Defying SCOTUS

 

Defying SCOTUS

Last Wednesday, February 7th, SCOPE sent an email titled Chevron Dying. It raised an important question about courts, legislatures and executives that defy United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rulings and get away with it. Specifically, we asked:

When judges, legislators and executives openly defy the Constitution, that also opens the door to abuse and some action needs to be taken.  Without threat of punishment, there is little downside to ignoring SCOTUS and the Constitution.

We have a problem that needs to be addresses. With all the legal brainpower in Washington, there must be some possible solution? Of course, there has to be the will to solve the problem. 

Yesterday, Ammoland contained an article titled, 'Is the U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over Lower Courts', which is a reprint from “Arbalist Quarrel.” The article raised the same issue that SCOPE did a week earlier about lower courts openly defying SCOTUS. However, this article went beyond SCOPE in that it gave multiple examples of states defying SCOTUS.

And it raised the same unanswered question: what can we do about it? It’s not only a NY problem but it’s a bigger problem than you might have imagined.

It is worth reading to see the volume and types of cases where SCOTUS is openly defied.

Is The U.S. Supreme Court Losing Control Over The Lower Courts

(ammoland.com)

S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education

https://scopeny2a.org/

Deliver Us from Terrorists

 Deliver Us from Terrorists

Yes the bag is for sale includes flint & steel 75$ 

Israel was brutally attacked by HAMAS when its border security failed.  Hundreds were killed, wounded and taken captive, including Americans.  A terrible lesson in what can happen when a country’s border security collapses.

Over the past almost three years of the Biden Administration, millions of people have invaded our country through the non-existent southern border.  Many of these are young men of military age.  Some were caught or surrendered while others escaped capture.  Before being released into our country with their promise to show up in court in a few years, the illegals went through some sort of preliminary vetting process to weed out potential terrorists.

Nejwa Ali was hired in 2019 as an ‘asylum officer’ with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of Homeland Security.  Earlier this year she was made an ‘adjudication officer’, according to her LinkedIn profile. The role includes vetting people before they enter the US.

The Daily Wire said that a screenshot of Ali’s LinkedIn profile, (which has since been altered to hide the history), showed that she worked as a public affairs officer for the Palestinian Delegation to the U.S. in 2016 and 2017. The delegation served as the “PLO office in D.C.,” until then-President Donald Trump expelled the organization from the country.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been designated as a terrorist organization at various times in its history.

Available on line has been a picture of a smiling Nejwa Ali posing in front of the image of Che Guevara in Havana. (Technically, Guevara may or may not have been a terrorist but he was a racist, homophobic, torturer and murderer – as well as hero to many on the Left.  Kinda like the PLO.)

According to the USCIS, applicants are thoroughly vetted and face extensive background checks before being hired for a permanent position, the Washington Times reported.  So…how did a Public Affairs Officer of a terrorist organization become responsible for weeding out terrorists who try to enter the USA illegally?  What could go wrong?

After the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack that killed at least 1,400 Israelis, including civilians and babies, various sources have reported that Nejwa Ali posted, “F–k Israel, the government, and its military @stateofisrael @timesofisrael are you ready for your downfall…”

She also wrote on Instagram: “F–K APARTHEID Israel and any Israeli that supports that bull–T. F–k you, may Allah forgive you. and spare us the crocodile tears, I sure as hell give zero f–ks.”

However, USCIS spokesman Matthew Burke told The Washington Examiner that she has been placed on administrative leave.  (Probably with pay?)

While the Biden regime works to disarm law abiding American citizens, many of whom served in the U S armed forces, should we be confident that Bien and company are doing all they can to protect us from terrorists, so we won’t need our weapons for protection?  

There is no evidence that Biden intends to appoint Nejwa Ali to head his Disinformation Board.  (Sarcasm intended.)

S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education

https://scopeny2a.org/

Gun Control Studies

 

Gun Control Studies On June 13th, Ammoland had an article entitled, “Is Gun Control Making Vermont less Safe.”  It answered its question by concluding, “Vermont’s gun control measures had no salutary impact whatsoever in the already peaceful jurisdiction.” But how it got to that conclusion was an interesting path since it dealt with whether or not many of the academic studies on gun control – or anything else in the social science realm – have much validity. It concluded that “…different researchers presented with the same exact data will come to wildly different conclusions.”  Oops.  How did it reach that conclusion? In a 2022 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, the authors assembled 161 researchers in 73 teams and provided them with the same data and hypothesis to be tested.  The authors reported: “Results from our controlled research…demonstrate that analyzing the same hypothesis with the same data can lead to substantial differences in statistical estimates and substantive conclusions. In fact, no two teams arrived at the same set of numerical results or took the same major decisions during data analysis.”  (Emphasis added.) Gee whiz.  Does that mean that, ”Much of social science is of dubious value, even before trying to account for political bias.” Following that path, in 2022, Reason magazine exposed almost all “gun violence” social science as junk science. “Drawing on the expertise of statistician and New York University and University of California at San Diego instructor Aaron Brown and a 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, the video**  explained that the vast majority of gun violence research is not conducted in a manner sufficient to offer meaningful conclusions. An article accompanying the video, written by Brown and Reason Producer Justin Monticello, noted, a 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, parsed the results of 27,900 research publications on the effectiveness of gun control laws. From this vast body of work, the RAND authors found only 123 studies, or 0.4 percent, that tested the effects rigorously.” (Emphasis added.) Reason and Brown then examined those remaining 123 studies from the RAND analysis and offered the following, “We took a look at the significance of the 123 rigorous empirical studies and what they actually say about the efficacy of gun control laws.” “The answer: nothing.” “ The 123 studies that met RAND’s criteria may have been the best of the 27,900 that were analyzed, but they still had serious statistical defects, such as a lack of controls, too many parameters or hypotheses for the data, undisclosed data, erroneous data, misspecified models, and other problems.” “The gun issue aside, the problems inherent in the type of modeling presented here, the academy’s obvious political bias, and the replication crisis*** have led to increasing doubts about whether large swathes of the social sciences have any value at all.” Then there are ‘Fact Checkers’ who claim to tell us what is true and what is false (without letting their personal biases enter into their analysis). On June 13, 2023, The Washington Free Beacon ran an article about the political donations of self-identified fact checkers.  It used federal campaign finance disclosures over the past four election cycles.  It found that, “$22,580 of the $22,683 in political donations that came from self-identified fact checkers during that time—a whopping 99.5 percent—went to Democrats and liberal groups. Only three of the fact checker donations made during that period went to Republicans.”  Luckily, Democrats never let their political biases enter into their analyses. (Sarcasm intended.) So, how do everyday gun owners make sense of what is true and what is junk science? You could do what the Left does and read the NY Times and Washington Post and listen to CNN and MSNBC.  (Just kidding.)  The answer is that you can be very skeptical, research the subject and use your common sense.  The tough part is researching since that will take time.  SCOPE and many 2A defender organizations often print rebuttals to misinformation but there is so much of it ‘out there’ the best approach is a rule-of-thumb: the Left believes that everything and anything – including lying - justifies their march to power and control.   *  Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of   uncertainty, **  See this video explainer on the topic. ***  The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them. DONATE HERE S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education https://scopeny2a.org/

