NEW YORK TIMES INSINUATES BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL SHOOTER, HENRY BELLO, DID NOT ACT ALONE; HE HAD ACCOMPLICES.

NEW YORK TIMES INSINUATES BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL SHOOTER, HENRY BELLO, DID NOT ACT ALONE; HE HAD ACCOMPLICES.

NEW YORK TIMES INTIMATES RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL TRAGEDY RESTS WITH THREE PARTIES ALONG WITH HENRY BELLO—ONE OF WHOM IS THE TRUE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE CARNAGE BELLO WROUGHT

By now, anyone who keeps abreast of National news is aware of the tragedy that occurred recently at Bronx Lebanon Hospital in New York City. News accounts point out that a “physician” from Nigeria, Henry Bello, went on a shooting spree after having his limited hospital privileges revoked. Although the Hospital used the appellation “Doctor” to describe Bello’s position with the hospital, Henry Bello did not have the privileges of a medical doctor because Bello did not have a license to practice medicine in New York. The Hospital ultimately terminated Bello’s employment, and it did so for good cause: sexual harassment. Bello, obviously in a rage over the termination of his employment with the Hospital, decided to get even.The matter of sexual harassment, though, ought not have come as a surprise to the Hospital Administrators—which should have given careful thought before they hired Henry Bello—because Bello has a criminal record that includes, among other things, the crime of sexual abuse. Other incidents in his life, as reported through a multitude of news accounts, available to anyone through a simple internet search, point to a mentally unstable person—a person who certainly had no place in a Hospital setting, in the capacity of an employee. Is what had transpired at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital an instance of a theme one sees in a typical Hollywood horror film--i.e., a psychotic patient posing as a staff physician, fooling Hospital staff, visitors, and patients, and then going berserk--killing and injuring people at random, once having fallen into a murderous rage over a perceived wrong. What occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, though, is factual, not a fictional Hollywood script. To make the argument that Hospital Administration hired Henry Bello because the Hospital happened to be short-staffed merely demonstrates desperation substituting for and overriding common-sense. Clearly, there existed, at the Hospital, both security lapses and employee hiring lapses. What actions are Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Administration officials taking to correct these obvious lapses in policy and judgment?Hopefully, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital will give more thought to its hiring practices going forward, since, obviously, the Hospital's past practices are quite sloppy. And, once Hospital Administration reappraises its hiring policies, it should also consider reevaluating its security policies. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital ought to ask how an individual could secret a rifle into the Hospital and why, apparently, the Hospital had no armed security officers at the Hospital’s entrance and at its reception desk. Furthermore, if security officers were present at the Hospital’s reception desk, how is it that none of them managed to discover an assailant walking past them, hiding a bulky weapon—a rifle, not a handgun—under a thin lab coat? In that regard, it appears that this tragic incident was not the first to occur at the Hospital.Mainstream news accounts do not spend time investigating how an individual, once in Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, had sufficient time to murder one person, a physician, and wound several more, stalking the interior of the Hospital. Mainstream media news sources gloss over these matters, at best, or fail to mention them at all. The New York Times, for its part, ultimately turned its attention to and expressed keen interest investigating and reporting on Henry Bello’s accomplices in the crime.

NEW YORK TIMES ALLUDES TO BELLO’S ACCOMPLICES IN THE COMMISSION OF HIS HEINOUS ACTS

You didn’t know that Bello had accomplices, did you? But, it seems that he did, for the New York Times makes abundantly clear Henry Bello did not act alone—that he did not truly act alone—when he went on his murderous shooting rampage at the Hospital, killing one physician and shooting several more people before the carnage ended—with Bello’s principal accomplice turning on Bello, himself.

