UNDER THE PRETEXT OF KEEPING THE RESIDENTS OF HER STATE SAFE, NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN RULINGS

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany designed amendments to the State Handgun Law to avoid compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and thus avoid the categorical dictates of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There is no question about this, no tenable away around this. To believe otherwise is a delusion.Hochul makes the case herself. There are numerous accounts detailing this: Press accounts and Press Releases abound. Consider one example: In August 2023, Hochul said this, as presented on the Governor's website:“‘In response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's century-old concealed carry law, we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe,’ . . . . ‘I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation.’”In other words, Governor Kathy Hochul, in her role as Tyrant Nanny of New York, keeping her wayward children, residents of New York, and citizens of the United States, safe and sound from all those dangerous, nasty firearms, will ignore the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, etched in stone in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and will defy the Article III authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.Hochul had unconscionably harsh words for the High Court, calling the Bruen decision “reckless and reprehensible.” See the article in NCPR.One thing motivates Governor Hochul’s actions and others like her who have, through the passing years, decades, and centuries, enacted laws to cut the Bill of Rights to ribbons:INCOMPARABLE LUST FOR POWER, INORDINATE WEALTH, AND SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT—ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON MAN. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.The history of civilization illustrates an unfathomable and unquenchable desire of sociopathic/psychopathic individuals to wield control over their respective tribe, nation, or empire, or other political, social, economic, and juridical structure.These ill-begotten men desire to thrust their will, their reality, onto everyone else.The Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of this Nation—of this Nation alone—were drafted with the aim to at least forestall, if not, prevent the perpetuation of this theme from happening here: the urge to dominate and rule.Of course, the presence of power-hungry misfits in the world is nothing new.Some who have succeeded in wielding control over the life, well-being, and happiness of the populace create the illusion they exercise power by virtue of Divine Right. Through time that odd idea becomes embedded in the public psyche. The public comes to accept this and accepts, too, that the rule over others by Divine Right is in the natural order of things, that it has always been thus.Rule by Divine Right—the wielding of near absolute power over others—is sometimes disguised.In our Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, the sociopaths, and psychopaths who lust for power, wealth, for personal aggrandizement and who have the wherewithal, knack, and tenacity to bend the mechanisms of power to their will, to their liking, must resort to deceptive messaging to woo the public, to lull them into dull complacency to accept the messaging conveyed to them by the deceivers and fabricators to mislead them into thinking that curtailment of their God-Given Rights is for their own good. But the truth is other than what is conveyed to the public.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a check on the power of Tyrants. These Rights, especially the first two Rights are the final fail-safe to keep would-be Tyrants in check.The First Amendment codifies, inter alia, the right of Free Speech, i.e., the Right to Dissent; the Right to Personal Autonomy; the Right of the Individual TO BE and to Remain Individual, against public pressure, at the behest of the Tyrant to compel compliance to his edicts. Those edicts demand uniformity of thought, of conduct, of action. The idea is to force submission of one’s will to the will of the State, the Greater Society, the “Hive,” the Tyrant.The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the vehicle through which the Individual prevents the Tyrant from forcing submission. This was meant to be so. Americans, millions of individuals, discrete souls, retain sovereignty over the Tyrant by force of arms and thus prevent usurpation of their will to that of the Tyrant.The Tyrant knows this. Many in our Country do not. They are denied THE TRUTH. Each American should know the TRUTH:The preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right to be exercised by the common man, serves as a counterweight to the usurpation of the sovereign power of the people over the power of the Tyrant. The Tyrant seeks to restrict and constrict this right as the Tyrant cannot continue to wield power and cannot accrue more power at the expense of the people so long as they are armed. Thus——The common man cannot be controlled, corralled, nor subjugated so long as he bears arms. That he does so constitutes a threat to the Tyrant. The Tyrant knows this even if the polity does not, and the Tyrant utilizes the organs of a corrupt Press to prevent the people from recognizing the slow disintegration of their basic, core Rights, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and not by Government.Corruption of  Government proceeds from corruption existent in the Tyrant himself. Corruption of Government and concomitant corruption of every facet of society and of our institutions are recognized in decay, in the destabilization of society, and in the demoralization and degradation of the common man who resides within it. The physical manifestation of destruction is mirrored in the corrupt soul of the Tyrant. On a macro level, one sees this in the immolation of a once great Nation, and of its institutions, culture, ethos, and people.On the micro level one sees this corruption in the immolation of major cities and in the degradation of the lives of the people who reside in them, run by a host of petty tyrants.The salient purpose of armed Self-Defense is to prevent the onset of Tyranny of Government. If you, the reader, don’t see this, take a look at the Second Treatise of Government by the English Philosopher, John Locke. Our Constitution is constructed from the well-reasoned political philosophical remarks of John Locke.Do you need further proof: Take a look, once again, at the U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.The Tyrant knows that the exercise of the right to armed self-defense must be constrained else he cannot wield and maintain power and control over the commonalty, but he doesn’t say this. The Tyrant makes a different argument, directed to denizens of a free Republic.The argument against the exercise of the right to armed self-defense in this Country is that the Second Amendment is archaic and that the proliferation of guns in this Country causes “Gun Violence.”More recently, consistent with absurd political dogma, the Tyrant claims that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist. And a seditious Press echoes those sentiments.But then, ask yourself: Where is this disorder, this violence manifested? Is it in the actions of tens of millions of average, rational, responsible, American citizens—the commonalty that happens to possess firearms?When was the last time you heard that the common rational, responsible gun owner committed a crime through the use of a firearm or through the use of any other implement? When was the last you heard of an average gun owner who went on a shooting spree? How many of those occur in our Country anyway? How might they be prevented? Has not an armed citizen, in the midst of a “mass shooting, often prevented many deaths because he was able to stop the killer? If more people were armed, would they not be able to secure their life and that of others?Where does this so-called “Gun Violence” emanate and predominate?Is not the escalation of  “Criminal Violence” in the Country and especially in the major urban areas, the deliberate result of Government policy that allows the criminal element and the occasional lunatic to run amok?Why should curtailment of the basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from Government’s failure, oft deliberate, TO CONSTRAIN THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of society: the foul, drug-addled lunatic; the monstrous, murderous gang member; and the opportunistic criminal—all of whom are devoid of empathy for the innocent person.Why should curtailment of a basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from instituting strict control over the natural law right of THE HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: tens of millions of average Americans?And, if those tens of millions of average Americans were to surrender their firearms to the Tyrant, how might that prevent the criminal and lunatic from engaging in less mayhem? Might not that encourage more illicit behavior and leave the common man absolutely defenseless, dependent completely on the goodwill of the Tyrant to dispel threat?But isn’t that really the point of disarming the citizenry: to leave the common man, the sole sovereign over Government, defenseless, powerless against the Tyrant, lest the common man rises up against the usurper?The New York Handgun Law and related laws as codified in the Consolidated Laws of New York, illustrate the Tyrant’s irrationality, arrogance, and lust for power over the citizens of the Country, residents of New York. But in the Gun Law and in other laws peppered throughout the breadth and depth of the Laws of New York, one sees, if one but reflects on those laws, a raw fear exposed. The Tyrant fears the common man.New York’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act, was enacted in 1911. It was predicated on fear of the common man—at the time, those were construed as new Italian immigrants to New York.The Sullivan Act was grounded on a lie at the outset: based on the idea that Italians were by nature, criminals, and their conduct in public had to be forcibly restrained lest they commit untold crimes throughout the State. This meant keeping firearms out of the hands of Italians. The form of the argument may have seemed valid to many. The premises were false, laughably so.The idea of converting a fundamental, unalienable right into a privilege is mystifying and disconcerting.Did the New York Government issue handgun licenses to Italians, recent naturalized citizens, residing in New York? One must wonder. If the idea behind the Sullivan Act, seemingly content neutral on its face, was to keep Italians from exercising their right, as citizens, to keep and bear arms, the law makes perfect sense.Yet the Sullivan Act came to be, and it survived, and thrived.The Sullivan Act requires all individuals who seek to carry a handgun in public to first obtain a handgun license from the Government to lawfully exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.So then, the New York Government insists on inserting itself between the natural law right to armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment, and one's exercise of that right, free of Government interference.The Handgun Law expanded exponentially to include further restraints, to encompass many more groups of people—the common man en masse—and to make the acquisition of a handgun carry license more expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating. That was the point.Many New Yorkers conceded defeat. They threw in the towel. They gave up the effort to obtain a license. The Handgun Law worked THAT well.Through time, the Handgun Licensing Statute became more elaborate. It developed into a cumbersome Handgun Licensing Regime. The challenges were many. But none succeeded in toppling the unconstitutional construct. And, then came the Heller case.The U.S. Supreme Court had for years stood idly by while State Government Tyrants and the Tyrant Federal Government road roughshod over the absolute right of the people to armed self-defense.In the 21^st Century, some Justices on the High Court had had enough. It was clear that Two Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and the Legislative, and many State Governments, including the District of Columbia, were not going to adhere to the strictures of the Bill of Rights, especially the dictates of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito set matters aright.With the indomitability of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and assisted by two able Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and, having convinced or perhaps cajoled the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to climb on board, the Court agree to review a case where the District of Columbia had enacted a law banning, outright, civilian citizen possession of handguns for self-defense, in the District.Since the District of Columbia law was predicated on the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, not adhering to the individual, an erroneous notion, the Court Majority held clearly, concisely, and categorically that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—one unconnected with association with a militia. And, having enunciated the clear, plain meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment, the High Court struck down the D.C. law.The anti-Second Amendment States were appalled and argued that Heller applied only to the Federal Government. That led to another challenge, this time from Plaintiff gun owners in Illinois, who argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal force to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Majority Opinion said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal efficacy to the States through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.Further challenges to States that refused to adhere to the rulings of Heller and McDonald went unreviewed by the Court, until a good ten years after McDonald.The High Court agreed to hear r a challenge to New York’s Handgun Law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. vs. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020)—the first major assault on the Sullivan Act to be heard by the High Court. In that case, Petitioner holders of valid restrictive handgun premise licenses sought to be able to transport their handguns to target ranges outside the City. The Rules of the City of New York forbade that.the narrow issue in the City of New York case dealt with the Second Amendment rights of holders of highly restrictive New York premise licenses. Yet, the case implicated broad Second Amendment questions impacting Heller and McDonald.Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, feared a decision on the merits of that case would open up a serious challenge to the core and mainstay of the State’s Sullivan Act, pertaining to the carrying of handguns in public.He could not, must not, allow a decision on the merits that would render the Sullivan Act vulnerable to further challenges that might eventually lead to the decimation of Handgun Licensing in New York.The Cuomo Administration weathered the storm by amending the State’s Gun Law. Those amendments required the City of New York to amend its own Gun Rules, pertaining to the transportation of handguns outside the home, by holders of New York City handgun premise licenses.The amendments satisfied Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice  Brett Kavanaugh. Those two votes, together with the votes of the liberal wing of the Court, sufficed to avoid the substantive merits of the case from review.With changes made to both the State Handgun Law and to New York City’s Handgun Licensing Regulations, the High Court dismissed the case, ruling the Plaintiffs’ claims moot.Associate Justice Alito thought otherwise. In his dissent, he argued there was no legal justification for a finding of mootness. Justice Alito laid out his arguments comprehensively and convincingly.Justice Kavanaugh without addressing the mootness matter, mentioned, in a separate Concurring Opinion,“I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Kavanaugh’s point came to fruition with Bruen, two years later, and in a major way, vexatious to the liberal wing of the Court, and likely so to the Chief Justice as well, and, no less so, the gravest fear of Governor Cuomo.But the conservative wing—now with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Bench—would no longer be constrained by foes of the Second Amendment who would erase the exercise of the right altogether if they had their way. Vindication of the Heller and McDonald rulings was at hand.The Hochul Government and Kathy Hochul, especially, weren’t pleased.If the City of New York case gave her predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo, a trifling headache, the Bruen case gave Hochul and Albany a full-on migraine.Bruen involved a challenge to the core of the State’s Handgun Law: the Constitutionality of predicating issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses on demonstration of “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”Bruen struck down “Proper Cause.” And that required Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany to strike the phrase from the Handgun Law. There was no way around that.But Hochul and Albany had no intention of complying with a ruling that would tear the guts out of a handgun Law that existed for well over a century and that, through time, grew increasingly elaborate and more oppressive.So Governor Hochul and Albany brushed the rulings aside, concocting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) of 2022 that gives lip service to Bruen and is, at once, consistent with the State’s end goal to transform the State, eventually, into one massive “Gun Free Zone.” Likely Hochul and Albany were working on the CCIA once the oral argument had concluded on November 3, 2021, having anticipated the High Court intended to shred the core of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government was prepared. The High Court issued its decision on June 23, 2022. Ten days later the State Senate enacted the “CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” (CCIA). Hochul signed it into law on the same day, July 3, 2022.That word, ‘Improvement,’ as it appears in the title of the Act is incongruous, even incoherent. For what is it the Act improves? Certainly not the right of the American citizen, residing and/or working in New York, and the Act did not comply with the Bruen rulings.The CCIA was a cleverly, cunningly drawn evasion tactic that strengthened the Handgun Law, consistent with an age-old plan.This plan, this agenda, involved the methodical, evisceration of gun rights—a plan going back over a century ago. The Hochul Government did not design the CCIA to comply with the rulings, except on a superficial level. The Court did not like the words, “PROPER CAUSE,” so the Government would strike those words from the Sullivan Act.Since the Hochul Government still had to contend with the salient ruling that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not confined to one’s home but extends to the public arena, the State would slither around the ruling. That was the intent of the Hochul Government, and the CCIA well reflected that intention. They did that through the creation of a new construct: “SENSITIVE PLACE” restrictions, and through a bold reconfiguration of an old one, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”Through the CCIA Hochul and her cohorts in Albany laid bare their objective: Erosion of the civilian citizen’s right to armed self-defense outside the home, notwithstanding the import of the Bruen decision: recognition of the right to armed self-defense outside the home, no less than inside it.The CCIA was to take effect on September 1, 2022. The Act's challengers wouldn’t wait for that to happen.The ink had not yet dried on the CCIA document Kathy Hochul signed when the Plaintiffs came forward to challenge the amendments to the Gun Law. There would be others—most of them in New York, but several across the Country as well, challenging similar Gun Laws, the language of which is contrary to the Bruen rulings.Several New York cases, including the main one, i.e., Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, presently sit on review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Fully briefed, the Court conducted oral hearings for each of them, on March 20, 2023. Expect final orders during the summer months.

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

As we stated supra, two provisions of the CCIA stand out as they serve as the basis of the State’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings: “SENSITIVE PLACE” and “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”The “Sensitive Place” provision is new. There is no correlation with it in the prior version of the Law or in any previous version, hearkening back to the commencement of handgun licensing in 1911 with the enactment of the Sullivan Act. Much has been said about the “Sensitive Place” provision and challenges to the CCIA invariably point to it.The “Good Moral Character” requirement, on the other hand, is not new.Little is said about it in the prior version of the Handgun Law. And, apart from mentioning it in Bruen, the High Court had nothing to say about it.As applied to applications for restrictive handgun premise licenses—and a multi-tiered Handgun structure remains in the New York Gun Law—there is no change from the prior Law.However, as applied to applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, the State Legislature added substantial and significant provisions—a massive transformation from what had existed before.A major distinction between the two provisions, “Sensitive Place” and “Good Moral Character,” needs to be mentioned and discussed before we proceed to a comprehensive analysis of the latter provision.

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

“Sensitive Place” restrictions affect holders of State concealed handgun carry licenses only, not those holders of highly restrictive premise handgun licenses —a point seemingly trivial. It isn’t.A holder of a premise license cannot lawfully utilize a handgun for self-defense outside the home or place of business, notwithstanding instances of dire threats to life presenting themselves outside the home or one’s place of business.The lawful use of a handgun for self-defense begins and ends within the confines of the walls of the structure.As if to emphasize the point, the holder of a home or business license, who wishes to transport his handgun outside the home, lawfully, must keep the handgun in a handgun case, not in a holster on his person. Ammunition must be kept in the case as well and separate from the handgun itself.This means that, if the holder of a restricted premise license were confronted by a deadly threat while out in public, the handgun won’t be readily accessible. And that is the point. And that is concerning for two reasons.First, a handgun case is easily identifiable as such.If the licensee is in a subway, say, on the way to a New York City target range, a determined and highly aggressive thief can strongarm the case away from the owner.In that event, the owner must immediately notify the NYPD of the fact of the theft, and he will likely be required to surrender his premise handgun license during the investigation. If the police fail to recover the handgun, the owner will likely be denied issuance of a replacement license, which is a condition precedent to lawful receipt of a new handgun. And to add insult to injury, the owner will likely be blamed for the theft having occurred. The police report will indicate that the owner had lost possession of the case, suggesting that, if the owner had been deficient in protecting the property, and, perhaps, should haven’t taken the handgun outside the home or place of business in the first instance.Second, if the licensee were threatened with violence to self and were able to access the handgun and successfully avert a tragedy to self by incapacitating the aggressor by shooting him, the licensee would lose his license. There is no question about that.Worse, the licensee would be prosecuted for misuse of the handgun.Worst of all, the aggressor would likely be charged with criminal assault and wrongful possession of a handgun, for the premise license doesn’t lawfully allow the licensee to wield a handgun in public. As if to emphasize this point, Governor Hochul made patently clear that Bruen doesn’t authorize a person to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In other words, New York remains a Handgun Licensing State Par Excellence among Anti-Second Amendment fanatics.Further, if the aggressor died of his wounds, the licensee would be indicted for manslaughter or murder. That outcome isn’t merely likely. It is certain and inevitable.Under New York Law self-defense may be a perfect defense to a charge of manslaughter or murder if one didn’t initiate the aggressive act, but “armed” self-defense isn’t if the person appealing to it happens to use a handgun in the absence of a valid State issued concealed handgun carry license.This is true even if the perpetrator himself is armed and threatens to kill the innocent person.The idea that an innocent person cannot defend him or herself but for use of a handgun and would suffer indictment for unlawful homicide notwithstanding, is ludicrous. But that is the nature of New York law.Isn’t that the tacit point of a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? And isn’t that the central point of the Bruen rulings?Raw abhorrence of firearms precludes rational debate over the right to armed self-defense in the face of imminent violent assault against self.In fact, even if the licensee does hold a valid concealed handgun carry license, that may not protect him from a charge of manslaughter or murder. The best that can be said about this is that at least the licensee is alive when he would otherwise be dead. But the ramifications of armed self-defense reflect the sad truth about living and working in New York.The Hochul Government’s aversion toward firearms and civilian citizen gun ownership is so strong that the New York Government begrudges the issuance of handgun licenses at all.And it gets worse. Of late, even where a handgun isn’t employed in self-defense, any use of self-defense that results in harm or death to an assailant may still result in a felony indictment. Recall the recent incident involving a retired Marine whom Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, brought a charge of manslaughter against. See, e.g., the article in Reuters. Even as violent crime escalates around the Country, especially in the major cities run by Democrat-Party administrations, the right to self-defense, armed or not, is under assault.The irony of an increasingly dangerous society, a wary, tentative police force post-Floyd George, and the incessant Government attack on Americans who would logically wish to carry a handgun for self-defense—since it is the most effective means available to defend one’s life—is both a disheartening and disorienting fact of life for those living or working in New York and in similar jurisdictions across the Country. That is what they must contend with.As if reading the minds of New Yorkers, the Hochul Government issued a reminder (actually a warning) to all New York residents, on June 24, 2022, one day after the Bruen decision came out, that New Yorkers should take care not to carry a handgun in public without a valid concealed handgun carry license, that Bruen hasn’t changed anything.“Governor Kathy Hochul today issued a reminder to gun owners that the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision to strike down New York's concealed carry law does not mean New York State's licensure processes and rules do not need to be followed. It does not automatically give current residential permit owners the ability to carry guns outside the home. Gun owners are required by law to follow current restrictions.” Hochul made these remarks on June 24, 2023, one day after the publication of the Bruen decision.Hochul would have known that most of the amendments to the Handgun Law were already drafted and coming down the pike, momentarily. That meant the nuances and peculiarities of multi-tier Gun licensing Statutes would remain.And that raises the question, post-Bruen: Why would a person seek to acquire a restricted New York handgun premise license in lieu of a concealed handgun carry license? After all, didn’t the elimination of the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement make the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license easier? Not really.Sure, the Hochul Government struck “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” from the Sullivan Act. But she remains stubborn and undeterred.Hochul continues to place roadblocks in the path of those individuals who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense. A plethora of sensitive place restrictions on lawful carry and use of a handgun for self-defense now plague holders of concealed handgun carry licenses: both new applications and renewals.The inclusion of the “Sensitive Place” provision and the “Good Moral Character” requirement in the CCIA operate essentially as stand-ins for “Proper Cause.”If the Hochul Government must acknowledge the right to armed self-defense outside the home no less than inside it, then the New York Government will place a plethora of obstacles in the path of those whom the State issues licenses to carry.The holder of such a license now finds himself constrained in the act of lawful carrying of a handgun and, therefore, constrained from lawfully using a handgun for self-defense in places that heretofore had no such restrictions.New York State, and New York City, especially, has become a patchwork quilt of places where the carrying of a handgun for self-defense—and therefore the use of it for self-defense—is illegal, notwithstanding the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Pre-Bruen, the only place restrictions pertained to were school zones and Federal and State Government buildings. The licensee knew that and avoided carrying a handgun in those areas and buildings. Now, the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license must play a child’s game of  “Hopscotch”—kept mentally off-balance not precisely aware whether he and his handgun and the concealed handgun license he carries, are situated in a prohibited “Sensitive Place.” Did he miss a marker? What if he has to walk through or drive through a designated “Sensitive Place” to arrive at his destination? Must he detour around the area?The concealed handgun carry licensee must also keep in mind that “Sensitive Locations” are subject to revision. New restricted areas may be listed, and he must keep assiduously abreast of all amendments to those“Sensitive Place” restrictions.So then, “full carry” UNRESTRICTED handgun licenses no longer exist in New York. Under the CCIA, such “full carry” licenses, are constrained by numerous rigidly enforced place restrictions—which the Government may add to at any time.New York UNRESTRICTED “FULL CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES are for all intents and purposes now reduced to RESTRICTED “LIMITED CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES, most notably, on Manhattan Island.

