June 15, 2018

What a shame that our LEGAL immigrants understand this so much more thoroughly than our naturalized citizens.

Click the link above to see an honestly direct testimony from one of those LEGAL immigrants.

June 14,2018

Yesterday the New York Assembly passed by a vote of 108 - 30 A.11148, the Red Flag bill we alerted you to earlier in the week. Given the overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Assembly, the passage was not surprising. Now the battle turns to the Senate where the numbers are more favorable and we can stop this bill. If you don't know your senator's number go to the link below and call your Senator and ask him to oppose this bill. You'll note in the next paragraph there is some confusion on the bill number but reference it as the Red Flag bill and most should be aware.

Find My Senator

In a phone conversation today with Senator Flanagan's office, it was explained to me that S. 7133A was the companion bill to A. 11148 that was passed in the Assembly on 6/13/2018 and sent to the Senate Rules Committee. I was unable to find S. 7133A  but I did find S. 7133. There is an important distinction between A. 11148 and S. 7133.  A. 11148 has a provision where school administrators, teachers, and other school personnel can act as petitioners, S. 7133 omits that provision. Perhaps S. 7133A, if it exists, includes the provision to include schools as petitioners. In any case, the memo below reflects the content of A. 11148 and any companion bill to that in the Senate.

SCOPE 

Memo in Opposition

A. 11148          Simon

S. 7133(A) ?     Kavanagh

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 establish extreme risk protection orders that would deny due process rights to individuals not accused of a crime. Additionally, 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 legislation on several key points, first, loss of due process rights for individuals including those who may not be the subject of the order, i.e. parents, legal guardians. Additionally, adding school officials as petitioners can lead to some unintended consequences and a false sense of security. If this proposal becomes law schools could petition the court when they suspect they have a troubled student who is a risk to himself/herself or others, there is no requirement for them to call law enforcement. By the time an order is issued several days have passed and I am sure you understand the potential for tragedy. 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 protection 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. 

Regarding the addition of family and household members, while we understand there may be circumstances requiring such an order, we also know there are situations where false accusations are made and laws like this are used as weapons in a divorce or domestic relationships. Such as the case, if the Senate considers this proposal it should be amended to include penalties for malicious and falsely accusing a respondent.

 

June 12, 2018

Yesterday SCOPE received a request from the Republican Minority Counsel's office of the state assembly asking for SCOPE's position on A. 11148. This is the bill that Cuomo proposed last week, below is SCOPE's response to the proposed legislation. The bill was introduced Saturday, June 9th, reported out of the Codes Committee on the same day, sent to the Rules on Monday, June 11th and again voted and reported out of the rules committee the very same day. It appears certain that it's fast-tracked to the floor for an assembly vote, please contact your Assembly representative and urge them to oppose A.11148.

Go to http://nyassembly.gov/mem/to locate your Assembly representative and their contact information.

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.

 


 





June 7, 2018
Governor Cuomo announced his proposal to add teachers, school administrators, and other school personnel to the list of individuals who may petition the courts to issue extreme risk protection orders for individuals who they believe are likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others. 

On the surface, this may seem, to some, as reasonable; however, as is often the case the devil’s in the details. Do you remember a few years ago a child was suspended from school for eating a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun or the fifth-grade girl in Philadelphia who was suspended for having a piece of paper that was torn into the shape of a gun? Schools, teachers, and administrators are not always rational thinkers when it comes to these issues. Imagine a parent losing their firearms because their son or daughter brought a copy of the American Rifleman or Firing Lines to school. Or perhaps your child is overheard talking about a hunting trip or an outing at the gun range.

 

And that brings us to the next issue with Governor Cuomo’s proposal. The subject or the respondent of the order would presumedly be the student but then again what is be the point of an extreme risk protection order for a child under 18 years of age since they can’t legally own or possess firearms anyway? Does the parent or legal guardian then become the subject or respondent of the order? Again, your child commits one of those terrible offenses mentioned in my previous paragraph, and you’re awakened by a surprise visit from the sheriff’s department to confiscate your firearms.

 

Yes, it will be a surprise visit, not only are your 2nd Amendment rights violated, your due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments will also be trampled. You see this bill if it becomes law will give the courts the right to take away your guns before you have ever seen the inside of a courtroom. Here’s a situation where you are not even accused of a crime, let alone convicted and your rights under the constitution are denied. Sounds more like Hitler’s Germany or the old Soviet Union than America.