Unsubscribe

Difference Between a ‘Red’ and a ‘Blue’ State

 Florida

S.C.O.P.E. Shooters Committee On Political Education

We are all aware of the huge difference between a ‘red’ and a ‘blue’ state.  A recent court case in Florida brings that home.

Richard Burns engaged in a verbal confrontation with a tree-cutting crew in his front yard. A crew member made sexual gestures toward his fiancée and another crew member threatened his dogs with a chainsaw.  Burns demanded the crew leave.  When they refused, he retrieved a handgun and while in his front yard he chambered a round. He held the handgun at his side and again demanded the tree-cutting crew leave his front yard.

Burns was charged with aggravated assault.

Burns cited Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law, but lost.

Burns appealed the decision.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida heard the appeal and unanimously found that loading and openly carrying a firearm in a person’s own yard is NOT use of deadly force and is protected conduct under the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The court’s rationale:

Richard Burns did NOT point his handgun at anyone.  The mere display of a firearm is NOT the use of deadly force.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Florida law against open carry does NOT apply to a person’s home or place of business.

Even if Burns had NOT been on his home property, it would have been lawful for him to “briefly and openly display” his firearm in anticipation of possibly needing to use it for his and his fiancée’s protection during his confrontation with the tree-cutting crew.

Once Richard Burns told the tree-cutting crew to leave, and they refused, they became trespassers. The trespass and the threat to his dogs also justified his actions.

One can only imagine what would have happened if similar circumstances had happened in New York State.

Florida may or may not appeal the decision.  New York would undoubtably appeal the decision, just as it has appealed decisions declaring the Concealed Carry Improvement Act to be unconstitutional, even though the CCIA is undoubtably unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Florida decision does not apply to New York.  On the other hand, it is fortunate that similar courts’ decisions in New York do not apply to Florida.

Speaking of ‘red’ versus ‘blue’ states…

On August 28, 2022, Breitbart News noted Gabby Giffords’ gun control group was urging major credit companies to flag gun and ammunition purchases via the new Merchants’ Code.

On August 30 Breitbart News noted Democrat New York lawmakers were urging major credit card companies to create and use the same new firearms-specific code.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed legislation that prohibits credit card companies from tracking gun sales in Florida. His office posted an announcement to the Florida Governor’s home page saying, “Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill (SB) 7054 and SB 214 to protect the personal finances of Floridians from government overreach and woke corporate monitoring…SB 214 prohibits credit card companies from using firearm-specific Merchant Category Codes and institutes a fine for violations of Florida’s consumer protections against gun owner registries.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for DeSantis’ actions to be followed in NY State.

Speaking of Gabby Gifford’s anti-gun activities..

According to that pesky United States Constitution, Amendment VI, which has been around for 232 years, says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall…have the assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Even TV shows, the lowest form of semi-intelligent life, know about this.  Anyone who has seen a TV cop show knows that criminals are advised of their right to counsel. 

What if there were no lawyers?  (Stop applauding!)  To be more specific, what if there were no defense lawyers to provide “Counsel for the defense?”

Gabby Giffords Courage to Fight Gun Violence and Michael Bloomberg’s March for Our Lives gun control groups are canvassing campuses to convince law students to sign a pledge they won’t represent the firearm industry or firearm owners when it comes to protecting and preserving Second Amendment rights.

The gun control groups’ pledge peddles verifiably false claims to convince the aspiring lawyers that the firearm industry – not criminals - is responsible for violent crime in America. They’re blaming the industry for crimes committed by violent offenders and ignoring basic legal foundations in order to sway law students to deny legal services to companies and individuals that follow the law.

This effort is not restricted to the anti 2^nd Amendment.

In his book, Get Trump, Alan Dershowitz writes: “…the Get Trump campaign is also out to get his lawyers and anyone associated with him. The targeting of his lawyers is especially troubling, since it implicates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.  Good lawyers are understandably afraid of becoming the subjects of criminal or bar investigation, if they dare to defend Trump.”

The Constitution and especially its Bill of Rights will forever be an obstacle to be worked around by the left in its search for power and control.

Shooters Committee on Political Education