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

The “Good Moral Character” requirement operates differently from the State’s “Sensitive Place” provision.The idea behind amendments to “Good Moral Character” as applied to applications for New York concealed handgun carry licenses is to dissuade an applicant from going through the hurdles of obtaining one.That is a strong inducement for the applicant to forego attempting to acquire such a license, opting instead for a restrictive premise license. That is why the Hochul Government has maintained the confounding multi-tiered handgun licensing structure post-Bruen.While there would appear, at first glance, no rational reason for a person to opt for a HIGHLY RESTRICTED New York premise handgun license Post-Bruen, the Hochul Government there are more than enough hurdles in place, making the acquisition of a RESTRICTED concealed handgun carry license no assured proposition, and the detailed information the CCIA mandates might cause a conscientious person to wish to refrain from divulging substantial details of his private life to the Government. In that case, a person might wish to forego the intricate, confusing, and intrusive process to obtain a concealed carry license and accept, instead, a New York premise handgun license.

INDIVIDUALS PURSUING A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE MUST BE WILLING TO WAIVE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND PRIVACY, ALLOWING THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE MERCILESSLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE

For the individual undeterred in his quest to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, he must willingly accept Government interference with his fundamental right to privacy and autonomy.Application of this bolstered “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” provision has a chilling effect on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause and on tacit Freedom of Association, and on the Fourth Amendment right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An Applicant must now waive those rights if he wishes to pursue the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license.“GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” also butts up against one’s right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment—the very reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the“PROPER CAUSE” requirement.As applied to applicants for either highly restricted or restrictive premise handgun licenses only, the 2023 version of New York’s Handgun Law does not change anything. The CCIA reads as the prior version of the Gun Law read:NY CLS Penal §400.00(1):“Eligibility. No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true. No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant (a) twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard, or the national guard of the state of New York, no such age restriction shall apply; (b) of good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others (c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a felony or serious offense; (d) who is not a fugitive from justice; (e) who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802; (f) who being an a noncitizen (i) is not illegally or unlawfully in the United States or (ii) has not been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2); (g) who has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (h) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has not renounced his or her citizenship; (i) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness; (j) who has not been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of an office of the department of mental hygiene pursuant to article nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law, article seven hundred thirty or section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law or substantially similar laws of any other state, section four hundred two or five hundred eight of the correction law, section 322.2 or 353.4 of the family court act, has not been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to article ten of the mental hygiene law, or has not been the subject of a report made pursuant to section 9.46 of the mental hygiene law; (k) who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of section 530.14 of the criminal procedure law or section eight hundred forty-two-a of the family court act.”The above requirements apply to the issuance of all New York handgun licenses: the highly restrictive premise home or business license and the concealed handgun “full carry” license.Note that the requirements set forth in the aforesaid section of the Handgun Law mirror the requirements of Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, but also, in some instances, as illustrated in the State law, go well beyond what counts as a disability under Federal law. But understand——

FEDERAL LAW DISQUALIFIERS FOR POSSESSING A FIREARM DO NOT INCLUDE A GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT. NEW YORK LAW DOES.

The requirement is both inherently vague and markedly, nakedly subjective.How does a licensing officer determine an applicant has “the essential character, temperament, and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others”? If the individual falls into a Federal disability—for example, the individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental asylum, has a felony conviction, or having served in the military, has received a dishonorable discharge—the licensing officer will point to the disability and likely add the applicant lacks the necessary character to be trusted with possession of a handgun or with the possession of any firearm. But then, a claim of lack of proper character and temperament adds nothing to a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. THE REQUIREMENT IS REDUNDANT.But, if the licensing officer does not specify a disability in the notice of denial apart from the assertion that, in the licensing officer’s opinion, the applicant lacks proper character and temperament, then, in the absence of a factual basis for such a finding, other than mere recitation of subjective, personal opinion, a Court of competent jurisdiction would likely find the decision to be arbitrary and capricious.But an applicant would have to go through the lengthy, arduous, and costly process of filing a New York “ARTICLE 78” action, challenging the licensing officer’s decision, to obtain relief from a Notice of Denial to Issue a License.That has always been a problem with the use of a Character requirement in the Handgun Law. But, prior to the enactment of the CCIA, the requirement never posed a viable problem.The licensing officer wouldn’t point to the absence of proper character and temperament EXCEPT if the denial were grounded on an objective disability. Recitation of the disability would suffice to deny the issuance of a handgun license. But, of itself, recitation of lack of proper character would not suffice to support a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. Lack of Good Moral Character was, heretofore, in New York, neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to obtaining a license.The Licensing Officer might append his Notice of Denial with a finding that the applicant lacks proper temperament and character, but its inclusion would not add anything portentous to the Notice of Denial.An Article 78 judicial action challenging the Notice of Denial would address the license officer’s litany of disabilities—discrete and specific matters. For, it would be on the basis of the disabilities that character objectively comes into play. Still, one might make the case that severe mental illness, severe enough to require institutionalization is not of itself demonstrative of “BAD MORAL CHARACTER,” any more than a person having a serious heart condition, or cancer, should be considered to have “BAD MORAL CHARACTER” due to illness.Where a person has committed a serious crime due to mental illness (for example, a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity), a case may or not be made out that such a person has “BAD MORAL CHARACTER.” It is a gray area. But, in any event, the New York licensing officer would refuse to issue a handgun license to that person. The issue of “GOOD” or “BAD” MORAL CHARACTER is really irrelevant in that case.Moreover, by itself, the issue of “CHARACTER” counts for nothing. And yet, for those individuals now applying for a concealed handgun carry license, this elusive and illusive provision becomes a new highly ramped-up basis to deny issuance of a handgun license. It is even more subjective, and just as arbitrary, as New York’s old “Proper Cause” requirement.Like the multi-tier structure of handgun licensing, the inclusion of a character requirement in the Handgun Law has itself developed into a complex multi-tier structure.The requirement for those applying for a concealed handgun carry license, the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement established for application for a highly restricted handgun carry license is now merely the first step in a two-step process to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, that the applicant has the proper character to be issued a concealed handgun carry license.Post-CCIA, NY CLS Penal §400.00(1)(o):“for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”It isn’t clear whether only one, or two, or all five requirements listed above all fall into the sphere of “Good Moral Character” and we must wend our way through the thicket to get a handle on this.To begin, it is odd to require more than one standard of proper character in the State’s Handgun Law.Logically, if a person cannot be deemed to have sufficient good character to possess a handgun at all, what does it mean and why should it matter to require more of one’s character to carry a handgun in public?Surely, if a “Character” requirement is going to be posited at all, then it follows that a person either has the proper character and temperament to possess a handgun or does not. This is not to suggest that a person should be required to demonstrate special Character traits. Indeed a person can have bad character, but, unless he is a blatant threat to others, a licensing authority should not wield one’s Character as a sword against him.The problem here rests with the Government licensing of handguns. The multi-tier handgun scheme that New York has constructed around which the Government creates ridiculous requirements to justify, or rationalize, the need for such a tiered structure, only makes the entire notion of “CHARACTER” more ridiculous. But, to employ a “CHARACTER” provision in a licensing scheme at all is just “nuts.”Government creates handgun licensing schemes and then interjects requirements that beg the question of whether Government should be in the game of licensing exercise of a fundamental right at all.Sure, a person requires a license to practice law or to practice medicine, but, while a person does enjoy a basic (we would argue an unenumerated Ninth Amendment) right to make a living, and, in fact, has a duty to provide for himself and for his family, so as not to be a burden on himself and on society, a person does not have a Constitutional right to practice law or medicine.And the professions, not the Government, regulate whether one has the proper character to practice law or medicine, anyway. If a professional Board sitting on review of a person’s character does not believe a candidate has the proper character, the Board will not allow a person to sit for the Bar Exam or, in the case of the medical profession, to sit for the Medical Licensing Examinations. These exams are necessary conditions precedent to acquire a State License to practice law or medicine.But the inclusion of a “Good Moral Character” requirement as a condition precedent to obtaining a license to exercise the fundamental right to armed self-defense is bizarre, and, in practice, application of the requirement adds nothing substantive, definitive, or even rational to the process. Application of the requirement merely reflects the personal bias of the licensing authority.And there never was anything substantive about it. It is just a makeweight, and wholly subjective.The Federal grounds for disqualification are sufficient,* as they are, for the most part, objective and tend to preclude the insinuation of personal bias, conscious or not, into the process of adducing whether one can or cannot possess a firearm. The instant background check undertaken at a firearms dealer is enough.The mindset of the Hochul Government is crucial in analyzing and evaluating these new requirements in the CCIA.We will delve into this in the next article, beginning with whether New York makes use of this thing, in other State Statutes. It does. And we will take a look at how other States that have such a provision, utilize it, and lay out our arguments in support of the remarks made herein that there is no justification for employment of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” in New York’s Handgun Law.____________________________________*We must stress, consistent with prior statements made in previous articles, that our position is that, despite the seeming contradiction, the natural law right to armed self-defense is absolute.

But does this mean that all individuals should possess a firearm if they wish? The term ‘absolute,’ means ‘unqualified,’ and ‘without restriction.’ This logically entails the proposition that the natural law right to armed self-defense is an unqualified right of man, hence a right, without restriction.

But refer back to the word, ‘should,’ in the afore-referenced question, “Should all individuals possess a firearm if they wish? Further to the point, should there be some limitation on who possesses a firearm?

The word ‘should’ changes a proposition into a normative, moral statement that does not readily fall into the basic “true”/“false” paradigm. Our position is that pragmatic considerations require tough choices when it comes to who “should” “be allowed” to possess a firearm. That ultimately means some people, for pragmatic reasons, “should not” be permitted to possess guns.

Murderous psychopaths and psychotic maniacs fall into categories of individuals who should not possess firearms because their use of firearms is not limited to self-defense or for such benign purposes as hunting, target practice, or sport, such as skeet or trap-shooting, or Olympic events. And, recall the codification of the natural law right to armed self-defense (subsumed into “self-defense”/“self-preservation”) as the core predicate of the right, eliminating, then, use of firearms to commit murder or to threaten murder or other violence.

Federal Law also prohibits “illegal aliens” from possessing firearms. And that is right and proper. The United States is a Nation State, with physical geographical borders, comprised of citizens, whose allegiance, whether they accept it or not, is to the Nation—its Constitution, history, heritage, culture, ethos, and core ethical values.

By definition, an ‘illegal alien,’ is a person who intentionally defies our National geographical Integrity, our Constitutional integrity, and our Laws. His allegiance is not to our Country, nor to our Constitution. Therefore he, like a murderer, is a threat to our natural law right to self-defense, and therefore is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and, from a normative perspective, “ought” rightfully to be prohibited from possessing a firearm.

“Mental Defectives” are another category of individuals that are not in a position to be trusted with a gun as a very young child, as they pose a threat to others if they have access to a firearm. And as for those members of the armed forces who have been dishonorably discharged, they have brought dishonor on their Nation and on themselves and have demonstrated an inability to be trusted with a firearm, as, by definition, they pose a danger to the Nation, People, and Constitution.

But how far should these pragmatic bases to deny possession of firearms extend? The Government itself exists to preserve and protect the Constitution and provide for the common welfare of the citizens.

But Government is naturally inclined—given the power it wields—to subvert those ends, usurping the sovereignty of the American people.

The Biden Administration has disdainfully, unabashedly usurped the sovereignty of the American people and has deliberately, and maliciously failed to faithfully serve and protect the Nation, and has intentionally, malevolently, and spitefully, ignored enforcement of the Laws of the Land. And the Administration has gone further yet: coldly, callously, designing and implementing policy for the purpose of subverting and sabotaging the Laws of the Land.

It is not by accident this Administration has deliberately thwarted the citizenry's exercise of their Bill of Rights. The Administration has designed and implemented policy systematically designed to weaken the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Biden Administration is hell-bent determined to dismantle the institutions of our Country, to destroy our history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical values, fully embracing a Tyranny to thrust upon the Nation. And Democrat Party-controlled State Governments across the Country have taken the policy positions and messaging of the Biden Administration to heart: zealously following in the Administration’s footsteps, designing and implementing similar policies, all with the aim of destabilizing society, destroying the economy, demoralizing the people, and promoting all matter of vices against God, Country, and People.

It is but an understatement to assert that neither the Federal Government nor many State Governments are the best arbiter to decide how or whether the natural law right to armed self-defense is to be exercised.

As we see most clearly today, Government tends, through time, to institute more and more restrictions on who may “lawfully” possess firearms, and places ever more draconian restrictions on the types, kinds, and quantity of firearms and ammunition one may possess, and on the component parts and paraphernalia a person may “lawfully” keep.

The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this notion of ‘Tyranny’ in some depth, in previous articles and we will have much more to say about it and will do so in future articles. We will also deal at length with the notion of ‘absoluteness’ of our natural law rights and lay out further how that concept can be seen to cohere with a seeming logical inconsistency of ‘limitation’ placed on absoluteness in the exercise of natural law rights, utilizing “pragmatic realism” and “normative principles” to secure the Bill of Rights for all time, notwithstanding the strong desire and goal of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalist Empire Builders that insist the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is archaic, unworkable, and, therefore, must eventually be eliminated, as part of their major overhaul of this Nation’s  Constitution.

___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S SULLIVAN ACT OFFENDS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND MUST BE STRUCK DOWN

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY-THREE

SUBPART A

NEW YORK HAS ENACTED MANY GUN MEASURES FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY, BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE GUN LAW: THE SULLIVAN ACT OF 1911

For well over a century, ever since the enactment of the notorious Sullivan Act of 1911, the New York Government has successfully weathered all challenges to it.Since then, New York has enacted many laws directed at guns and gun possession, but these laws, properly understood, are not standalone gun laws. They are all revisions or amendments to the archaic Sullivan Act.This means that, while New York has MANY “gun laws” (lower case), the State truly has only ever had ONE “GUN LAW” (upper case).It is important to understand this. As long as the Sullivan Act exists, Americans residing or working in New York who desire to exercise their fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense will face constant obstacles and hurdles, and even Government harassment that negatively impacts their enjoyment of the Second Amendment guarantee.The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case NYSRPA vs. Bruen did nothing to diminish the impact of the Sullivan Act in practice. New York’s GUN LAW is as dictatorial and as oppressive now, as it was prior to Bruen.This became apparent once the New York State Legislature passed, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law, a new package of amendments to the Sullivan Act, titled, “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022, more often referred to by the acronym “CCIA.”The CCIA pays lip service to the Bruen rulings insofar as, and only to the extent that, the GUN LAW sheds the verbiage “PROPER CAUSE” from the Sullivan Act. That is the only concession made. Other than that, the GUN LAW is no less burdensome than before the passage of the CCIA, and in one major respect, worse.For, even with “PROPER CAUSE” struck from the GUN LAW, the “MAY ISSUE/GOOD CAUSE” requirement remains unscathed.The Government simply subsumed “PROPER CAUSE” into “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.” The new standard is as subjective as the old one.Present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses must comply with a new set of requirements to carry a handgun in New York. They are placed in the same boat as new applicants.New York gun owners were not fooled by the CCIA. Challenges to the Constitutionality of the amendments came within days of the Government's passage of it. Those cases are ongoing.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this and will stay on this. Readers are invited to peruse our comprehensive blog posts. And Ammoland Shooting Sports News has kindly reposted our articles. See, e.g., articles posted on January 20, 2023, January 9, 2023, January 6, 2023, January 5, 2023, and December 28, 2022—just to name a few.Unconscionable constraints on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense under the Kathy Hochul Government are no more relaxed than under the Government of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and remain a top priority for her administration. The Sullivan Act of 1911 makes this possible.Suppression of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York continues unabated, with the infusion of more and more restrictive, repressive gun measures, inexorably whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense.Nothing will stop this juggernaut unless or until either one of two things occurs: The State Legislature repeals the Sullivan Act, or the New York  Federal or State Courts strike the Sullivan Act down.Neither one of these two actions will occur as long as the New York Government and the New York State and Federal Courts retain a mindset abhorrent of firearms and antithetical to civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms. Neither the New York Government nor the U.S. Supreme Court has any illusion about this.The problem rests with the concept of “LICENSING OF HANDGUNS,” spawned by the Sullivan Act well over a century ago. The Sullivan Act introduced the formal handgun licensing scheme to New York.The New York Government knows that, as long as handgun licensing remains ostensibly “lawful,” the Government can and will continue to make incursions on the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court knows this, too.“The current handgun laws of New York State and New York City trace their origin to the state Sullivan Dangerous Weapons Act of 1911. Proposed by Democratic State Senator and Tammany Hall leader Timothy D. ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, who represented the slums of lower Manhattan, the Act made it a misdemeanor to possess a handgun without a permit and a felony to carry a concealed weapon in public. Whereas the Act designated judges as the licensing officers in much of the state, it gave the New York City police commissioner sole authority to grant or deny licenses in New York City, an arrangement that persists to this day. At least part of the motivation behind the Sullivan Act was a desire to keep firearms out of the hands of recent immigrants from Italy and Southern Europe—perceived to be prone to violence—by giving the New York Police Department (NYPD) the power to grant or deny permits. The NYPD's Licensing Division still handles all handgun license applications in the city. Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. Section 265.01(1) of the New York Penal Law makes possession of a handgun an automatic class A misdemeanor, unless a person can qualify for one of the exceptions listed in section 265.20. For ordinary citizens, the only exemption that applies is possession with a license issued under section 400.00. . . . Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. . . . As has been the case since the passage of the Sullivan Act, obtaining a license under Penal Law section 400.00 is the only lawful way for civilians in New York State to possess a handgun. . . .” “Pursued by a ‘Bear’? New York City's Handgun Laws in the Wake of Heller and McDonald,” 46 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 145, Winter 2012, by Matthew Bridge, J.D. Candidate 2013, Columbia Law.”New York holders of valid handgun licensees may not be immediately aware of an important fact. The handgun license acquired does not belong to the holder of it. The license is and remains the property of the licensing authority. Moreover, the conditions set by the licensing authority are terse, categorical, and blunt. For example, the holder of a handgun license issued by the New York City Police Department must surrender the license upon demand of the Police Department. That means his firearms must be vouchered as well. The reverse side of the license issued by the NYPD sets forth the following:“This license is revocable at any time. Upon demand of a police officer, a licensee must immediately surrender his/her license and handguns. Lost, stolen, confiscated, or surrendered handguns must be reported to the License Division immediately at 646-610-5560 or 646-610-5154.” [see discussion of NYPD handgun licensing procedures in AQ article, posted on October 19, 2015]The CCIA doesn't address this. But one should assume that such language will be incorporated in such new handgun licenses that a New York license authority happens to issue.When the High Court handed down the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, the Court knew it was tinkering around the edges of a beast. It should have struck down the Sullivan Act, at that time, but it didn’t.Possibly, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have done just that. The Court certainly had an opportunity to attack the Sullivan Act head-on when the Court took up for review the New York Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). Little came of that.__________________________________

