THE SECOND AMENDMENT: STRAIGHT IN THE CROSSHAIRS!

With the latest tragic shooting incident – this one taking place at an obscure community college in Oregon on October 1, 2015 – the Mainstream Media is, once again, ever again, thrusting the public’s attention onto guns. Oh, What to do about guns! Well, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, has a plan. Maloney introduced a bill, back in May of this year: “The Firearm Risk Protection Act.” If this bill were to become law, a person would be required to have liability insurance to purchase a gun or face a $10,000.00 fine. The cost of that insurance would, of course, add to the overall cost of the firearm. But, then, the salient point of Maloney’s bill is to make gun ownership such an onerous, expensive proposition that the American public would be dissuaded from making the purchase of a gun in the first place. But, suppose a person is willing to tighten his or her belt and expend the money. What, then?Just imagine: your firearm is stolen by a psychopathic “gangbanger” or a psychotic, homicidal maniac and that person injures or kills someone, or injures and/or kills several individuals with that weapon. The injured party or parties – or the family or families of individuals killed by the “gangbanger” or maniac – files a lawsuit against you, and not the “gangbanger” or maniac, because liability for the injury or death accrues to you and to you alone by virtue of “The Firearm Risk Protection Act;” and, you, after all, are the deep pocket through the liability insurance coverage on your firearms -- that you were forced to obtain.Now, your insurance company does indemnify you, the insured, against the damages claims. And that’s all well and good. But your insurance premiums go up or, worse, insurance coverage is thereafter denied to you altogether as a result of an astronomical payout to the injured party or parties or to the family or families of the parties suffering harm at the hands of the “gangbanger” or maniac. And that isn’t so good. But Maloney doesn’t wish to talk about that possibility.You decide that it is simply too costly to protect yourself and your family with a firearm, or, perhaps, you have no choice in the matter. But, if you are denied firearm liability insurance coverage, you can no longer lawfully own and possess a firearm. So, then, what do you do? You decide to invest in a Louisville Slugger. Insurance, fortunately, isn’t required for that. Thank you very much, Carolyn Maloney, for your The Firearm Risk Protection Act.Maloney’s bill, will not, of course, pass. Indeed, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, fortunately, the bill will not even make its way out of Committee. Indeed, the bill, has not, as of this date, six months since its introduction by Maloney -- made its way out of Committee. Still, for her effort, introduction of the bill will endear her to those few frightened, lost little lambs who are forever looking to Big Government to protect them from others and, for that matter, who are looking to Big Government to protect them from themselves.But, apart from Maloney’s bill and many other ludicrous ideas of late, concocted by antigun zealots to erode the Second Amendment at both the federal and State levels, there is something more sinister afoot that threatens the Second Amendment directly – something worse than Maloney’s bill, awful as her bill is, even if the bill did gain traction in Congress, which it won’t.As alluded to in the first sentence of this post, the Mainstream Media has provided wide coverage of the latest “mass shooting.” But, we would be wrong to dismiss the impact of this latest incident out-of-hand The reason for this is that so-called “mass shootings” are the impetus behind specific kinds of restrictive firearms language that denies firearms’ access to extremely large segments of the American population. And, the antigun establishment, and President Barack Obama, and Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, intend to turn this latest incident into a “tipping point” for restrictions on gun possession.The NY Times has pulled out all the stops with the latest incident in Oregon through a series of articles designed  to affect the emotions – not the intellect – of its readers. The October 4, 2015 Sunday edition of the newspaper is replete with articles – news accounts and editorials – by such ostensible “luminaries” as Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristoff, who feel obliged or, perhaps, were asked, to weigh in.What the NY Times news reports and commentary boils down to is this: since it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty who will become a “mass murderer,” the better course of action is to remove firearms from the American citizenry in totality, and in double-quick time.” What is the rationale for this?Well, we, humans, are, after all, beings of emotion as well as intellect. We react to life’s events emotionally as well as intellectually. Each of us, at one time or another, expresses hope and fear, joy and sadness, compassion and resentment. Sometimes we get angry, or we fall into fits of depression or anxiety. Perhaps we lost a loved one, or a job. Perhaps we express concern – much concern – over the manner in which our Government spends our hard-earned tax dollars. Thus is our human-ness expressed.The vast majority of us deal with the vicissitudes of life stoically. A few of us do not – apparently cannot. The NY Times has written a lengthy polemic, posted on line, October 3, 2015, “How They Got Their Guns.” It is curious, though, that no photographs of the individuals who perpetrated the violence are shown – in the digital version of the NY Times article which, clearly, is expected to receive the largest audience and “most hits.” Instead, the NY Times thrusts large, high gloss, high resolution – almost three-dimensional – graphics of firearms upon us – something that the publisher cannot do cost-effectively in the print version of the newspaper. The NY Times' use of large, high gloss, high resolution graphics is not accidental. The Times is suggesting, subliminally, that it is the firearms themselves that are the real sentient actors of the violence, and not the individuals who actually wielded the weapons. But, for all that, our intelligence tells us, contrary to what the NY Times article strongly suggests, that it is individuals, after all, and not inanimate objects, who are the real perpetrators of the violence that occurred.And, what of those perpetrators? The antigun zealots and fanatics intend that those few poor souls, bereft of mind and spirit, who are the cause of violence, whether committed with guns or with any other implement – in a population of millions of law-abiding, sane, rational gun owners – are to be the measure – the standard – by which our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to be finely calibrated. But, most Americans do not expect, certainly do not demand, indeed would not ever wish that Government utilize, as the standard of measurement, the lowest common denominator among us upon which the vast majority of us is to be judged and found wanting of the ability to handle firearms responsibly. But, that is exactly what is happening. And, let there be no mistake: the antigun forces through their stooges in the mainstream media have the entirety of the Second Amendment in their sights.NY Times reviewer, Frank Bruni, in his op-ed, published on October 4, 2015, titled, “Guns, Campuses and Madness,” did not mince words, when he stated: “This is madness. When it comes to guns, we have lost our bearings in this country, allowing misguided chest-thumping about a constitutional amendment penned in an entirely different epoch, under entirely different circumstances, to trump all prudence and decency.” The Bill of Rights, according to Bruni – who is obviously speaking on behalf of the antigun establishment – has no meaning, no purpose, except in the context of a particular place and a particular time. The Bill of Rights – our Bill of Rights – must, consistent with Bruni’s argument, be rewritten, sans any mention of one, particular right pre-existing in Man himself. And, the entirety of our jurisprudence must be reconsidered in light of a new global view of law, as argued by Justice Stephen Breyer in his recently published book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” consistent, too, with trade policies, such as the pending, “TPP,” that make mincemeat of our Nation’s laws and of our Constitution.But, no other Country on the face of this Earth has ever expressed a right to keep and bear arms existent in a Country’s citizenry. So, is the U.S. wrong, and every other Country right? Were our Founders so mistaken to profess to create a Bill of Rights, embracing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that was deemed to express a sacred right existent in Man for All Time and not just for a particular epoch? Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the antigun establishment, both in this Country and abroad, hope for and are strenuously working toward? And, were that to happen, what, then, becomes of the United States? Would it even be accurate to still call the United States a Free Republic at that point, as that notion was envisioned by our Founders?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NRA FREEDOM: JOIN IT!

The Bill Of Rights: It's Your Birthright! The NRA Preserves It, The Antigun Crowd Would Strip You Of It. What Will You Do With It?

If you were to ask the average American what the NRA is, you would likely receive, in reply, any one or more of several short descriptive phrases, depending on the person’s political bent. Among them might include: defender of the Second Amendment; gun lobby; gun “nuts;” protectors of America’s liberties; shills for the gun manufacturers; cowboys; True American Patriots; Republican benefactors.As with any long-standing, financially powerful entity – whether a company, government agency, political organization, religious or educational institution, to name a few – the NRA has its fair share of supporters and detractors. And, as with any large, successful enterprise, myth and misunderstandings exist concerning it. It is our belief that many of the critics of NRA quite literally don’t know what they are talking about; for, when questioned, they appear generally to know nothing about the organization, its methods, or its goals.What, then, is the truth about the NRA. And what is myth? Let’s take a look.

NRA AS ORGANIZATION

Among the true statements, we can start with these: The National Rifle Association of America – NRA as it is typically known – is a citizen’s organization, a not-for-profit voluntary association that has been around for quite a while. It had its start in 1871, well over one hundred years ago. The NRA was created by two Union officers, Gen. George Wingate and Col. William C. Church. The officers formed the NRA to improve the marksmanship of American troops and to create a renewable pool of expert marksmen for the training of future citizen-troopers – certainly a worthy endeavor – that had been of observably low quality during the Civil War. Through the intervening years the NRA’s original purpose and goal – to improve marksmanship of union soldiers – expanded, well beyond the intent of its framers, to embrace a host of worthy activities and functions, including: training and promoting shooting sports among the youth of America; certifying range and safety officers for police and military training; creating programs for the training of law enforcement and hunters; and instituting programs for the training of civilians in the safe and proper use of firearms. Literally millions of citizens have received training in these programs – all this, apart from the NRA’s creation of specific programs for the training and certification of the police and military. Moreover, the NRA remains a huge educational institution, delivering “Eddie Eagle” safety training to millions of school age children.

NRA AS DEFENDER OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

NRA also defends citizens’ rights. NRA, like the NAACP and similar voluntary citizens associations, provides legal defense funds’ services in crucial cases, to correct injustice, and to battle overreaches of the law and overreaches by regulatory agencies. NRA has, in the past, teamed up with the NAACP and ACLU to fight discriminatory regulations that barred legally qualified and upstanding citizens from owning guns – regulations that barred gun ownership and possession by those legally qualified citizens who lived in public housing. NRA also conducts annual seminars for practicing attorneys to keep them up to date on firearms laws and to provide litigation techniques for those attorneys who litigate.