ABOUT THOSE ACCOMPLICES—

The Times strongly suggests that Henry Bello had one principal accomplice who assisted him in carrying out the multiple crime and two others who abetted him. The name of the principal accomplice—indeed, the master architect of the crimes—is, as can be gleaned from a perusal of a recent NY Times story, none other than what the Times refers to as the "assault weapon," a.k.a., the “assault rifle.”  In a Times story, titled, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle,” published Tuesday, July 4, 2017, Times journalists, Marc Santora and Al Baker, assert that Bello “carried a semiautomatic AM-15, which is Anderson Manufacturing’s version of the AR-15, a civilian rifle, close in design to the M-16.” * A digital version of the story, available to subscribers of the NY Times and non-subscribers of the paper, alike, was posted one day earlier, on July 3, 2017. The digital version of the story is titled slightly differently, through inclusion of the word, ‘Troubled,’ appearing before the word, ‘Doctor’: “Despite Strict Gun Law, Troubled Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle.” More precisely, the manufacturer of the rifle, Anderson Manufacturing, designates the rifle as the “AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle.”But the New York Times newspaper reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, do not, apparently, exhibit an interest in providing the public with those details since it does nothing to move the narrative along--a narrative the newspaper wishes to project on the screen of the American public’s consciousness—namely that guns are evil personified and must, in good conscience, be outlawed.A photograph of the rifle Bello used during his murderous rampage at the Bronx Hospital appears immediately to the left of a photograph of Bello himself on page “A15” of the print edition of the Times newspaper. The photographs carry a strong message. The message is that the fault for the tragedy that occurred rests not merely on Bello but, more particularly, on the rifle.The appearance of the rifle, directly to the left of Bello, in the print edition of the news story graphics—below which the caption reads, in part, “Dr. Bello and the AM-15 that he used,”—is not and should not be considered mere happenstance.Readers of English, as those of other Indo-European language, read, left to right. As advertisers and psychologists know, the eye is trained to emphasize words and graphics that appear to the left of one’s visual gaze and to minimize those that appear to the right of one’s visual gaze, consistent with the way a reader of English or of other Indo-European languages, from an early age, is trained to read. Thus, scanning an image or word is managed and emphasized, “left to right.”By juxtaposing a photograph of the rifle next to and to the left of the photograph of Bello, the editors of the NY Times, responsible for the placement of words and graphics in the Times newspaper, create the impression—whether consciously or not, but probably consciously—that the implement Bello employed in carrying out his crimes—the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle—is, truly, the real culprit—the main perpetrator, evil doer, and mastermind of the crime—and that Bello, who pulled the trigger, less so—that Bello happened merely to be the toady who pulled the trigger, as commanded by the M4 AR-15 Rifle.Thus, Henry Bello happened simply to be more along for the ride. In this way, the subliminal message conveyed to the reader of the Times story is that both the rifle used to commit horrible crimes and the individual who utilized the rifle are both sentient beings: one of whom is truly evil—the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, and the other, who is not, namely, Henry Bello, who is--now, was--simply mentally ill--seriously mentally ill--and therefore, not responsible for his actions. The message: blame the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, not the man; place the ill individuals in a mental health facility, and, at once, eradicate firearms.The public is presented with the sad, inevitable, inescapable conclusion, consistent with the subconscious messaging projected, that the rifle, the M4 AR-15 Rifle, is Public Enemy No. 1—a Public enemy beyond redemption, that will ever remain so, but that Henry Bello is not, or, if he had remained alive, not beyond redemption. We are to believe that Henry Bello is—that is to say, was—basically a good man in a bad Karma and that he was brought to do horrific acts—ever more horrific acts because he was a health care provider—through the diabolical machinations of another, the M4 AR-15 Rifle. Had the M4 AR-15 Rifle not turned on Bello, Bello likely would have argued, at trial, in his defense, that the actions of unspeakable savagery, should be ascribed to the M4 AR-15, that made him do it--after all Bello was seriously mentally ill-no question about it--and the Times reporters acknowledge as much. Having commanded Bello to kill himself, rather than to give himself up to the police, the M4 AR-15 has thereupon successfully eliminated the one perpetrator that can effectively cast blame on “him”—“the Rifle”—but the M4 AR-15 Rifle isn’t talking, and isn’t expected ever to cooperate with investigators.Were the Times editors, who created and positioned the graphics that appeared with the print edition of the story, aware of the impression they were creating with the graphics that were used in association with the newsprint edition of the story? Perhaps so, if we give the Times editors credit as psychologists and experts in the field of propaganda.As we know full well, the Times is notorious for creating illusions and allusions about guns: false notions about guns and hints about the “nature” of guns, as if guns have “natures” at all and that they can and do behave like the worst of people amongst us, not unlike any sentient being. The authors of the Times article, Messrs. Santora and Baker, suggest, as well, that there were two additional accomplices to the crimes—those that were not at the scene of  the crimes but who were, nonetheless enablers of the crimes committed by the M4 AR-15 Rifle and by Bello: one, the dealer, who lawfully sold Bello the rifle he used to kill an innocent individual—a medical doctor—and to seriously injure several other innocent people; and, two, the gunsmith—holder of both a valid federal firearms license (“FFL”) and a valid New York State gunsmith license, who lawfully modified the rifle (the “Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle”) to conform to New York’s restrictive gun laws that then allowed the dealer to lawfully sell the rifle to an individual, Bello, the killer, who, was not under disability.The Times’ reporters, in a scarcely disguised attempt to implicate and castigate both the gunsmith and the dealer—particularly the dealer, who sold the Rifle to Bello—as we can glean from both the graphic of the dealer’s store and of the dealer’s vehicle--as the graphics, accompanying the story create a distinct and unflattering impression, completely unfair, that the dealer is somewhat of an unsavory individual for being a dealer in firearms at all. To emphasize the point, Messrs. Santora and Baker point to the location of the Gun dealer’s store, adjacent to a used-car dealership, a fact, yes, but a fact completely irrelevant to the story, and yet, at once, suggestive of the idea that a gun dealer and a used car dealer both operate morally dubious and objectionable businesses, not unlike those purveyors of payday loans and pornography.The Times reporters suggest that these two abettors of Bello—the gun dealer and the gunsmith—are definitely morally culpable even if not legally culpable in the matter of Bello’s actions and of the actions of the principal criminal, the M4 AR-15 Rifle—under a philosophical notion and legal theory of causation. In other words, we are to believe that, if the gunsmith had not modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle, to conform to the New York law, the rifle could not have been lawfully sold in the State to average, law-abiding citizens, who are not under disability; and had the dealer who lawfully sold the rifle to Bello, not obtained the rifle from the gunsmith to sell to Bello, then Bello would not have used that rifle to commit the horrific acts he committed. This chain of causation is aptly demonstrated in a child’s nursery rhyme, by "Mother Goose": “This is the House that Jack Built.”What is left unsaid but what is certainly true, though, is that, as long as Bello operated in murderous frenzy mode, he would still have committed his acts of murder and mayhem: if not with the M4 AR-15 Rifle, then, perhaps, with another firearm, or if not with a firearm, then perhaps with a knife, or with a hatchet, or with a bomb, or with anything else at hand. A reasonably intelligent person can devise many effective ways to destroy human life, and destroy human life relatively quickly, if destruction is in the heart and mind of that person.The journalists, Messrs. Santora and Baker are adamant in their insinuation that the gun dealer and the gunsmith ought not to be ignored in the blame game the reporters construct—and Messrs. Santora and Baker do not ignore them, spending substantial time talking about them in their story. Messrs. Santora and Baker apparently consider both the licensed gun dealer and the licensed gunsmith to be participants in Bello’s brutal actions, along with the principal killer, the M4 AR-15 Rifle—passive participants to be sure, but critical players and factors in the equation of violence that occurred, since, as they present in their NY Times story, but for the actions of the gun dealer and the gunsmith, Bello would not have committed the horrific crimes he did commit with the implement he employed—the M4 AR-15 Rifle; and that, but for the very existence of the M4 AR-15 Rifle or any other firearm, there would be no tragedy. But, is that true? Obviously, that statement is not true, and there is no reasonable basis for that tacit conjecture.Bello intended to cause serious harm. If a firearm were not available, he would have found some other implement. No doubt about it--another implement that would have been just as effective--perhaps a butcher knife or an axe. But, Bello did not use a butcher knife or axe to commit horrific crimes. He used a firearm, and since it is firearms that the mainstream media is forever focused on, as the source of many if not most of the major ills in society, the fact that a firearm happened to be utilized by Bello in the death of one individual and in the injury of several others, that fact plays well into the narrative the mainstream media, such as the narrative New York Times newspaper, loves to play into and relishes: namely, that restrictive firearms laws, such as the New York Safe Act, must be made ever more strict. But why is that? What is it about the firearms that creates in the minds of those that perceive “the gun” as the object, the focus of attention when an individual uses it to harm another--the focus of such morbid fascination? The public sees no such focus of attention on the implements employed to harm others when that implement is a knife, or an axe, or an automobile. Mainstream news media sources maintain that “the gun” is an implement that enables a person to kill efficiently, quickly. Yet, a person can in fact kill many people just as efficiently and effectively with a knife, or with an axe, or with an automobile. But, then knives and axes and automobiles are not implements specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms—referring, specifically to firearms, as the f0unders of a free Republic and the framers of the Constitution intended—is a right specifically, expressly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution—in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. But, the Second Amendment, as with the entirety of the Constitution, is an “old” document. The mainstream media considers the Second Amendment to be outdated, archaic, anachronistic. Reporters, such as Santora and Baker of the New York Times, suggest as much. They take the position that the Second Amendment may have had import and purpose at one time but that it doesn’t any longer and that the Country would be better off were the Second Amendment to be ignored, and, therefore, de facto repealed. Since, then, from their perspective, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has no legitimate, reasonable purpose in this day and age, no one should have expectations that anyone, not under disability, may legitimately, lawfully exercise that right as one will. So, the reporters, Santora and Baker, cast about looking for those individuals, apart from a lunatic and a killer, Henry Bello, in which to place blame for the horrible tragedy that occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital. Messrs Santora and Baker make much of the fact that the gunsmith that modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle that Bello utilized to kill one person and to seriously injure several others at the Hospital was exercising a loophole through which a banned firearm, called variously, an ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’—the former expression which is simply a legal fiction, and the latter expression which, as applied to the M4 AR-15 Rifle, manufactured for the civilian market, not for the military or law enforcement, is a misnomer, and , in either case, the two expressions are not synonyms and therefore are not interchangeable—allowed a banned weapon to be sold legally in New York through modifications to the weapon. The idea conveyed by Messrs. Santora and Baker is that the gunsmith who made the modifications that allowed the M4 AR-15 Rifle to be sold lawfully in New York to those individuals, not under disability, as the expression, ‘disability’ is defined in the U.S. Code, 18 USCS § 922(g), and the dealer who lawfully sold the M4 AR-15 Rifle to Bello, ought to be implicated in the crimes, precisely because they utilized loopholes in the New York Safe Act to avoid the import of the Act. But, this is no different than a professional CPA who lawfully uses loopholes in the Federal Tax Code to benefit his or her client. Now, it is not a reasonable response to say that, after all, a CPA lawfully using perceived loopholes in the Federal Tax Code to benefit a client is not harming and cannot harm another human being while a New York gunsmith and a New York gun dealer that use loopholes in the New York State Penal Code to legally sell an otherwise illegal weapon to a person, not under disability, does allow the purchaser of the weapon potentially at least—and, in the Bronx-Lebanon case, actually—to harm or kill another human being. For, the gunsmith that modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle that permitted the weapon to be sold lawfully in New York, and the gun dealer who lawfully sold the M4 AR-15 Rifle to Henry Bello, did not deviously, insidiously, devise schemes to avoid the import of the SAFE Act. Rather, the SAFE Act itself is a devious, insidious, scheme—a massive loophole—to slither around the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the SAFE Act of New York and similar draconian firearms’ Acts presently in force in other jurisdictions would survive U.S. Supreme Court review. But, then, those legislators and jurists who hold nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment see no reason why they cannot treat the natural right, codified in the Second Amendment, with disdain. So, we see politicians and jurists and journalists voicing vociferous distaste for and utter disdain toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the legislation drafted, in the opinions reported, and in the articles written, operating as either express or implied attacks on the sanctity of the natural right codified in the Second Amendment.Messrs. Santora and Baker would likely protest that the NY SAFE Act must go further and more must be done to prevent individuals, not under disability, but who, like Henry Bello, present a danger to self and to others when they have access to firearms. That does present a conundrum, but one no different than the dangers posed by those who have no business being behind the wheel of an automobile. We do not see States constantly imposing new requirements on motorists; but, for all that, the right of the people to drive vehicles on public roads is not expressly established in the Bill of Rights, although one might make the claim that such right might be presumed as existing under the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as an unenumerated right. But, such a right would not, in any event, be construed, nor should it be construed, as a right of the same magnitude as that right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.But, in responding to those who insist that restrictive gun laws must be enacted to prevent those individuals, who, like Henry Bello, present potential problems before the fact, from obtaining firearms, how might that be accomplished? The short answer is that it cannot and ought not be accomplished. The fact is that it is dangerous to presume on past conduct precisely what a person will do in the future. Today, millions of law-abiding citizens, and non-citizens who legally reside in the U.S., possess firearms and pose no danger to themselves or to anyone else. If draconian gun laws are enacted in an attempt to weed out anyone deemed to pose a potential risk to self or others if that person has access to firearms, how do we go about weeding out those individuals? The fact of the matter is that the occasional lunatic, as with the occasional drunkard behind the wheel of a car, will do harm. We know that. But the danger posed is minimal, and minimal as it is, that danger can be reduced yet further--through the arming of more citizens, not disarming them. But if Government is permitted to exert ever more control over the lives of millions of rational, law-abiding citizens in order to successfully weed out the few potential risks, a greater harm to a free Republic and to the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights exists.Neither a State Government nor the federal Government should be permitted to place ever increasing restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The risk posed by criminal elements in society and by lunatics is far and away less significant than risks posed to the preservation of our Republic and to the preservation of the rights and liberties of Americans.There exist forces in America today that seek to align our values with those of Western European Nations. Social, political, economic, and philosophical constructs, such as liberal democracy, multiculturalism, bilingualism, neoliberalism, globalization, and open borders are not consistent with the rights and liberties codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, and, particularly, those social, political, economic and philosophical constructs are not consistent with our Nation’s Second Amendment. No other Nation on Earth has, within its Constitution, anything remotely like our Second Amendment. For, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists intrinsically and inextricably in the individual. It is not a privilege bestowed on the citizens or subjects of a Country by Government. That such right of the people to keep and bear arms be recognized as residing in the individual, the Second Amendment must not be toyed with. The NY Safe Act is an abomination. The very language of the Statute betrays the unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment and illustrates Government’s distrust of and contempt for the individual. Further restrictions imposed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrates a profound disconnect between Government and the people governed. There are mechanisms to deal effectively with people like Henry Bello. The answer, once again, is to arm more people, not to disarm them. Tragedies do happen through misuse of firearms, as with misuse of other objects. But, restrictive gun laws that attempt to foreclose the harm caused by a few, foreclose, as well, and worse, the right of the many to have access to firearms for self-defense. Restrictive gun laws are incompatible with our Nation’s Constitution and with the continuation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic.The journalists, Messrs. Santora and Baker are adamant in their insinuation that the gun dealer and the gunsmith ought not to be ignored in the blame game the reporters construct—and Messrs. Santora and Baker do not ignore them, spending substantial time talking about them in their story. Messrs. Santora and Baker apparently consider both the licensed gun dealer and the licensed gunsmith to be participants in Bello’s brutal actions, along with the principal killer, the the M4 AR-15 Rifle—passive participants to be sure, but critical players and factors in the equation since, but for the actions of the gun dealer and the gunsmith, Bello would not have committed the horrific crimes he did commit with the implement he employed—the M4 AR-15 Rifle; and that, but for the very existence of the M4 AR-15 Rifle or any other firearm, there would be no tragedy. But, there is no basis for that tacit conjecture. Bello intended to cause serious harm. If a firearm were not available, he would have found some other implement. No doubt about it--another implement that would have been just as effective--perhaps a butcher knife or an axe. But, Bello did not use a butcher knife or axe to commit horrific crimes. He used a firearm, and since it is firearms that the mainstream media is forever focused on, as the source of many if not most of the major ills in society, the fact that a firearm happened to be utilized by Bello in the death of one individual and in the injury of several others, that fact plays well into the narrative the mainstream media, such as the New York Times newspaper, loves to play into and relishes: namely, that restrictive firearms laws, such as the New York Safe Act, must be made ever more strict.However, that it was that Henry Bello employed an the M4 AR-15 Rifle to kill one individual and to seriously injure a half dozen others and given the Times' particular fascination with blaming firearms for a multitude of sins in society, it is no surprise that the Times reporters would cast a wide net to condemn both the licensed gunsmith who lawfully modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle to conform to New York State gun laws and the dealer who lawfully sold the modified M4 AR-15 Rifle to Henry Bello. Thus, the Times reporters, Santora and Baker, give some  measure of “credit” for the horrific crimes Bello committed with the M4 AR-15 Rifle to the licensed gun dealer and to the licensed gunsmith  even though the New York gun dealer and the new York gunsmith did not know, and could not have known and certainly would not, willingly, have abetted Bello’s criminal actions had they known of Bello’s murderous inclinations and intentions.