SUBPART B

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO CONFRONT NEW YORK’S NOTORIOUS SULLIVAN ACT HEAD-ON BUT IN BOTH INSTANCES THE COURT PUNTED

Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the liberal wing of the Court would have none of that. They allowed the City of New York and past Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, to sidestep the unconstitutionality of the Sullivan Act, by amending both the New York City gun regulations and the New York State Gun Law to ostensibly cohere with the dictates of the Second Amendment.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adding an odd Concurring Opinion, attempted to split hairs, writing,“I agree with the per curiam opinion’s resolution of the procedural issues before us—namely, that petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.I also agree with Justice Alito’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 1540-1541; see Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Justice Alito joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saw the game the New York Government had played on New York’s gun licensees.The Chief Justice and other Justices permitted this. Perhaps they were pleased with it. But Associate Justices Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch would not stand for it. He set forth in detail his awareness of it, and his justified anger over it:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783,   171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller. Among other things, the ordinance prohibited law-abiding New Yorkers with a license to keep a handgun in the home (a ‘premises license’) from taking that weapon to a firing range outside the City. Instead, premises licensees wishing to gain or maintain the ability to use their weapons safely were limited to the seven firing ranges in the City, all but one of which were largely restricted to members and their guests.In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City vigorously and successfully defended the constitutionality of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals. One might have thought that the City, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this Court. But once we granted certiorari, both the City and the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case. Although the City had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance. And for good measure the State enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal.Thereafter, the City and amici supporting its position strove to have this case thrown out without briefing or argument. The City moved for dismissal ‘as soon as is reasonably practicable’ on the ground that it had ‘no legal reason to file a brief.’ Suggestion of Mootness 1. When we refused to jettison the case at that early stage, the City submitted a brief but ‘stress[ed] that [its] true position [was] that it ha[d] no view at all regarding the constitutional questions presented’ and that it was “offer[ing] a defense of the . . . former rul[e] in the spirit of something a Court-appointed amicus curiae might do.” Brief for Respondents 2. A prominent brief supporting the City went further. Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed. If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is ‘motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,’ and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal. Brief for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse et al. as Amici Curiae 2-3, 18 (internal quotation marks omitted).Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve that disposition. Under the Constitution, our authority is limited to deciding actual cases or controversies, and if this were no longer a live controversy—that is, if it were now moot—we would be compelled to dismiss. But if a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction, we have an obligation to decide it. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), “[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and under those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid. (emphasis added).Respondents have failed to meet this ‘heavy burden.’ Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U. S. 216, 222, 120 S. Ct. 722, 145 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is so for two reasons. First, the changes in City and State law do not provide petitioners with all the injunctive relief they sought. Second, if we reversed on the merits, the District Court on remand could award damages to remedy the constitutional violation that petitioners suffered.”See also AQ two articles analyzing the “Gun Transport Case” posted on our website on April 27, 2020, and on May 8, 2020. Our April 27, 2020 article was reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on that same April 27 date. See also the AQ article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports news on April 26, 2021. In that article, we remarked with satisfaction that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to take up a second New York gun case. In that case, captioned, NYSRPA vs. Corlett, 141 S. Ct. 2566 (2021), the High Court granted certiorari:“Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”The public would come to know this case as NYSRPA vs. Bruen, once Kevin P Bruen, the new Superintendent of the New York State Police replaced his predecessor, Keith M. Corlett.The matter discussed in NYSRPA vs. Bruen was of an order of magnitude greater than the earlier case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, insofar as the Bruen case dealt more directly with the Sullivan Act—the Act that required Americans to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.Yet, as impactful as the Bruen case WAS and IS, the High Court didn’t strike down the core of the Sullivan Act.Chief Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court evidently realizing the possibility of this, consciously limited the issue on review.The Bruen rulings, handed down on June 23, 2022, although potent and compelling, nonetheless provided the Hochul Government a modicum of wiggle room. That wiggle room allowed the Government to slither around the rulings through the enactment of a plethora of amendments to the Sullivan Act.As implausible and unconvincing a response to the Bruen rulings, as these amendments are, they served a purpose: to waylay the full impact of Bruen. And that is exactly what Hochul and the State Government in Albany did._____________________________________

SUBPART C

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL KNEW THE BRUEN RULINGS WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE STATE’S GUN LAW, THE SULLIVAN ACT, BUT SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW BRUEN TO GET IN THE WAY OF HER AGENDA

Challenges to the amendments to the Sullivan Act, i.e., the CCIA, came at once. This wasn’t unexpected.The Hochul Government knew this would occur since the Government’s amendments didn’t alleviate New York gun owners’ justified concerns over the exercise of the right to armed self-defense. The measures Hochul signed into law weren’t meant to do that. Hochul’s attack on the Second Amendment continued unabated and, in fact, intensified.The Government had planned to proceed with its agenda to restrain and constrain the exercise of a Divine Natural Law Right ever since New York enacted its “GUN LAW.”Heller and McDonald didn’t stop New York and other similar jurisdictions from continuing to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And Bruen wasn’t going to constrain New York and these other jurisdictions, either.The Hochul Government hoped the Courts would dismiss the challenges to the CCIA.After all, the New York State and Federal Courts had more often than not acquiesced to the Government in the many years and decades since the passage of the Sullivan Act, and the Hochul Government had no reason to expect the Courts wouldn’t do so now.Striking the expression, “PROPER CAUSE” from the GUN LAW served as mere window dressing.The Government knew exactly what it was doing when Albany passed the CCIA and Kathy Hochul signed the CCIA into law, as did the Plaintiffs, who brought suit against the Government, intent on preventing the Hochul Government from defying Bruen.Placing the requirement of “PROPER CAUSE” into another fixture of the Sullivan Act, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” that the High Court didn’t address, apparently seemed to both Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, a convenient way to avoid the strictures of Bruen.Hochul and Albany simply had to convince the New York Courts to go along with the charade.But the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York—the first Court called upon to deal with the CCIA—didn’t play along. This obviously surprised and puzzled and concerned the Hochul Government. The Federal trial Court imposed a stay on enforcement of the CCIA by granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ suit on the merits.The Hochul Government immediately appealed the decision of the New York District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the higher Court provided Hochul with some breathing room.The Plaintiff New York concealed handgun carry licensees weren't going to take this lying down. They appealed the adverse Second Circuit Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court deemed the case important enough to review a non-final interlocutory order, a rare occurrence.The High Court didn’t lift the stay imposed by the Second Circuit on the Plaintiff New York Concealed Carry Handgun licensees, but the result wasn't a complete win the Hochul Government might have wished for, either. The Hochul Government is able to breathe a sigh of relief, for a time at least. But the High Court made clear it will be watching closely to determine whether either the Second Circuit or the Government is dragging its feet on this. A day of reckoning is coming for the New York Government. And the Sullivan Act’s head is in the guillotine.Having grown visibly tired of seeing Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen waylaid by stubborn State Governments and their Courts, and by their brethren on the High Court as well, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will insist on attacking unconstitutional Government laws directly, and strenuously. With a no-nonsense legal mind like Amy Coney Barrett on the High Court, New York gun owners and Americans around the Country may finally see their efforts through the years and decades finally bearing fruit.Hochul and Albany know the Sullivan Act’s days are numbered. A gun licensing regime clearly designed to subvert the fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense is a thing that, long ago, should have been repealed by the State Legislature or struck down by the New York Courts, buried, and never again resurrected.Instead, this thing has not only lingered but has through time grown appreciably stronger. It is an affront to the Nation’s history and heritage, and inconsistent with our Nation's core beliefs, grounded as they are on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Self over Government. New York's Sullivan Act is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Bill of Rights and contrary to the natural sovereignty of the American citizenry over the Government.The New York Safe Act of 2013, signed into law by Andrew Cuomo, and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022, signed into law by Cuomo’s successor, Kathy Hochul, are not to be perceived as models of a new era in America, but, rather as relics of an earlier time—a much earlier age—one harkening back to medieval feudalism.The U.S. Supreme Court must strike down the Sullivan Act. That will serve to send a strong message to the States that have similar Anti-Second Amendment regimes, and that will also serve to send a strong message to the Biden Administration, too.These so-called “elites” who machinate for a world empire in their meetings held in Davos and in the Government offices of Brussels and in the clandestine meetings of the Bilderberg Group and in other such secretive enclaves dispersed throughout the world are all throwbacks to and should be perceived as nothing more or other than throwbacks to medieval Europe.These “elites” seek a return to the world of the Middle Ages, a world of empire, consisting of legions of abjectly penurious serfs, the “preterite,” and a minute number of extravagantly wealthy and powerful royalty and nobility, the “elect.”The empire this new royalty and nobility envisions, and which is taking shape, is designed to embrace all of Europe, the British Commonwealth Nations, and the United States as well.Craven toadies like Hochul and Newsome and the brain-addled, corrupt Biden, have made clear that their interests are not our Nation’s interests nor those of our people. And their allegiances are not to our Nation, nor to our Constitution, nor to our people.Their aim is to incite ill will among the American people and to destabilize our cities, counties, states, and the entire Union, so that the whole may weaken and fall. These destructive forces then intend to merge the remains of our Country and its people into a grandiose neo-feudalistic world order that serves the interests and goals of their foreign, alien masters, not their Countrymen.Americans should resist all efforts, seductive or forceful, aimed to compel compliance.We can begin by making clear that we will not relinquish our Bill of Rights.We will not relinquish our duty and our ability to resist tyranny.We will not relinquish our natural law God-Given right to keep and bear arms.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

BRUEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEEDED BUT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART FOUR

As we alluded to, in our earlier articles on Bruen, the High Court’s decision is meant to redirect the actions of those jurisdictions that have misread and misapplied Heller.As one reads the Bruen Majority Opinion, and the Concurring Opinions, it becomes clear that the salient purpose of the Court’s Majority is to redirect those jurisdictions toward a proper understanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as explained in Heller and McDonald. Bruen is intended to instill Courts with an appreciation of the proper standard of review to be used when reviewing Courts are called upon to test the constitutionality of government actions that impact the Second Amendment.Too many jurisdictions have, heretofore, intentionally, and stubbornly, or accidentally and carelessly, failed to heed the dictates of the two seminal Second Amendment holdings that impact all Second Amendment cases—Heller and McDonald. Henceforth, in the 21^st Century, this failure to heed Heller and McDonald is not acceptable. The Bruen decision as propounded is meant to correct serious irregularities in the judicial standard those Courts have heretofore employed— “intermediate scrutiny”/ “interest-balancing”—when reviewing the Constitutionality of Government actions impacting the Second Amendment.But truth to tell, this wasn’t the salient reason the High Court took up the case. And, notwithstanding that the conservative wing of the Court reviewed the case at all, this was not by wish of the liberal wing of the Court. It required the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, and his faithful colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well, if the case were to be reviewed at all. In that regard, Bruen is just like Heller. For Heller to be accepted for review, it required the cooperation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Their votes were necessary if the conservative wing—at the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—were to be able to hold, finally, what had always been plain: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is not connected to one’s service in a militia. The dependent clause provides a rationale for the right—a mechanism to forestall tyranny of Government from taking root—but it is not at all to be considered a limitation on the exercise of the right. That would make no sense, on logical grounds alone, for it would reduce the right to a nullity. But, just as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to get both onboard in Heller, so, similarly, Associate Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice and to Justice Kavanaugh to get them onboard in Bruen. Doing so ultimately made for a debilitated Bruen. And, as we explain in our continuing comprehensive exposition, Bruen is a markedly weak case. Bruen is much less than it could have been and much less than it should have been. That is to say, the entire handgun licensing structure of New York should have been struck down. But it wasn't. The Court could have done this in the New York City “gun transport case” if the Court had decided the case on the merits as both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wanted. That didn’t happen. Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court, didn’t want that to happen. And Justice Kavanaugh acquiesced to the wishes of the Chief Justice in that case. Similarly, in Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court might have struck down the handgun licensing structure of New York that had existed for over one hundred years as it is an affront to the natural law right of armed self-defense. But the liberal wing didn’t want that to happen, and Justice Roberts didn’t want to see that happen either. Yet that was the raison d’être why Bruen came before the Court. If but tacitly, Petitioners, nonetheless, sought to strike down the entirety of the handgun licensing regime in New York, as it is an abomination. It was, in its very design, intended to severely hobble those Americans who reside in New York, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. New York intended to inhibit exercise of those citizens who reside in New York of their God-Given natural law right of armed self-defense.Chief Justice Roberts didn’t want to see the handgun licensing structure of New York struck down, and he cajoled Justice Kavanaugh to join him in preventing a holding in Bruen that would see the Court doing just that: striking down the one hundred-and eleven-year-old Sullivan Act—the progenitor of the entire handgun licensing structure of New York—which has only grown more robust and egregious through time. And the liberal wing of the Court certainly didn’t want to see the handgun licensing regime of New York collapsing. For their goal is to see an end to the Second Amendment. The Sullivan Act is consistent with that goal.Bruen, unlike the New York City gun transport case that preceded it, was decided on the merits, but the ruling of the Court—there really was only one ruling—did not do much for Americans who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms unimpeded by Government. To the contrary, it made matters worse—much worse for present holders of New York City concealed handgun carry licenses. Thus, because Justices Thomas and Alito were prevented from striking at the core of New York’s handgun licensing regime, they spent most of their energies laying out the Heller standard for review. If one stops to think about that, the standard of review that Courts are supposed to apply and are supposed to adhere to was never a major issue in the case, and that it existed at all, was only as tangentially related to the key concern: the unconstitutionality of New York’s entire handgun licensing scheme. In other words, if New York Courts had applied the appropriate standard in reviewing Government actions impacting the Second Amendment, as the Courts should have been doing all along, on their own initiative, then Bruen would never have been necessary. The New York Courts would have themselves struck down the New York handgun licensing regime a long time ago, as blatantly unconstitutional, and Petitioners in the Bruen case, and many other American citizens residing in New York, would have, long ago, been able to exercise their right of armed self-defense without Government interfering with their inalienable right to do so. And that in and of itself would have taken care of the notorious crime wave impacting the City of New York, in particular. That New York Courts have failed to do so and that they, in fact, have embraced the unconstitutionality of New York Government harassment of those citizens who simply wish to exercise their right of armed self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so in Bruen, and that would make sense after methodically going through application of the Heller test. Yet, the High Court stopped short of doing that. The Court left the handgun licensing scheme intact. It is our belief that Associate Justices Thomas and Alito would have liked to have been done with it, for the last time, and would have done away with it, but for reluctance on the part of the Chief Justice himself, and, on the part of Justice Kavanaugh as well, apart from the liberal wing of the High Court.  For far too long, all too many Federal and State Courts have mangled Heller and McDonald, wrongly reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right”—a point Justice Thomas made in his comment to the 2015 Friedman case that the Court failed to grant certiorari on, and that he pointed to again in Bruen. Justice Thomas emphasized that the States cannot reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right.” But many State Governments have done just that. And the State and Federal Courts in those jurisdictions had routinely held such Government actions as Constitutional when they were not.More inclined to adopt Dissenting Justice Breyer’s argument and reasoning and that of other liberal wing Justices in Heller and McDonald, rather than the sound judicial reasoning and rulings of the Majority, the lower Courts were legally bound to follow, those Courts had slowly eroded Heller and McDonald. Through time this resulted in the production of a substantial body of case law that has the invidious and insidious effect of striking down Heller and McDonald majority opinion rulings and reasoning. Thus, the lower federal and state Courts replace Majority Opinion Conservative wing rulings, respectful of the Second Amendment, with liberal wing musings, disrespectful of and abhorrent of the Second Amendment, as is plain from a perusal of liberal wing dissenting opinions—a serious injustice, establishing erroneous precedents across the appellate Court landscape. The United States Supreme Court did have many opportunities for more than a decade to redress the Constitutional irregularities of State and municipal Governments. Plenty of cases came to the High Court requesting review, but the liberal wing of the High Court did not want that. Those Justices that detested the Heller and McDonald holdings would have much preferred the de facto, or even de jure, erasing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And they would have been well on their way to the attainment of that goal if Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland had acquired a seat on the High Court. The liberal wing Justices were and are always of one mind on matters impacting the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t want to strengthen, or reinforce, or extend the rulings of Heller and McDonald as a review of those cases would have done if Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy were onboard with that. At the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have done just that But, without the support of Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Kennedy, that wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy most certainly were not prepared to do anything that might strengthen or extend the Heller and McDonald case rulings. It tells a person much about the jurisprudential makeup of the Chief Justice and about Justice Kennedy.So, Heller and McDonald languished. And, the death of Justice Scalia, and Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to seats on the High Court, wouldn’t change the equation. The excruciating painful disembowelment of the two seminal Second Amendment cases was inexorable and inevitable. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were powerless to do anything about it unless they had the votes to prevent this. But, without Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy—and thereafter, Roberts and Kavanaugh—on their side, they didn’t have the votes. This meant that many Americans, in the interim, were systematically denied the right guaranteed to them in the Second Amendment.That all changed with the Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who, it is safe to say, supports a robust Second Amendment, consistent with the framers’ intent. With Barrett onboard, Roberts and Kavanaugh would have to lend their support to the Conservative wing, or they would be found out for the imposters they were and are. But they could not be caught operating as devoted companions of the liberal wing of the Court who seek to make mincemeat of the Bill of Rights. That would never do, especially for the Chief Justice to be in the minority on any decision, and certainly not on one impacting a fundamental right of the American people. Now that the Court did at least somewhat strengthen Heller and McDonald, with the Bruen decision, has this rectified the situation for Americans? Have States begun their slow reassessment of the Second Amendment? Have they begun to treat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a “first-class right” and not a “second-class right”? Perhaps so. Time will tell. Some jurisdictions in fact appear inclined to do so. But, in New York—from where Bruen sprung—not so. Definitely not so! And we will explore why that is in the next several articles on Bruen._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose.  Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige.  And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it.  The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website.  It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov.  A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from.  The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of  tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.  Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.  And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association.    The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed.  Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well   as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved   

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

QUOTATION LEAD-IN TO ARTICLE

“It is time for us to think outside the box and form two countries. Instead of civil war I propose civil separation. We are two countries, so ideologically opposed that each feels victimized and dominated by the other. Political leaders need to step up and brainstorm next steps. Clearly lay out the two ideologies and give each state a vote as to where they belong.” ~“Opinion Letter” from reader of The New York Times posted on June 5, 2022, responding to May 27, 2022 “America May Be Broken Beyond Repair,” by the Political Progressive Columnist for the Times, Michelle Goldberg. The letter writer, Dawn Menken, a Psychologist, from Portland, Oregon, is the author of “Facilitating a More Perfect Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders,” published in 2021*