MYTHS ABOUT NRA

Myths abound about NRA as an organization, and they are especially prominent among academic and so-called “elite” journalists – journalists who are connected with large newspapers and with other major news outlets.One salient myth revolves around the idea that NRA is THE “Gun Lobby.” This suggests NRA is a sinister, secretive organization that operates merely as an arm for gun manufacturers. In truth, there is nothing sinister or secretive about it. NRA is, rather, a voluntary citizens’ group focused on firearms rights. It is one of many citizens groups focused on firearms rights. How does it differ from other such groups? NRA is merely the oldest and largest among voluntary citizens’ groups focused on firearms rights. It has currently more than five million members who pay dues to belong to NRA. In contrast, academic experts estimate that all of the American antigun groups combined have no more than about 150,000 members total.Consider, too, NAACP, at its height – during the civil rights era of the 1960s – had no more than one million members. Today NAACP has substantially fewer members. This places things in perspective.But, is NRA shrinking, retreating or otherwise suffering defeat? This is another myth perpetrated by mainstream media. In fact, during a period of time, from about 1968-1970, as American “elites” attempted to impose top-down severe, European-style gun control laws upon the American public, NRA has grown from about one million members to its present status: five million dues paying members. This present growth in membership in NRA is occurring at a time when, curiously, membership in voluntary associations – and volunteerism, generally – has declined. Thus, the growth of NRA is indicative of an unprecedented mass mobilization of well-informed citizens. Yet, “elite” newspapers and other “elite” media sources cheer-lead NRA defeat. How can the disparity between fact and false reporting of fact be reconciled? Well, quantitative scientific content analysis of “elite” newspaper coverage of NRA shows that “elite” media is entirely unaware of this growth. Do these reporters live in a different world from that of the rest of us? They certainly seem to be more interested in reporting what they wish to be true than in reporting what is in fact true.Interestingly, the more negative coverage NRA has received the more its membership has grown, as confirmed by a dissertation study of a University Professor: “NRA and the Media,” Arktos, 2013, Brian Anse Patrick.“Elite” media have been and continue to be out of touch with reality when it comes to NRA and American Gun Culture generally. The “elite” media attempts, wrongly, to project a picture of the world it prefers to see rather than to describe the world as it is. This is inconsistent with the ethics of journalism and suggests that “elite” media is utilizing propaganda to mold public opinion in a particular direction. In so doing, “elite” media disparages the very concept of “Freedom of the Press,” as embraced by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Freedom of the Press” becomes, instead, a tool of control for those who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights.A corollary to a major myth that NRA is merely an arm of gun manufacturers (the firearms industry) is that the NRA receives all of its funding from the firearms industry and, too, that NRA is run by the firearms industry. This myth is fostered and reinforced by – rather than dispelled by – the “elite” media.

NRA OPERATES TRANSPARENTLY

First, compared with the governance procedures established by other groups, NRA operates much more openly than other organizations and certainly more openly than the antigun groups that so vehemently attack it. And NRA utilizes a democratic process as opposed to an autocratic one. NRA’s numerous life members directly elect its 76-member board of directors. The Board then appoints its executives and functionaries. Contrariwise, antigun groups and some large member organizations, like the AARP, are actually run by small, relatively autocratic cabals.Antigun groups – forever railing against the NRA and insinuating that gun violence in this Country is due to the machinations of the NRA – as if the NRA is or rationally could be responsible for crime and for the criminals and lunatics that cause it – are duplicitous and hypocritical in the extreme. Where antigun groups irrationally call for more and more restrictive gun legislation, NRA calmly reiterates that we ought first to enforce the hundreds of laws we already have on the books. Where antigun groups rail that NRA outspends them, they fail to appreciate that the money NRA has in its coffers comes from the pockets of millions of hard working Americans – not from secretive PACS or from the checkbooks of a few billionaires who, with the stroke of a pen, handily write checks for millions of dollars to keep these antigun groups afloat – gloating over the tens of millions of dollars they can spend, have spent, have available to spend and will continue to spend to push through ever more restrictive gun laws until, by sheer weight of numbers, the Second Amendment topples of its own accord and takes with it the other nine Amendments as well.Where the NRA has the strength of its conviction – in the form of millions of active members who have a vested interest in preserving their sacred Rights under the Bill of Rights – the antigun groups have empty slogans, slick commercials, and highly paid image makers and media consultants, pressed into the service of billionaire plutocrats whose real goal is control over the American public – not curbing gun violence. And, where the NRA upholds the sanctity of the individual, the antigun groups argue the individual’s needs must ever be subservient to the greater good of the collective will.So, as the NRA derives its funds directly from membership dues and contributions, the complaints of antigun group executive officers’ complaints – as echoed by the “elite” media – of how unfair it is that NRA outspends the antigun groups – rings hollow. After all, NRA members outnumber members of these antigun groups on an order of more than 25 to 1. NRA has a true mass membership. Yet, all the while the public is fed the myth, through the “elite” media, that NRA’s membership is dwindling. And, this notion of a dwindling NRA membership is merely one more incoherent remark.Second, while the membership pool of NRA is deep and extensive, the antigun group, “One Million Moms for Gun Control,” is essentially spectral – merely a website and media simulation, and those who run it are well hidden from public view.

NRA ISN’T A GUN LOBBY

But, is there any truth at all to the notion as incessantly bandied about by the antigun crowd and the “elite” media that NRA is a “Gun Lobby?” No. That’s a common misconception; nothing more than a fabrication of antigun groups, trumpeted by the “elite” media.How is the term ‘Gun Lobby’ as applied to NRA a misconception? Let’s see. We must take a look at the meaning of words. Well, what is a ‘lobbyist?’ The term ‘lobbyist’ refers to someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.” Extrapolating from that definition, the term ‘lobby,’ is, then, a collection of lobbyists. The words, ‘lobby’ and ‘lobbyist,’ are words of disparagement. When used in that way – to disparage a person or group – the terminology does not define a group but dehumanizes a target population and makes the group seem less deserving and sympathetic. So, instead of referring to NRA members as a “citizens association,” which is really what it is, the NRA becomes, instead, a non-human, cold, entity – a “lobby,” – which conveys a host of negative connotations, all used to disparage it.Calling NRA a “Gun Lobby” – or “THE Gun Lobby” – is to disparage the NRA. This is a typical propaganda technique. The NRA is decidedly not a “lobby,” according to the conventional definition of the word.Yes, the NRA does engage in lobbying activities. But, then, so do other organizations, like the NAACP, AARP and, for that matter, the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” (formerly, “Handgun Control, Inc.”) and many other groups. But, NRA is not a lobby.Now, there are gun lobbies, but the NRA isn’t one of them, if, as the antigun groups erroneously maintain, the NRA is a lobbying group for the firearms industry.But firearms manufacturers do organize as trade associations and those associations may operate in part as true “gun lobbies.” But those trade associations and their lobbying arms are not NRA. If one insists on referring to NRA as a lobby at all, then it would be fairer and decidedly more accurate to describe NRA as “the American citizen’s Bill of Rights lobby;” for, politically, NRA represents millions of American citizens in support of citizens’ Bill of Rights – and NRA does this often better than the Legislators who are elected to represent Americans. Even so, as we have shown, NRA does much more than lobby, even as such lobbying activities are for American citizens and even as such lobbying efforts are the most worthy of any lobbying an American organization might engage in – the preservation of our liberties, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

NRA EXERCISES ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Now, here’s a secret the editors and bureau chiefs at mainstream news publishers like New York Times and similar news organizations have yet to learn: the main reason NRA is so powerful is because of NRA’s principled application of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the defense of the Second. NRA advances the case for the individual right, natural law meaning of the Second Amendment by the effective application of the social action schematic established by the First Amendment. Mainstream journalists who attack NRA – who see themselves as enshrined and elevated in the social hierarchy above those who write for weblogs – often using disparaging phrases like, “gossip mongers” and “tellers of tales” when referring to weblog writers – clearly see themselves as distinctly superior to other news writers, believing, apparently, that the word, ‘Press,’ as it appears in the First Amendment, only applies to them. These mainstream news journalists don’t seem to note the irony in their remarks. For, it’s the weblogs that, all too often, provide real news; and it’s the mainstream media that fills the print medium and the airwaves with false news – mere propaganda – false news that aims to mold public thought and opinion rather than create a neutral platform upon which the American citizen might exercise his own critical faculties to discern the truth.And what are the First Amendment guarantees for Americans? The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to voluntarily associate, free of any system of beliefs established by government. The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to discuss, promote and publish their ideas. The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to peacefully petition government officials and representatives for needed change.The Founders of our Republic did not intend for “the Press” to function as a propaganda implement – an institution to be operated by a privileged few in order to control everyone else. But, this is what the “Press” qua “mainstream media” has become – a mechanism of control. This mechanism of control comprises a slew of mass media professionals, employed by plutocrats, who give these “professional journalists” one salient task: brainwash the American citizenry. And these “professional journalists” do so with impunity, in accordance with their masters’ dictates. That is most unfortunate. However, what is fortunate is that a person need not have a license to practice the craft of journalism. In that respect journalism is unlike the professions of law or medicine. And that truly is fortunate.Today, the twin freedoms: freedom of the Press + freedom of speech give the People a voice – a voice that provides the People with a counterweight to the lies perpetrated by those that think “Freedom of the Press” applies only to an institution – an institution they control, an institution under the sway of a privileged few – a privileged few that seeks, through their control of the “Press,” the means to amass ever more power and authority for themselves at the expense of the American citizenry. And, with that power, these privileged few seek to control the lives of the many.

