s a n d a m m u n i – tion]”….”We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily–given the political realitiesvery modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

• The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence [www.csgv.org]: “We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.”

• American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU]: “We urge passage of federal legislation…to prohibit…the private ownership and possession of handguns.”

• Michael Gardner, former President of NBC News: “There is no reason for anyone in this country…to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun…”

• Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General: “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”

Remember, the goal of the State is to have as many people re-certify electronically as possible. SO OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO HAVE THE FEWEST, OR NONE AT ALL, register online. We must ALL RE-CERTIFY on PAPER. Mail the form via CERTIFIED MAIL. This confirms it was both MAILED and RECEIVED. This allows you to comply with the law when you have to, but not before.

It is being suggested as an attractive proposition that we mail the form at the last possible moment… January 29 or 30, 2018. But we need to research this further as Cuomo likes to change the rules after the game has started.

Further research is also needed to determine if we are authorizing the State to access our HIPPA file. If so, then NYS has figured out a way to correct their violation of federal HIPPA law by having the citizen authorize the State’s invasion of privacy.

Recall that on September 20, 2016, representatives of the NY State Police spoke to the Fall Conference of the New York State County Clerk’s Association and made this statement: “The responsibility of the permit holder will be fulfilled when the recertification form is submitted to the State Police. Thus, if a problem arose where recertification was delayed, but submitted before the deadline, licensee is still legal.”

Posted on

THE SAFE ACT EVISCERATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND ONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

From my friends at the Arbalest Quarrel (7/5/18):

STRATEGIES OF DESTRUCTION: HOW THE NY SAFE ACT EVISCERATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IN ONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

American citizens who hold dear our sacred Bill of Rights may think that leftists in this Country, and abroad, have placed their goal of destroying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the back burner by virtue of the fact that (read more here)

Posted on

Chele (Shell) Farley for NY Senate, 2nd Amendment Comments

I haven’t been able to find much from Chele about the second amendment, but I did find a few seconds of her speaking about it at a recent conference.  This clip is from the NY State Conservative Political Action Conference, on January 29, 2018, at the Radisson Hotel on Wolf Road in Albany, NY.

She definitely has a better 2nd amendment stance than Kirsten Gillibrand.

Posted on

Creekside Sports looking to Return Taylor & Vadney Customers’ Firearms

From a post on the NY2A Grassroots Coalition:

Hello folks. I was wondering if any of you in the Capital Region could share this on your wall as we are trying to contact people:

If you have puchased or put a deposit on a handgun or long-gun from Taylor & Vadney’s Sporting Goods of Rotterdam or had a gun with them for repair, and still haven’t received it due to their license issues/fire, please give us a call. We have possession of T&V’s inventory and are trying to get people their guns. Some have balances, some are paid in full.

Mario
Creekside Sports
518-702-5061

Posted on

SCOPE’s Position on the Extreme Risk Protection Order A11148

Memo in Opposition

 A. 11148          Simon

 Establishes extreme risk protection orders as a court-issued order of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

PURPOSE

This legislation would add school officials, which include but is not limited to school teachers, school guidance counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, school nurses, school administrators or other school personnel required to hold a teaching or administrative license or certificate, and full or part-time compensated school employees required to hold a temporary coaching license or professional coaching certificate.

SCOPE’s POSITION

We oppose this proposal on the grounds that current New York State law already provides school officials a means to seek an extreme risk protection order through law-enforcement.  If school officials truly believe a student poses a threat to him/herself or others it’s prudent if not imperative that they contact law-enforcement immediately. Law enforcement professionals can then investigate make an assessment and take appropriate action. Unlike schools seeking action through the courts, law enforcement can act immediately if they determine immediate action is necessary.

A reality check is needed regarding the involvement of school officials as per this bill.  Let us assume that one of them has identified a student (respondent) where there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others.  Why would any concerned school official not immediately contact law enforcement?  What advantage is gained by that official providing the student with the time to possibly gain access to a firearm?  Does anyone truly believe that the extended time spent on this bills requirement to obtain an Extreme Risk Protection Order prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun is a better choice than immediately contacting the local police agency? 