THE CONCEPT OF ‘PRIVILEGE’ ISN'T AT ALL THE SAME THING AS AN ‘UNMODIFIABLE, FUNDAMENTAL, IMMUTABLE, ILLIMITABLE, AND ETERNAL GOD-BESTOWED RIGHT’, BUT THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE OFTEN, AND ERRONEOUSLY, CONFLATED

If the American public didn’t know the truth before, it knows it now: the battle for the very Soul of the Country is on the line, and Ground Zero of that battle isn’t Uvalde, Texas. It’s New York City, New York.The Nation is indeed “two Countries,”—no less so now than at the time of the American Civil War: friend against friend, brother against brother, uncle against cousin, father against son. But, what is different today is that ideologies cut across and into the very notion of what it means to be an American. There are those who hold to the meaning and purport of our Nation as set forth in our Constitution and especially in the Nation's Bill of Rights. And there are those who wish to jettison all of it in the erroneous belief that our Nation is at its core,  immoral, even evil. They wish to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic. These adherents of the ideology of Collectivism have, with the aid of nefarious and shadowy and powerful forces, residing both here and abroad, gained control over much of the Federal Government. And having gained control over much of the Press and of media, as well, they propagate their message to the American people incessantly and vehemently. But one thing these Collectivist overseers have not gained control over: America's armed citizenry. And that disturbs and perplexes them and places them in a quandary as to what to do about it. For doing something about that, these Collectivists must. One cannot destroy a Nation if one cannot gain control over those who have the will and means to effectively resist the insinuation of tyranny over them.But, how does one go about separating an estimated 400 million firearms (according to American Gun Facts) in the hands of one-third of the target population. According to a November 2020 Gallop Poll, thirty-two percent of Americans possess firearms. See also report of the Rand Corporation, a 2017 report of the Pew Research Center, titled, “the Demographics of gun ownership,” and an SSRN 2021 “National Firearms Survey.” Seditious newspapers, like the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, and seditious Cable and Broadcast news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR disparage guns and gun ownership so frequently and so vehemently that a person is led to infer that their business models are designed around that one narrative. The amount of air time and Press coverage these news organizations devote to defensive use of arms is so scarce as to be essentially nonexistent. Such mention that is made of effective defensive use of arms to thwart criminal because of too much internet chatter regarding it, is given curt treatment with the hope that it will eventually dissipate on its own. Instead the American psyche is bombarded with viral memes. Injected with and subjected to verbal and visual memes on a daily basis, the American develops a phobic reaction toward guns and toward those who possess them: word phrases such as Gun Violence, Gun Culture, Mass Shootings, Assault Weapons, AR-15 Rifles, Weapons of War, Large Capacity Magazines, when coupled with images of violence operate as visual and auditory cues, that induce a neurotic reaction in the target population. This is to be expected; in fact this is intended. The goal is to create in the mind of the target a feeling of physical revulsion and repulsion toward guns.But, is it really a concern over the safety of innocent people that motivates a vigorous response against firearms and firearms' ownership, misguided though that be, or is there something more sinister at play? If it were the former, one would expect a harsh response toward the massive wave of everyday criminal violence infecting our Country, especially in the major urban areas. But, we see no such response. Those State and municipal Government officials and legislators who rabidly attack guns in the hands of average, rational, responsible, individuals handle rampant violent and vicious crime infecting their locales with an air of casual indifference and diffidence. So, it cannot be violent crime generally or violent gun crime committed by drug-crazed lunatics, psychopathic and psychotic gangbangers, and by garden-variety criminals that motivate these officials. What might it be, then? Why would Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Government officials, along with their compatriots in the Press, go off half-cocked whenever a rare occurrence, invariably avoidable, of "mass violence" arises, occasioned by the actions of a solitary lunatic? Why would Government officials and legislators shriek for more nonsensical gun laws, targeting tens of millions of average Americans, predicating the need for it on the lowest common denominator among us: the lone wolf psychotic. The answer is plain. The actions of the lone wolf psychotic merely provide a convenient pretext. It isn't the criminal actions of the lone wolf malcontent psychotic that Government is concerned about. For that lone wolf doesn't pose a viable threat to a Government. Rather, it is the armed citizenry that poses a threat to Government and by the very fact that the citizenry is armed. But, why should Government fear its own citizenry? It shouldn't and wouldn't unless Government seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the citizenry, as it clearly aims to do.A perspicacious Tyrant would know it is a Tyrant. But this Federal Government doesn't know it. So entrenched in Tyranny is this Federal Government through years and decades of usurpation of the authority rightfully belonging to the American people, that it has grown oblivious to its unlawful usurpation of power and authority. The Federal Government has amassed power and authority that doesn't belong to it, and never did belong to it, believing, wrongly, that the power it has usurped from the people is rightfully its own. And the Government has become jealous in guarding this power, hoarding it all for itself.It then stands to reason that the Federal Government would come to perceive the armed citizenry as a potential rival to crush, rather than as a master to serve. But, even in that the Federal Government, as Tyrant, is really but a caretaker to those bankers and financiers who are plotting the demise of this western Nation-State and all western Nation-States.Americans celebrate July 4 every year, since July 4, 1776, the Day America's first  Patriots declared their independence from tyranny. The Declaration of Independence was a righteous but defiant act. It led to war. It was a war hard fought. And the seeming underdog vanquished the mighty British empire. July 4, 2022, is just around the corner. But every year, since the turn of the 21st Century, Americans have had cause for concern, whether this July 4th Celebration would be our Nation's last.The founders created a Republican form of Government, having considered and dismissed many others. the American people would themselves be sovereign rulers where their representatives would serve and represent their interests. A Republican form of Government as envisioned and as created is antithetical to a Dictatorship, where Government is sovereign over the people.The British monarchy would eventually come to terms with loss of the American colonies. The Rothschild clan, on the other hand, would not forgive nor forget the loss of those colonies, and the loss of financial riches across the Atlantic Ocean. With the help of other financiers they realized it best to use subterfuge rather than arms to defeat the colonialists descendants. With the creation of the Federal Reserve System and with the seeding of money to the representatives of the people, to do their bidding and not that of the American people, and with their control over vast levers of power of Government, and with their control of the Press—the mechanism of dissemination of information—the Rothschild clan and its captain have gained back in two hundred and fifty years all that they had lost in eight years of the American Revolutionary War—but for one thing:

UNLIKE THE PEOPLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE AN ARMED PEOPLE

A Tyrannical Caretaker Government for the Rothschild and Soros Financiers and Globalist Billionaire elites cannot gain control over a citizenry that has the requisite will and the means to effectively resist oppression and subjugation.Americans are well aware that the loss of their Republic, their Sovereignty, of their God-Given Rights and Liberties is at hand—but for the fact that Americans are armed.The senile, corrupt, weak-willed, and weak-kneed puppet of the Globalist elites, signed a flurry of executive orders on a wide variety of matters, rescinding and countermanding the gains made by Donald Trump in returning our Nation to prosperity and prominence on the world stage. But, the policy-makers wisely refrained from taking any action, curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The puppet masters knew that they would need time to consolidate their power even with the feeble, frail Biden puppet and legions of other lackeys at their disposal. And time they now had with Trump removed from Office. And they knew that it would be just a matter of time before some lunatic with a gun would create a furor that the Press could pounce upon. Perhaps, they even had a hand in prepping their psychotic robots to instigate the events that would serve as the quasi-plausible pretexts upon which to launch a flurry of new anti-gun legislation.All of this would be necessary. A new soci0-political-economic paradigm embracing the entire world is an ambitious project. And the remains of the United States is a vital component for bringing that project to fruition. Pragmatic concerns mandate this. But emotions probably also play a part. The Rothschild clan could see, not only in the demise of the United States, but in the manner of that demise—Americans denigrating their own history and heritage, destroying their own monuments, disparaging their own Founders—a malicious joy in that undertaking would be something the Rothschild clan and George Soros et. al. would chuckle over.The nascent American people effectively resisted tyranny once before, long ago, against immense odds, and overthrew a tyrannical Government, the British Empire. That empire was nominally ruled by a Monarch, George III. But it was  effectively ruled by the Rothschild Banking Cartel.George III was long laid to rest. The present British Dynasty, the House of Windsor, is decadent, effete, corrupt, and a major expense to the English people. Once Queen Elizabeth dies, the monarchy will quickly wither under King Charles if he becomes King at all. The English Parliament, like the monarchy operates more by empty ritual. The real power resides in the Bank of England, just as the Federal Reserve presides over the Government of the United States.The United States Supreme Court will soon release its decision in Bruen, and the puppet masters and their minions in the Press and in Government are worried; frantic, really. What claim can they make on the Nation if sovereignty over it continues to rest, not in them, but in the American people?Much more concerning to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor as it was designed to do—is retention by the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.That abhorrence isn’t grounded on mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns. It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. The Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people.In colorful language, The NYTimes explains this frustration, rage, and fear—one borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights. The Times says:“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.That aforementioned article came out in late May. Two weeks later, ten U.S. Republican Senators, “Ten Little Indians”,** broke ranks. They betrayed their Oath to their Constituents. That was bad enough. But, they also betrayed their Oath to Country and to Constitution. That was worst of all. For, in doing so, they betrayed their Faith and Allegiance in the Divine Creator in daring to circumvent Divine Will. They have joined the ranks of the Democrat Party Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Satanists. These “Ten Little Indians”—these ignominious United States Republican Party Senators, ten in number—should, properly, justifiably, suffer the fate of those “Ten Little Indians” of poem.The Hill reports, “A bipartisan group of senators announced a deal Sunday on framework legislation to address a recent surge in gun violence in the U.S.The proposed legislation includes funding for school safety resources, strengthened background checks for buyers under the age of 21, incentives for states to implement their own red flag laws, penalties for straw purchases of firearms and increased protections for domestic violence victims.The bipartisan group was made up of 20 senators, including 10 GOP lawmakers, many of whom are strong supporters of gun rights and political allies of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).”With support from those 10 Republicans, the legislation likely has the votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. And what caused these 10 Republicans to take affirmative action against preservation of an absolute and essential fundamental Right—the Natural Law Right of Armed Self-Defense? What caused these Republicans to capitulate to the Neo-Marxist Democrats: Bribes of Money? Desire to appease an angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist lunatics? Fear of physical assault from this angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist fanatics and lunatics if these Republicans failed to bow down to the mob and to a renegade Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Congress and to the powerful and ruthless forces that control them both? Or, were they of that mindset all along:The Destroyers of our Nation don’t even deign to refer to gun possession as a Basic Right—the most basic Right: one grounded on personal survival, be it from predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather they utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it. Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something wonderful that some people attain by dint of birth advantage or connection made or acquired—but that most do not.This substitution of words is no small thing. To be sure, the words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. For example, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary——“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.” Yet, a “Right’, i.e., a “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

• “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
• “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”  
• “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
• “All rights are essentially property rights.”
• “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

This distinction between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the root of  Bruen, whether one knows this or not, and therein rests its singular importance for Americans.And the Bruen case is more important to the preservation of a free Republic than many Americans can truly appreciate or the legacy Press and Government will let on.In its Brief for review, on December 17, 2020, the Petitioner presented the issue thus:“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center. Heller made clear that a person has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But, the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The tacit implication is this: exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute.In an attempt to lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioner, the Robert’s Court limited the scope of the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:“Whether the state of New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”John Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted to chop off the legs of the issue at the knee: reducing the reviewable issue merely to the constitutionality of  NYPD procedures.In light of the recent Uvalde, Texas incident, an incident that the Harris-Biden Administration, along with a Democrat-Marxist-controlled Congress and seditious Press, has irresponsibly, reprehensibly, unconscionably, shamelessly and incessantly focused the public's attention on and magnified to further its goal—the eradication of the Nation's Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the toppling of a free Constitutional Republic—the Bruen case takes on heightened importance. This Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist abhorrence of the armed citizenry is borne of outright fear. The Tyrant always hates and fears an armed citizenry. But, what might Americans expect from the High Court apropos of Bruen.In a worst-case scenario for the puppet masters and their minions who seek the dismantling of our free Republic, the Court will strike down the entire handgun licensing regime. If that were to happen, the impact would be felt across the Nation.Americans would immediately commence filing lawsuits challenging restrictive concealed handgun licensing regimes across the Nation, as well they should.The Bruen case was/is primed to do just that. And, after more than a decade— and with Marxist/Globalist Government's continuing consolidation of power, methodically and inexorably stripping the citizenry of its Fundamental Rights and of its sovereignty over Government—it is high time for another seminal Second Amendment case. Only through the preservation of the armed citizenry can America's Patriots ever hope to preserve the Founders hard-fought victory over oppression and Tyranny. Only through steadfast defense of the meaning, and purpose, and  the American Revolution of 1776, can Americans effectively repulse the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Open Society/EU/UN/New World Order Collectivist Counterrevolution of the 21st Century.___________________________________

DON’T RELY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE FORTHCOMING BRUEN DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE MORE DISAPPOINTMENT THAN JOY—JUST LIKE THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION THAT CAME BEFORE IT.

Even the most politically naïve of Americans and even the most devout of the Democrat Party faithful must now have serious misgivings about the future well-being of our Nation. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—after Trump—is not what they counted. It is not what they bargained for. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—this Federal Government—does not serve their interests and that it does not have their life, safety, and well-being at heart: quite the opposite in fact. The Executive Branch and the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress are two institutions serving the interests of the lunatic fringe Neo-Marxist Cultists and Neoliberal Globalist Billionaire Bilderberg Group Clubbists, only.The shared aspiration of both is to witness the demise of the United States as an independent sovereign nation-state; the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic; the annihilation of a once proud and sovereign American people and their concomitant debasement and devolution to subjugation, and servitude. And all that is occurring swiftly.Nor should Americans pin their hopes on the High Court—the Third Branch of the Federal Government—to save them from the mess deliberately propagated by the first two. If Americans believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will surely preserve and protect the Constitution and staunchly defend their Bill of Rights, they will surely be sorely disappointed.If the New York City gun transport case is a harbinger of things to come from the rulings in Bruen, then Bruen is likely to be a hollow victory at best. Less a third seminal Second Amendment case building on Heller and McDonald, Bruen is likely to read more like the Roe v Wade abortion case—a sorry attempt to satisfy everyone, it will likely do little to satisfy anyone. And, why do we say this:First and Foremost, Consider——The Roberts Court's reconfiguration of the issue in Bruen was meant to forestall  a cataclysmic ruling that would put a stop to the very notion of open-ended “gun regulations”—the bane of the Second Amendment—that would serve to buttress and strengthen the Heller and McDonald rulings. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court wanted none of that. And the restructuring of the  issue in Bruen was meant to guarantee that noxious, heavy-handed and clearly unconstitutional handgun licensing schemes, would be here to stay, at least in some jurisdictions. Thus, it behooves the American Patriot, to be wary of High Court meddling, no less so than Executive and Legislative Branch meddling in the matter of fundamental, immutable, absolute—yes, absolute—Rights. The Third Branch of the Federal Government—this Roberts Court, sans Scalia— no less than the first two Branches, will not zealously defend the Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the integrity and fortitude and intellectual  acumen of Justices Thomas and Alito. For they are only two stalwart American Patriots remaining now that Justice Scalia is no longer with us. But, then, the Framers of our Constitution, with Divine guidance, did intend and did provide, through inclusion of God-Given Absolute Rights, existent inherently in man, that the American citizenry would be wanting if bereft of support from any one or more or all three of the three Branches of the Federal Government. The American people require not assistance in defense of the Nation's elemental Rights and Liberties, for the Federal Government cannot excise them away. The Executive Branch cannot issue Presidential edicts or Bureaucratic Rules to blunt the exercise of them. The Legislative Branch cannot enact laws to nullify them. And the Judicial Branch cannot issue opinions to deny their import. All attempts to modify, repeal, abrogate, dismiss, ignore, or reinterpret God-Given Rights by Governmental artifice is unlawful from the get-go. The plain, succinct, categorical language of the sacred Rights of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution makes transparent, the immutable, illimitable, eternal, non-modifiable, absolute nature of them and demonstrates the irrationality and incongruity of any attempt by the Government or by its proxies to diminish them.But, then, should Americans ever have placed faith in this Federal Government, above their faith in Divine Natural Law. Of course not! Does not this Federal Government, not unlike any other Government in history, have, within it, the seeds of repression, oppression—in a word, 'tyranny'? Assuredly so!Truly, to defend Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty, the onus will always rest, as it has in the beginning, and as it must in the end—on the people themselves— to defend their Liberty, Freedom, and sovereignty against all threats whether emanating outside the Country or writhing within its very bowels.Thus, Americans should not place, their hopes and dreams in the High Court as their main, much less their sole, source of and mechanism for their salvation. That Branch of Government, as with the other two, is ultimately a "political organization," as unreliable and as conniving as the other two. Sure, Justices Thomas and Alito are known quantities: men of unparalleled principle and ethics. But, only the late Justice Scalia had sufficient, formidable strength— capable of standing up to Chief Justice Roberts; keeping both Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court in check.But the eminent Justice Antonin Scalia is, unfortunately, no longer with us. He died under mysterious circumstances: circumstances never resolved, events not adequately explained; circumstances unlikely ever to be resolved or adequately explained to the public's satisfaction.So then, what will Americans likely see from the upcoming Bruen decision? The U.S. Supreme Court will strike down New York City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses, and it may do so on grounds of vagueness or arbitrariness; but that will still leave the heart of “may-issue”/“proper cause” in force. Stephen Breyer and the other liberal wing Associate Justices will file their lengthy and vehement dissents. And Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—with Amy Coney-Barrett, perhaps—will probably file concurring opinions. And, if so, they will likely point to, explicate, and expound upon the illegal and illogical “may-issue”/“proper cause” construct. But the concurrences as with the dissents will be dicta only. They will not have the force of law, i.e., they will not operate as binding holdings/rulings.The case holdings/rulings will, then, likely come up short. Given a reworking by the Roberts Court of the issue, as presented in Petitioners' Brief, it is unlikely  the Conservative Court majority will be able to strike down the entirety of concealed handgun licensing structure of New York even if Justices Thomas and Alito would be willing and prepared to do just that. For, if that were to happen, it would implicate and therefore jeopardize similar handgun licensing regimes in other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions. Justice Roberts and the liberal wing would never allow that to happen. And Justice Scalia isn't here to see that it would happen.See, e.g., article in Syracuse News, where one New York  District County attorney predicts that the Court's ruling in Bruen will be very narrow.

“Locally, law enforcement officials don’t expect the decision will affect the policing of guns or safety.

'I think (the court is) going to take the narrowest route possible' said Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick.”