NRA SAFEGUARDS OUR REPUBLIC

The role for voluntary associations such as NRA in a healthy democratic social order is not only important, it is vital to the safeguarding of the Republic as envisioned by the Founders and as etched in stone in that Republic’s Bill of Rights. NRA is above all an informational node. It publishes magazines, hosts websites, and webcasts news services that have millions of subscribers. It provides information to lawmakers and policymakers. It dispenses educational information to students, citizens and firearm safety trainers. It targets information and makes it available where it will do the most good. It promotes meetings and democratic discussion, both in its national seminars, but also in it alliances and affiliations with numerous local and State associations. Without this sort of small and local group structure that allows immediate and small group discussion between equals – there is no effective democracy and our Republic falls.The historical roots of American Gun Culture and NRA go together seamlessly. They work well because they infuse the very power of democratic ideas, information, reasoned discussion and participation. The American citizenry is empowered to join in as true participants, not merely as passive observers of distant events, staged by “their betters” – the plutocrats in Washington. This makes for a true democratic society. For, it is the American citizenry that sets the agenda – an agenda that serves the American citizenry’s interests.This paradigm is not only to be preferred, it is essential to the existence of a Republic. For, if it is the plutocrats in Washington who set the agenda – then, the agenda envisioned will serve the interests of a few, and those interests are antithetical to right embodied in the Second Amendment and those interests are antithetical to the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Those interests are inconsistent with the principles of a democratic Republic.When it comes to “Informational Democracy,” NRA not only better serves the citizenry – as it is the American citizenry that has an essential role in the functioning of the NRA – the NRA’s interests coincide with and embrace the very preservation of and strengthening of the Second Amendment upon which the other Nine Amendments remain secure. Knowledge is Power. The NRA provides the public with the truth concerning the American citizen’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. So, it stands to reason that the forces that seek to crush the U.S. Constitution would seek to undermine the ability of NRA to proffer truth to the American public as well.

WHY IS NRA THE FOCUS OF ATTACK?

NRA is a threat to the plutocrats because NRA exposes the plutocrats’ lies.  At present the plutocrats who seek to control the American citizenry cannot directly attack the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment; for, to do so, amounts to an attack against a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.What do they do? They attack the NRA obliquely through caustic remarks such as: the NRA only wants to sell guns; the NRA is against sensible gun control laws; the NRA lobbies on behalf of gun manufacturers and not on behalf of Americans; and the NRA isn’t serious about reducing gun violence in America. Implicit in all these remarks, is the notion that the NRA’s primary purpose and function – its modern day raison d’etre, is political influence and legislative action. If so, why is that?Now, it’s certainly true the NRA operates in the political arena, albeit that isn’t its only reason for its existence in the 21st Century. But the NRA’s political operation isn’t something its members or officers had originally sought to do or wished to do. Rather, the NRA was reluctantly compelled to enter the political arena by groups that are themselves politically motivated and, in fact, have no reason to exist other than to defeat the Second Amendment and by extension – to defeat the greatest protector of the Second Amendment – the NRA.

THE MYRIAD THREADS OF NRA COME TOGETHER

If there is a central theme running through the myriad marksmanship and training programs offered and sponsored by the NRA, that theme is reflected in this assertion, as presented prominently on the NRA website: “The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. We’re proud defenders of history’s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.”

WHENCE THE ANTIGUN GROUPS?

Curiously, the antigun lobbies and PACS, unlike the NRA, which is well over one century old, are of recent vintage. One of the oldest, “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” is only 40 years old, as it proudly trumpets its 40th Anniversary on its website. Another, “The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence” is scarcely 14 years old. “The Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence” is but one and one-half years old. And, “the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence” that started in 1973, is scarcely over 40 years old. Perhaps the most well-known  antigun group is “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence.” It started in 1974 as the “National Committee to Control Handguns.”One begins to see a curious theme here. Most of these antigun groups had their start in the 1970s. Was this just coincidence,or was there another hand at work here, mapping out strategies to undermine and destroy the Second Amendment?While these antigun groups all claim that the greater threat to civility in this Country is the “Gun Lobby,” code for the NRA – as that is how these groups prefer to call the NRA, as we’ve seen – one can see as well that it’s the antigun groups themselves that are truly nothing more than lobbying arms and politically motivated action committees for the plutocrats.These groups, as fronts for cabals of powerful forces both within the Country and outside it, realize that, in order to undercut the Second Amendment, it is necessary to defeat the NRA. So, the NRA, on behalf of millions of Americans, who wish nothing more than to secure their rights under the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – was compelled, reluctantly, to enter the political arena – to become a political force – a considerable political force – to be reckoned with in its own right.

MYTH AND TRUTH PLAY OUT

On balance, we see truth and myth both played out. The NRA’s goals are straightforward and virtuous: to preserve and protect the integrity of the Second Amendment. Contrariwise, the myriad antigun groups, springing up virtually at the same time – during the 1970s – have had and, today, continue to have, one goal: the destruction of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is their salient aim. That is their reason for being. And, in that singular disingenuous pursuit, they have operated  and continue to operate as top-down propaganda campaigns, financed by plutocrats and ideologues.The one force that can and has stopped them is the NRA. These groups know it, and American citizens know it.It is obvious that the stated purpose of these political groups – to prevent gun violence – is nothing more than a blind. We already have hundreds of so-called “commonsense” gun laws: laws banning felons from possessing guns and laws banning the violent and the mentally ill from possessing guns. We also have background checks. But, the plutocrats, through their antigun front groups, constantly insist on more.Obviously, it isn’t violent crimes with guns that motivate these plutocrats even if the dupes who do their bidding buy into the lies propagated. Many of the anti-gun groups seem to believe in absolute centralized governmental power, which maintains that all rights spring from and are distributed by government. This idea is an anathema to the founders of the Republic and inconsistent with the principles of Liberty as set down in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights.The plutocrats obviously have no use for the idea of natural inalienable rights. They wish to dictate behavior for all Americans. And in that process, they want to destroy their Rights and Liberties.

WHAT, THEN, MUST WE DO TO CURB THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

Most Americans understand the nature of the danger lurking in the shadows, the nature of the danger hidden in the seemingly benign call for purported “commonsense gun laws” – laws that in their mode of expression and in their very essence – do nothing but erode the citizen’s basic freedoms, independence,  and personal autonomy; erode the sanctity and inalienable right of each individual American to be individual.Americans must fight these false flag groups at every turn. There is power in information and in knowledge, and in a true civil society. The NRA is our best ally in that effort. The NRA is your best ally in that effort.Whether you have a gun in your possession or not is unimportant. And, it’s unimportant whether you care ever to purchase a gun. What is important – what is critical to the existence of our Democratic Republic – is the Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights must be preserved – indeed strengthened – at every turn. The Bill of Rights consists of Ten Amendments. The NRA’s efforts preserve and protect all of them – not just the Second Amendment. And, your membership dollars is an investment in the preservation of the Bill of Rights – all ten of them.So, the next time you feel that one week’s worth of café lattes at Starbucks is more important to your personal well-being than the cost of an annual membership in the NRA, recall that thought as you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper that the Bill of Rights has been preempted by Federal Statute, International Pacts and Treaties, and Presidential Executive Orders and Signing Statements. Those café lattes will probably taste a tad bitter.Keep in mind, by giving NRA a few dollars you’re not doing NRA a favor. NRA is doing you a favor! America’s Bill of Rights is uniquely American. It’s your birthright. Don’t let anyone take your Birthright from you! Support the NRA! Join now![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Brian Anse Patrick, Ph.D., Professor, University of Toledo All Rights Reserved.

HOW DID THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT BECOME LAW? LET’S ASK THE “THREE MEN IN A ROOM?