AS RESTRICTIVE AS THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS,  NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS, SANTORA AND BAKER ARGUE THAT THE SAFE ACT ISN’T AS STRICT AS IT NEEDS TO BE—THAT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS RESTRICTIVE AS IT OUGHT TO BE.

The Times reporters strongly suggest that the SAFE Act, strict as it is, isn’t strict enough. They are asserting that the SAFE Act has “loopholes” that need to be closed. But, to make that point, the NY Times plays fast and loose with facts concerning so-called assault weapons and would deny access of firearms to millions of law-abiding New York residents based on the reprehensible actions of a few lunatics and psychopathic criminal elements in society. But should restrictions impacting the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms be drawn based on the lowest common denominator in society? Or, is the call for ever more restrictive gun laws, ostensibly to deal with lunatics and criminal psychopaths, no more than a convenient, seemingly palatable makeweight? Is the desire of  the gun grabbers for more and more restrictive gun laws not really designed to disarm the tens of millions of law-abiding, sane Americans who seek merely to exercise their personal right of self-defense—with the most effective means available, a firearm—against those who would otherwise find it easy to prey upon them.The gun grabbers might respond that they are not attempting to dispossess the average, honest, law-abiding, rational individual of all weapons—only certain kinds of weapons. But, they inevitably, invariably, make a poor show of it by exhibiting their lack of knowledge of both firearms and of ammunition for firearms. And, that lack of knowledge is considerable. Many examples are found in mainstream media news stories, such as the one that is the subject of this article.The Times consistently, erroneously conflates assault weapons with military assault rifles. One sees this in the very title of the July 4 news article, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle,” —substituting one expression, 'assault rifle,' for the other, 'assault weapon,' without rhyme or reason. But assault rifles and so-called assault weapons are not the same thing. They are not functional equivalents and should not be considered functional equivalents. The expression, ‘assault rifle,’ is a military term of art and refers to selective fire weapons. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ on the other hand, is not a military term of art; nor is it a term of art in the firearms’ industry.“Assault rifles” are selective fire weapons. Selective fire weapons are weapons that can fire in either semiautomatic mode or full automatic mode, through the incorporation of a selective fire lever or switch on the weapon. Such weapons do not fall under the SAFE Act. They fall under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that bans certain classes of firearms, including machine guns. So-called “assault weapons” are not military assault rifles because assault weapons are not capable of full auto fire. So-called “assault weapons” are not designed by gun manufacturers for the military or law enforcement markets; only for the civilian market, given specific limitations in their application which limitations make them unsuitable for military or for law enforcement work.Such weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are not military weapons. And appearance does not change the functional nature of the weapon. Consider: an automobile designed to look like a Ferrari that has a typical Toyota Corolla engine under the hood may look exotic and sexy, and to some people, perhaps intimidating, frightening, but one only needs to take the car out for a spin to realize something amiss. On the other hand, a Buick Skylark, manufactured during the 1960s might look relatively tame, but, outfitted with a 350-cubic inch V8 engine, the Skylark declared its power once the driver tapped on the accelerator.Similarly, calling a firearm an ‘assault rifle,’ or using the expression ‘assault weapon’ interchangeably with ‘assault rifle’ when the weapon is capable of semiautomatic operation only does not thereby convert the weapon into a military assault rifle; and designing a weapon to look like an assault rifle, does not an assault rifle make.Functionality, not cosmetics, is critical to—and the key—to a weapon’s performance.

“ASSAULT WEAPONS” ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ORDINARY SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS OUTFITTED MERELY TO LOOK INTIMIDATING TO THE UNEDUCATED. REMOVE THE PISTOL GRIP, FOLDING STOCK, AND HANDGUARD, AND THEN FINISH THE WEAPON IN WALNUT, IN LIEU OF POLYMER AND BLACK STAINLESS STEEL, AND, ABRACADABRA, WHAT DO WE HAVE? NO MORE NOR LESS THAN THE SAME WEAPON FOR CIVILIANS AND NOTHING THAT THE MILITARY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.

The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ isn’t a military term of art; nor is it an industry term. The expression is a political expression, created by antigun groups and utilized as a tool for propaganda. The mainstream media says that such weapons are essentially military weapons, “weapons of war,” as some journalists refer to them in that way. Or, they say that such firearms are “military style weapons,” or that “they are like” military weapons. In fact, phrases such as ‘looks like a military weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or ‘military style weapon’ when parsed, don’t mean a damn thing. A weapon either is or isn’t a military weapon—a weapon for military use. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is merely a legal fiction to confuse and intimidate the ignorant and unwary.Through that legal fiction antigun legislators create a special category of weapons—a category that includes generally, and almost invariably, many semiautomatic weapons—weapons that, by law, are illegal for the average civilian to own. Semiautomatic weapons that legislators, at their whim, deem to be “assault weapons” are banned unless those weapons happen to be “grandfathered in”  by law. But is that all there is to it? Are those weapons designated as ‘assault weapons’ the only weapons the American public cannot legally own and possess? No; not at all. The problem is that, through time, the gun grabbers seek to place more semiautomatic weapons in the category of banned semiautomatic weapons, until, eventually, all semiautomatic weapons become inextricably linked to “assault weapon” nomenclature. This is by design. This is what the gun grabbers intend to do. For they will not sit contented until all weapons in the hands of civilians are banned.Indeed, the expression ‘assault weapon’ is, now, virtually synonymous with the expression ‘semiautomatic weapon.’ Categorizing this or that weapon as an assault weapon out of whole cloth creates a warrant for ever more weapons to be placed in the domain of banned weapons. Thus, we fall down a slippery slope. But, this is no “slippery slope fallacy." It is an inevitability.Antigun groups and antigun legislators seek, eventually, to ban all semiautomatic weapons. They do this by subsuming ever more weapons and ever more components of weapons under the ‘assault weapon’ designation. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent antigun legislators from subsuming non-semiautomatic firearms under the category, ‘assault weapons,’ too. In fact, we already see this. Consider: Section 37 of the New York Safe Act lays out several definitions of ‘assault weapon': Specific definitions of 'assault weapon' for pistol, rifle, and shotgun. Section 37 is codified in subdivision 22 of Section 265 of the Penal Code of New York.One definition of ‘assault weapon,’ in New York law specifically includes some weapons that aren’t semiautomatic in operation at all. Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act, for example, bans revolving cylinder shotguns, referring to them as “assault weapons” even though revolving cylinder shotguns aren’t semiautomatic in operation.Note, on Governor Cuomo’s New York Safe Act website, he provides an example of a revolving cylinder shotgun, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun, via a graphic that, according, to the SAFE Act represents an example of a banned “assault weapon,” because, as the site sets forth, the weapon is “semiautomatic” in operation and has at least one “military characteristic.” The Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun is an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, but the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun isn’t an assault weapon on the basis of having a military characteristic at all, contrary to the explanation given for including it in the banned 'assault weapon' category. The Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun is designated an ‘assault weapon’ under the SAFE Act precisely and exclusively because it is a revolving cylinder shotgun and, under the SAFE Act, that fact alone is the reason why it is banned as an ‘assault weapon.’ The fact that this shotgun has a “military characteristic” means nothing. It is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition for legally ascribing the designation, ‘assault weapon’ to it. Rather, the fact that a shotgun is a revolving cylinder shotgun is both a necessary and sufficient condition for banning it as an assault weapon under the NY Safe Act.But for the existence of Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun would not—and in fact could not—legally be designated a banned ‘assault weapon,’ precisely because it isn’t semiautomatic in operation. Why do we say this? We say this because a person must comply with what the law expressly says, and not what one believes the law, erroneously to mean, even if that erroneous belief is held in good faith and even if the person who comes to have a false belief as to which firearm is or is not an assault weapon can point to an official New York State website as the reason for that person’s false belief. For all that, if the Governor expects the public to rely on the accuracy of the very Act that he signed into law, you would think he would make it a point to know what it is that he is talking about and would ascertain that an official New York State website that purports to provide a person with information a person can rely on as true and completely accurate is in fact true and completely accurate.Now, some people might interject that we are quibbling here; for, after all, the Armsel Striker-12 is defined as a banned ‘assault weapon’ under New York law even if the reason provided on the New York State website is not accurate. But, that is sloppy and dangerous thinking. For, suppose, Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act were repealed. In that case, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun would be perfectly legal for a person, who is not under disability, to possess in New York. But, given what the NY SAFE Act website says about the weapon, the person who is relying on the website for advice, to comply with the law, would believe that possession of the weapon is prohibited in the State when that would not be the case at all. We say this precisely because the Armsel Striker-12 is not semiautomatic in operation. If Section 37(D) of the Safe Act did not exist, then a shotgun that is not semiautomatic in operation could have any number of so-called military characteristics. Under the New York Safe Act, that shotgun would not be an “assault weapon,” and, then, under New York law, that weapon would not and, thus, could not, legally be banned as an ‘assault weapon’ because the weapon is not, by definition, an ‘assault weapon.’Section 37(D) does proscribe the Armsel Striker-12 but not for the reason the New York State website says. A revolving cylinder shotgun, such as the Armsel Striker-12, represents a special, a unique instance where a weapon is not semiautomatic in operation—which is otherwise a condition precedent for ascribing the designation, ‘assault weapon’ to the firearm, but is defined as an assault weapon due to the fact that it operates through revolving cylinder and that it happens to be a shotgun. Many handguns are designed as revolvers—that is to say, that function through a revolving cylinder, whether double action or single action—and such firearms are not defined as ‘assault weapon.’ So, it all boils down to definition—whatever it is in the feverish mind of the drafter of the legislation.