Strong concurrences by Justices and Alito and Thomas would only operate as dicta, not actionable case rulings/holdings. Thus, a minimalist Bruen decision would hearken back to the limp and lame New York City handgun transport case. That would be a blow to the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The validity of New York's concealed handgun licensing regime, along with the underlying methodology/paradigm model of “may-issue”/“proper cause” will remain intact. But that is what we will see. The Arbalest Quarrel hopes we are wrong in our estimates. We would be surprised but pleased if that were to happen, but we don't expect that it will.A minimalist High Court ruling in Bruen would also disparage the import of the Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. The Nation’s enemies would be pleased. America's Patriots, rightfully, would not.Such a paltry ruling would not bode well for the continued security of a free State, especially in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate.But, even a minimalist ruling favoring the Bruen Petitioners will not be good enough for Anti-Second Amendment news organizations such as CBS News, whose doom and gloom prognostications only see the upending of the entire New York State concealed handgun licensing regime:“The Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on a case that could overturn New York state's gun carry law. Records obtained by CBS2 show as many as 20,000 more guns could inundate the streets of the Big Apple, following such a decision.”That isn't likely to happen even on a best case ruling scenario. For, contrary to this reporting, the constitutionality of the entire New York State concealed handgun carry regime isn't at issue. The issue on review goes to the procedures created by the NYPD Licensing Division. Chief Justice Roberts saw to that. So, we know where his sentiments rest, even if, as a matter of logic alone, and not law, the Constitutionality of the entire New York handgun licensing regime is impacted. As we expect, the underlying handgun licensing structure will remain unscathed, consistent with the restrictions made by the Roberts Court on the issue to be decided in Bruen.Suppose, then, that consistent with the constrained issue, the Court's majority does strike down the City's concealed handgun carry license procedures, only, leaving intact the salient structure of the State's handgun licensing regime. That won't do much for Petitioners' rights; at least not immediately, and, perhaps, not ever.New York State and New York City will take their good time in developing and  instituting new concealed handgun carry license procedures for issuance of unrestricted and restricted handgun carry licenses both in the City and across the State.CBS News, of course, sees a slow-walk as a good thing, as they assert in the afore-referenced article:“. . . a high-ranking source tells CBS2's Marcia Kramer it could take the city years to comply.”See also articles in other Anti-Second Amendment sources such as Gothamist and in the seditious CNN and NY Times.And the New York Government would take its own good time in concocting a new set of arbitrary procedures to replace the ones struck down. New Yorkers would then be back to square one. America’s enemies would breathe a collective sigh of relief. There is no doubt about that! The NY Times reported on June 6, 2022, the following:“In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said that she would consider calling a special session of the State Legislature if the law were overturned. And after a shooting in Buffalo last month in which a teenager motivated by racism killed 10 Black people at a grocery store, she brought up the law unprompted, saying that her administration was ‘preparing our state for what could be a Supreme Court decision that allows people to carry concealed weapons. We’re ready.’A spokeswoman for the governor declined to elaborate further on the preparations.”One need not wonder of the impact the Uvalde, Texas Elementary School shooting incident will have on Hochul. She will only become more entrenched in slow-walking or sabotaging, outright, a Bruen High Court decision that strikes down the New York City' Police Department License Division's procedures for issuing concealed handgun licenses.More importantly is the question what impact the recent shooting incident will have on the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Has the Court made changes to the majority, and concurring, and dissenting opinions, as a result of that incident in light of immense news coverage of it and Congressional action on it?Americans will no doubt see the liberal-wing in rare form, writing political and public policy tracts disguised as legal opinions. And, don't be surprised to see Chief Justice Roberts doing the same. The danger here is that Roberts and Kavanaugh may, at the Eleventh Hour, do a one-eighty switcheroo and join the liberal wing of the Court. That would give the liberal wing of the Court the majority it needs to rule for the Respondent New York, against the Petitioners. New York’s unelected Governor, Kathy Hochul, true to form—hateful of the Second Amendment—is going ahead full throttle to destroy the Right of the people to keep and bear arms as if Bruen never existed, even though a decision in the case is imminent. She has made this patently clear in a flurry of Anti-Second Amendment legislation she has very recently signed, as well as in her executive orders.And the New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, is 100% onboard with Hochul, as he backs her continuing control of the State. An affiliate of NBC News, 4NewYork News, reports:“New York City Mayor Eric Adams endorsed New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for a full term on Wednesday, praising her as 'an amazing governor' who deserves a full term.Adams, a centrist Democrat like Hochul, told supporters at a Manhattan union hall that voters need someone who can 'get stuff done in the state of New York.' Hochul, the former lieutenant governor, is running to keep the job she has held since August 2021 when Andrew Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, which he has denied.”The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Federal Government and the Soros backed and funded Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist State and Municipal Governments across the Country do nothing to hide their visceral contempt for the American people or their outright loathing of the Bill of Rights. One sees all of this through their failure to comply with the strictures of this Nation's body of laws and its Constitution. Worse, one sees increasing intimations of brazen seditious meddling with and offending of Bill of Rights imperatives. Nothing  constrains the actions of the Collectivists' insinuation of tyranny throughout the Republic, much as they, together with CCP China, consolidate their control over the nation-states of the EU and over the British Commonwealth Nations.Still, the United States has one thing no other Nation or group of Nations or other political construct has: a true Bill of Rights that incorporates the preeminent Right: that of Armed Self-Defense. But, how many firearms are in private hands is not known, only guessed at, and that is a good thing.Government is not in the business of and should never be in the business of knowing or attempting to know who among the citizenry is armed and the manner of their armament. That fact goes hand-in-hand with the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.The armed citizenry is the singular source of this Nation's strength, vitality, and well-being; the basis for the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic; the necessary condition through which that free Republic may be maintained; and, the ground upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured and upon which tyranny is resisted, restrained, and repulsed.The High Court should keep all of this in mind when deciding Bruen. But, even a ruling in favor of Petitioners against New York, will not of itself secure the Republic against encroaching Tyranny. For the forces that seek to impose it are powerful, well-organized, and deeply entrenched in our private and public institutions.Governor Kathy Hochul has powerful, ruthless, and inordinately wealthy allies, who will support her if she does not comply with the High Court's rulings, striking down New York City's concealed handgun carry procedures. Indeed, they will certainly dictate policy for her as they have done all along, just as they are doing for New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. The public simply sees in Hochul's policy aims and actions an inkling of the face that hides in the shadows, dictating her policy aims and actions. Hochul's stubbornness, in failing to heed U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, will certainly tell all Americans, but especially those residing in New York, everything they need to know of the unbridled contempt both she and those that pull her strings have for our people; for our Republic; and for our Nation’s Constitution.Disdain toward High Court rulings does not bode well for the continued security of a free State in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate. We have seen this abject disdain played out by State Governments and lower Courts toward Heller and McDonald. Much the same disdain will be played out again in Bruen. That is why Americans must stay true to the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially when it comes to matters of armed self-defense against Tyranny. At the end of the day, the Bill of Rights is all that they have to assert their will on a renegade Government. For the Nation's first Patriots, a firm conviction in the righteousness of their cause, a blanket refusal to surrender their firearms to tyrants, and a valiant will to use those firearms against tyranny, sufficed to vanquish a mighty but ignoble foe. At the time, the Bill of Rights was inchoate. But, the germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day.  The germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day against seeming insurmountable odds. Today, the Bill of Rights is manifest, and we, the armed citizenry, are legion. We descendants of the first Patriots should be able to repulse tyranny that once again threatens a free and sovereign people. Can we do so, if the need arises? If we have the will and wherewithal to resist tyranny, then we, Americans, will have all that is necessary to vanquish tyranny once again._____________________________________________*Menken’s book purports to be a guide for political leaders on how to bring the Country together to resolve the Nation’s differences. Yet, one year after publication of her book, it is clear from her NYTimes letter Times, that Menken has had a change of heart; surrendered to the truth that reconciliation is impossible. That should have been obvious to her. It wasn’t. How can there be a meeting of minds?There are two antithetical ideologies at play. One ideology is grounded on the principles, precepts, and tenets laid down in our Nation’s sacred documents. The other intends to set it all aside. One ideology was forged in the Nation’s struggle for independence from tyranny. The proponents of that ideology seek to preserve the Natural Law Rights and Liberties of the people. They intend to maintain and preserve the success of the American Revolution.The other ideology, grounded on the principles, tenets, and precepts of Collectivism, much in evidence today, seeks to upend the hard-fought battle for Independence from tyranny. For Collectivism is predicated on Tyranny. It is inextricably tied to it. In our website, we discussed all of this in several articles some time ago. See, e.g., our article posted four years ago, in 2018, titled: “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”At the very birth of the Nation, the enemies of a free State, went immediately to work to waylay and destroy it. These enemies, the Globalist Banking Cartel, commenced a quiet Counterrevolution to dismantle a free State and to usurp the authority of a sovereign people, bending them to their will.The descendants of the Nation’s enemies, the international financiers and their minions, alongside rabid Neo-Marxist radicals, residing inside and outside the United States, are dead-set on destroying this free Republic, as assuredly and as thoroughly as would occur by overt military conquest.Theirs is a Collectivist Counterrevolution. Utilizing modern tools of information and computer technology, psychological conditioning, organizational acumen, inexhaustible reserves of money, and control over Government and over the levers of commerce, media, and finance. They intend to destroy the political, social, economic, and juridical foundations of the Country, merging its remains into the nascent EU/UN super-state that is taking shape throughout the world._______________________________**The poem: “Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were Nine. Nine little Indian boys sat up very late; One overslept himself and then there were Eight. Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon; One said he'd stay there and then there were Seven. Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks; One chopped himself in halves and then there were Six. Six little Indian boys playing with a hive; A bumblebee stung one and then there were Five. Five little Indian boys going in for law; One got into Chancery and then there were Four. Four little Indian boys going out to sea; A red herring swallowed one and then there were Three. Three little Indian boys walking in the Zoo; A big bear hugged one and then there were Two. Two little Indian boys were out in the sun; One got all frizzled up and then there was one*. One little Indian boy left all alone; He went out and hanged himself and then there were none. (*In some versions Two Little Indian boys playing with a gun; One shot the other and then there was one.) ~From IMDB, referencing the afore-recited poem, Ten Little Indians, from the 1965 mystery film thriller by the same name.”___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved  

NEW YORK TIMES UNLEASHES ATTACK DOGS IN OP-ED ON EVE OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN BRUEN

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument today on the  Second Amendment case NYSRPA vs. Bruen (previously captioned NYSRPA vs. Corlett).This is the first major case to come before the High Court after Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the Liberal wing of the Court, punted on last year’s New York City Gun Transport case. Let’s hope the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kavanaugh don’t get cold feet this time.But there are enough Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, including, unfortunately, jurists and attorneys, waiting in the wings, to castigate the Justices if they should—horror of horrors—actually strike down unconstitutional laws.One can perhaps understand the “walking dead” among the living who pay too much attention to the nonsense spouted by jackasses in the Government, in the Press, in social media, and in Hollywood—allowing others to do their thinking for them. And the message is always the same:“Surrender your firearms and peace will rain down upon you from the heavens.” And “the walking dead” nod their heads in mindless, senseless bovine agreement.At one time the fiction might have been somewhat believable, even though patently untrue. That was in the day when communities actually had well-funded police departments to provide at least a modicum of security. Now, however, police departments in major cities are underfunded, defunded, and emasculated, or are on the verge of extinction.One is left to ask, plaintively: “who will protect me if there are no police around and I’m not permitted a handgun to protect myself?” And, one is left befuddled at the reply given him from the vacant-eyed cultists: “That’s your white privilege talking.”But, when some jurists and attorneys claim a person’s right to defend him or herself with a firearm must stop at the doorstep of one’s house, such an assertion is untenable and unconscionable.Yet, that is what the public gets.In an Op-Ed titled, “Prominent Conservatives Back Letting States Limit Guns in Public,” published in The New York Times, on November 2, 2021, one day before the oral hearing in Bruen, J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and Richard D. Bernstein, an appellate lawyer, make clear their disdain for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”They demonstrate their abhorrence of the unfettered Constitutional Right of Americans “to carry loaded concealed weapons in public and in public places, wherever and whenever they believe they might need their guns for self-defense.”They assert, “The announcement of such an absolute and unfettered right would be shocking and disquieting to most Americans. . . .” The appropriate, if curt, reply to this ridiculous remark is, “so what!”Since when is a decision on a fundamental, natural law Right to be treated like a Beauty Pageant—as a matter for popular acclaim?These two ostensible legal experts, continue:“The Supreme Court is not constitutionally empowered to make these decisions, and it is ill-suited to make them. For the justices to begin deciding for the people exactly where and when a person has a right to carry a handgun in public would be to establish the court as essentially a National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations, precisely the kind of constitutional commandeering of the democratic process that conservatives and conservative jurists have long lamented in other areas of the law, such as abortion. It would be hypocritical for this conservative court to assume what essentially would be a legislative oversight role over public-carry rights, when conservatives on and off the court have for almost 50 years roundly criticized the court for assuming that same role over abortion rights.”Former Judge Luttig and Attorney Bernstein simply construct a strawman to unceremoniously knockdown.The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t operating as a “National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations,” when deciding matters of Constitutional law. That IS precisely their Article 3 duty.Apparently, these learned gentlemen have forgotten what they came across during their first-year Constitutional law class: Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”This function and the sacred obligation of the Judiciary do not fall to Congress. It doesn’t fall to the U.S. President. It doesn’t fall to State and Local Governments. And it sure as hell doesn’t fall to an uninformed, angry mob.It is the duty solely of the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the law—to say what the law is.Yet, Luttig and Bernstein would dare deny the Court its Constitutional function. They don’t just suggest this. They blurt it out,“Conservatives, textualists and originalists believe — or should — that the Second Amendment ought not be interpreted to take from the people and their legislatures the historical and traditional authority they have had for centuries to decide where handguns may be carried in public and in public places.”They continue,“Historically and traditionally, legislatures have restricted the public carry of guns, from medieval England to colonial times, through the founding and to the present day. In fact, many of those early laws were more draconian than our own, banning the carry of guns in public places generally, without offering any exceptions like those New York provides for people who can demonstrate an actual need to defend themselves. Those restrictions extended far beyond public locations with a large and continuous armed police presence, such as government buildings and courthouses, to almost any public place — fairs, markets and indeed wherever a person would ‘go armed.’”Reliance on historical anecdote—and Luttig and Bernstein do not offer support for any of this—has limited prudential value at best. That is why originalists do not place much stock in it, and should not.In the first instance and in the final analysis, one should go to the written language of the law:The Second Amendment says,“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”Where in the language of the Second Amendment is there any statement of limitation on the exercise of the Right?The danger of overbearing Government action is most acute where fundamental rights are involved. Governments must act circumspectly. They rarely do. Government justification for infringing a fundamental right on the pretext of pragmatic expediency must be scrutinized by the Courts.New York gun legislation is a case study of heavy-handed action by the Government. The Second Amendment Right is converted into mere privilege and one that the Government rarely grants to the American citizen.Luttig and Bernstein apparently aren’t even aware that, in blindly defending the New York City handgun licensing scheme—requiring the applicant to show actual need before obtaining a concealed handgun license—they fail to see the inherent absurdity of it.Why should a person be forced to proffer a reason to a Government official that one’s life is worth defending with the best means available for doing so—a handgun? It presupposes one’s life isn’t really important. And, the entire exercise comes down to an arbitrary, perfunctory, and often futile and expensive ordeal for the citizen; one inviting corruption and unfair dealing of which the NYPD Licensing Division is notorious.Lastly, Luttig and Bernstein have the audacity to give advice to Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, attempting to thrust her own words back upon her. They assert,“Two years ago, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett called English and founding era statutes ‘the best historical support for a legislative power’ to restrict firearms.”The case Luttig and Bernstein refer to is Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).But, what Justice Barrett said, in her dissenting opinion, apropos of that passage, in full, is that:“The best historical support for a legislative power to permanently dispossess all felons would be founding-era laws explicitly imposing—or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose—such a ban. But at least thus far, scholars have not been able to identify any such laws. The only evidence coming remotely close lies in proposals made in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions.”Justice Barrett wasn’t advocating for use of historical support for legislative power to curb the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right. On the contrary, she was claiming the jurist should be wary of relying on it.In the case before the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett argued for the reinstatement of Plaintiff Kanter’s right to own and possess a firearm; not to dispossess him of it. She concluded her dissent, saying,“Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond  with lower rates of recidivism.’ Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”Luttig and Bernstein should have given proper context to Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in Kanter, or have shown her the courtesy to refrain from quoting her at all.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA—PAVED WITH NOT-SO-GOOD INTENTIONS

WHEN DO AMERICANS BEGIN TO REALIZE THEIR COUNTRY NO LONGER BELONGS TO THEM?

PART FIVE

Take a moment to ponder a portion of President Donald Trump’s last State of the Union Address. Consider his most important remarks to the Nation, as reported on, and poignantly elucidated by Rebecca Walser of Fox News Business, on February 19, 2020, eleven months before the corrupt, senile store-window manikin, Joseph Biden, was sworn in as the 46^th President of the United States:“Who would have ever thought that any president of these United States of America would have to stand before Congress—and before the American people—and publicly declare that the United States is a free country, standing for liberty.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Trump made an unequivocal pronouncement against the multiplying cries for socialism in America.‘Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,’ the president said. ‘America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.’ [Emphasis added.]Unsurprisingly, many on the Democratic side of the chamber did not stand in unison to agree, nor did they even clap. No, no, they have the wheels of the socialism freight train started now, and they will give not an inch to stop it in its tracks.Free lunch? Yes please, that sounds nice. Hmm, how about a free education with a side of free health care?  Why don’t we even throw in student loan forgiveness, free housing, a guaranteed job, or forget the job, and let’s just give – you guessed it – free universal basic income while we are at it.America’s unique origin in escaping an overbearing, oppressive and overly-taxing government is likely the reason we have historically supported more freedoms, including economic freedoms, than our European cousins. But that is undeniably changing now.The shifting political winds are reflective of an underlying new positive attitude toward socialism in America. A recent Reuters poll found that 70 percent of Americans support Medicare-for-all, which includes a majority of Republicans. (A new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found support drops, however, when participants were told the plan could lead to higher taxes.) . . . .This is our failure America, in not holding our government accountable. They have been allowed for too long to fake it, to spend money that we do not have to pay for services we cannot afford on a sustainable basis.For the last three decades, we have spent significantly more than we have collected in tax revenues resulting in a federal debt of $22 trillion.This has been carried out for the last 30-plus years such that the American people have been lulled into believing that we can spend without end, without the pain of an European tax scheme (40 percent to more than 60-plus percent). So why shouldn’t we add Medicare-for-all, free college education and even UBI – universal basic income?But it is all an illusion. . . .Others say that you can just print more money, but inflating our way out of this economic hole is a non starter, since both Social Security and Medicare make inflation-adjusted payments. This means that if we try to inflate our way out, the costs of our biggest social programs just go up proportionally—solving nothing.Economic equality comes at the heavy price of freedom (yours). People logically act in their own self-interest even if it is to their long-term detriment, like a bug sucking its host dry. Most will take advantage of the government’s offer for "free" anything – thus the reason the road to America is packed while the road to Venezuela is empty.But let’s be clear – ‘free’ is not free to our country. The great Roman empire imploded and collapsed under the weight of their own debt and extreme taxation. Are we determined to go down that same road?Let us have renewed hope today that President Trump stands to say no.”Unfortunately, eleven months after this story and analysis broke, Trump is no longer President. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” along with their sidekick, the Neo-Marxists, that together share achieving their common goal of a one-world, uniform Super-State governmental scheme, with the U.S. to be unceremoniously merged into it and consumed by it, made sure that Donald Trump would never serve a second term in Office, and, more to the point, would never be permitted to serve a second term in Office, which might also explain why powerful Neoliberal Globalists have continued to attack him and to attack over a third of the Nation that had voted for him in the 2020 General Election. And the prognostications of Rebecca Walser as laid out in her 2019 Fox Business Report, have eerily, and uncannily, and no less dishearteningly, come to fruition.The American people are disillusioned and disenchanted. And the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a Socialist Country, despite Trump’s remarks to the contrary.So, then, was Trump wrong in his assertion—at once a sacred promise to Americans and a pronouncement of defiance to the Neo-Marxists of all stripes among the Democrats—even as Pelosi in a choreographed fit of pique, rips up her copy of the President’s address, thereby demonstrating her utter contempt for the U.S. President, the Country, the American people, and the Constitution.No, Trump wasn’t wrong. Yet, there is an unintended, unplanned, unforeseen irony in Trump’s assertion “that America will never be a socialist Country,” insofar as the Country is headed in that direction under a Neoliberal Globalist and Marxist-Controlled Congress and a Neoliberal Globalist controlled Executive Branch. The U.S. is in fact turning inexorably, and possibly inevitably and irrevocably toward Socialism. But if that should happen, if that would befall our Country, then the COUNTRY WILL NO LONGER BE AMERICA, for our Country will no longer be a free Constitutional Republic, and so THE COUNTRY WILL CEASE TO BE.Indeed, the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists don’t even refer to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; never did. Back in 2018, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, did say, of course, that:“We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is” which makes the Neoliberal Globalist “capitalist” monopolists happy to hear, who, for all that, eschew true competitive capitalism.But, has Pelosi ever been heard to reaffirm our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic?” In fact, has the infirm, corrupt, senile Joe Biden or the vacuous, opportunist Kamala Harris ever reaffirmed our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic? Has anyone in Biden’s Cabinet or Administration affirmed our Nation as a “free Constitutional Republic?”It stands to reason that the current crop of Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists in control of two Branches of Government have little if any regard for the Constitution. At best they give lip service to it, as they go about operating in the denigration of it. And no one in the legacy Press calls them to account for their abject failure to heed to the dictates of it. And we, Americans, are all the worse for it.________________________________________

HOW MANY AMERICANS APPREHEND THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?