A new scandal has hit Albany, New York – a big one!  The arrest of the powerful New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, by the FBI, on Friday, January 23, 2015, has sent shock waves across the State, most likely affecting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Administration. The arrest of Sheldon Silver on corruption charges has less to do with Silver than it does for the way legislation affecting the rights and liberties of over 20 million New Yorkers has been and continues to be compromised by an elite group of elected officials – the “three men in a room” – Governor Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Silver, and the State Senate leader – whom the Governor has jokingly referred to as “the three amigos.” An overview of the Complaint filed in federal court, on January 21, 2015, bears this point out. It provides a disturbing picture of how business has been conducted in Albany for many, many years. The Complaint says in pertinent part: “Sheldon Silver, the defendant, has engaged in and continues to engage in a secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of New York of his honest services, and to extort individuals and entities under color of official right, as an elected legislator and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly.”The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s filing of felony corruption charges against Silver may cause Governor Cuomo to distance himself from the Assembly Speaker. Cuomo’s own actions cast a bright and disturbing light on Cuomo as well.On July 2, 2013 Cuomo created the Moreland Commission. Its purpose was twofold: to root out the very corruption the Complaint alleges Silver must now answer for and provide better governance for the residents of the State of New York. The Moreland Commission had the potential to be a good thing for New York State residents and it appears to be a bad thing for Silver.U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who filed the criminal case against Sheldon Silver on January 21, 2015, had testified before the Moreland Commission more than one year earlier. On September 17, 2013, Bharara pledged “the cooperation and assistance of [his] office with the Commission’s vitally important work.” He added, “Fighting public corruption has been a top priority for [Bharara] for a long while. . . .”Many of New York’s elite Legislators railed against the Commission and sued to have it disbanded. In their own filing, those Legislators argued the Commission’s actions trampled the Legislators’ Constitutional Rights. Imagine that.Less than one year after forming the Commission, Cuomo said, on March 29, 2014, he was disbanding it. On April 3, 2014 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District sent a letter to the Commission. In it Bharara said he was taking possession of the Commission’s case files. He questioned whether the Governor was abandoning his commitment to fight public corruption. Cuomo, for his part, was petulant. According to a story published in Crain’s Insider on April 24, 2014, Cuomo told Crain’s: “‘It’s not a legal question. It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow.’” His power seems omnipotent.The concentration of power in New York has been, for many years, in the hands of a Triarchy, reminiscent of the First and Second Triumvirates that ruled ancient Rome. This modern Triarchy consists of the Governor, the Assembly Speaker, and the State Senate Leader. It has worked in secret, under cloak of darkness, without accountability. These three individuals seem to answer only to themselves as if they do not have to account to the public and do not have to account for their actions.Did these “three amigos” engineer the New York Safe Act and thrust it down the throats of New York residents and gun owners sans debate? It certainly seems so.News accounts report that Silver has temporarily stepped down as Assembly Speaker. However, in light of the serious criminal corruption charges the U.S. Attorney has brought against the Assembly Speaker, we question the wisdom of allowing Silver to continue to serve in the New York Assembly at all during the pendency of the case against him.There is another pressing issue that must be addressed. Since the propriety of the actions of “the three amigos” is in question, we feel the New York public has the right – in fact, the duty – to insist on a probe of how the New York Safe Act was drafted; how it was enacted; and, to what extent, if any, the creators of it knew or had good reason to know that enactment of the Act might undermine New York residents’ Constitutional Rights.If corruption is uncovered any step of the way, then the Safe Act should be repealed in its entirety.Despite the fact that some New York residents exhibit animosity toward guns and gun possession, elected officials, including and especially New York Legislators and the Governor, must operate with transparency and fairness on behalf of their constituencies.Any legislation – especially far-reaching legislation, such as the New York Safe Act, that negatively impacts not only one’s Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, but one’s Fifth Amendment private property interest in those firearms, and one’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights – must be discussed in the light of day, before enactment. The New York Safe Act wasn’t enacted protecting these Rights. The impetus for it and passage of it all took place in secretive session, out of the public view. Why? The “three amigos” must explain their actions.How was the New York Safe Act pushed through the Legislature so quickly? How were these individuals able to get away with this? Did the “three amigos” honestly think they were acting on behalf of the New York public for the benefit of the public, as the mainstream media portrayed them? Or were they merely furthering a private agenda, using the power of their respective Office to systematically deprive millions of New York residents and gun owners of their Rights and Liberties under both the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution? Did political ambitions motivate these individuals? If so, how? These are serious questions. And they deserve serious consideration. The public demands answers. The public demands accountability. New York residents and citizens must speak up. The damage to the Public’s Constitutional Rights and Liberties must be undone. The time to act is now.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS DUPE THE PUBLIC ON GUN DEBATE

It is a curious fact that mainstream newspapers consistently fail to provide their readers with logically sound, consistent, coherent, cogent arguments to support their case against civilian ownership of guns. Indeed, there isn’t a pretense to do so. Rather, these newspapers prefer to recite banal normative prescriptions, empty slogans, and vague statements devoid of any meaningful content. The mainstream newspapers take as a given that civilian gun ownership is untenable. And upon that faulty foundation they spout pious sentiments and posit specious propositions, ostensibly to support a doubtful moral position.A few days ago, on September 27, 2014, Joe Nocera, an opinion columnist for The New York Times, wrote a piece titled, “Paralysis isn’t Inevitable.” In that Op-Ed Nocera says Congress can act to pass more gun laws. He points to a strategy Daniel Webster  Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, proposes to accomplish that.According to Webster, “It’s a loser to call for a gun ban.” Instead {Webster’s} reforms would make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns. Using background checks, {Webster} would keep guns away from people who have a history of violence. {Webster} would raise the age of gun ownership to 21. (Webster notes that homicides peak between the ages of 18 and 20). . . . And {Webster} would mandate something called microstamping, ‘which would make it possible to trace a gun used in a crime to its first purchaser. . . .’ And {Webster} pointed to polls that show the vast majority of gun owners favor such changes.”Nocera then quotes, with approval, Webster’s obligatory attack on the NRA. “The N.R.A. has been very successful in controlling the conversation and making it about a cultural war. . . . But, I believe that narrative won’t persist. The key . . . is to change the conversation so that it is about pro- and anti-crime instead of pro- and anti-gun. . . . I think that ultimately that idea will prevail, and it will be a pretty mainstream idea.”Before we analyze the various assertions expressed in this Op-Ed, keep in mind that the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is not a neutral think tank. It has an agenda and that agenda is decidedly unfavorable toward the Second Amendment. Its purpose: “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research began in 1995 with funding from the Joyce Foundation of Chicago. It is dedicated to reducing gun violence by providing information on firearm injuries and gun policy; by developing, analyzing, and evaluating strategies to prevent firearm injuries; and by conducting public health and legal research to identify gun policy needs.”You will note the absence of any mention of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the context of the Center’s mission statement. The normative argument implicit in the Center’s mission statement and as tacitly conveyed in Nocera’s Op-Ed is this: anything that the Center perceives as harmful to the public is morally reprehensible and must be banned. Guns are perceived as harmful to the public. Therefore guns must be banned. That is the moral argument – the normative prescription against gun ownership and possession. And, the goal of the “The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research" is clear enough from a perusal of its mission statement. Colloquially expressed the goal is simply this: Get guns out of the hands of the civilian population. Now, let’s take a look at the fallacies and speciousness of Webster’s assertions as cited, nonetheless, with approval in Nocera’s NY Times Op-Ed piece.First, we might well ask how Webster’s strategies prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Clearly, criminals aren’t prevented from obtaining guns. But, a good chunk of law-abiding American citizenry would be precluded from obtaining guns if any of these strategies became law. Apparently, Webster and Nocera equate criminals – who have never had a problem obtaining guns – with law-abiding citizens, whom they do not wish to have access to guns.Second, Webster says that, “it is a loser to call for a gun ban.” No kidding and rightly so! Yet, in the very assertion Webster admits the need to deceive the public. To get the public to cajole Congress to enact further restrictive gun laws, it is necessary to get the public to think less about the law-abiding citizen’s right to own and possess guns and more about criminals who misuse guns. Of course, Webster fails to acknowledge the myriad laws on the books that prohibit criminals from owning guns – laws that are rarely, if ever, enforced. So, Webster’s desire for further restrictive laws against gun ownership and possession must be directed, not against the career criminal, but, rather, against the law-abiding citizen.Third, knowing that laws against ownership of guns by law-abiding Americans won’t fly, Webster suggests attacking the right to keep and bear arms obliquely, through the device of “background checks.” Note: Webster hasn’t mentioned using background checks to target criminals. Rather, he wishes to target two other exponentially larger population groups: those under the age of 21, specifically those between the ages of 18 and 20, and those whom, he says, “have a history of violence.”Let’s take a closer look at these two groups. It should be obvious to all Americans that the minimum age of enlistment in any of the armed forces is 17. So, an American citizen may, as a soldier, handle and possess sophisticated weaponry at age 17, but Webster and Nocera would deny an American citizen, as a civilian, to own and possess a gun until he or she is 21.You see where this is going. Say a young man or woman leaves the military at age 20. A person risks life and limb to serve his and her Country and is perfectly adept at handling firearms; but, as a civilian, that American citizen isn’t permitted to own a firearm because he or she falls into an age group that, according to Webster, happens to have the highest rates of homicide. Dubious statistics trumps ice-cold logic.Fourth, and what does the phrase “a history of violence” mean: That a person who had ever said a discouraging word to another person is violent? That a person who was depressed at some point in his or her life is presumptively violent against self and/or against others? That a person who had ever had an altercation with another for whatever reason is violent? That a soldier or sailor or airman who had engaged in armed conflict is violent? Cannot such an open-ended phrase, “a history of violence,” sweep into the clutches of the gun grabbers literally millions of honest, law-abiding Americans? Undoubtedly, Webster wishes to keep the phrase as open-ended and as amorphous as possible, to corral millions of law-abiding Americans.Fifth, Webster and Nocera refer to that “something” or other called microstamping that would enable the police to trace a gun “to its first purchaser.” The emphasis here is on tracing a gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal who actually used the gun in the commission of a crime. So, a criminal plants cartridge shells at the scene of the crime or steals a gun from a law-abiding firearms owner. The police duly “trace” the gun “to its first purchaser,” and not to the criminal. And, we are to conclude that microstamping is an acceptable forensics tool for law enforcement? Really? Clearly, microstamping of firearms is worse than useless. Apparently, Webster and Nocera think otherwise. Perhaps they simply don’t care, reasoning that, if a law-abiding person didn’t have a gun in the first place, the gun could never be traced back to him. So, the moral is: don’t own a gun!Sixth, and what about those opinion polls? Without referring to any particular poll, Webster says that, in the wake of Newtown, gun owners favor changes to existing gun laws. What changes is Webster referring to? And, what questions were asked of “gun owners” whom Webster claims support “changes?” Certainly, one can phrase a question in a multitude of ways to elicit any answer the questioner wishes. And, asking a question about guns, when emotions run high, is not the time to push through legislation. The public should be treated with respect. And appeals should be directed to one’s higher cognitive functions, not to the emotive center of one’s brain.Seventh, Webster attacks the NRA. The antigun crowd always attacks the NRA. Webster asserts the NRA controls the conversation about guns. If that were only true! Actually, the NRA is forever compelled to repel insistent attacks against it and against the Second Amendment. Webster says the NRA makes the issue about guns a “cultural war.” Since when is the battle to preserve and secure our sacred Bill of Rights reduced to a matter of personal aesthetics, which, apparently, is what Webster is getting at through use of the word ‘culture?’ And, when, if ever, did the NRA profess a cavalier attitude toward crime? Webster suggests that any pro-gun argument, which, actually, is a pro Bill of Rights Second Amendment argument, entails acquiescence toward gun violence. That is absolutely false, but Webster creates the association anyway suggesting, ludicrously, that the NRA, by being strong on guns, is soft on crime.Bottom line: don’t look to the mainstream news media for cogent, well-reasoned arguments. You won’t get them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GEE, IF YOU’RE GOING TO COMMIT MURDER, PLEASE USE A GUN!