THE ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ DESIGNATION IS DEVILISHLY AND CONVENIENTLY CHANGEABLE AS IT CAN MEAN WHATEVER THE LEGISLATOR WISHES FOR IT TO MEAN.

The “assault weapon” attribution is amorphous and nebulous and allows antigun legislators to broaden the scope of banned firearms at will, at their whim—to include anything and everything they wish to include under that designation, as a mark of opprobrium.

NEW YORK TIMES—WHOSE LOGO IS “ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT”--PLAYS FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE TRUTH ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO FIREARMS.

The NY Times inappropriately uses an opinion piece, that belongs in the Op Ed section of the paper, as a news piece because the paper illustrates clearly and forcefully and unmistakably its vehement distaste for firearms in civilian hands. Value judgments belong in the editorial section, not in the news section, of a newspaper. The Times is not, it is clear, invariably, concerned with truth in reporting—certainly not on matters pertaining to firearms as the paper deliberately confuses the public rather than informs the public.The NY Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, assert that, “the law [NY SAFE] was also aimed at decreasing the damage a gunman could do by limiting the size of a clip to 10 rounds.” But, then, since Henry Bello "carried three of them," as Messrs. Santora and Baker assert, quoting an unnamed law enforcement official: “as a practical matter, Dr. Bello ‘had his 30 rounds.’” What are the Times reporters getting at here? It’s no secret.The NY Times is making a case, in customary oblique fashion that, since semiautomatic weapons generally use clips, it hardly matters how many rounds a clip may hold. An individual can carry several clips at once, easily loading them into the firearm. Thus, the Times is making a not very subtle suggestion that the NY SAFE Act should be amended to ban semiautomatic weapons, along with their component parts, and ammunition for the weapons, altogether.In the same article, the NY Times’ reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, play fast and loose with another point, asserting that, “while the weapon [the AM15, that Bello used], did not have some of the features it might have before the SAFE Act was passed, it was just as powerful.”Messrs. Santora and Baker description here is inaccurate. For it is not the weapon itself but, rather, the .223 cartridge that the weapon, the M4 AR-15 Rifle, happens to be chambered for, that the reporters should have referred to when using the adjective, ‘powerful.’ But, we can excuse them imprecision here on that point, as it is understood that the reporters must be referring to the cartridge rather than the weapon when they assert that the weapon Bello used, in the commission of his crimes of murder and intent to commit murder, is “powerful.”The reporters’ quote, for ostensible credibility, a law enforcement official--albeit unnamed--to buttress the claim that the .223 cartridge is a powerful cartridge. Yet, we do not know who this official is other than that he is in the field of law enforcement. But, crucially, is there anything about this law enforcement official’s background to suggest the official is a ballistics and firearms’ expert? No! There is nothing to suggest that.Messrs. Santora and Baker, assert, further, quoting, apparently the same law enforcement official: “‘They [the gun industry] turned an AR-15’s aiming and firepower into a World War II rifle without the bolt action.” This statement is either erroneous or ambiguous and vague. We must ask: what World War II rifle is this law enforcement official referring to? If he is referring to the standard U.S. Army issue rifle issued to troops during World War II, that rifle would be the M1 .30-06 Garand. But, the M1 .30-06 Garand Rifle was semiautomatic in operation, not bolt action, and it did use a high-power cartridge: the .30-06—a cartridge that is still much in wide use today, especially in hunting rifles, for taking down large game, such as deer, moose, antelope, and bear. If the law enforcement official, whom the Times reporters quote, is in fact referring specifically to a standard bolt-action World War II rifle, then that official may be referring to the Model 98 Mauser Rifle, that the Germans referred to as the Gewehr 98. The Gewehr 98 was chambered for the 7.92 millimeter cartridge—essentially equivalent to the U.S. M1 Garand Rifle that is chambered for the .30-06 cartridge. The Gewehr was a standard issue rifle of German Infantry troops during World War II, and it was manufactured for German troops in several configurations, all of which operated by bolt action. They were not semiautomatic in operation, unlike the U.S. Army’s M1 .30-06 Garand.The official, whom Messrs. Santora and Baker quote, also says, wrapping up the Times article: “It was point and shoot for him [Bello] because he was shooting up close, and the lethality here was enhance by the large rounds—the .223 that’s in that weapon—as opposed to a handgun or something else.”The law enforcement official, whom the Times reporters quote, says the .223 cartridge are “large rounds.” But, is the .223 cartridge a large round? What does the expression “large round” mean? Do firearms experts even use expressions “large round” or “small round” to describe cartridges?

AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE BASICS

To weapons experts, cartridges fall into one of three major categories or groups. One group includes handgun cartridges. These are generally the least powerful cartridges. The second group of cartridges is referred to as intermediate cartridges. The third group of cartridges includes high-power cartridges.Within each group of cartridges, experts describe cartridge characteristics. These characteristics break down into discussions of the case; the primer; the propellant; and the projectile. The expression, ‘large round’ or ‘small round’ is inherently vague and therefore essentially meaningless and arms and ballistics experts do not use those words as technical terms.What can we say, generally about these three different groups of cartridges that is still essentially accurate? Handgun cartridges are the “weakest” in terms of power.** The .223 cartridge, a typical ‘assault rifle’ cartridge, falls in the intermediate cartridge range. There is a reason for this. Assault rifles, in full auto mode are difficult to control. That is one salient reason the military uses a round .223 round cartridge for the rifle instead of a high-power cartridge, such as the ,30-06. Incidentally, the .223 cartridge round is essentially identical to the 5.56 cartridge, although experts may wish to argue the intricacies of the point. The 5.56 cartridge is designated in millimeters and is the standard NATO round in use by the military of NATO Countries today.Note: the Anderson Manufacturing AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle can be chambered for both rounds since, once again, they are essentially identical. But the salient point here is that both rounds are not deemed, in the arms industry, to be “powerful” cartridges. The term, “high-power,” as applied to cartridges, is a term of art. It applies to many cartridges, but not to the .223/5.56. High-Power cartridges have no use in selective-fire assault rifles due to control issues in full auto mode.If a military assault rifle were chambered for a typical high-power cartridge such as the .30-06—the round utilized in the semiautomatic M1 Garand Rifle—such round in an assault rifle would be useless for hand-held full auto fire because a soldier would find the weapon extremely difficult to control. This is one salient reason that the intermediate cartridge—the .223—was developed by the military for the assault rifle. In full auto mode, a soldier can fire his weapon effectively, controllably, with this round. The .223 also is an effective round for hunting small varmints, such as ground hogs. But, it is ineffective for taking down larger game, such as deer. That is why, once again, many large game rifles are chambered for the powerful .30-06 cartridge.The .223 also has distinct advantages for civilian defensive use. The cartridge is frangible. That means it is designed to disintegrate when it comes into contact with a hard surface. A .30-06 cartridge, on the other hand, can easily penetrate hard surfaces. So, if the Times writers, Santora and Baker, through the law enforcement official they quote are claiming the .223 cartridge is large and/or powerful—suggesting that it is on par, say, with the firepower of a typical rifle cartridge used to hunt large game—they are simply wrong and, more to the point, the law enforcement officer they rely on, for technical firearms and ballistics information, is himself wrong--feeding the reporters with false information, regarding the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle and regarding the .223 cartridge. These reporters should have corroborated the claims made by the official with whom they spoke to ascertain if that official was in fact a firearms or ballistics expert. Obviously, that official doesn’t strike us as a firearms or ballistics expert, given his purported remarks. But, if Messrs. Santora and Baker were to insist that the official whom they quote is in fact a firearms or ballistics expert, the official certainly doesn’t come across as such, to us, predicated on what the official says in the Times article. Messrs. Santora and Baker did not, apparently, corroborate what the law enforcement official, whom they quote, had said. If they did attempt to corroborate the points made by the law enforcement official they quote, they would have most certainly found discrepancies. Perhaps the reporters did find discrepancies, but decided to ignore those discrepancies anyway because the truth would not have fit the narrative they sought to present to the public. But, that would suggest they had little regard for the truth in their presentation. As with the fictional “assault weapon” itself that the reporters, Santora and Baker talk about, the article presented is essentially an Op Ed propaganda piece masked as a news story.The New York Times presents false information pertaining to firearms and ammunition, passes that information off as factually true, and uses that information in an Op Ed piece, itself disguised as a factually true and neutral news article. The newspaper does this to buttress a narrative. It is a narrative which the public has seen many times before and, undoubtedly, will see many times to come. It is this: “assault weapons are weapons of war and ought to be banned outright.” The verbiage may change slightly here and there. But, the message is always the same, droning incessantly on and on again ad nauseum. It is a message intended not to educate the American public, engaging the public’s intellectual faculties, but, rather, one designed to stir the emotions of the public—the “lizard” part of the brain.