PART SIX

It may be remarked—nay, must be proclaimed loudly, passionately, continuously as all too many Americans lose sight of the fact—that the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t mere supposition. It is fact.Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know this to be true, but they have no use for the Constitution as it intrudes upon their ability to consolidate economic power for themselves across the globe, at the expense of the economic well-being of the American people and at the expense of the well-being of the Country.And the sworn enemies of the U.S. Constitution and of a sovereign American people, America’s transnational Neo-Marxists, know this to be true as well because the U.S. Constitution is grounded on the tenets of Individualism, embracing the core notions of personal freedom and liberty—tenets and precepts and principles antithetical and anathema to those of Collectivism, upon which classic Marxism, and the spawn and shades of Marxism spring from. But they all come from one cloth, and they are all vehemently opposed to Individualism.For the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, alone form the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, and they are inconsistent with and in clear contradistinction to those of Collectivism that insist on the subordination of the human will, soul, and spirit to and that demand obsequious devotion to and subservience of the individual to the State. That explains why the callous, caustic, fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists and the idiosyncratic, cold-hearted Neo-Marxists are both of one mind in their stated objective to rid themselves of it.And so, with Trump out of the way, and as the Neoliberal Globalists and as America’s Neo-Marxists have brazenly, audaciously taken over the institutions of Government and of the Press and of much of society, they have begun in earnest to consolidate their power over the Nation and over the citizenry, in defiance of the plain import of the Constitution.And now they feel that the political and social and economic climate of the Country has changed to such an extent in their favor, that they feel no reticence in openly questioning the continued need for it. They have even gone further than that, questioning the very legality of it, and withal, cloaking their anathema to it and animosity for it, rebelling vociferously against it—the academia especially expounding through more and more rhetorical flourish and through sophistry, posing as a sound erudite argument, their naked abhorrence of it.See, e.g., the 2013 Article, in Harper’s Magazine, titled, “Constitution in Crisis;” and an article in The Atlantic, titled, “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here’s How to Write It.” And, in a lengthy New York Times’ Op-Ed, the paper has tacked together several essays by various legal scholars who propose amending the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Articles. A simple web search keying in the words, “do we need a constitution,” brings up a plethora of articles challenging the continued need for the U.S. Constitution—the blueprint of a free Republic that ceases to exist the moment the Constitution ceases to be.The reader should note that all or virtually all these articles arose in the most recent decade of the 21^st Century, and several of them within the last few weeks or months.But what explains this flurry of articles, and essays coming to the fore now? This cannot be accidental. Indeed, it isn’t.If the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists thought the Constitution was simply irrelevant, they likely would have given little thought to it, would simply ignore it, and in the actions of the Harris-Biden Administration, the American people have witnessed just that: the blatant failure of Biden to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as required of him, spurning his Presidential duty under the “take care clause” of Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This failure goes beyond an arguable difference of opinion as to the President’s duty, or to incompetence of which Biden has more than an ample supply. It is much more than that.Biden’s actions amount to outright subversion and sedition. And the Neoliberal Globalists and International Neo-Marxists are perfectly content with this. They have expected it of Biden. More, they have demanded it of him. And, he has delivered, doing all that his handlers expect of him, even as he makes a fool of himself during the few times his handlers allow him, albeit reluctantly, to appear before the public, hewing to script—at least to the extent that a person suffering from dementia can.Perfunctorily dismissing Congressional enactments such as the Nation’s immigration law, in direct defiance of the Legislature’s Article 1 authority, see irli.org, and dismissing out-of-hand U.S. Supreme Court rulings on evictions, demonstrating his contempt of High Court Article 3 authority on questions of law, if he ever thought about it, to the extent he is capable of coherent thought at all. See article in christianaction.org and article in theweek.com. Biden has not only defied the authority of two other co-equal Branches of Government, he has also spurned his own duties under the “take care clause” of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.But there’s more to the Constitution than the Articles demarcating and limiting the authority and powers of the three co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, critical as those Articles are to the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic.Even as few give little thought to it, there is one set of laws that preside even over that of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution. It is Law bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. It is the Law of Natural Rights, and there is no inconsistency in averring the authority of and the awesome power of natural law above even the U.S. Constitution. The framers of that great document, the Constitution of the United States, conceded as much, through the codification of Ten Amendments to it thereby embracing and enshrining Divine Law within it, an integrated part of it, inextricably bound to it, so there is no inconsistency between the import of Divine Law and ofthe U.S. Constitution’s deference to Divine Law.

THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Bill of Rights is of paramount importance to, and a singularly critical component of the U.S. Constitution, both shaping the nature of a free Republic, and establishing the role of Government vis a vis the American people, subordinating Government to the people.It is the Bill of Rights, especially, that has provided the U.S. Constitution with its true staying power; and that has allowed the Country to survive and thrive as a free Republic. The Bill of Rights is one feature of the U.S. Constitution that cannot be readily ignored or dismissed out of hand by the Neoliberal Globalists and the Neo-Marxists, much as they wish to do; much as they try to do.The Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic can, truth to tell, continue to exist, at least for a time, even where a corrupt Executive Branch and a corrupt Legislative Branch give little heed to limitations built into their own authority and duties under the Constitution. And, that is true of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, as well.The Bill of Rights, though, exists and operates on another plane; another order of magnitude; well beyond even the Articles, a human construct, and well beyond such man-made procedural Amendments that came thereafter. For, the Bill of Rights codifies Divine Law.The contents of the Bill of Rights isn’t a human construct because it isn’t a mere compilation of man-made law even though some there are who might perceive it to be such, namely the Neoliberal Globalist corporatist “elites,” and the transnational Neo-Marxists, and other Collectivists who, all of them, deny this, of course. Even to describe the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights as little more than an elucidation of and edification of man’s greater potential fails to hit the mark as to their true significance and purpose. For, it is only by the grace of Divine Providence that man can, a priori, recognize the Creator’s gifts to him, bestowed on man by the Creator as the supernal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect Being. These God-given Rights and Liberties, Natural Law, preexist within man, exist, then, prior to the creation of Government by man.It is not given to man, by mere experience, a posteriori, through man’s five sense organs, that man comes to know of his true Nature made in God’s own image but, through man’s non-physical Spirit that the fact of and nature of the fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Rights come to be apparent to man. How, then, can man’s nature be lawfully subordinated and subjugated to State control and dominance, since Government is a man-made construct, and such manmade device offends and subverts the will of the Supreme Creator, where man’s will, and soul, and spirit are quelled and suppressed?Such a Government transgresses God’s will and such Government that dares to subvert the integrity and sanctity of man’s spirit and soul is heresy, and this heresy is the goal of this new, obscene non-American Governmental scheme that has begun to take root in the Country, and it is growing apace, to be merged into a new world order, to bring man low. Americans must fight the attempt with all the power they can muster. The way they can do this is to insist that their fundamental rights are not subject to negotiation or compromise. That which is given to man by the Divine Creator cannot lawfully be revoked by the State, and cannot be contracted or purloined away.______________________________________

AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SOCIALISM CANNOT TAKE ROOT.

PART SEVEN

Only through exercise of the peoples’ fundamental rights can the citizenry hope to withstand the onslaught from those disparate evil forces consisting, inter alia, of a heterogenous assortment of Neoliberal Globalists, Corporatist Monopolists, Internationalist Neo-Marxists, Government Neoconservatives, liberal Progressive and Marxist members of Congress and of the Federal Bureaucracy, the seditious legacy Press, and Marxist elements in academia, all hell-bent on disassembling the United States, transforming the Country from its root structure as a free Constitutional Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State into an autocratic lackey of a larger autocratic super-structure, embracing the entire world.On some level the combined power of these terrible, ruthless, amoral and immoral forces operating both inside the United States and outside it, Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists alike, adopting a common Collectivist ideology, an ideology incompatible with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, driven by a singular lust for amassing wealth and power—of benefit to themselves at the expense of the American polity—continue to plot, connive, conspire, and machinate toward realization of a similar goal: the creation of a one-world transnational super State; a mammoth transformative political, social, economic, and juridical construct; a global totalitarian regime embracing and subsuming all present western nation-states; erasing all geographical boundaries; eliminating and eventually erasing from the memory of the polity any sense of a once-shared national identity, a once-shared history and heritage, a once-shared civic culture, a once-shared Christian ethos and a once-shared Judeo-Christian ethic. It would all cease to exist. Yet, for the U.S. to become merged into this transnational one-world, totalitarian Super-State, it is essential that the U.S. Constitution first be abrogated, and that means abrogation of the citizens’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties. All of it must go. But there is a tenaciousness to the Constitution, especially that part of it that speaks to the fundamental, unalienable Rights and Liberties of the citizenry: the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Even with vast sums of money spent behind a massive propaganda campaign to denigrate the Nation’s revered history, heritage, and culture, and to challenge the inviolability of God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, set in stone in Nation's the Bill of Rights, most Americans maintain and exhibit a deep attachment to and devotion to their Country and to their fundamental Rights and Liberties upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is preserved. And, on some level all American citizens understand that God-given Rights and Liberties cannot be simply ignored and dismissed out-of-hand, if the Nation is to survive as a free Constitutional Republic; and the American people will not long abide usurpers in Government who betray their Oath to the United States Constitution, whether it be the President of the United States who betrays the Oath of Office he is required to take, pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;”whether it be those in Congress who betray the Oath they are required to take, pursuant to Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; or whether it be those in the Civil Service or uniformed services of Government who betray the Oath they are required to take, to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 3331. The solemnity of the Oaths of those sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution are not to be taken lightly. And, if these betrayers of their Oath think there will be no accounting for an act of betrayal to the Constitution of the United States, the American people shall demand an accounting, as they are the sovereign rulers of the Nation as established by the U.S. Constitution. Those who serve in Government are the servants, not the masters of the American people, and the ultimate enforcement power that the American people wield over Government is made abundantly clear not in the electoral system through which the American people have a say only in the vote they cast for this or that servant of the citizenry, but in one especial fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Right: the inviolate Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.______________________________________________

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS CANNOT BE LAWFULLY APPROPRIATED OR COMMANDEERED  BY THE STATE; AND IT ISN’T FOR SALE!

PART EIGHT

The Bill of Rights cannot be easily supplanted, ignored, dismissed out-of-hand, as the fundamental rights and liberties are engrained deep in the psyche of most American citizens and they are loathed to surrender their sacred God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, knowing that, to do so, means the loss not only of their Country but of their own Soul.One natural, God-given right, in particular, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, codified in the Bill of Rights as “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is Divine Law that happens to have been codified into law by man. More to the point, this Divine Law is written into man's Spirit. That is what makes the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Divine Law, and not mere man-made law. This Divine Law serves to prevent the takeover of the Nation’s Country by tyrants. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, isn't for sale!The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, is subsumed in a more elemental Divine law: The Right of Personal Self-Defense, against a predatory animal, whether that predatory animal hops on two legs or runs on four, and against a predatory, tyrannical Government. Further, the Natural God-bestowed Right of Personal Self-Defense is itself subsumed in the God-bestowed Right of Personal Autonomy, for it is through Self-Defense that man is able to preserve and has the solemn duty and cardinal responsibility to preserve and secure from harm not only his physical well-being but his psychological and spiritual well-being; his individuality; the sanctity of Self-hood; the inviolability of his Soul, sanctified by the Divine Creator.If unable to exercise the God-bestowed Right of Self-Defense, of which the firearm is the most efficient means of Self-Defense, man cannot effectively persevere against those forces that would dare crush his will and spirit into submission; would not be able to effectively defend against those forces at work in society today that compel uniformity and conformity in all thought and conduct; would not be able to resist evil forces that insist on transforming a Nation of individual Souls into a collection of mindless, senseless drones, an obsequious, obedient, formless glob—a monstrosity, a thing created by evil forces in clear defiance to the Creator's will. For the Creator intended for man to be noble, that he might, through his individual Soul, be a demi-Creator in his own right, set out on his own path, realize his full potential as an independent creative Spirit; for he is made in God's Image.Yet, it is a thing strange that, given the plain meaning of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in clear, precise, concise words in the U.S. Constitution, it would come to pass that an American citizen would find it necessary to petition the Judiciary to secure for him a God-given Right that Government or private enterprise interests—artificial constructs of man—would dare deny him. Yet for decades, before the seminal Second Amendment Heller case was heard, ignoble forces were at work to subvert the plain meaning of the Divine Law, arguing that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was not an Individual Right at all, and certainly was not to be perceived as a Natural Right, but one bound up in service to a collective, a militia. This idea is false on its face, and, when one realizes that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in the Second Amendment, isn't a man-made law at all, but Natural Law, of Divine Origin, pertaining to the Individual Self, to the Individual Soul, to one’s personal autonomy, then any notion that the Right is to be understood as, to be taken as, something that applies to and has meaning only in the context of groups, to a collective, falls apart of its own weight as a matter of logic, as well as of law. One comes to realize that the mistake of law and logic that arises from the conclusion that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has meaning and purport in the context of one's service in a militia, in the context, then, of one's service in a group, is due to problematic, false assumptions. The mistake of law and logic that some academic scholars as well as the lay public fall prey to commences from an assumption, taken as axiomatic, as self-evident, that the Bill of Rights, is simply a creation of man, an artificial construction of the government, an arbitrary formulation by State actors in Government, not unlike the Articles of the Constitution, or later procedural amendments to it, and not unlike other man-made common or codified law. In that case, grounded on acceptance of false assumption and illogical reasoning, one draws the illogical conclusion that fundamental rights are no more than privileges to be bestowed onto this one or that one, or to this group or to that group by the grace of the State, and, just as readily, rescinded by the State, as the sole creator of the Right. Through acceptance of the false assumption that the Bill of Rights is really a set of State created privileges, all sorts of inanities arise therefrom, such as the idea that the Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights can readily be amended no less so than the Articles of the Constitution or the procedural amendments subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution or just as readily repealed. But, the Bill of Rights is no mere collection of Rights and Liberties, for they were not created by man. They are codifications of Divine Law. As such, they existed prior to any artificial governmental construct of man. As Divine Law, not man-made law the Bill of Rights cannot be lawfully amended, modified, abrogated, or ignored. The Rights codified in the Bill of Rights exist internally in and eternal in man. They aren't creations of the State, of Government, of man. This fact, the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Counterrevolutionaries both inside Government and outside it, will not accept—indeed cannot accept—for the idea that some Rights exist beyond the lawful power of the Government to whittle away at, to reinterpret the import and purport of, or to nullify outright, frustrates these evil forces to no end, as that idea makes impossible the realization of their goal of a one-world transnational governmental regime in which man is subjugated to the dictates of Government, as the State, alone, to these Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists, is to be perceived as god, having power of life or death over the men they rule.__________________________________________

LOOKING BACKWARD TO HELLER AND MCDONALD AND FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING BRUEN (CORLETT) CASE

PART NINE

The late, eminent Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, announced in Heller, what was always patently clear, but often denied: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The clear language of the Right should have been enough to evince the Omni-expansiveness of it; the elemental inalienability, immutability, and illimitability implicit in it. Yet, from the inception of Heller, there was hesitancy and arrogance among many academicians and Government functionaries that compelled them to disavow the plain import and purport of the Right, grounded most likely on jealousy to concede the obvious import of the Right, having no desire to admit that sovereignty over Government is not a shared power or one that belongs only to those who serve in Government, but is sovereignty that rests solely with the American people. The servants of Government exercise such limited authority that the Constitution provides for and that authority is exercised only with the consent of the citizenry. That consent can be withdrawn. And the servants of Government well aware of the limitations inherent in their power constantly seek to constrain the sovereignty of the American people and they have been at work, enacting countless laws, rules, codes, regulations, and ordinances to constrict and restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding the reaffirmation of the import of the right as categorically stated in Heller.And Anti-Second Amendment State Governments, as well as the Federal Government, are always looking for a way to avoid the import of Heller to affirm the legality and Constitutionality of State Action infringing the core of the Right protected. The first major attack against Heller took shape in the Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction of Chicago, Illinois, with the City pointedly arguing that the Heller rulings pertaining to the right of Americans to utilize handguns for self-defense in their own homes, only operates as a constraint on the Federal Government, not on the States. Justice Alito who penned the majority opinion in the second major Second Amendment case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, set forth at the outset of his remarks, the nature of and extent of Chicago’s defiant stance on the matter:“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City. . . . They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners' argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent.”The McDonald case made clear the rulings in Heller applied to the States too. In pertinent part, Justice Alito, wrote:“. . . we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. . . .Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.  Explaining that ‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home . . . we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family. . . . ‘[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon’). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted ‘to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”Heller makes it clear that this right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. . . . Heller explored the right's origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.’Blackstone's assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III's attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760's and 1770's ‘provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.’The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.In Heller, we held that the protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.”Yet, the apparatus of Anti-Second Amendment forces in Government remained undeterred. These forces continued their efforts to find ways around Heller and McDonald through more and more comprehensive and Government licensing schemes.State and local Government firearms’ licensing schemes became progressively bloated through time, and with that bloat the language of them became increasingly vague and ambiguous; and, in the worst instances, became convoluted, inconsistent, and incoherent. Anti-Second Amendment Courts continually, blatantly misinterpreted the rulings of Heller and McDonald, setting down their imprimatur on unconstitutional Government actions.Perhaps the most voluminous Anti-Second Amendment regime to be constructed and one of the earliest, and one of the most insidious; a regime that was continually expanded and revised through time, is that one emanating from New York.Not surprisingly, the first major case the U.S. Supreme Court accepted for review, almost a decade after the seminal Heller case, was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York And The New York City Police Department-License Division, commonly and colloquially referred to as the “New York City Gun Transport Case.”The case held a lot of promise for Americans who cherish their right of self-defense and the right of personal autonomy, for having granted Petitioners’ writ of certiorari, these Americans expected quite reasonably that the U.S. Supreme Court would apply its precedents in Heller and McDonald to affirm the unconstitutionality of the constraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, outside the home, at least for the purpose of transporting a handgun to a locale outside the environs of New York City. New York’s Courts had hitherto placed burdensome constraints on transportation of handguns outside the home for those New York residents who held valid but restricted handgun premise licenses.Although some Americans might see the New York Gun Transport case as a win for those who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it wasn’t. Rather, it was a lost opportunity. Consideration of and a decision on the merits of the case were sidestepped. Now Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right are looking to a second New York case, NYSRPA vs. Corlett (now captioned, NYSRPA vs. Bruen*) on which to pin their hopes for reaffirmation of the significance of the Heller imperative. The case will be heard in November 2021 and decided probably at some point in early summer, 2022.Our concern is whether and to what extent—even with a complement of three new Justices, all Trump nominees, who would seem to adhere to the methodology of the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, when analyzing and deciding cases—the Bruen case will be decided in a manner that will reinvigorate and clarify the rulings and holdings and reasoning of Heller and McDonald.To get a good handle on the New York Bruen case, and to assess various outcome scenarios, it is necessary to understand what transpired in the earlier New York Gun Transport case, along with a few major post-Heller D.C. gun cases and others.Our focus going forward will be directed to the elucidation of four matters:

• THE IMPORT OF GOVERNMENT FIREARMS’ LICENSING SCHEMES GENERALLY AND THOSE OF NEW YORK PARTICULARLY
• THE FRAMING OF THE SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUE BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE BRUEN CASE
• STANDARDS OF REVIEW EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS AFTER HELLER
• A PERSPECTIVE ON THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACHES OF THE JUSTICES