This from the NY Times: “The parents of the first three victims of Elliot O. Rodger’s murderous rampage [re: the Santa Barbara killings on May 23, 2014] said they were frustrated by the authorities handling of the case. . . . It was not clear how the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death [all young men, not women]. In a joint interview, the parents told The Washington Post that they had visited the crime scene and had seen no blood on the walls or ceiling. The police had removed a 6-by-5 foot piece of carpeting in one bedroom, and a swath of vinyl flooring around the toilet had been cut out. They said the limited amount of material removed from the apartment suggested the killings had been confined to a small space. They criticized the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s department for not telling them how it believed the killings had been carried out, and said they were angered by public health and legal systems that they said valued the rights of the mentally ill, including Mr. Rodger, over those who may become their victims.” New York Times, “Inquiry Vexes Parents of 3 Slain in Spree.”The Article appeared on page 15 of the Sunday, June 22, 2014 edition of the N.Y. Times. What’s immediately evident, given a description of the knifing attack that killed three men, is that a knife is as useful a killing implement as a gun in the hands of a person who’s set on doing violence to another – in this case, to three others, all other men. That point, although evident to any sensible person, isn’t evident to the N.Y. Times. The paper demonstrates incredulity that “the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death.” So, we are to assume the New York Times would not have any reason to doubt Mr. Rodger’s ability to snuff the life out of the three young men had he done the proper thing and used a gun on them as he had on the young women whom next he killed. That would have made good copy for the paper and would certainly be consistent with the fanciful world the paper has created for its readers: (1) guns alone are the main vehicle of and hallmark of violence in America; (2) it is easy to kill with a gun, but not so easy to kill with any other object; (3) if a person is going on a killing rampage, it is best that he do so using a gun, for otherwise, how can the public be duped into going along with a complete gun ban if any other object can be utilized to kill another just as easily; and (4) killers have a decided preference for guns. Unfortunately, for the NY Times and the antigun zealots, Elliot Rodger didn’t go along with the game plan. Apparently, he wasn’t aware of the four axioms of antigun logic. Perhaps Rodger didn’t want to show he was prejudiced in his choice of killing implements. Be that as it may, the three young men Rodger killed with a knife, in lieu of a gun, are just as dead. No doubt the New York Times would’ve loved to interview both Rodger and his male victims to get a handle on just how the slight Elliot O. Rodger was able to kill three men in close quarters, with but a knife.The last sentence of the N.Y. Times Article makes an important point although you might miss it at first glance: “Sheriff Bill Brown [of the Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department] has said the three men were stabbed repeatedly with sharp objects and [he] called the crime scene ‘pretty horrific.’”  Did you catch it? Probably not; and that’s understandable – because what you missed wasn’t there to be found. It was a point that the New York Times never fails to make when reporting on horrific gun violence. But, nonetheless, the newspaper did fail to make the point here. For, curiously absent from that last sentence of the NY Times Article and – indeed – what is curiously and notably absent from the entirety of that June 22^nd New York Times news article, is any remonstration against the horrors of knives and the need to get knives out of the hands of civilians. Obviously, the New York Times didn’t choose to dwell on the lethality of knives. The New York Times didn’t, in fact, choose to make anything of it. The New York Times wished decidedly and decisively, to avoid any discussion about it. The New York Times isn't interested in curbing ownership and possession of knives. The New York Times is interested in curbing ownership and possession of guns.The N.Y. Times, like any other mainstream newspaper, often distorts facts when writing about horrendous events – namely and particularly, when writing about horrific events involving the misuse of firearms. But, this June 22^nd Times article also shows that a mainstream newspaper can, when it so chooses, refrain from distorting facts. You can see, from a perusal of the June 22^nd article, that the newspaper happened not to interject opinions – if indeed the newspaper had any – about knives and the use of knives to commit violent acts, apart from the Times singularly odd statement pertaining to its incredulity about a slight man killing three other men with a knife. Mainstream newspapers and their outlets – as a rule, though – aren’t interested in stating facts and permitting the public to draw its own conclusions from unbiased, unfiltered reporting of the facts. These newspapers all too often feel a need to shape public opinion and to direct it or redirect it to a desired end – at odds with the public’s own best interests. So, what are we getting at here? Just this:The New York Times, like other mainstream newspapers has an agenda. And, that agenda isn't one focused on knives and the misuse of knives -- at least at this point in time. It's an agenda that's focused squarely on guns and their use and misuse -- indeed, on the mere fact of the gun's existence. So, when a horrific act occurs through misuse of an implement other than the misuse of a gun, the horrific act of violence only serves to deflect criticism away from the single-minded pursuit of the antigun crowd and of its allies in the U.S. Congress and in the State Legislatures and in the mainstream media who wish first and foremost to ban guns -- all guns -- from the hands of the civilian citizenry. Moreover, when a horrific act occurs through use of an implement other than a gun, the public becomes aware that the entire issue of violence in society isn't, rationally, one that is properly centered around guns -- which are but inanimate objects devoid of sentience -- but, rather, the issue of violence in society is one  that, rationally and properly, is centered on the perpetrators of the violence, namely, the individuals who perpetrate the violence:  criminal psychopaths and psychotics. Thus, the answer to violence in society must perforce begin and end by dealing with the root cause of that violence, namely, the individual perpetrator of it, and not with the object or objects the perpetrator happens to use to effectuate that violence, be that object a gun, knife, club or any other object.  So, suppose Elliot O. Rodger hadn’t used a knife in any of the attacks. Imagine if you will that Elliot O. Rodger had killed all his victims with a gun. Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times Article would have plainly and succinctly set forth the anguish of the parents of the three men Elliot Rodger had murdered, without also addressing the matter of the implement used in the horrific attack and the need to regulate the ownership and possession of that destructive implement by civilians? Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times would so easily dismiss the use of a gun by Rodger – that the paper would be content merely to set forth the fact of the murders, perhaps referring to use of a gun in the murders and leave the matter at that, without drawing upon antigun sentiment and interjecting comments about the evils of guns? Of course not. The N.Y. Times would talk about the evils of guns in order to foment public outrage toward guns, rather than toward the perpetrator of the violent act or acts, as if to suggest that the existence of evil were a property of the object -- the gun -- rather than of the individual who committed the horrific act.  And, that's absolutely absurd. But, the N.Y Times is less interested on focusing attention on the individual who commits the horrific act and more interested on focusing attention on the object the perpetrator uses to commit the horrific act when the object is a gun. At that point the newspaper at once digresses from reporting the facts pertaining to the horrific act, and propagandizes about the supposed evils attendant to guns. And that misuse of reporting bespeaks an agenda and a wish that, if a horrific act occurs, it's best the object utilized be a gun, rather than any other object. For then the horrific act becomes a useful statistic -- one that might be used by antigun groups to support a call for a ban on gun ownership and possession. If, however, an object other than a gun -- such as a knife -- is used by a perpetrator of a horrific act, the use of such a non-gun object to commit a horrific act only dilutes the argument against guns as sources of evil. For such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from guns. And, in fact, such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from any implement used in the commission of a violent act -- whether the object is a gun, knife, club or any other inanimate object and compels -- truly forces -- one to look deep and hard at the individual perpetrator of violence -- at the perpetrator's incongruous rationalizations for committing a horrific act of violence, which is where one's attention ought to be focused and should have been focused all along. That focus should not be directed on the implement of violence. For to place such focus and emphasis on an implement -- such as a gun -- rather than on the individual serves to minimize, to diminish, the individual's personal and sole responsibility and accountability for his actions. The individual who commits the horrific act with a gun becomes, then, not the central participant, but, rather, the abettor of the criminal act. And the object used to commit the crime -- the object used to perpetrate the horrific act -- the gun -- becomes, itself, the salient and principal participant in the criminal act. It is as if the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers wish, then, "to jail" the miscreant gun, arguing that we, the American public, should agree to do just that and that we, the American public, may be able to do just that -- through the device of a total ban on civilian ownership and possession of guns. Such, of course, is not an action the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers would wish to see realized -- at least at this moment in time -- for knives.So it is that, in the June 22nd N.Y. Times article, we see that the focus of the article was not on the evil of knives, as objects used in the commission of violent acts. The focus was on the perpetrator of the horrific act, Elliot O. Rodger. And the focus was on the Santa Barbara County sheriff's department that had the responsibility to investigate the triple murder of the three young men. And the focus was on the parents of the three young men who Rodger murdered. And the focus of the N.Y. Times article was on the parents' legitimate concern over the thoroughness of the investigation and on the failure of the legal and mental health systems that had failed to properly deal with an obviously very ill individual, Elliot O. Rodger. What the focus of the N.Y. Times article was not on were knives; nor should the focus of the N.Y. Times article have been on knives -- inanimate, non-sentient objects. The June 22nd article simply stuck to the facts. And, that’s all the N.Y. Times did in the June 22^nd article – simply report the use of a knife by Rodger, to murder three men and to assert the anguish of the families who lost their loved ones. The N.Y. Times did not go into a tirade over the evil of knives. The N.Y. Times did not use the incident to call for regulations on knife possession and ownership. But, if Rodger had killed the young men with a gun, as he had the young women, then, most certainly, the N.Y. Times would’ve written a polemic on the evil of guns and would’ve argued long and hard, in that article, how those young men would most certainly not have died but for the presence of guns in American society. And, while such polemic might be posited in the op-ed section of the newspaper, the N.Y. Times would, invariably, place its opinions in the news section of the paper, wrongly suggesting to its readership that its views about guns aren't mere opinions at all -- but are hard, cold facts. We know the N.Y. Times myriad opinions about guns are invariably wrong. But, to proclaim opinions -- false beliefs -- to be hard, cold facts is ethically wrong and duplicitous -- deceptive in the extreme.The New York Times, as with all mainstream newspapers, no longer leaves opinions to the op-ed section of their respective papers, but constantly interjects opinions in the news sections of the papers. So, gun related murders require some discussion of the need to regulate guns. Gun related murders require some discussion of the so-called “gun lobby” and of gun manufacturers and of the need for so-called “common-sense gun laws.” But, you’d have to search long and hard – and it’s unlikely you’d meet with success – to find mainstream news media stories calling for “common-sense knife laws” or “knife laws we can live with” or the need to curb the “knife lobby” or the need to place restraints on knife manufacturers, whenever a lunatic or psychopathic gang member or your “run of the mill” homicidal killer murders an innocent person with a knife. Clearly, mainstream newspapers like the N.Y. Times aren't interested in curbing knife ownership and possession. Those newspapers are interested in curbing gun ownership and possession. And, by expressing their personal wishes as to what ought to be done about gun ownership and possession in the news sections of their respective papers, they wrongly associate personal beliefs and wishes with facts. That journalistic practice must end!Mainstream news organizations demonstrate callousness – or – perhaps it’s more appropriate to say, schizophrenia – when it comes to reporting stories involving violence. If the violent act involves anything other than the use of guns, the news story is confined to a discussion of the perpetrator and his victims and the events surrounding the violent act.  However, if the violent act involves the use of a firearm, then, a distinct matter – one altogether unrelated to the people involved and time, place and circumstances of the crime – is added to the mix.  It is one that invokes morality, philosophy, psychology and the politics of gun ownership and possession. The newspaper’s purpose and focus changes: from one limited to reporting the news to one attempting to make news – by shaping public opinion and driving public action. And, there is a phrase used to describe such newspapers that aim to provoke the public. It’s called “yellow journalism.”Yellow journalism was much in vogue in the 19^th Century. A relic of time, it has been used in the 20^th Century, and it has become a veritable art form in the 21^st. And it is indeed used with masterful success by mainstream newspapers, including the N.Y. Times. In stooping to politicking and provocation the newspaper discredits itself and discredits, as well, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For, the paper misuses the very power the Founders gave to it – that is to say – the very power the Founders gave to the Press: the unfettered, fundamental right to inform the Public.The founders perceived the Press as critical to the wellbeing of our Republic. The Press wasn’t to be relegated to the status of tool of those with a secret agenda – one embracing the very destruction of that Republic. But, to function as a tool of others who have a secret agenda, the N.Y. Times appears, most unfortunately, to be perfectly content.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DWAYNE FERGUSON PLEADS GUILTY ON WEAPONS CHARGE. BUT WILL HE LOSE HIS "CARRY" LICENSE? WILL HE LOSE HIS HANDGUNS?

