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. 

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

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 TO DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

MULTISERIES

PART TWELVE

HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Anti-Second Amendment Legislators in Albany were in a bind. The U.S. Supreme officially published its decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen on June 23, 2022. Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled State Legislature in Albany had reason enough to expect, and every reason to fear, that Bruen would be a momentous decision—and for Hochul and the Democrat Party Legislators in Albany—a disastrous decision, directly and potentially fatally, impacting the State’s century-old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, long since codified in the State’s Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 400.00, et. seq. It would take Hochul and the Legislators, and their respective lawyers considerable time to concoct a scheme that would salvage the Sullivan Act, creating the illusion—if ultimately unconvincingly—of complying with the High Court’s rulings. The Anti-Second Amendment Hochul Administration and the Legislators in Albany had nothing but contempt for the High Court. Hochul, herself, did not so much as try to hide this. On the Governor’s website, the public sees this announcement:“ ‘While the Supreme Court's appalling decision to strike down New York State's concealed carry law has potentially vast and far-reaching implications, it does not activate any immediate changes to State gun license and permit laws, nor does it allow residential permit owners to carry their weapons outside their homes. . . . “As the case returns to lower court, we encourage responsible gun owners to continue to follow their current restrictions, and always put safety first. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the safety of our communities, we are prepared to fight. And the Lieutenant Governor, Antonio Delgado, added this to Governor Hochul’ statement.“‘Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence by striking down a NY law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. While the implications are not immediate, New York is committed to taking action and enacting a new set of laws that will work around this ruling. . . . If the Supreme Court and federal government won't act to keep our children safe, then New York will.’” Id.Hochul likely had received abundant advance notice of the content of the Bruen decision “on the QT,”  judging by how quickly her Government came out with a comprehensive set of amendments to the State’s Gun Law. The Arbalest Quarrel has taken an in-depth look at the Bruen decision along with the Hochul Government’s response to it. There is a lot of material to digest, and we will continue to do this as nothing—absolutely nothing—is more critical to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, than the right of the people to keep and bear arms.All the rambunctious talk of “the need to get rid of guns” for the sake of public safety and public order for everyone serves as deflection. The message translates as: “constraining law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms for self-defense. The argument presented for doing so is specious on its face and, worse, it is corrosive of the fundamental truth that tyranny looms in the absence of an armed citizenry. Tyranny of Government looms in New York. And, as New York is a microcosm of the Nation, what transpires there has a ripple effect across the Nation: crime is rampant and intractable; the criminal justice system casts a blind eyed to the safety of the public, and the public is denied the right to defend itself against the danger presented. It is a recipe for societal collapse. The U.S. Supreme Court could see this even if the New York Government does not. The Court could not compel the New York Government to protect its citizens, but it could require New York to adhere to the core principles of the Bill of Rights. That means New York cannot lawfully prevent the citizen from protecting itself. The Bill of Rights boils down to these Divine absolutes: the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; and the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and incontrovertible natural law right of survival against aggression, howsoever that aggression manifests itself: from predatory creature, or predatory man, or a predatory Government.Yet, as violent crime goes unchecked, and the criminal justice system itself remains constrained, the Hochul Government provides excuses. Yet, as to the matter of armed self-defense, the Hochul Government has much to say.It couldn’t dismiss U.S. Supreme Court rulings out-of-hand without admitting that it cares not for the Article 3 authority of the Court. So it came up with a workaround to salvage the Sullivan Act. It was as ingenious as it was diabolical. The Government pretends to give free rein to the law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed for self-protection. And a seditious Press and the Hochul Government denounce the U.S. Supreme Court for turning New York into a “wild west.”  The Press and the Hochul Government should reflect on that a bit. New York City and other jurisdictions, including those several on the west coast, and jurisdictions inland, including Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many others, are already in the throes of the “wild west.” In the name of the new secular religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and with Soros's money raining down on jurisdictions that support his Dystopian Nightmare of the “Open Society,” Cities across the Country are collapsing. Incompetence can’t alone explain this. It has to be deliberate.The degradation of society invariably follows in the wake of and must therefore be construed as a function of systematic denigration of the Second Amendment by governments in all of those jurisdictions. Congress and the Biden Administration have done little if anything to prevent wholescale annihilation of the exercise of armed self-defense, and much to promote it.And so it is left to the province of the U.S. Supreme Court to reinvigorate the Bill of Rights that the Federal Government and those of many States and cities have disdainfully ignored or actively dismantled.