WHAT IS THE ENDGAME OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ON THE MATTER OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION?

The points made here are not insignificant as they have quite profound social, and political and legal consequences for the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, secondarily, for the credibility of the Times and similar mainstream media news publications. The Times newspaper, in the Santora and Baker news article, is attempting to make the case for restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms through an ever more restrictive NY Safe Act, but they are making their case through inaccurate statements.Incidentally, hunting rifles that are chambered for the high-power .30-06, do not—presently at least—fall within the domain of ‘assault weapons,’ and are perfectly legal for a person, who is not under disability, to own, in New York. We would like to ask Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, whether hunting rifles, that are chambered for the .30-06 ought not also to be placed under the category of “assault weapons” since the .30-06 as a high-power cartridge, is certainly much more powerful than the .223, the latter of which is designated as an intermediate cartridge, in terms of power. But, then, we know the answer. A ban on all firearms is the endgame of the gun grabbers. If pressed, Messrs. Santora and Baker would likely admit as much, as would the publisher and editors of the New York Times.

TRUTH IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT FOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA—RELATIVE TO THE NARRATIVE THEY WISH TO CONVEY TO SUSCEPTIBLE MINDS.

For a newspaper that prides itself on the truth, the NY Times demonstrates a considerable lack of it when it comes to an understanding of firearms and ammunition and of firearms’ and ammunition nomenclature. But, then, the NY Times has no desire to inform the reader with facts. The NY Times, as with other mainstream newspapers and like-minded mainstream media outlets, are interested in conveying the same tiresome message—as they always do whenever and wherever a tragedy with firearms occurs. It is that firearms of all sorts should be—must be—banned.The fact that millions of average law-abiding citizens in our Country, unlike those subjects in Australia and those in the nations of Western Europe that comprise the EU, have successfully defended their lives and those of their loved ones against brutal attacks by savage criminals does not, apparently, enter into their equation. But, then, antigun groups, antigun legislators and antigun media types aren’t really concerned about the life of any one individual. They are only interested in the well-being of the hive, of the collective; and that hive—that collective—is well served when it is controlled. Their agenda is not the safeguarding of the Nation’s Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. They seek to destroy this Country’s heritage, along with the Bill of Rights, as the framers of the Constitution understood it to mean, and that meaning is not to be toyed with.Our history is not to be erased, and rewritten to conform to the New World Order--a deeply troubling phrase that Senator John McCain oddly used, and used several times, one Sunday, on Meet the Press, when interviewed by the network host, Chuck Todd. Curiously, Chuck Todd never once asked the Senator to explain his use of that phrase, and McCain, for his part, although emphasizing the expression through repeated use of it, during the Sunday morning show, never bothered to explicate the bizarre, disturbing phrase himself. Yet, he must have realized that the expression has specific negative connotations and associations for Americans who hold our Free Republic and Constitution dear, and he must have given serious thought to use of the expression but never bothered to explicate it or provide a reason for using it at all during the interview. Our Nation is not a product of nor is it to be reformed and transformed, like so much clay, into something completely alien to our founders’ conception of our Nation as a free Republic. We see the forces that crush our Nation and its citizenry through the insidious ideas manifested in non-American conceptual constructs such as: democratic liberalism, multiculturalism, bilingualism, neoliberalism, and globalization.We, Americans, are not and do not ever wish to be construed as “citizens of the world.” We are citizens of the United States and shall forever remain so. We do not seek nor ever wish to gratuitously open our borders up to everyone.We shall maintain the integrity of our Nation’s borders. We shall maintain our Nation’s singular language: English. We shall use our military first and foremost to protect our Nation’s interests and our Nation’s security. And, we will never compromise the right our framers bequeathed to us in our sacred Second Amendment. This is what we must defend at all costs if our Nation is to survive against the insidious currents that seek to deprive us of our birthright—that seek the very end of the concept of the ‘Nation State.’Mainstream media organizations such as the New York Times orchestrate against the preservation of our Nation—against the idea of a free Republic as our founders intended it. They construe our Bill of Rights in a manner alien to our framers’—alien to the meaning inherent in the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights as the framers drafted it.The Second Amendment has no place in the World as the New York Times and other mainstream media organizations envision it, as they would like it to be, as their overseers, the wealthy, secretive group of so-called “elites”—internationalists and trans-nationalists wish to transform it—to remold it—in a way inapposite to the principals laid down by the fathers’ of our Nation.The mainstream media, echoing the interests, concerns, and aims of their internationalist, trans-nationalist overseers and benefactors do not believe in the right of each individual to be individual, to be left alone. So, they do not believe in natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.The New York Times and other mainstream media organizations, at the behest of their internationalist, trans-nationalist overseers, desire no less than absolute control over the individual. That entails destroying the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that means, as well, destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Firearms in the hands of the American citizenry are an anathema to those who seek absolute control. Americans are perceived by these “elites,” who owe allegiance to no Country—as no more than a mass of bees that make up a hive. Firearms in the hands of the citizenry do not allow for orderly control and, so, firearms must be eliminated from the hands of the citizenry—from the hands of the multitude of worker bees of the hive.The internationalist, trans-nationalist “elites” are not really concerned about gun violence caused by criminals, by gang members, by terrorists, by the occasional lunatic. No! they are concerned about guns in the hands of the average, rational, law-abiding citizen. It is the average, sane, law-abiding citizen that these “elites” truly fear and that fear is reflected in the restrictive gun laws that exist today. That fear is reflected in ever more restrictive gun laws they seek to see enacted. But, these “elites,” through the New York Times and through similar publications and through other mainstream media outlets say that such restrictions on access to guns and ammunition are ultimately for the good of the people. What they really mean, though, is that such gun restrictions operate for the benefit of the “elites” who seek to clamp down on the American citizenry. They seek to enact restrictive gun laws for their own good, clearly to the detriment of the American people. Restrictive gun laws operate as, and are designed to operate as, constraints on the people. Restrictive gun laws do not operate as and are not designed to operate for and never were designed to operate for the good of the American people. But, these internationalist, trans-nationalist “elites”, through their public loudspeakers, the mainstream media, would not, of course, say that.What these so-called “elites” propose for Americans is the end of all that Americans hold precious, the end of all that Americans hold dear: the end of Americans’ sacred rights and liberties, codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The “elites,” see this as necessary. They see this as the way things should be, must be, if their dream of a New World Order is to become a reality. So, they argue that such restrictions and repressions on firearms ownership and possession and such restrictions and repressions on other natural rights and liberties are truly, manifestly, for our own good, of course.What is good, and right, and natural is, they believe, just a matter of perception. Change one’s perceptions and you change one’s reality—you change one’s sense of what is just and proper. And, the forces that crush this Nation and its people into submission intend to do just that: to change our perceptions, to change our attitudes and perceptions toward guns and to change our attitudes and perceptions toward everything else that we hold dear: our history, our heritage, our values. The forces that crush seek to change everything that makes us, uniquely, Americans. The forces that crush seek to change our reality—to change the idea that we, Americans, are unique, and to destroy the notion that our uniqueness is expressed and reflected first and foremost, in the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.Loss of this one unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms is sufficient to destroy our Nation’s identity; it is sufficient to effectively disable and disassemble the U.S. Constitution; it is sufficient to break our Nation’s back and our Nation’s spirit. That is what the gun grabbers want. That is what they seek. That is what they have worked and continue to work relentlessly, unceasingly, consistently, and strenuously toward.____________________________*The prefix, “AM,” refers to the manufacturer, Anderson Manufacturing. The prototypical rifle, the “AR-15,” with the prefix, ‘AR,’ does not denote ‘Assault Rifle,’ contrary to what some people might think. Rather the prefix, “AR,” refers, to the manufacturer of that semiautomatic rifle, “ArmaLite.” The original “AR-15” “Assault Rifle,” prototype became the standard arm for the U.S. Army foot soldier during the Vietnam War.The U.S. Army reluctantly adopted the M16 assault rifle as the standard infantry rifle in lieu of the M14 selective-fire rifle it had much preferred—as a replacement for the World War II M1 Garand rifle, that, in design, the M14 superficially resembled.The military M16 “Assault Rifle” had several variants and was chambered for the 5.56 millimeter cartridge. The 5.56 millimeter NATO round, is a cartridge essentially identical to the 2.23 caliber cartridge round that many semiautomatic rifles, manufactured for the civilian market, are chambered for—semiautomatic rifles that continue to be described by the mainstream media, inaccurately, as military “assault rifles” or, otherwise, for political propaganda purposes, described as “assault weapons”—a fictional phrase that has no recognized meaning in military or firearms industry argot. Often the two expressions, ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon,’ are used interchangeably by the mainstream media, antigun groups, and antigun politicians when talking about semiautomatic rifles manufactured for the civilian market. The two expressions are not synonymous, and the use of the two expressions, interchangeably by mainstream news organizations, does nothing to enlighten the public, and does much to illustrate the ineptitude and sloppiness of journalists and commentators when reporting news.**There do exist handguns chambered for .50 caliber cartridges and there even exist a few exotic handguns chambered for the .60 caliber cartridge —the latter of which are found in atypical, novelty handguns. Handguns that are chambered for the .60 caliber "nitro express" cartridge likely are not designed to be fired at all—given, arguably, the sheer difficulty, if not virtual impossibility, for most individuals to be able to hold onto the weapon, once having fired it, let alone maintaining the ability to shoot such weapons accurately. Such handguns certainly do not have utility in any common real world application, whether for law enforcement, for the military, for hunting or for self-defense. More likely, handguns chambered for such cartridges are "show pieces"--curiosities only, designed for the collector--to be showcased in gun collection displays but not actually to be used. Both cartridges, the .50 caliber and .60 caliber, are more powerful—much more powerful than the intermediate .223 cartridge. But, these cartridge exceptions, in handgun cartridges, do not belie the general rule regarding three major categories of cartridges: handgun rounds (generally, the least powerful cartridge rounds); intermediate assault rifle rounds; and high-power rifle or machine gun (the most powerful) rounds. Even so, the American public should keep in mind that handguns or rifles chambered for the .50 caliber cartridge or for the exotic .60 caliber "nitro express" handgun cartridge round, are not, and never were, designed, and, sensibly, never will be manufactured for use in hand-held full auto fire weapons be those weapons, selective fire assault rifles in full auto mode, or full auto only submachine guns.The .223/5.56 NATO cartridge round was specifically designed for selective fire “assault rifles,” enabling the user of those rifles to fire a round, controllably, in full auto mode. Were a high-power rifle round like the .30-06 caliber, or .50 caliber cartridge chambered for the assault rifle would render the assault rifle uncontrollable in full auto mode. Moreover, for a soldier to have to carry a substantial number of high-power rifle .30-06 caliber cartridge rounds or a substantial number of .50 caliber cartridge rounds would be unduly burdensome due to weight considerations and, too, would lessen the number of rounds the foot soldier might otherwise be able to carry on his person. ______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CALL FOR NATIONAL GUN CONFISCATION IS LEGALLY INSUPPORTABLE AND MORALLY INSUFFERABLE