You may recall the Dwayne Ferguson case. But, for those of you who might have forgotten, we give you the following facts, as posted first in the Arbalest Quarrel on February 23, 2014: “Officials at Harvey Austin Elementary School, located in Buffalo, New York, received an anonymous tip. A person had entered the school with a gun. The police were alerted; a SWAT team responded, and the school was ‘locked down.’ Scouring the school, the police eventually traced the weapon to a dubious source: Dewayne Ferguson. Ferguson, 52 years old, father of three, operator of a printing press, who worked as a security guard for community events, was caught. He had carried a gun into a school building. At no time, during the police sweep of the building, did Ferguson inform the police he had a gun on him. What was Ferguson doing in the school? He isn’t a teacher. Still, Ferguson had a legitimate purpose for being at the School, but that purpose did not extend to his having a gun on him.The Buffalo News said that ‘Ferguson is not employed by the Buffalo School District but was working in the 21st Century Community Learning Program, an after-school academic enrichment initiative that tutors disadvantaged students.’ The police arrested Ferguson and he was charged under the same law he fought to pass – the NYSAFE Act. According to WGRZ-TV, a Buffalo news station, Ferguson pleaded not guilty to two weapons charges. WGRZ-TV also reported that prosecutors asked the Court to set bail at $10,000.00, but “City Court Judge Jeanette Ogden released the activist on his own recognizance, citing his community involvement and the fact that Ferguson has no prior run-ins with the law.Ferguson, a proponent of NYSAFE, is a friend of ‘antigun’ zealots who promoted it. As reported by The Buffalo News, ‘he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony.’ Ironically, Ferguson was charged under the same law he advocated for.”In a follow-up to our February 23, 2014 Article, posted on April 25, 2014, we gave you an in depth review of the laws affecting Ferguson as an attorney would view the matter: first, citing the charges brought against Ferguson together with the Court docket numbers and, second, we explained precisely what those two charges mean.There were two weapons’ charges brought against Dwayne Ferguson and there are two docket numbers as the two charges were initially filed in the Buffalo City Court; one charge was dropped and the case was waived to Erie County Supreme Court because of the severity of both charges, as both charges amounted to felonies, and either weapons’ count was beyond the jurisdiction of City Court:“The police brought Ferguson to Buffalo City Court. The Prosecutor arraigned Ferguson on two weapons charges: Penal Code Sections 265.03 and 265.01-a. The case is: People vs. Dwayne Ferguson. The case was initially brought in Buffalo City Court.  The criminal docket number in the Buffalo City Court is: #ER 002043F. The case was subsequently transferred to the Erie County Supreme Court. The criminal docket number in the Erie County Court is: #00235-2014.”Here is a detailed account of the two weapons charges as filed against Ferguson:Let’s look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. ‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when: (1) with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person: (a) possesses a machine-gun; or (b) possesses a loaded firearm; or (c) possesses a disguised gun; or (2) such person possesses five or more firearms; or (3) such person possesses any loaded firearm. . . . Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.’We look at Penal Code Section 265.01-a next. ‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college, or university, . . . . Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.’Now let’s take a closer look at these Statutes for the Ferguson case.We will look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. We know Ferguson did not intend to use his handgun against another person. So, condition “1” of Section 265.03 is irrelevant. That leaves Penal Code Sections 265.03(2) or (3). Neither applies. I explain. We must look to Penal Code Section 265.20. This is an exemption provision Section in the New York Penal Code. Let’s take a look at Penal Code Section 265.20(a)(3). “Paragraph [h] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 and sections 265.01, 265.01-a, subdivision one of section 265.01-b, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15, 265.36, 265.37 and 270.05 shall not apply to: Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph [e] or [f] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this article which is registered pursuant to paragraph [a] of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter or is included on an amended license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter.” What does this mean?Dwayne Ferguson has a license to carry a handgun. So, even though Ferguson had a firearm on him – and presumably a loaded firearm – Penal Code Section 265.03 doesn’t apply to him. Ferguson’s handgun license allows for him to carry a loaded firearm. The City Prosecutor properly dismissed the Section 265.03 charge. That left Penal Code Section 265.01-a. Again, let’s take a look at Section 265.01-a.‘A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes. . . .’ ‘Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.’In the April 25 Article we left off, speculating what might happen to Dwayne Ferguson on the Section 265.01-a charge. We don’t need to speculate about this any longer. We now know. The Grand Jury was never convened. The First Assistant District Attorney didn’t need to convene a Grand Jury because Ferguson pleaded guilty to the Section 265.01-a weapons’ charge last week, Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in Erie County Supreme Court where he stood before Judge John Michalski. Now, you may rightly ask, why did Dwayne Ferguson plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge, rather than fighting the charge in Court?Well, we know the best case scenario for Ferguson would have been for the Erie Country First Assistant District Attorney, who prosecuted the case, to dismiss the charge against Ferguson. But that wasn’t going to happen. What then were Ferguson’s options? Actually, there was only one. Had he not pleaded out, the First Assistant District Attorney would have brought the matter before the Grand Jury. There was always the possibility the Grand Jury, when presented with the District Attorney’s evidence against Dwayne Ferguson, might have decided against indicting him. Granted, that possibility existed – slim though it was, virtually non-existent, really. But Ferguson might have taken a chance just the same, hoping the Grand Jury wouldn’t indict him: that would have ended the matter; the School gun charge against him would have been dropped; and, likely, Ferguson’s two handguns would have been returned him and it would be as if the matter had never had happened. But, if the Grand Jury did indict, then Ferguson would have had to face a trial – more likely a trial by jury, assuming Ferguson didn’t seek a bench trial instead, which would be foolhardy. But, Ferguson clearly had to ask himself, did he wish to go through a trial? If he decided to exercise his right to trial by jury, what, then? Well, it is likely a jury would find Ferguson guilty since the police found a gun on him in a school and would testify to that fact. So, it would be extremely difficult for Dwayne Ferguson to deny the facts at trial. Could Ferguson convince a jury otherwise? That's unlikely. Honestly, would a jury believe the police were either lying about finding a gun on Ferguson, or that the police were mistaken about the object that was found on him – a handgun? Still, the District Attorney had to prove one critical element of the Section 265.01-a charge – namely that Ferguson knew he had a gun on him when he entered the school building. But, since it is presumed that a person knows what he or she has on them, it would be difficult for Ferguson to deny he had knowledge that he had a gun on him. If he sought to do so, giving his own testimony, under oath, swearing he honestly didn’t know he had a gun on him, then that would certainly raise an issue involving Ferguson’s mental and emotional competency, namely, should Dwayne Ferguson be trusted with a firearm at all? Still, speculation concerning what might or mightn’t have transpired had the case gone to trial – while of some academic interest – if such were to happen again – is, in the instant case, all but moot. For, as we now know, Ferguson pleaded guilty. And, he decided to plead out for a very important reason – critical to his wish to eventually acquire his guns again. And, obviously, the reason Dwayne Ferguson decided to plead guilty was to gain the certainty that he wouldn’t have a felony conviction on his record. For, as you see, Ferguson pleaded guilty not to a Class E felony, but, rather, to a Class A Misdemeanor. As we had mentioned in an earlier post on the Arbalest Quarrel, prior to passage of NY SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was a Class A misdemeanor. With the enactment of SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was increased to a Class E felony. Curiously and oddly and ironically, Ferguson was a strong supporter and advocate for the SAFE Act. Yet, he was spared the harshest penalty if convicted under it. As a condition of agreeing to plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge of possessing a weapon on school grounds, the Defense and the People agreed that Ferguson would receive the Class A misdemeanor penalty rather than the Class E felony penalty. Now, some readers may believe that Ferguson got off easy. But, keep in mind a few important points here: (1) Dwayne Ferguson had never been convicted of a serious crime before this odd mishap and first time offenders, generally, factoring in, of course, the nature of the crime, are often treated leniently by a Court; (2) the cost of a jury trial is expensive and the cost of prosecuting Ferguson must be borne by the tax payer although of course he must pay for his own defense; and a District Attorney must expend considerable time and resources to prepare for and prosecute a case that goes to trial; (3) Dwayne Ferguson is a hypocrite – no argument there – but hypocrisy – albeit reprehensible behavior to a good many of us – isn’t a crime in America, and, were it otherwise, our prisons would certainly be inundated – not least of all with politicians; and (4) for anyone who is treated like a V.I.P., such as Ferguson, the loss of his guns must vex Dwayne