As for the first bullet point, firearms licensing schemes are a fact, and Heller’s position on them isn’t crystal clear. The mere fact of them and the propensity of Courts to align themselves with Government to stamp their imprimatur upon them are inherently in tension with the import and purport of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, a tension that Heller did little rectify.As for the second bullet point, the Court has recast the issue for review. This recasting of the issue is critical to the decision to be reached and we will speculate on why the Court recast the issue and analyze what that may portend.As for the third bullet point, many lower Courts have routinely fallen back on judicial standards of review that majority opinion in Heller considered and rejected. The High Court may wish to clarify the standard that should be employed in Second Amendment cases where the Government actions impact the core of the right.As for the fourth bullet point, while the legacy Press constantly refers to the High Court as comprising 6 Conservative-wing Justices and 3 Liberal-wing Justices. That is an incorrect statement by the legacy Press and it is one constantly projected by the Press to express the need, as the Legacy Press sees it, for a contingent of new Justices, in the mold of the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and in the mold of the three remaining liberal Justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. These liberal-wing Justices, as often described by the Press, all ascribe to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a “Living Constitution,” (See, e.g. Acton Institute Article), which really calls for the death of the U.S. Constitution. These liberal-wing Justices' utilize a methodology for deciding cases that looks beyond the original text of the Constitution. These Justices believe in an expansive view of Constitutional analysis that routinely interjects ever-changing international law and international norms into their juridical pronouncements. This analysis is antithetical to and anathema to the methodology employed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who realized that to interject international law and normative views of foreign countries into judicial decision-making is to denigrate the U.S. Constitution, subordinating the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States to that of a Global initiative and Global objectives, at odds with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers of it intended. Thus, these liberal-wing Justices find a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, for example, to be inconsistent with international law and norms and, so, rather than reject international law and international norms and standards, they would reject the language of the Constitution. This is most blatantly illustrated in their desire to reduce the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as codified in the Second Amendment, to a nullity. Thus, they seek to undercut the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings and holdings, and their opinions demonstrate their clear animosity to the methodology employed by the late Justice Scalia in deciding cases: originalism and textualism. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito also adhere to the methodology of originalism and textualism, which demands strict adherence to the plain meaning of the Constitution and especially of that critical component of it: the Bill of Rights.Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wields considerable power as the Chief Justice, is not to be seen as an avid proponent of the Second Amendment, and, apart from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, whose commitment to the defense of exercise of the Right embodied in the Second Amendment is established beyond doubt through a large body of Supreme Court Opinions, the commitment of the newest members of the Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the sanctity of the Second Amendment and to the other Nine Bill of Rights is not firmly established. And, as for Justice Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, their dubious commitment to the preservation of the Second Amendment is manifest from a perusal of their handling of the New York Gun transport case. These latter two Justices demonstrate significantly less commitment to and decidedly less ardor toward the Second Amendment than do Associate Justices Thomas and Alito and as did the late esteemed Associate Justice Scalia. This is expressed in their failure to adhere unerringly to the methodology of originalism and textualism that serves to preserve the Constitution as written, upon which the continued existence of the Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, necessarily depends.Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh do not employ—with the same devotion as do Justices Thomas and Alito, at any rate—the juridical methodologies of textualism and originalism, heralded by the late Justice Scalia; nor do they apply Supreme Court legal doctrines, uniformly and evenhandedly. This is apparent from their handling of the legal doctrine of “mootness,” which led to a less than optimum result in their handling of the New York Gun Transport case as a consideration of and decision on the substantive merits of the case were dispensed with.We discuss these matters in-depth in our upcoming articles._________________________________*When the Corlett case first wended its way up through New York’s Court, the Defendant, Keith M. Corlett, happened to be serving as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, the 16th Superintendent. But at some point, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the “Corlett” case for review, Kevin P. Bruen replaced Corlett as the New York State Police Superintendent: the 17th Superintendent of the New York State Police. The case now reflects Bruen as the proper Defendant-Respondent and properly the case should be referred to as the Bruen case even though many journalists who discuss the case continue to refer to the case as originally captioned. See New York State Police website.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP EXPECTED TO QUICKLY NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO QUICKLY CONFIRM NEW SCOTUS JUSTICE

RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS AND MARXISTS IN PANIC MODE

Note to our readers: This is substantive update, September 24, 2020, of article posted on September 22, 2020.“ ‘As worrisome as this conservative court is for progressives right now, it can get a whole lot worse if Trump gets the chance to nominate another justice,’ said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a liberal group. ‘Justice Ginsburg’s resilience is utterly remarkable, but hoping for her continued good health is not a sufficient strategy for Democrats. We need to rally around the Supreme Court as an issue and win this election.’”Demand Justice, in concert with several other leading liberal groups, recently began a $2 million advertising campaign in key presidential election states trying to persuade voters that the direction of the court will be set for decades in the coming election.” Citation from a New York Times article, published on July 17, 2020, titled, “Ginsburg Says Her Cancer Has Returned, but She’s ‘Fully Able’ to Remain on Court.”  

JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DEATH, SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, IS AT ONCE TRAGIC AND PROPITIOUS BUT SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NO ONE

A BIT OF RECENT HISTORY CONCERNING THE LATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG

Back in May 2020, the Leftist weblog Politico reported on activist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dire health and what it would mean if anything untoward happened to her before the General election in November:“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hospitalization this week and the looming end of the Supreme Court’s term raise the prospect of yet another prized vacancy for President Donald Trump. And if there is a surprise opening or retirement in the months before the presidential election, GOP senators plan to act on it, despite denying President Barack Obama a Supreme Court seat in an election year.Republicans say they wish Ginsburg a swift recovery and have no inside knowledge of a retirement but are prepared to move if a vacancy presents itself.So in what’s already been the most consequential year for politics in a generation, with a presidential impeachment and a rampaging pandemic, Capitol Hill could get significantly crazier.‘If you thought the Kavanaugh hearing was contentious this would probably be that on steroids,’ said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). ‘Nevertheless, if the president makes a nomination then it’s our responsibility to take it up.’In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said voters should decide in the election which president should choose the next Supreme Court justice because the Senate and White House were controlled by different parties. And in the Trump era, he’s repeatedly asserted that he would fill a vacancy in 2020.McConnell and his allies argue the situation is different because Republicans control both the White House and the Senate. They say that makes the situation far different than when Obama was president and McConnell refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland.Democrats acknowledge they could get run over in the next eight months. Supreme Court nominees can now be confirmed by a bare majority after McConnell changed the rules in 2017 to overcome a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia’s successor.”Subsequently, in July of 2020, the public learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had been battling aggressive cancer for years, had a flare-up. CNBC reported,“ ‘Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital early Tuesday morning,’ the Supreme Court said. ‘She is being treated for a possible infection.‘The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment,’ said court spokesperson Kathleen Arberg in a statement Tuesday. . . .’ Ginsburg has survived colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer 10 years after that. She was treated for a tumor on her pancreas in August 2019. And in December 2018, she had two cancerous nodules removed from her lungs.”  Recall that, in January, 2020 Ginsburg announced, as reported in health line, referring to an interview she gave to CNN, that she is “cancer-free.” Eight months later Ruth Bader Ginsburg was dead,* as reported by numerous news sources. And, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, one and a half months before the most important U.S. Presidential election in recent decades—and conceivably the most important election since the founding of the Nation—the worst fears of the malevolent, malignant, ruthless, powerful, immoral, repressive forces both here and abroad that seek to upend our independent sovereign Nation and a free Constitutional Republic have come to fruition.In the next several days Trump will nominate Ginsburg’s replacement—his third nomination since he took Office. That he will do so isn’t guesswork. It's a foregone conclusion. It is also a foregone conclusion that, whatever the Democrat Party leadership and Administrative State saboteurs and Radical Left George Soros financed destructors of our Nation have concocted to disrupt and waylay confirmation of Trump’s nominee—and have no doubt, they had made contingency plans in the event of Ginsburg’s death prior to the November election—there isn’t a damn thing these Anti-Constitutional, Anti-American forces can lawfully do to prevent a confirmation hearing and vote on Trump’s nominee, other than do what they have been doing for months: rioting, looting, ransacking, firebombing, threatening the populace, and destroying, killing, and maiming. And, there will be a backlash; no doubt about it. The public has had more than enough of this dangerous nonsense, and will not be placated by claims that all will be well once the senile Biden and the crass opportunist, Harris, take control of the Executive Branch of Government. Extortion doesn't work against Americans. It doesn't sit well in the American psyche or in their blood.

WHY GETTING A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST ON THE  U.S. SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 ELECTION IS CRITICAL

Unless the election results in a landslide for Donald Trump or for the Democrat Party nominee, Joe Biden, assuming Biden doesn't suffer a stroke or other health-related calamity at the Eleventh Hour, in which case Harris will step in as Biden's replacement, the coming U.S. Presidential  election will be contested. That isn't mere conjecture. It is certain.In fact, even if President Trump does win the election by a landslide, the American public can expect Democrats will contest the election results anyway. The obnoxious, repugnant, disgruntled, arrogant, smug Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President in 2016, Hillary Clinton—ever harboring a personal grudge against Donald Trump for dashing her hopes to be the first female U.S. President, a thing she literally lusted over—made that point quite recently, as reported by several news sources. Fox News, for one, reported that,

“Hillary Clinton issued a warning for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in a new interview released Tuesday, urging the former vice president to not concede defeat on the night of the Nov. 3 election — no matter the circumstances.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,’ Clinton said. ‘Because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win, if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.’” But, by the same token, President Trump, should not concede the election results either. His loss of the U.S. Presidency, and the loss of the U.S. Senate in November, will mark the end of a Free Constitutional Republic; will doom the Nation's Bill of Rights, will doom the sovereignty of the American citizenry, and will result in the inexorable loss of an independent Nation State.But make no mistake, the ruthless, rapacious, scheming internationalist Marxists and Billionaire Neoliberal transnationalist elites, both here and abroad, through their well-positioned puppet, the Democrat Party Leadership—have pulled out all the stops to take over the Executive Branch along with the U.S. Senate. The Billionaire Globalist elites, including ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the secretive, mysterious, pathological Billionaire George Soros, have spent tens of millions of dollars, and continue to spend untold millions of dollars, to buy this election. Their intention is clear: a return to the Globalist agenda, one commenced decades ago—and one that has gathered steam ever since through the administrations of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (George Senior), George W. Bush (George Junior), and Barack Obama—an agenda that came to an abrupt, screeching halt, with the surprising election of a Populist, Donald Trump, to the Office of U.S. President in 2016. For Globalists who have championed the continued erosion of the very concept of independent, sovereign nation-states, the worst thing imaginable for them would be the election of a man who supports strengthening the U.S. as an independent, sovereign Nation-State; who supports the wresting of control of foreign and domestic policy-making from unelected bureaucrats; who has worked tirelessly to halt the erosion of our Civil liberties and fundamental, immutable, illimitable, natural rights; who has emphasized the singular importance of our Nation's Judeo-Christian ethics; who seeks to preserve the foundational juridical, cultural, historical and economic precepts of our Nation, and the sanctity of the Individual soul over recent Collectivist impulses that have denigrated individual thought and expression and that have sought to sow disharmony and dissension throughout America; a man who cherishes our sacred National symbols, and who seeks to preserve and protect them from those scurrilous elements that denigrate them and discourage their continued use; a Nation's leader who demonstrates his singular love and devotion and duty first and foremost to our Nation, to our Nation's Constitution, and to our Nation's people.All that President Trump has accomplished and has sought further to accomplish to benefit our Nation and our people that are encapsulated in his campaign slogans, “Make America Great,” and “Keep America Great”—slogans that are routinely treated like obscenities by the disloyal Marxists and neoliberal transnationalist elites—will likely be lost forever, if Trump loses the U.S. Presidency and if Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate, in November. In the immediate aftermath of a Trump loss, this Country may very well devolve into Civil War—a clash between Americans who seek to retain the Nation's culture, history, legal, social, political, religious, and economic precepts, consistent with and as embodied both literally and tacitly in our Nation's enduring Constitution, and those Anti-American forces both here and abroad that seek to erase all of it.Ultimately, this election will likely be decided—must needs be decided—in the U.S. Supreme Court. A fair assessment of the General Election results will require fair and impartial U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The public may anticipate a fair assessment from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and from President Trump's new nominee, once confirmed—certainly someone who fervently respects our Constitution as written, and whose loyalty and interest exists in preserving our Nation's Constitutional foundational framework. Americans may not likely expect a fair assessment of the General Election results from the liberal-wing of the Court, as their goal is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution as the liberal-wing, having taken its cue from their late leader, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, does not perceive the U.S. Constitution as a document beyond reproach, but something that can and should be tinkered with, thereby acknowledging less than a firm conviction in the sanctity and inviolability and immutability of our Nation's Constitution.Recall the late Associate Justice's words in a 2012  2012 interview with Egypt’s Al Hayat TV,  as reported by Real Clear: “ ‘You [referring to the Post-Mubarak Egyptian Government that was looking to the U.S. Constitution as a possible framework for its Nation's governance] should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. . . . It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?,’  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt. ’ ” One might well have asked Justice Ginsburg, how human rights are to be guaranteed from the tyranny of Government, the inevitable danger of which our Nation's founders knew first-hand, in the absence of a well-armed citizenry?So, then, as the late Justice Ginsburg obviously emulated and found the Constitution of South Africa superior to ours, the incongruity of her remarks emerges eight years later as a manifestation of unholy and horrific, crushing events transpiring in America today—courtesy of rabid Marxists, whose brutal and incessant rioting and mayhem are all lovingly financed by Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, like the cold-blooded, cold-hearted George Soros. Since these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see the foundational tenets of a free Constitutional Republic incompatible with their goal of a one-world social, political, economic, cultural, and juridical scheme, they intend to cut the legs out from under the Constitution that the framers fashioned and concoct a completely new fabric upon which to dress up the vestiges of the United States that they deign, perhaps, to keep.The integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election is disturbingly very much in doubt, given the recent vote-buying antics of Michael Bloomberg and widespread vote-tampering possible through the vehicle of vote-harvesting fraud among other instances of election fraud, all likely to be compounded exponentially through the mechanism of millions of unverified mail-in votes. Even Progressive National Public Radio, NPR, has acknowledged that an extraordinarily high number, 550,000 mail-in votes have already been rejected so far, even as NPR chooses to discount the significance of that fact. It cannot be reasonably denied that ruthless Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces are determined to prevent Donald Trump from serving a second term in Office. It is, therefore imperative that President Trump do everything in his power to ensure the integrity of the upcoming election. Sitting a Ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice on the Bench, prior to and not subsequent to the election, will definitely help to ensure a fair election, as a majority decision, whether 9-0 (most improbable) or 5-4 (most likely) will decide whom the public will see as U.S. President on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021.Without an odd number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices serving on the Bench on the day of the election, the High Court will likely not be able to decide the election when the issue of who actually won the election comes to the High Court, which it will, if the election is a contested one, as it most likely will be, unless Americans witness a landslide for one Party candidate or the other. A 4-4 result will get us nowhere, and may lead to all out civil war, as each side claims victory. We anticipate that, once Trump has made his selection, Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will quickly convene and vote to send Trump’s nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation hearing. We anticipate that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will run the confirmation hearing expeditiously and, with a Senate Republican Majority, the Senate will confirm Trump’s nominee  posthaste. Those Senate Republicans who vote against confirmation of Trump’s nominee to sit on the High Court be damned!_____________________________________________

AMY CONEY BARRETT: A PROVEN PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT JURIST

BOTH PRO 2A AND PRO-LIFE, JUDGE BARRETT WOULD STRENGTHEN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, PRESERVE OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, AND KEEP AMERICA GREAT