Consider this situation encountered by a SCOPE Director while he was teaching in a Rochester area high school.  A student was involved in an altercation and declared that he was leaving the building and would return with a gun.  The high school principal was aware of the students threat yet refused to contact law enforcement.  The principal also refused to lock the exterior doors and instead instructed several male teachers to guard the entrances with instructions to call the main office if the student returned. Fortunately, the situation ended well but a crucial error in judgment cost the principal his job.

 This legislation if passed could have unintended consequences and end up posing more risk to students, school employees, and teachers, by leaving law-enforcement out of the initial process and thus delaying or preventing much-needed police intervention. Putting it bluntly, this legislation is dangerous and invites a delayed and inadequate response to a potentially dangerous situation.

School officials have a long history of irrational judgment when it comes to firearm issues, and what defines a serious concern. ­­­­­­­­­­­­Just a few years ago a child was suspended from school for eating a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, also a fifth-grade girl in Philadelphia was suspended for having a piece of paper that was torn into the shape of a gun. Would schools seek protection orders against those students? Schools, teachers, and administrators are not always rational thinkers when it comes to these issues. There are countless stories like those I have mentioned here.

What’s more, you might presume the subject, or the respondent of the extreme risk protection order would be the student but then again what is the point of an extreme risk protective order for a child under 18 years of age since they can’t legally own or possess firearms or long guns anyway? The answer is the parent or legal guardian then becomes the subject or respondent of the order. We realize there can be legitimate reason for an immediate seizure of someone’s firearms, but that determination is best left to law-enforcement professionals and the courts with consideration of due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Especially in a situation where firearms may be confiscated from someone who has not committed a crime or even been charged with a crime.

Finally, when the extreme risk protection order is issued a notice will be sent to the FBI and subsequently, the parent(s) or legal guardian, not the student will be added to the NICS system. A law-abiding parent who has done nothing wrong and may very well have his or her firearms safely secured in their home will be subject to having their firearms confiscated and prohibited from purchasing future firearms without any due process, under this proposal. A clear violation of not only the 2nd Amendment but also the 5th and 14th Amendments as well.

Again, we recognize the need to identify troubled kids and to respond to someone who does present a danger to themselves and others, however, excluding law-enforcement from the process as this proposal is likely to do could end up having very dangerous consequences. The means to deal with these events already exists in state law, schools just need to pick up the phone and call the police.

Posted on

National Liberty Alliance Sues NY Over the SAFE ACT

The National Liberty Alliance filed a 2nd Amendment Action at Law against the Governor and both houses of New York State in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Case# 1:18-cv-392.  The preliminary hearing is set for July 2nd at 10 am.

More details are available here:  https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/new-york-safe-act-lawsuit

The National Liberty Alliance is an organization you should check out.

Posted on

Publicly Traded Gun Companies are Being Infiltrated by Gun Grabbers

An Eye Opener

Investor companies that want progressive change, like the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), are buying stocks in publicly traded companies to try to affect social change.  It has worked.   A group of nuns representing ICCR on Wednesday was at a shareholders meeting at Sturm, Ruger & Co. and got a majority of stockholders to vote requiring Sturm, Ruger & Co.  to issue a risk report.  The report is supposed to look into Ruger tracking violence associated with it’s guns, and report on research on smart-gun technology, and more.

That’s not all, they wanted to do more but didn’t get it.  They wanted the company to quit their ties with the NRA,  and block the reelection of a board member that served on the NRA board and was a past NRA president.

This group also invests in Dicks Sporting Goods.

“https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/sturm-ruger-shareholders-activists.html”

“http://www.journalnow.com/business/ruger-shareholders-approve-proposal-requiring-gun-safety-report/article_5704318a-d2af-5224-b283-11c85b463ce8.html”

“http://www.iccr.org“