Ferguson to no end assuming, of course, Ferguson does in fact, lose possession of his firearms. But is that true? Will he suffer revocation of his ‘full carry’ handgun license and will Ferguson lose his handguns and forego their return to him indefinitely? If so, then why? And if not, then, why not? What, truly, does this all mean? Well, the Ferguson’s case isn’t over – only the conviction phase of it is. Dwayne Ferguson is scheduled to appear before Judge Michalski for sentencing on August 19^th. One of three things can transpire for Ferguson: one, Ferguson can be sentenced to prison, up to one year. That’s unlikely to happen since, once again, Ferguson hasn’t, to the best of our knowledge and belief, apart from the present matter – possessing a weapon on school grounds – ever been convicted of a serious crime; two, Ferguson can get probation for a specified period of time and that would spare him a stay in prison, but he would have to appear periodically before a probation officer, and that, too would not be particularly appealing to Ferguson; and three, the Judge can order a conditional discharge. This last judicial option would be the most favorable to Ferguson. For, in that event, Ferguson falls under the auspices of and control of the sentencing Court, not the probation office. Ferguson would probably be ordered to complete community service for a specified time, and the Court would be kept apprised of Ferguson’s conduct to assure itself that Ferguson is staying out of trouble. But, keep in mind, a conditional discharge doesn’t negate the crime for Ferguson. In order for Ferguson to be truly relieved of his criminal record, he would need to claim relief from disability; and he could do so at the sentencing, or he could do so at a later date, as a separate matter, before a different Judge in the Erie County Supreme Court.Now what does all this mean for the status of Ferguson’s guns and his ability to reclaim them from the police? Well, we first look to the Court itself to see what is required of it under Section 2 of the SAFE Act, as codified in Section of 380.96 of the N.Y. Criminal Procedure law, in respect to Ferguson’s license. The NY SAFE Act sets forth clearly, concisely and unmistakably: “Upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted, and the revocation of any license or registration issued pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law, the Judge pronouncing sentence shall demand surrender of any such license or registration and all firearms, shotguns and rifles. The failure to so demand surrender shall not effect the validity of any revocation pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law.” So, since Ferguson has previously surrendered his firearms to the police, must the sentencing Judge order surrender of Ferguson’s pistol license under Section 380.96 of the Criminal Procedure law? Now this is a sticky wicket. A key phrase of Section 2 of the SAFE Act rests on the first clause, “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” Well, Ferguson’s guns were seized at the scene of the crime, but that isn’t what Section 2 of the NY SAFE Act means by “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” For, the taking of Dwayne Ferguson’s guns by the police, on school grounds doesn’t, ipso facto, constitute conviction of any offense. Yes, Dwayne Ferguson was arrested at the scene, and, yes, police seized his handgun. And, yes, a second handgun was later turned over to the police. But, arrest doesn’t equal conviction. Conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law occurred after, on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in the Erie County Supreme Court, when Dwayne Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of knowingly possessing a weapon on school grounds. The question is whether judgment of conviction of that offense requires the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted. Well, let’s see. We must now turn to Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal law. And Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the N.Y. Penal law deals with both revocation and suspension of gun licenses. That Subsection sets forth in principal part: “The conviction of a licensee anywhere of a felony or serious offense shall operate as a revocation of the license. A license may be revoked or suspended as provided in Section 530.14 of the Criminal Procedure Law or Section Eight Hundred Forty-two-a of the Family Court Act.” Section 530.14 doesn’t apply to the instant case since it involves orders of protection. So, if the Court is required to revoke Dwayne Ferguson’s license, that is so if Ferguson is convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor.Now, it’s clear that, if Dwayne Ferguson were convicted of a Class E felony, Judge Michalski would in fact have no choice in the matter as conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law would mandate revocation of all pistol licenses and long arm permits. But, although the SAFE Act has amended Section 265.01-a of the New York Penal Law so that conviction under that Section is now a Class E felony, Ferguson was allowed to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor, the penalty for carrying a weapon onto school grounds prior to SAFE. So the question is whether a Class A misdemeanor constitutes a serious offense within the meaning of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Law. The title of Section 400.00 of the Penal Law is, “Licenses to Carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.” Now, it so happens that the words ‘serious offense,’ are defined with particularity in the Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law. That means that we need not guess whether a Class A misdemeanor is a ‘serious offense,’ for the expression is a legal term of art. Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law says in pertinent part: “Serious offense means any of the following offenses defined in the penal law: illegally using, carrying or possessing a pistol or other dangerous weapon.” The question now is whether Ferguson had illegally carried a gun at the time of his arrest on school grounds. Well, he did illegally carry a gun onto school grounds. There's no question about that, and that was the basis for his arrest and for his ultimate conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law in the first instance. But the question is whether Ferguson had illegally possessed a gun at all. Well, Ferguson did not illegally possess or carry a firearm since he had a valid permit for it. The Permit was lawfully issued to him under Section 400.00 of the Penal Law. And the nature of the license allowed Ferguson both to possess a gun and to carry it on him. And that is why the Section 265.03 charge against Ferguson was dropped. So, we may now reasonably conclude that, under Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Law, Dwayne Ferguson did not plead guilty to and was not convicted of a serious offense under the Penal Code of New York. A Class A misdemeanor is not, in this instance at least, a 'serious offense' under the Penal Code of New York. So, clearly, it was for this reason that Ferguson was in fact willing to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge under Section 265.01-a for having possession of a weapon on school grounds. Had he not been able to do so, it is unlikely that he would've readily agreed to plead out. He certainly would not have willingly pleaded guilty to a Class E felony under Section 265.01-a. The Class A misdemeanor conviction provides Ferguson his best chance of keeping his “full carry” handgun license and for reclaiming his firearms from the police.So, where does that leave us and Ferguson? Well, the police still have Ferguson’s two handguns. So, as it appears the Erie County Supreme Court isn’t required to revoke Ferguson’s pistol license, and, too, as the matter of the disposition of Ferguson’s pistol license is out of the hands of the First District Attorney of Erie County, the question is, then, who does have authority – if anyone at all – to revoke or allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license? That, we’ve learned, falls upon Wilmer Fowler. Who is Wilmer Fowler? Wilmer Fowler is the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer. And it’s up to Mr. Fowler whether to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol license. If Mr. Fowler does allow Dwayne Ferguson to keep his pistol license – and it isn’t clear the Hearing Officer will allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license in light of the conviction, notwithstanding that Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge rather than a Class E felony charge – the matter doesn’t end there. For the Hearing Officer’s decision to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol permit ultimately rests with the Erie County Supreme Court, although Judge Michalski who presides over the criminal proceeding won’t decide that matter. The decision – whether Ferguson is allowed to retain his pistol license – isn’t a criminal matter. It’s a civil matter. So, who decides the issue? Judge Martin Boller of the Erie County Supreme Court, who handles civil cases, does. Judge Boller, you see, also handles pistol permit cases. And the suspension or revocation of pistol licenses is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Judge Boller is the Pistol Permit Hearing Judge. Thus the fate of Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license rests in the hands of Judge Boller, assuming the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer does not revoke Ferguson’s pistol license and allows the return of his handguns to him in the first instance, and the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer has full discretion unless he abuses his discretion. If the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer decides to revoke or to suspend Ferguson’s pistol license, Ferguson can only request the Court to determine whether the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer’s decision amounts to an abuse of discretion.The Arbalest Quarrel will keep you abreast of the Ferguson matter as it continues to play out. For, there is much more we need to know; for at the present time we don’t know whether the Pistol Hearing Officer has, as yet, acted upon Ferguson’s pistol license. Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license may already have been suspended or revoked. We just don’t know, but we aim to find out because that, certainly, is on your mind. We know this matter weighs on Ferguson’s mind.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