The seditious Press has devoted substantial time analyzing and ruminating on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court list of potential candidates and will continue to do so up to the point of his selecting someone.Almost certainly, Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late vexatious liberal-wing Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, that nomination is imminent.The current consensus is that Amy Coney Barrett, who presently serves as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will be that person, as she is the front-runner.Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.President Trump nominated Barrett, on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.Justice Ginsburg, unlike Judge Barrett, unabashedly and unashamedly interposed her own personal predilections into case analysis. Those predilections invariably informed her decisions, eroding the fundamental rights and liberties upon which a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people rest.The attacks against Barrett coming from the Radical Left seditious Press have just started. Indeed, they have been ongoing for some time.The seditious Press has constantly slammed Barrett’s stance on abortion. That remains its main concern and that, too, of the Radical Left. They haven't attacked her yet on her jurisprudential approach to deciding Second Amendment cases, but that is almost certainly coming. The Arbalest Quarrel has wondered about that: What is Barrett’s stance on the Second Amendment? Fortunately, we have more than a mere clue, we have verified proof of her position, and that proof is consistent with her jurisprudential, methodological approach to case analysis. Judge Barrett is a firm Constitutional originalist and textualist, in the mold of her mentor, the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.A fairly recent Second Amendment case, Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), in which Judge Barrett took part, provides us with a definitive answer.The Plaintiff in Kanter had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, a non-violent crime.“Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. At issue in this case is whether the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter.” Upon his release from Prison, and payment of restitution, Plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for relief from disability so that he could exercise his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.The 7th Circuit Court Majority pointed out that, “. . . the Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes ‘that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’” The particulars of Kanter’s felony conviction, as set forth by the Court Majority that decided against Kanter, are as follows:“On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement. On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.”The Constitutionality of the Wisconsin law was placed squarely in question. The lower District Court found against the Plaintiff because of his felony conviction and irrespective of the fact that he had served out his sentence and paid full restitution.Two of three of the Appellate Court Judges, the majority, who ruled against the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter, framed the issue as a question whether individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies, no less than those who have been convicted of violent felonies, fall within a class of individuals who can never enjoy their Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.Why the Court majority framed the issue in this way is perplexing since the majority never bothered to formulate an answer to it or a resolution of it. This suggests that the Court had tacitly accepted as a given that citizens should never, can never, be absolved of their past misdeeds, regardless of the nature of their crimes, grounded, therefor, on the mere assumption that a convicted felon can never and must never be perceived as rehabilitated or capable of rehabilitation, at least, as to matters apropos of the Second Amendment, namely, matters pertaining to firearms ownership and possession. The Majority, thereupon concludes that felons remain, forever, a threat to public safety.Having tacitly decided that the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot lawfully own and possess firearms even though, as the Court Majority was compelled to acknowledge, Kanter had paid his full debt to society, the Court pretended to employ a balancing test as between non-violent convicted felons who had paid their debt to society and who subsequently wish to exercise the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the State’s  desire to promote public safety by keeping guns from the hands of Americans whom the State deems to be—by the very fact of a prior felony conviction—violent felony or non-violent felony notwithstanding—a perpetual threat to society, essentially, then, wholly beyond redemption, at least in the eyes of the Court.Applying that bald, unsupported assumption to Kanter, the Court said, “Categorical prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are ‘presumptively lawful,’ even in disqualifying nonviolent felons like Kanter.” The Court thereupon determined that the government had met its burden in denying Kanter the right to own and possess firearms, even though the government really had not, asserting, nonetheless, that the government has shown that prohibiting even nonviolent felons like the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter from possessing firearms, is substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence. The reader should note that the expression, ‘substantially related to an important Government purpose,’ is a court created intermediate scrutiny means balancing test. The Heller Court, in 2008, had considered the tenability of means balancing of interests between a fundamental right a person's interest in exercising a fundamental right, and the State's interest in precluding a person from exercising that fundamental  right on the basis of some presumed State desire to protect theHow so? The Court majority didn’t say. Obviously the Court Majority didn’t care. The Majority simply determined before the fact that a man convicted of a violent crime can never be permitted to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, after the fact and the Court constructed its argument to cohere with its predetermined decision.The dissenting Judge, Amy Barrett, though, did care. She began her dissent with the following perceptive remarks, which demonstrate her erudition, laser-like legal and logical reasoning, and profound respect for the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms:“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.” Judge Barrett added that Federal law and Wisconsin State Statute “would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments' undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons—both violent and nonviolent—is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter, who was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company's therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and billing Medicare accordingly. Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. . . .At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, ‘Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’”In her concluding remarks, Judge Barrett, citing the seminal Second Amendment Heller case, made the pertinent points that,“If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the ‘civic right’ argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces,’ but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ [a point articulated by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I therefore dissent.” Incidentally, in her dissent, Judge Barrett cited, with approval, to Judge Thomas Hardiman's Second Amendment analysis in the oft cited Second Amendment case, Binderup v. AG of United States, 836 F.3d 336, 357 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). Judge Hardiman is at present a U.S. Appellate Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Hardiman is also on President Trump’s short list to sit on the High Court, as he was when President Trump ultimately decided to go with Judge Neil Gorsuch, in 2016, just weeks into President Trump's first term in Office. Judge Hardiman was the first runner-up. President Trump recognizes the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in preserving the structure of our Nation in the form the founders conceived for it. Nominating a jurist to sit on the High Court was one of President Trump's first acts as President, and one that he had promised the electorate; a promise he kept. As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Judge Hardiman would, as with Judge Barrett, make an outstanding Justice, and he would be the ideal replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee, who is 82 years old, the oldest Justice on the Court, in the event that President Trump nominates Judge Barrett to take the seat on the High Court, vacated by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon the Associate Justice's recent death.Both Judge Hardiman and Judge Barrett utilize the jurisprudential methodology of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia when analyzing and deciding cases, and they share the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.Of course, the Radical Left Democrats and other Soros funded Marxists don’t give a damn about fundamental rights or logic. They are inherently nihilistic, stubborn, irascible, irrational, obtuse, smugly self-righteous, and abjectly hateful. And they have other plans for our Nation, for our Nation's Constitution, and for our Nation's citizenry. And, in the near future, their aim is to do their damnedest to thwart confirmation of any further Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court followed by attempts, by hook or by crook to defeat a Trump victory in November. If successful in that endeavor, they plan to resurrect Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the form of another liberal-wing activist jurist—perhaps, Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama sought to sit on the High Court to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, after the late Associate Justice's untimely and mysterious death. The Radical Left Marxists feel cheated out of the appointment of a liberal-wing activist jurist to the High Court. They feel disgruntled on two scores: the first, because Hillary Clinton failed to secure the U.S. Presidency, and, the second, because, as a result of her defeat, she could not nominate a liberal-wing successor to the High Court to replace the seat vacated by Justice Scalia after his death—a death, by the way, that has never been adequately explained—which should anger all Americans. Concerning Judge Garland, the Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the danger  Garland poses to the preservation of the Second Amendment and to a free Republic.Judge Garland has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment. The danger he poses to our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is so obvious and so egregious that we felt the need to write to Senator Grassley, who, at the time, was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We argued strenuously against voting for a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland, lest a vote by the full Senate serve to confirm him. Fortunately, there was no Hearing. See our open letter to Senator Grassley, posted on April 26, 2016.The Democrats were so incensed at the perceived rebuff by Senate Republicans that they scheduled their own pseudo-hearing, ostensibly to demonstrate their anger toward and disdain for Republicans failure to schedule a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over the pseudo-hearing that, while doing much, perhaps, to highlight Judge Garland's ostensibly finer qualities, namely his extensive experience as a judge, his intellectual acumen, and his judicial and personal temperament, did nothing to expose the serious flaws in Judge Garland's juridical, jurisprudential, and philosophical approach to the law, the latter of which are equally important for that person who would serve on the Highest Court in the Land. Those severe failings make abundantly clear that, however well-suited Merrick Garland might be to preside as a U.S. Circuit Court judge, the impact of his rulings on the fundamental rights of the American people, namely and particularly, on Second Amendment matters, through which the very sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured, would be in jeopardy, thereby endangering the continued survival of a free Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by the founders of our Nation. Politico reported, back in May of 2016:“Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland won’t be appearing before senators anytime soon for his confirmation hearing. So Senate Democrats are trying for the next best thing.Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will host a forum Wednesday featuring former top legal and government officials who know Garland personally and who will testify on behalf of the veteran jurist’s legal acumen and personal character.Among the names who’ll appear at the event: Abner Mikva, the former Democratic congressman and Clinton White House counsel who, like Garland, served as the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.‘The public discussion we are convening this week allows senators, the press, and the public to learn more about this highly qualified nominee and the importance of a fully functioning Supreme Court,” said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who will formally announce the event later Monday. “I hope all senators will join us for this public meeting.’ ” They didn't. And Senator Leahy and those Democrats that appeared for the “forum” (really a mock-hearing that Senator Leahy refused to countenance as a mock hearing) only succeeded in making utter fools of themselves. Democrats and their Marxist and neoliberal Globalist fellow travelers continue to lash out like petulant children. They have unleashed and continue to unleash incessant unprovoked, senseless chaos on President Trump, on the American people, and on our Nation. They have pointedly said that they intend to tear down the Nation if they don't get their way. But, then, they intend to tear down the Nation, if they do get their way, anyway, So, then, what's the point of their threat? Let them continue to make jackasses of themselves. Once Trump emerges victorious in November, he will take appropriate action against those elements in society that have made clear their intention to tear our Nation down. That isn't going to happen.U.S. Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to set matters right and, in doing so, render, as well, something in the way of a little payback, which will undoubtedly result in yet more churlish, childish, clownish antics and unseemly behavior.But, nothing the Radical Left Democrats and their mob of malcontents drum up will prevent President Trump from naming a jurist to sit on the High Court seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon her death; and nothing these Radical Left Democrats and their rabid, horde of troublemakers orchestrate to hamper the confirmation process will prevent Republicans from accomplishing their goal, thereby securing a free Constitutional Republic and preserving our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties for generations of Americans to come.The Arbalest Quarrel encourages President Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, or, in the alternative, to nominate Judge Thomas Hardiman, as a replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to sit on the high Court. And we encourage Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell to speed the confirmation process through to completion before the coming momentous U.S. Presidential election.And——Woe to those Senate Republicans who fail to vote for confirmation of Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.___________________________*Months ago, when word came down that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suffered a recurrence of her pancreatic cancer, first diagnosed eleven years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel was skeptical of news accounts suggesting that Justice Ginsburg’s cancer was under control.We therefore were not taken off guard when we heard that Ginsburg was readmitted to a hospital in July.NPR reported that “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is back in the hospital, this time to treat a possible infection. She spiked a fever Monday night, according to a press release from the Supreme Court, and on Tuesday underwent an endoscopic procedure to clean out a bile duct stent that was inserted in August [2019?] The procedure was done at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after Ginsburg was first evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. . . . According to a press release from the court's press officer, the justice is ‘resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It marks the second time Ginsburg has been hospitalized recently. In May, the justice underwent nonsurgical treatment for a benign gallbladder condition at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and she participated in oral arguments from her hospital bed.”On July 30, 2020, the New York Post reported that Ginsburg revealed “she was undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer –but insisted she had no plans to retire,” reiterating the point made, as reported in The New York Times, on July 17, 2020: “Justice Ginsburg was typically optimistic in her statement. ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam,’ she said. ‘I remain fully able to do that.’”  In that article, The New York Times pointed to Ginsburg’s Doctors who said that Ginsburg was doing remarkably well, even as they admitted she had advanced pancreatic cancer.Like Chief Justice Rehnquist, Ginsburg refused to step down from the Bench even as Democrats encouraged her to do so. If Democrats are up in arms over the decision of President Trump to nominate a successor to the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and if they are in a blood-thirsty rage over Senate Republicans intent to hold a confirmation hearing on that nomination, prior to the U.S. Presidential election, they should blame both fate and themselves for the turn of events, and blame, no less, the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself, as Justice Ginsburg must have had some understanding, eleven years ago, when Barack Obama was President, that her life expectancy was short, and that resigning at a time when Barack Obama could have named, as her successor, another Leftist activist Associate Justice to the High Court, several years before the next general election would have cemented liberal-wing control of the Court for generations, as the liberal-wing could count on Chief Justice Roberts to sit in their corner on many if not most cases that came before the Court. Certainly one Obama nominee or another would have been confirmed. That nominee, back in 2011, could very well have been Judge Merrick Garland, who had been sitting as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1995 when then President Bill Clinton nominated him to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Senate voted to confirm that nomination. The Democrats had, for several years, considered Judge Garland to be a strong contender for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, had he received a hearing by the full Senate, he would undoubtedly have been confirmed. Past U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch made that point crystal clear. Hatch, a Republican no less, hailing from Utah, said he supported Garland's confirmation, and would work to see that Garland was confirmed as an Associate Justice to sit on the High Court. Reuters reported, at the time, back in 2010, that,“A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court.Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be ‘a consensus nominee.”Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters, ‘No question.’‘I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them,’  added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. ’”That happenstance should not be lost on anyone who cherishes preservation of the Bill of Rights and the continuation of a Free Constitutional Republic. To prevent such a calamity is reason enough for Senator Grassley, who then presided over the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to prevent a confirmation hearing for Garland, as his nomination would endanger the Second Amendment. And if the Second Amendment fell, so, eventually, would fall all the other sacred Rights and Liberties of the American people, an apocalyptic eventuality. Just imagine the turnabout in the Heller case, if Garland had sat in Justice Scalia's seat on the High Court in 2008 when Heller was decided. Let there be no mistake, the Republican controlled U.S. Senate fulfilled its obligation under the Advice and Consent clause of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Senate did consider Barack Obama's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and thereupon advised the Obama that the Senate does not consent to confirmation. Judge Garland's methodological approach to case analysis, and his jurisprudential leanings make him ill-suited to sit on the High Court. And his experience as a jurist and intellect and legal acumen do not compensate for his errant philosophical bent; one wholly inconsistent with the tenets of Individualism upon which our Constitution rests. Moreover, the fact that the Senate's refusal to permit a confirmation hearing from taking place does not mean that the Senate failed to fulfill its Constitutional requirement of Advice and Consent. The Senate Majority, did fulfill its duty, in Committee. That a confirmation hearing before the full Senate, did not occur, is irrelevant. The decision of the Senate Republican Majority was in keeping with the Constitutional Advice and Consent requirement and consistent with the will of the electorate whom that Republican Majority represents.There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly states or tacitly suggests that the Senate, in its entirety, must hold a confirmation hearing, as the full Senate establishes its own rules of conduct and the full Senate had previously declared the process through which the Advice and Consent requirement of Senate is to be fulfilled. That process is laid bare for all to see at the website law2.umkc.edu: “Judicial nominations are forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts its own review (using its staff and those of its members) of the merits of the nominee.  Hearings are held in which the nominee, as well as other persons knowledgeable about the nominee's qualifications, offer statements and answer questions posed by Committee members.  After the hearing, the Judiciary Committee votes on whether to recommend confirmation of the nominee by the full Senate.  A nominee who fails to win a majority of Committee votes usually sees his prospects die, unless the Committee chooses to forward the nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. The full Senate, once a nomination is sent to it, will debate the merits of the nominee and schedule a final vote on confirmation.  On rare occasions, as happened when charges of sexual harassment surfaced at the last minute against Clarence Thomas, a nomination might be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further hearings. A simple majority is required for confirmation.  The average time in recent decades between a presidential nomination of a Supreme Court justice and a final vote by the Senate has been a bit over two months.”So, let the Democrat leadership and Marxists and Transnationalists lament and bemoan their failure to destroy our free Constitutional Republic. The Good Lord Above has ordained our Nation, a free and independent and sovereign Nation, must continue to exist as such; that it should not suffer the fate of Marxist Dictatorships like Venezuela or Cuba, that have fallen into abject ruin, or the fate of such repressive Communist Dictatorships as China that keeps its population under strict surveillance and control, clamping down vigorously on any dissent.If the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg were truly concerned about securing liberal-wing control of the High Court, then she might have acted more pragmatically, voluntarily, if reluctantly, stepping down from the Court when Obama was President, rather than defiantly, stubbornly resisting resignation, perhaps presuming, wrongly, as so many had, that the Executive Branch would remain in Democrat hands; that a smooth transition from Obama to Hillary Clinton, would take place, and that a Democrat in the White House would be making nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts. Ginsburg may have regretted having failed to step down, years earlier. CNN reports that, “Shortly before dying Friday, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter: ‘My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.’ ”Perhaps Ginsburg did make that deathbed statement; perhaps not. In any event, that utterance, if, in fact, made, must remain, at best, as wish fulfillment, grounded, perhaps, in regret for failing to see that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton would not succeed Barack Obama as U.S. President after all. And, the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to realize her ultimate ambition and the fact that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists failed to realize their vision for a unified one-world system of governance, amount to an intolerable loss for them as that loss has made all the difference in the world that exists—a world where the United States, and many other independent, sovereign nation states that seek to remain so, have found reprieve—a world that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists find intolerable and have made clear they will not abide.“The chief of staff to Vice President Pence on Sunday defended the administration's decision to ignore the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's deathbed request not to fill her seat until after the election, telling CNN that it was not Ginsburg's choice to make. ” The choice Ginsburg could have made and should have made if her intent was to maintain a liberal-wing activist majority or, at least, to maintain some semblance of ideological, jurisprudential, and methodological counter-balance to the conservative-wing, the latter of which is loath to tinker with the Constitution, was to resign, back in 2011, when she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She dismissed out-of-hand any suggestion that she do so.Recall Steve Jobs death from pancreatic cancer on October 06, 2011. Steve Jobs was substantially younger that Ginsburg and therefore, presumably, stronger. No matter; he still died, after battling cancer for seven years. VOA News reported,“Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' death at the age of 56 followed a seven-year battle with a rare form of pancreatic cancer - the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The disease is hard to treat because it is difficult to diagnose. The pancreas is embedded deep in the abdomen, and often, symptoms of cancer become evident at a very late, advanced stage of the disease.” Given the ominous signs of Ginsburg’s rapidly deteriorating health, in the last several months notwithstanding mainstream media attempts to sugarcoat the prescient signs of Ginsburg’s imminent demise and the penchant of the seditious Press to incessantly and blatantly and unapologetically lie to the American public, the Arbalest Quarrel penned an article in July that we had not gotten around to publish, but feel it still apropos to post here, albeit, after the fact of Ginsburg’s death, as it is an appropriate lead-in to the pressing matter confronting the Nation, now, as Ginsburg's death, coming when it has, is a godsend of a kind, even as it is a personal tragedy for Ginsburg's family nonetheless, for her death truly forces the American public to consider what is at stake. The Nation is able now to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague and the gloomy economy wrought by the plague that the Radical Left have attempted to use to their advantage. The public has a choice and it is a clearly demarcated one: either to retain a free Constitutional Republic where the people are sovereign and Government exists to serve the people; where independence of thought and action is encouraged; and where an American spirit and a Judeo-Christian ethos exists; all of which have benefitted our Country and our people since the Nation's inception; or we can toss it all out the window, and see our Nation merged into a one-world system of governance, one demanding the loss of personal freedom and liberty, the loss of independent thought and action; a world where people exist to serve a grandiose, bloated State and are dependent on Government largess for their needs, a Collectivist nightmare. It is this or that; one or the other; not both, and not an amalgam of the two as they are inherently incompatible. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising multiple copies of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will ensure the existence of the latter. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising jurists in the mold of the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia will help ensure the continued existence of the former, one predicated on the tenets of Individualism, not Collectivism.In our unpublished article, drafted in late July, titled, “Is It Too Soon to Consider Another Trump Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,”  which we feel appropriate to post here, even though after the fact, we wrote,“One year ago, Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then 86 years old, underwent cancer surgery. ABC News reported, at the time, July 25, 2019, that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on her health amid concerns for the 86-year-old, who underwent cancer surgery in December that caused her to miss oral arguments for the first time in 25 years.The progressive justice, who has become a pop culture icon dubbed ‘the Notorious RBG’ and a hero for young activists, dismissed concerns over her health in an interview with NPR published Tuesday, saying she is ‘very much alive.’”Well, Ginsberg’s assertion that she is ‘very much alive’ is, on one level, certainly true, but trivially so, because, as a matter of elementary logic, one is alive, or one is not. And, apparently, at that moment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t dead; ergo, she was very much alive.But, given the nuances of language, the assertion goes to the issue of Ginsberg’s current state of health. Obviously, Ginsberg was, at that time, not in the pink of health. Were she not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the concern over Ginsberg’s health or, indeed, whether she was alive or not, would be of little concern to anyone outside of her network of family and friends. But, the fact that Ginsberg is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, her life and well-being is and should be the subject of intense focus to Americans since, she is one of a select few people who wields substantial power over the life and well-being of the rest of us.On July 14, 2020, news outlets uniformly reported that Ginsberg was in the hospital due to an infection. The irrepressible, CNN, for one, reported that,“Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been taken to the hospital and treated for a possible infection, according to a court spokeswoman.‘Justice Ginsburg was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland early this morning for treatment of a possible infection,’ spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said Tuesday.‘She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. last night after experiencing fever and chills. She underwent an endoscopic procedure at Johns Hopkins this afternoon to clean out a bile duct stent that was placed last August. The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It's the latest development in Ginsburg's lengthy history of medical issues while serving on the high court—though she's proven adept at continuing her job without interruption.”One might have pondered if, given the era of the Chinese Coronavirus in which we live, Ginsberg might have contracted the disease, not an unheard-of possibility. But the lack of any acknowledgment of that sort of infection, one could not help but wonder if the news report was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation to mask another malady. And, then, on July 17, it comes to light that Ginsberg is in the hospital because of a flare up of her cancer and that she is undergoing chemotherapy. In bullet points, Business Insider reported that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatments to combat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’

• The 87-year-old had recently been hospitalized for an infection stemming from a medical procedure on a tumor found on her pancreas.
• ‘I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment,’ Ginsburg said in a statement.
• ‘I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine,’ the statement said. ‘Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work.’

Following another recent heath scare, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy to treat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’Ginsburg, 87, has survived cancer four times before.”The Daily Mail reported, on July 17, 2020, Ginsberg’s remark that, although she revealed that her cancer has returned, she “will not quit Supreme Court while she can work ‘full steam.’. . . ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.’” Ginsberg’s remarks are all well and good, but one is reminded of Rehnquist’s intention to remain on the Court even as CNN remarked, on June 22, 2005 that, at that time, the Chief Justice looked “frail” and that, “He has been on a physically demanding pace since October, when he had an emergency tracheotomy after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, for which he later endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.The chief justice has released no information about the seriousness of his condition, but his treatment regimen led cancer specialists to conclude he had a serious, invasive form of cancer, with a possibly dire prognosis.”Less than two and a half months later the Chief Justice was dead, as reported by fox news.This brings us back to the question of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health. She is 7 years older than the Chief Justice, and she is most certainly unwell.Imagine for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health neither improves nor remains at a plateau but declines precipitously between now and the fall.There is an election looming—certainly most critical in the last one hundred and fifty years. When Justice Scalia died—by natural means or not—in 2016, Trump made poignantly clear his intention to name a successor, quickly. And he did so, fulfilling a critical campaign promise. The New York Times reported, “Pledging to move quickly to fulfill what he has called the most important promise of his campaign, President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would name a nominee to the Supreme Court ‘within about two weeks’ of his inauguration on Jan. 20.At a news conference in Trump Tower, he thanked the leaders of two prominent conservative groups for their help in vetting candidates, a strong indication that his main priority remains choosing an unwavering conservative to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February.Democrats are promising a furious fight over any nominee they consider to be out of the legal mainstream, saying that Republicans effectively stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama by refusing for almost a year to consider his nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, a respected appeals court judge with a moderate record.”And furious fight the Democrats waged when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But even that nomination fight paled in comparison to the gladiatorial circus on display during the Kavanaugh Senate confirmation hearing. Imagine the battle that will loom if Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies a month or so before the election.And, that that has in fact transpired. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now dead, we will soon see just how calamitous the aftereffects of that event will be on our people and on our Nation._______________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.