 

Finally, when the extreme risk protection order is issued a notice will be sent to the FBI and subsequently added to the NICS system. Question is, who’s reported to NICS? The child or parent? A child under the age of 18 can’t legally own or purchase a firearm. What’s the point of a child being added to the NICS system? More likely it’s the parent who will be added to NICS? Good luck purchasing your next firearm.

 

This bill is more proof of what gun banners really want, they want a total ban and total confiscation. They want more than your neighbor’s AR 15, they want your Remington 870, your Remington 1100 and that Henry lever action .22. This legislation is one more backdoor way to attain their goal.

 

Call or write Governor Cuomo and tell him you are adamantly opposed to his proposal to undermine your constitutional rights. You can reach the governor at, 518-474-8390, https://www.governor.ny.gov/ his mailing address is, State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224.

 

Also call your assemblywoman, assemblyman, and senator. If you don’t know who they are use this link to find your representatives in Albany: http://nyassembly.gov/mem/  or  https://www.nysenate.gov/find-my-senator



  

May 24, 2018

Dear SCOPE Member, 

Congratulations! 

Yesterday, we sent you an alert to contact GOP gubernatorial candidate Marc Molinaro, to state your opposition to Julie Killian as his running mate for Lt. Governor. Within two to three hours of posting the alert, Molinaro was on the phone to me and that's a credit to you. I have always expressed that the most important key to our success is you and yesterday we saw how true that is. 

During our phone conversation, I expressed to him our opposition to Julie Killian as his Lt. Governor. He acknowledged our concerns but assured me that he continues to support the 2nd Amendment and more specifically repeal of the SAFE Act. He also assured me that Killian is in full support of his agenda, including his positions on the 2nd Amendment, and his opposition to the SAFE Act. He also said Killian would soon be making a public statement affirming her support of Molinaro on those issues. 

That said, I would have preferred that Killian was replaced on the ticket and I said that to Molinaro, but unfortunately, we're not going to get that. He did though, assure me that gun owners will have a friend in the governor's mansion if he's elected. His history would support his reassurances, and of all the candidates out there he does present us the best chance to impact the SAFE Act. 

Finally, Molinaro’s call yesterday is an indication of how important Molinaro thinks gun owners will be in this election. He also knows you’re paying attention. Those are important points to remember as we move towards November. 

Thank you again for your support. Let’s build on our achievement and work toward success on November 6th. 




As you know Marc Molinaro is the Republican candidate for governor of New York State. Molinaro has been an outspoken opponent of the SAFE Act and voted against it while in the state assembly. He's been A rated on the gun issue. This past weekend the Republicans nominated Julie Killian to be his running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Ms. Killian was a failed candidate in a recent special election for the New York State Senate. During her recent campaign, she proudly proclaimed her support of the SAFE Act and even boasted about Republican support of the law.

We need you to contact Marc Molinaro's office and tell him you cannot support his candidacy with Ms. Killian on the ticket. Please call soon and also ask your friends, relatives, and acquaintances to call. Julie Killian must be removed from the ticket and replaced with a pro-Second Amendment candidate.

see video at the following link: https://livestream.com/accounts/285840/senatedebate/videos/173092083



Defeat Cuomo in 2018

Yes, we can defeat Andy Cuomo this November. That’s not just wishful thinking, it is a fact. We hear time and again that we cannot overcome the anti-gun vote coming out of the densely populated New York City area, is that true? If it is it’s only because we have not worked hard enough in the past, we must change that in 2018. READ MORE

Safe ACT 2017

We know the badly named “SAFE” Act is unSAFE when it comes to civil liberties like due process.  This fact is never mentioned by Mr. Cuomo nor many of our elected state officials — purposeful ignorance.  They focus on the 2nd Amendment rather than let people know they’re also going after the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.

The SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013) is touted as a “gun control” law, but it is really about control...

Like and Share,  Help make this video go viral!

Full Article

join scope

Shooters Committee On Political Education. We are a statewide 501(c)4 organization dedicated to preserving the 2nd amendment rights for the residents of New York State.

Blog posts

NYS Legislation

Learn about pending NYS legislation put forth by our representatives in Albany that my effect your 2nd Amendment and Civil Rights in the State of New York.
 

SCOPE CHAPTERS

Find the Chapter in your community or learn how to start a chapter. We have over 30 chapters and committees representing SCOPE across NY.

MERCHANDISE

Merchandise Store

Upcoming events

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

[ Site Developed By A2Z Enhanced Digital Solutions ]

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software