"SMART GUNS" FOR GUN OWNERS: A NEW MONITORING DEVICE!

Let’s shed a tear for Belinda Padilla. Belinda is unhappy, perhaps even frightened. Belinda’s unhappiness is understandable; her fear, not undeserved. Who’s Belinda Padilla? Why is she unhappy? Why, perhaps, is she frightened? Read on.Belinda works for a German arms Company, Armatix, GmbH. Its product: “smart guns.” A visitor to the Armatix website sees an “x-ray” shot of a space age “ray” gun set against a purple and black backdrop. The Company’s slogan is: “21st Century Gun Safety.” The NY Times ran an April 28th story on Belinda Padilla and Armatix GmbH, “‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of Gun Lobby.” www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-gun-lobby.The Times refers to Padilla as a “fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the Company’s fledging American division.” Padilla looks like a movie star. She is brash and beautiful: a femme fatale. Padilla’s association with Armatix and its “smart gun” doesn’t appear accidental. The Company hopes the public will draw the appropriate connection between Padilla and its “smart gun:” space age gun is racy and sexy! Nothing new there. Automobile and motorcycle manufacturers have juxtaposed good-looking women and machines for years. Image is everything, but an image may hide a multitude of sins. So it is with the Armatix “smart guns.” The “smart gun” isn’t really a gun at all. Guns are mechanical devices. The "smart gun" is a personal computer posing as a gun. Both smart phones and smart guns are subject to infiltration, hacking, tracking, and control from remote locations. Likely, antigun zealots hope Americans will latch onto the damn thing and, in time, replace their gun collections, with “smart guns.” Not surprisingly, the Obama administration promotes the new technology.  But many Americans don't, namely, and particularly, those who support the Second Amendment and -- for that matter -- those who support the Fourth Amendment as well. The public has contacted Padilla directly and has told her in no uncertain terms what they think of Armatix; what they think of the smart gun; and, what they think of her.  The responses are not encouraging for Armatix, for Bedilla, or for the smart gun. The American public gave all three the cold shoulder and for good reason. The NY Times doesn't understand why. It blames the NRA. But, blaming the NRA is nothing more than a convenient crutch.The NY Times says “guns with owner-recognition technology remain shut out of the market today.” The NY Times blames the “gun lobby” – code for the NRA. But, proponents of the Bill of Rights don’t need to take a cue from the NRA. The “smart gun” is a deathtrap for the unwary. It’s another electronic tracking device, like the smart phone. Not surprisingly, guns with owner-recognition technology, like the Armatix smart gun, remain shut out of the market, as the NY Times article notes. And Belinda? She is persona non grata in the firearms community. It’s not the steep price – $1,800.00 – that disturbs and angers the buying public. It’s the technology itself.Consider: since the Snowden leaks, Americans know – and don’t have to guess – the Federal Government is mind-mapping Americans. A Government report commissioned by the Obama Administration admitted the need for “broader legal protection for email and other digital content.” See, the May 2nd Wall Street Journal article, “New Data Protections Are Needed, Report Says.” “The report says Americans now inhabit a world of ‘near ubiquitous’ data collection,’ as they live their lives on-line, and the cost of storing those digital trails shrinks drastically. They post on social networks, transmit their locations from their smartphones, place sensors in the home and trackers on their bodies.” wsj.com/news/new data protections. The Armatix smart gun, unlike an ordinary mechanical firearm, is an electronic device and can readily suffer malfunction. Sure, reliability is an issue. But that’s a technical matter, although important. But, the “smart gun” raises troubling privacy questions. Recall our earlier remark: it’s less a weapon and more a personal computer. Given revelations concerning NSA snooping we have a few questions for Armatix. One, can the gun register location? Two, can it track total rounds fired? And, most importantly, can the Government shut the thing down remotely? The Armatix smart gun is a personal computer, posing as a gun with a built-in “bug” in it. So, who would want it? Will the Federal Government foist such devices on us? Will such devices be the only “firearms” law-abiding Americans can buy?Be careful of new-fangled devices. The Armatix smart gun and others like it are the proverbial “solution in search of a problem.” The NY Times cites manufacturers as saying they’re beneficial. “These new technologies could prevent suicides, accidental shootings and the deaths of police officers whose guns are wrested away in a struggle.” But wait a second. How would these technologies prevent suicides and accidents if the lawful owner uses the firearm? Isn’t the owner supposed to be able to use the weapon? If so, Are the manufacturers suggesting someone can turn the device off remotely? And, imagine the wonderment and fear of one who attempts to defend his or her life with the "smart gun" during a moment of crisis -- but the Government turned the damn thing off and didn't bother to notify the owner that the thing wasn't operational. And, concerning the last assertion, let’s ask a police officer his greater concern: someone wresting a weapon from him or a malfunctioning gun? Then, too, if a police officer can't control his own weapon, what does that say of the officer's abilities? His superiors would probably want to have a little chat with him. The manufacturers assertions in support of their "smart" devices are unbelievably lame.  If the examples the NY Times cites are the best the manufacturers can muster, the manufacturers don't merit being in business.Some things aren’t always what they seem. Beneath the façade of a comely woman may lurk a Gorgon; and inside a supposed technological marvel may dwell a Trojan horse.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

Piers Morgan and CNN Have Both Learned a Lesson: Don’t Tread On the Second Amendment!

Piers Morgan and CNN Have Both Learned a Lesson: Don’t Tread On the Second Amendment!CNN Talk Show Host, Piers Morgan, is going home. Morgan’s viewers, the common men and women of America, have spoken. They had enough of this self-righteous, arrogant proponent of gun control. They have tuned him out and rightly so.To ridicule America’s sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as Morgan has done, is to ridicule the American people: who we are, our very nature as Americans. Morgan’s behavior toward the Second Amendment is unacceptable and unforgiveable. CNN should have dumped Morgan long ago.Poor ratings spell disaster for a talk show host. Morgan does understand this. As reported by the New York Times, Morgan said, “Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.” Yes, Morgan, practically everyone is tired of you “banging on about” this, that and the other.Morgan would have done well to study American History, before taking on a job at CNN. And he might have started his studies with the American Revolution. Perhaps he would have handled himself with a bit more humility and a trifle more discretion before giving his audience presumptuous lessons on American Constitutional Law. But at least Morgan is leaving intact. How would America’s founders have received Morgan’s utterances? Would they have simply tuned him out as modern Americans do, or would they have given him a crash course on real gun control from the business end of a musket?Of course CNN is not the innocent lamb in all this. After all, CNN hired the guy. And CNN is not exactly a proponent of America’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This might explain why the station allowed Morgan to rant as long as he had and as stridently as he had. CNN liked Morgan’s rants, but did not like the loss of viewers. At the end of the day ratings, after all, are what count. Morgan’s had plummeted. That is unacceptable.CNN itself would do well to learn from this. Consider it an object lesson. If viewers can tune out a single program, they can also tune out an entire TV network.But, for Morgan, let us wish him a pleasant voyage home. Perhaps one day we’ll see you at the foxhunt, Piers. But be mindful of the shotgun. You shot yourself in one foot. Don’t shoot yourself in the other. “Tally-ho!”[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D'Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved. 

NYSAFE Advocate Breaks Law: Brings Loaded Gun Into Elementary School

According to breaking news reports, Dwayne Ferguson, a 52 year-old, father of three, and well-known gun control advocate, was arrested on February 6, 2014 for carrying a gun into the Harvey Austin Elementary School, in Buffalo New York.Ferguson lobbied for passage of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s NYSAFE Act. The New York State Legislature enacted NYSAFE in January 2013 ostensibly in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The shooting occurred in December 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut.Among the restrictive firearms provisions in NYSAFE, “criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a Class E felony.”Ferguson reportedly told a local TV station he frequently carries a gun, has a permit for it, and didn’t realize he had a gun on him when he went to the school. A friend of Ferguson, Rev. James E. Giles, said, “I’m sure Dwayne went into the School not thinking he had the gun on him.” But Kevin Brinkworth, the District’s Chief of Police, said, “I don’t know why he had it [the gun] on him.”According to further news accounts, Ferguson appeared in Court and pleaded not-guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The prosecutor requested that bail be set at $10,000. The presiding Judge released Ferguson on his own recognizance. Ferguson was ordered to surrender all of his guns.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Here’s What I Think:

If news accounts are true, Mr. Ferguson is a hypocrite. A person cannot both claim to be a pacifist and carry a loaded weapon. A true advocate for non-violence and peace would find gun ownership immoral. Such a person would disapprove of all forms of aggression, including the use of defensive force against a violent attack. I, therefore, must question why Mr. Ferguson would apply for a pistol license in the first place. Why would he possess a gun and carry it loaded on a regular basis while advocating for non-violence and peace. Then too, I find it odd that he would lobby for stricter gun control laws, and walk into a school filled with children with a concealed gun. This is deceitful. That’s what I think.“Publius”see also: AmmoLand Article | Re: FergusonWhat do you think? We would like to know. Write us at info@arbalestquarrel.com