THE NEW YORK TIMES RESURRECTS FEINSTEIN'S MONSTER

The antigun groups have now made clear beyond any doubt their singular goal: remove firearms from the hands of Americans, nationally. In a rare editorial, appearing on the front page of the Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition of The New York Times, titled, “The Gun Epidemic,” the Times editorial staff presents its arguments for massive gun confiscation, at the national level. The New York Times – a vehicle of international socialist and globalist interests – is intent on divesting Americans of their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the Times is clearly and unconscionably setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency in 2016.The San Bernardino shooting incident, carried out by Islamic extremists – foreign invaders, whose allegiance, as the Times reports, are to the Islamic State – should be a clarion call to arms to all Americans. Instead, the Times uses this despicable attack by the Islamic State on innocent American citizens as a pretext for disarming all Americans. Treating this invasion on our shores as simply one more mass shooting, without regard to the motivation behind it, the Times calls for a massive, gun confiscation program at the national level. The rationale given for this unprecedented call for gun confiscation is reduction of gun violence – the same platitude voiced over and over by those individuals and groups intent on divesting Americans of their natural birthright and denying to Americans the right of self-defense, notwithstanding that the Federal Government either cannot adequately protect Americans from mass shootings -- whether or not these attacks are random or carefully planned and organized -- or the Government simply will not do so, despite constant assertions and assertions to the contrary.Since President Barack Obama refuses, incongruously, to seal our borders despite clear evidence of an attack in our Country by Islamic radicals, and since he continues to allow into our Country those of the Islamic faith, who are impossible to vet, one must wonder whether Obama is intentionally jeopardizing the security of the American people, to keep the American public off-guard, consistent with international globalist and international socialist interests and objectives, in preparation for America’s integration into a unified Socialist State at some point in the not too distant future. If so, the salient reason for the NY Times’ call for a program of massive gun confiscation has little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence in this Country -- from whatever source -- and has everything to do with destruction of America’s sovereignty and subjugation of its citizenry. A massive gun confiscation program on the national stage would certainly hasten the accomplishment of that goal, paving the way for repeal of America’s Constitution, and, therefore, repeal of a critical portion of the Constitution -- America's Bill of Rights. Thus, would we see the international globalists and socialists smoothing the transition for the Nation's incorporation into a unified mega-international Socialist Order. And, the American people would be given a new constitution sans any mention of a right, existent in the people, to keep and bear arms.To Americans who see the United States as an independent sovereign Nation, beholding to and dependent on no other nation, and who place their faith in their Bill of Rights and, particularly, on the strength of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights, such acts of gun violence, committed by criminals, lunatics, and, of late, by Islamic jihadists, there bespeaks a need for a strong citizenry, and that means an armed citizenry, not a disarmed, weakened one. But, a disarmed, weakened citizenry is clearly and specifically what the federal government has in mind for Americans. President Barack Obama has made that point many times and more incessantly -- with an air of urgency in recent days. Lest there be any doubt about this -- about the intention of wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests behind this effort to disarm the American citizenry, who use the mainstream news media to confound Americans and who proclaim that the only answer to this onslaught of gun violence in America is for American citizens to place their blind faith in and allegiance to the federal government, rather than to place faith in themselves and to take personal responsibility for defense of self and family -- suggesting, then, that the federal government -- and only the federal government can and, more to the point, is  warranted and permitted to protect them -- one ought to stop and consider the import of the following two remarks, appearing in the sixth paragraph of the NY Times front page, editorial: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”  The average person may not be quick to catch this, but there is an oblique message in these two assertions – both of which are utterly damning to American sensibilities, to the autonomy of the individual, to the sanctity of Americans’ Second Amendment, and certainly divisive, as the editorial can and is probably meant to tear the public apart, for The New York Times' assertions do most assuredly play to the sentiments of antigun proponents and zealots, even as those same sentiments will anger, and rightly so, every other American. So let us parse those assertions.The NY Times says the language of the Second Amendment is “peculiar.” Yet, the Times’ use of the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the language of the Second Amendment, is itself peculiar. The meaning of the independent clause in the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – is straightforward, cogent, clear, and certainly not “peculiar” to the American people. Indeed, that The New York Times would use the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the Second Amendment at all, suggests that the newspaper does not reflect America’s interests but, rather, the interests of the international socialists and globalists, intent on dismantling the Second Amendment in particular and dismantling the nine other Amendments, generally, which depend on the Second Amendment, ultimately, for their preservation. For, only to foreign governments whose history is unlike ours and whose constitutions are devoid of any mention of an inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms would America's Second Amendment possibly look "peculiar." But for an American newspaper to use that adjective to describe the Second Amendment, that should give the public pause.Take a look at the constitution of any other Western nation. Even if a constitution talks about firearms in the hands of the citizenry at all -- and very few constitutions do -- no constitution but that of the United States places that right squarely in the hands of the citizenry itself. In no other nation on this Earth does the right to keep and bear arms reside in the People. Rather, that right resides exclusively in the State. In those Western Countries that the New York Times clearly emulates, namely, France, England, and Norway, which the Times mentions in its editorial, the constitutions of those Countries do not respect the inalienable right of their citizens to keep and bear weapons in their own defense and as a means to secure their individual rights and liberties. Therefore, Countries such as France, England, and Norway, unlike the United States, clearly do not recognize that the citizens, themselves, are the ultimate guardians of their own rights and liberties, and so their citizens do not have the inalienable right to defend themselves with the most effective means available for doing so – that provided by a firearm; nor do those Countries recognize, in their people, the right of their people to secure their own rights and liberties through firearms, if the need should ever arise.Indeed, the Times admits, “that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.” But, in that very admission, the Times follows up with the singularly bizarre assertion, “But at least those Countries are trying.” Really, “trying?” What are those Countries trying to do through strict gun laws? The Times' assertion is incoherent. If those Countries are trying to provide safe havens for Islamic foreign invaders, and convert their citizenry into a flock of defenseless sheep, then those Countries are certainly succeeding! Must the U.S. follow the lead of those Countries? The New York Times says, unequivocally, “yes.” The language of our Second Amendment, however, manifestly counters the Times’ assertion with an emphatic, “no!”The New York Times also says, “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” This, too, is a particularly odd and outrageous remark as it denigrates our jurisprudence.First, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expressly set forth in the language of our Country’s Bill of Rights. The New York Times cannot reasonably deny the truth of that assertion. And, as a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of something more than some protection. As a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of the strongest possible protection. Second, to say that a fundamental right is not unlimited, namely, absolute, is merely a legal platitude. The Times is incorrect to suggest, as it does, that the Government can employ whatever regulation of the right it wants, whenever it wants, simply because no right, even a fundamental right, is not absolute.Second, the Times says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to “reasonable regulation.” Understand, the New York Times is making a legal pronouncement, here, not merely – as most readers are inclined to see it – a colorful, somewhat innocuous, editorial remark. The Times is tacitly invoking a criterion of judicial review that many State courts use in order to determine whether a State law – regulating gun possession and gun ownership, say -- can withstand judicial scrutiny. The Times is asserting, albeit cryptically, that this standard of judicial review, ‘reasonable regulation,’ should apply, across the board, without exception, to each and every legal challenge a complainant may bring to the constitutionality of a federal or state gun law restriction. But, there is a serious problem with this. The problem is that the criterion of  ‘reasonable regulation’ is a very weak standard, virtually indistinguishable from the ‘rational basis test’ which many State courts, such as those in New York, the home of the New York Times, routinely use to test the constitutionality of their State's own draconian gun laws.Under both the ‘reasonable regulation’ standard and ‘rational basis test,’ State courts simply look to see whether a particular law is rationally related to a particular governmental purpose. In effect, this weak standard of review hamstrings Courts and allows States to impose draconian gun laws on the public. The New York Safe Act, which is one of the most restrictive gun measures in the Nation, when compared to the gun measures of any other jurisdiction in the United States, passes judicial scrutiny in New York precisely because the New York State Government need only assert – and need not argue – that the NY Safe Act is rationally directed to a legitimate government purpose – say, reduction in gun violence. If the New York Safe Act were challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction in New York – and of course various provisions of the Act, as well as the Act in its entirety, have been challenged in New York courts since enactment of the NY Safe Act – that court of competent jurisdiction is only permitted to decide whether the  Safe Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. In applying that standard of judicial review -- rational basis -- a court must give considerable deference to a legislative action. So, unless the law is clearly arbitrary on its face or clearly has no relationship at all to the matter for which it ostensibly was enacted, which is to say, that the government cannot demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, the law will be upheld. So, under either the rational basis test or the reasonable regulation standard, the latter of which the Times makes specific reference to in its front page editorial, a court of competent jurisdiction is prohibited from going further in its scrutiny of the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation. So, under the rational basis test a law can be very broad in scope and overreach its stated objective. That is of no consequence to the basic question of the constitutionality of it under either the rational basis test or under the essentially identical reasonable regulation standard. And the result is – as the NY Safe Act clearly demonstrates – that extraordinarily draconian gun laws pass constitutional muster. This is perverse. And, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the NY Safe Act flies in the face of the high Court’s holding because New York courts continue to use a relaxed standard of review in testing the constitutionality of the NY Safe Act, notwithstanding that the Act has a highly corrosive effect on a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Gun ownership and gun possession is a fundamental right. Even antigun proponents and zealots cannot reasonably deny the legal certainty of that fact. Legislation that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms demands extraordinary judicial scrutiny, not weakened, relaxed scrutiny. State courts and federal courts are, under our jurisprudence, expected to utilize the strict scrutiny test where fundamental rights are impacted. Can the New York Safe Act withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny criterion? The answer is clearly, “no.” Under a strict scrutiny criterion, the State Government has the burden of showing that the NY Safe Act, which places inordinate restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms, is nonetheless necessary to satisfy a compelling State interest – in this case: the compelling interest of the State to reduce gun violence. But, importantly, under the strict scrutiny test, the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation under review is not presumed, unlike the constitutionality of a law or governmental regulation would be presumed under the rational basis test, or under that test's functional equivalent, the reasonable regulation standard. Therefore, the burden of proof for the State of New York is a difficult one under strict scrutiny would be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Under either the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, on the other hand, a court of review in New York is legally required to presume, in the first instance, that a law or regulation is constitutional, hence valid. So, under the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, the New York State Government is able, very easily, to enact draconian gun laws that, just as easily, pass constitutional muster. This explains why challenges to various provisions of the Safe Act – except in one or two instances – fail, and this explains why challenges to the Safe Act in its entirety have, to date, also failed. And, this explains why draconian gun laws, such as the New York Safe Act, are able to exist and continue to exist at all. And, critically, this also clearly explains why The New York Times expresses a desire for courts of competent jurisdiction to use a relaxed standard of judicial review when testing the constitutionality of a draconian State or federal gun law or governmental regulation.Through application of the rational basis test or reasonable regulation standard, New York, and any other State, and, for that matter, Congress itself, can enact gun laws that infringe the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, and such laws will still, almost invariably, pass a constitutional challenge. And that is why, traditionally at least, our jurisprudence respects challenges to laws that impact fundamental rights such as the right of the people  to keep and bear arms, requiring State and federal governments to overcome an extremely difficult standard of judicial review if their restrictive gun laws are to be held constitutional and, therefore, to survive challenges to their constitutionality. This means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a law or regulation is constitutional. But, under either the rational basis test or "reasonable regulation" standard that the NY Times refers to in its editorial, the burden rests with the challenger, in the first instance, to show that a particular law or governmental regulation is, in fact, unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the burden rests squarely on the government to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the law or regulation is, in fact, constitutional. That is a crucial difference and explains why the New York Times not only asks for enactment of extremely restrictive gun laws on the national stage but, as well, explains why the Times would mandate use of a relaxed standard of review once the laws were challenged in federal court, and the constitutionality of those laws would be challenged. Under a relaxed standard of judicial review, such draconian gun laws would very likely survive a court challenge, testing the laws' constitutionality. Thus, the Times calls for use of the "reasonable regulation" standard of judicial review.But, if a New York State or New York federal court of competent jurisdiction applies strict scrutiny, say, to the New York Safe Act, for example, as it should, in lieu of the rational basis test, the New York State Government must prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the NY Safe Act furthers a compelling government interest. But that doesn’t end the inquiry. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. Assuming the Government can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the New York Safe Act does serve a compelling State interest, the State Government must then show that the NY Safe Act is narrowly tailored to meet that objective – say, reduction of gun violence. That means the Government must prove to the satisfaction of the court, that the NY Safe Act is the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence in the State even if the State  can show that the Act is directed to satisfying a compelling State interest. If and only if the reviewing court is satisfied that the NY Safe Act amounts to the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence will that court of review hold the Act constitutional. Otherwise, it will not do so, and cannot legally do so. Application of strict scrutiny to a law or governmental regulation is very difficult for a government to overcome. Application of the standard of strict scrutiny is meant to be difficult to overcome when a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake.Challenges to fundamental rights are meant to fail precisely because preservation of the fundamental rights of the American people is itself fundamental to preservation of a free Republic. And a free Republic cannot long endure if State and federal governments can, virtually at will, enact laws that tend to undercut and negate the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the New York Safe Act would survive judicial review under a strict scrutiny test. Since the NY Safe Act directly impacts a fundamental right it is presumed from the get-go, that the Act is constitutionally invalid. Thus the burden on a State government or on the federal government to show that a draconian gun law is legally required is considerable, and necessarily so. A reviewing court is likely to see the NY Safe Act as the charade and subterfuge it really is: an underhanded attempt to undercut and negate the efficacy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence.Clearly, for the New York State Government to argue that denying to thousands of law-abiding New York residents access to large categories of firearms is the least restrictive means available to it for reducing gun violence is neither logically sound nor legally defensible. It is therefore highly unlikely that the NY Safe Act could withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny standard. Thus, to say that no right – even a fundamental right – is not absolute, is not to suggest that a government can essentially regulate the right away whenever it so wishes. And, The New York Times is wrong in suggesting that it can.Now it is one thing for courts in New York to apply a weak standard of judicial review that allows for the existence of draconian gun laws, negatively impacting the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; it is quite another to suggest that such a weak judicial standard should be applied across the board. Yet, this is precisely what the NY Times is asking for: that Congress should enact laws denying to tens of millions of law-abiding Americans the right to own and possess entire categories of firearms and that, if anyone should challenge the constitutionality of such a law, then a court of competent jurisdiction should be required to apply a relaxed standard of review, namely ‘reasonable regulation,’ which would virtually guarantee that an unconstitutional law would pass constitutional muster when it should not and would not if challenged under the strict scrutiny test.As you may recall, Democrats attempted, essentially, to expand the NY Safe Act nationally in 2013. The "illustrious," Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Party Senator from California, introduced a bill, in 2013, in the Senate, to ban so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity ammunition magazines.” Her bill, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” included 157 kinds of firearms that the American public would no longer be able to lawfully own and possess. And Americans could no longer own and possess ammunition magazines that held more than 10 cartridges, if that bill became law. Feinstein's “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" was meant to resurrect the earlier “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which banned 19 weapons and, in fact, to expand upon “The Assault Weapons of 1994,” which expired in accordance with its sunset provision in 2004. Fortunately, attempts by antigun Senators to renew the law, failed. And, Feinstein’s new 2013 bill could never gain traction. It failed by a vote of the Senate, 40 to 60, in April of 2013. Now, through despicable hubris and subterfuge on the part of a newspaper, The New York Times, that newspaper is attempting to resurrect Feinstein’s own dead antigun bill, using “fear," together with sleight-of-hand, to encourage the American public to take action against its own best self-interest – in effect calling upon the public to contact Congress to bring Feinstein’s Monster, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” back to life in the form of an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2016.”If there is any doubt about the New York Times’ deplorable intentions actions, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Times makes the point that: “certain kinds of weapons . . . and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up. . . .” This is essentially Feinstein’s: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Now, under a strict scrutiny standard of review, Feinstein’s resurrected antigun bill, as a draconian antigun law – essentially the New York Safe Act, applied nationally (assuming for purpose of argument that  an assault weapons ban could succeed, at all, in 2016, when the Act failed in 2013) -- would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts, once challenged, and it would be challenged. But, under a relaxed “reasonable regulation” standard or under its functional equivalent, the “rational basis” test, such a law would more easily pass judicial scrutiny. This is why the New York Times presses for both an assault weapons ban and, at once, deviously, insists upon a relaxed legal standard of review, so that the Government can legally require Americans who own “certain kinds of weapons” – and one can fill in the blank as to what those weapons are, although the list would probably and eventually be extended to encompass all of them – to surrender them to government authorities and if such overreaching law were challenged in federal court, such challenge would almost certainly fail.The Times adds, piously, that Americans must give up their weapons "for the good of their fellow citizens.” In other words, the Times is saying that, for the “good” of the Collective, as defined by the puppet masters of Government, the sanctity and autonomy of each individual American must be forfeited. Of course, this will not make Americans safer. In fact it will make Americans substantially less safe as American citizens will be more prone to gun violence by sociopathic Islamic jihadists, psychopathic criminals and criminal gangs, and assorted lunatics. No doubt, the Times had substantial assistance from a phalanx of antigun lawyers to assist it when drafting its front page editorial.And, keep in mind that, if the New York Times is suggesting that, in the very act of dispossessing Americans of their firearms, thereby dismantling the Second Amendment, the Government is in some bizarre manner doing something beneficial for Americans, it is abundantly clear the Times is actually doing something quite contrary to the seemingly benign act of disarming Americans. The New York Times is actually targeting all Americans – hence, resurrection of Feinstein’s Monster. Clearly, the desire of the Times editorial staff is to target the millions of  law-abiding, sane, rational American gun owners – not simply Islamic jihadists, criminals and lunatics. For, in this same front page editorial, the Times asserts, that any American who wants those weapons, which the Times calls “weapons of war,”  must be corralled and considered criminally suspect. The Times asserts in the flamboyant, typically pious manner of the antigun zealot: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Ergo, if an American would want such a weapon, much less insist on owning and possessing such a weapon, there must be something seriously wrong with that individual. Thus, The New York Times is targeting essentially all Americans. This is a frontal assault on the Second Amendment itself – a frontal assault on the exercise of a fundamental right of every law-abiding American. The only outrage and national disgrace here is The New York Times itself that would undercut our Free Republic and undermine the Bill of Rights that is the bedrock of our Free Republic.If the Second Amendment is frontally assaulted by the very Government -- the federal Government that is supposed to defend and preserve it, since it is a component of our Constitution – indeed a fundamental part of it -- then the People must defend it because  a quiet coup d’etat of the federal government is already underway. Thus, The New York Times isn’t preventing insurrection, it is fomenting it, inviting it, daring Americans to take arms against the very federal Government that was created to serve the People, as that same federal Government  now boldly asserts its dominion over the People – with the devout blessing of, and encouragement of, a member of the “Fourth Estate,” that the founders had themselves blessed with protection through the language of the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the Press. That same Press is now working with the federal  Government -- not as a check against it but as a tool of it -- against the American people.The New York Times has, in its front page editorial, insidiously suggested, through a very thin veil, that any American who would fight to preserve that “peculiar” Second Amendment is an American who must be treated no differently than a lunatic, criminal, or Islamic jihadist. And, as if the incendiary nature of that front page editorial were not enough, the Times continues feeding the American public with copious amounts of nonsensical fodder inside that same Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition.In another article, appearing on page 5 of the Saturday edition of the New York Times, the newspaper cites to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama’s emulation of Australia’s gun laws. The New York times says, “President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation ‘like ours.’” The newspaper also mentions Clinton’s statement that “the Australian approach is ‘worth considering.’” Actually, Australia is anything but a nation like ours. In our article posted on December 1, 2015, in the Arbalest Quarrel, and which was also posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News in condensed summary, we emphasized that Clinton’s support for a national gun confiscation program, if actually implemented, would be patently illegal. The mainstream news media did not, at that time, give wide coverage of her remarks at last month’s Town Hall Meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, as Clinton’s remarks were seen as too farfetched even for the mainstream news media, as her remarks show a callous disregard and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution – this coming from a person with legal training who was educated at an elite university – and most Americans would clearly take serious exception with those remark if they were subject to widespread coverage and her chances of securing the U.S. Presidency in 2016 would be jeopardized. The mainstream news media did not, apparently, wish to ruin Clinton’s chances. Apparently, the New York Times, as one mainstream news media source, has, almost two months since that Town Hall meeting, reconsidered and decided to fully support Clinton’s position on gun ownership and possession, extreme as it is and trust that, by adopting that extreme position, itself, make it appear less extreme to the American people. Of course, The Times is well aware that it is actively creating dissension in the American populace, but it is betting that most Americans will side with Clinton on Second Amendment issues. Supposedly, public addresses by the current U.S. President will also serve to make assaults on the Second Amendment less “off-putting” to most Americans. At least that is the grand design of the international globalists and socialists, who control the mainstream media and who pull the strings of many Government Officials, including those of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama.The Times newspaper is clearly setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency. But that Presidency will pave the way for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by way of a full frontal assault on the Second Amendment. A Republican Congress would never allow the Second Amendment to be defeated. But, assuming arguendo, Congress were to enact a law requiring confiscation of guns on an unprecedented scale, the law would not withstand judicial review under a strict scrutiny standard. The U.S. Supreme Court would be the last Branch of Government called upon to protect the U.S. Constitution. For, if federal courts applied a lesser standard of scrutiny to a massive national gun confiscation law, such as ‘reasonable regulation,’ that the New York Times is asking for, Congress would be defying the U.S. Supreme Court which has the last word on the constitutionality of a Congressional Act. For a massive gun confiscation scheme would effectively nullify the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the 2008 Heller case and, so, would be unconstitutional on its face. That, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow.For this reason, in yet a third article appearing in the Saturday edition of the NY Times, there is posed the possibility of the U.S. President defying both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court by imposing a massive gun confiscation scheme through executive order. Of course the NY Times would like to see this but even the Times recognizes that such an action by a U.S. President would be patently illegal. Still, if Barack Obama dared to do that – attack the Second Amendment head-on – such unilateral action by the Chief  Executive, who is not reluctant to use executive orders would, in this instance, amount to an impeachable offense. But, if the Democrats take control of Congress and if Clinton secures the “Oval Office,” then Americans have much to worry about. For Clinton would certainly make several federal district court and appellate court appointments and U.S. Supreme Court nominations and such people, whom she would appoint to the federal courts and nominate to the highest Court of the Land would generally support unconstitutional executive orders, designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Ultimately, a Clinton Presidency could very well pave the way for de facto, revocation of the Second Amendment, if not outright repeal of it. Other rights under the Bill of Rights would fall like dominos.If the New York Times would manifest a concern over an assault on the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press, it is disheartening that it would demonstrate such a callous disregard for the Second. The Bill of Rights is not to be thought of like so many flavors of ice cream. One doesn’t pick and choose which ones to approve of and which ones to disapprove of. Thus, one must ask the publishers and editors of the New York Times, who, in this front page editorial, have attacked the Second Amendment without even a semblance of restraint: "have you lost your minds?" They may think that the American public is behind them on this. The Times is clearly directing its attention to the frightened and ignorant among us, who see in a Clinton Presidency what the Times says the public needs: protection that only Big Government can provide. What the Times fails to see, though, is that, if most Americans perceive a threat to their sacred rights and liberties, they will defend those rights and liberties at whatever cost, not merely from lunatics, criminals, and foreign invaders, but from an overreaching government itself. Indeed, the threat to the rights and liberties of the American People posed by the federal government itself is significantly more dangerous – infinitely more dangerous – than acts of gun violence perpetrated by lunatics, criminals and, of late, from radicalized Islamic sociopaths. The New York Times is hoping and trusting that most Americans do not -- and will not -- realize what it is they are being asked to sacrifice in the name of feigned security.So it is that the real threat to America is becoming increasingly plain to most Americans. That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State, and they are using, through the New York Times newspaper, the bugaboo of Islamic jihadists to frighten the American public into forsaking its sacred rights and liberties. The New York Times is obviously the sounding board that gives voice to the propaganda such powerful, ruthless individuals and groups seek to use against the American People – that the People will give up their rights and liberties, unknowingly, through subterfuge, possibly, and, if that fails, then through coercion. As these un-American interests so dare to bring America to its knees, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day of reckoning is fast approaching.[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.

TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION IN NEW YORK: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

White Paper Summary

The New York Safe Act is a minefield. One notoriously vague area pertains to transfers of ammunition. Only one section of the NY Safe Act deals with ammunition. The matter of transactions involving ammunition is found and dealt with in Section 50 of the New York Safe Act. Section 50 of the NY Safe Act is codified in the Penal Code of New York: NY CLS Penal § 400.03, titled, “Sellers of ammunition.” Moreover, Section 50 is the only section of the NY Safe Act that deals with transfers of ammunition.Section 50 says, in pertinent part, “No commercial transfer of ammunition shall take place unless a licensed dealer in firearms or registered seller of ammunition acts as an intermediary between the transferor and the ultimate transferee of the ammunition for the purposes of contacting the statewide license and record database pursuant to this section. Such transfer between the dealer or seller, and transferee must occur in person.” Section 50 talks about what both licensed dealers in firearms and sellers of ammunition must do in order to comply with the Act and, too, what individuals who are neither licensed dealers in firearms or registered sellers of firearms must do in order to comply with the NY Safe Act, when one of the parties wishes to sell a box of ammunition to another party. So, Section 50 is talking explicitly about sales of ammunition. And, that is fine as far as Section 50 goes. But, the Safe Act presents a problem.The problem is that not all transfers of ammunition between New York residents who lawfully own and possess firearms are typical purchase and sales of ammunition. Some transfers of ammunition from one individual to another individual are not sales at all. They are gifts or bequests of ammunition from one individual to another in a situation where neither individual is in the business of selling firearms or ammunition. So are those kinds of transactions lawful?Unfortunately, the New York Safe Act – which otherwise has much to say regarding the transfer of firearms defined as ‘assault weapons’ from one person to another person – is silent on ammunition transfers that do amount to sales. So, one must delve deeper into the Penal Code of New York in search of an answer, and we have done this for you.The laws of New York dealing with ammunition transfers – as with firearms matters, generally – are confusing and complex. In our “White Paper” we explain in detail the intricacies of ammunition transfers. We clarify the issues for you and do our best to provide you with meaningful answers that you can work with.View And Download The Full White Paper Here.

[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.