DOWN MEMORY LANE: THE VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS

The U.S. Supreme Court had done with playing games with New York and with all other State Governments that had heretofore played fast and loose with the natural law right of armed self-defense. New York and other similar Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions had withstood the impact of Heller and McDonald through feats of judicial legerdemain. And New York itself had weathered the storm of the predecessor to the Bruen case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. the City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020); often referred to informally as the “New York City Gun Transport” case.In both NYSRPA vs. Bruen and NYSPRA vs the City of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court began to zero in on a long-standing nemesis to the Second Amendment, New York, just as it had zeroed in on the District of Columbia and on Illinois, several years earlier. All three of these jurisdictions were notorious for systematically treating the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the bane of Collectivist orthodoxy that seeks to Government absolute control over the thoughts and actions of the masses. And that requires suppression of basic freedoms and liberties—most notably that of speech, privacy, and the right to armed self-defense.The U.S. Supreme Court was one remaining Branch of the Federal Government that had had enough of the immolation of basic natural law rights: most concerning to some Justices on the Court: armed self-defense.If Congress and the U.S. President would not take concrete steps to preserve the natural law right of armed self-defense, several Justices on the High Court would do so. And, after years of noncompliance to High Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, two Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, would not be denied any longer. NYSRPA vs. the City of New York provided an opportunity to prevent the New York Government from continuously weakening the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court’s rulings would course through the rest of the Country, impacting those States that had enacted similar unconscionable, unconstitutional constraints on the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment.

NYSPRA vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK: DECISION ON THE MERITS AVOIDED

In the Gun Transport case, Petitioners challenged a New York City rule preventing holders of restricted handgun premise licenses from transporting their firearms outside the confines of the City.  Petitioners claimed the rule violated the Second Amendment and sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected Petitioners’ claim and they took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The liberal wing of the Court, and likely Chief Justice John Roberts as well, were not keen on reviewing the case. They had no desire to take up any Second Amendment case they felt would serve, from their ideological perspective, of expanding the people's exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Of course, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch—Trump’s first nominee to the High Court, after the untimely death and, some would add, dubious circumstances surrounding that death—do not view Second Amendment cases as irrational or unreasonable attempts by Americans to expand the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, these Justices perceive Second Amendment challenges to Government actions constraining the exercise of a natural law right as opportunities to preclude the Government from constraining the exercise of a supernal right. It is the unconstitutional actions of the Government that demand adjudication by the High Court—a task that should be unnecessary and would be unnecessary if the States and the Federal Government would acknowledge the Bill of Rights instead of continually frustrating Americans’ exercise of their fundamental, unalienable rights.Although the Gun Transport case wasn’t the ideal case to adjudicate, as many others had wended their way to the Court years before, yet could not garner enough votes for review, this case was the best that could be achieved at the time.The Petitioners sought to have the case decided on the merits. They argued that, notwithstanding that they held a restrictive premise handgun license, they still had a fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm to a target range outside the City limits. Had the case been decided on the merits, the Court could have taken the opportunity to rule restrictive handgun carry licenses as presumptively unlawful. The liberal wing and Chief Justice Roberts would have none of that, and, likely, Roberts cajoled the newest member of the High Court, at that time, Brett Kavanaugh, to vote with him to forsake the opportunity the case gave them.The case didn’t just bother several members of the Court, it concerned Andrew Cuomo and other Anti-Second Amendment politicians who had made it their life’s work to make New York a veritable Gun-Free jurisdiction. And, Cuomo saw an escape route, and most of the Justices saw a pretext to avoid dealing with the case on the merits.Since the issue in the Gun Transport case pertained only to holders of restricted handgun licenses who, under New York law, could not lawfully carry a handgun outside one’s home for self-defense, there was the concern that the Court could come embroiled with the issue of armed self-defense outside the home. If so, that would impinge on the Sullivan Act itself. Neither the liberal wing of the High Court nor the Chief Justice, John Roberts wanted to deal with this. And Andrew Cuomo, the Governor at the time, and a virulent hater of the Second Amendment intended to do all in his power to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a case that could very expand the right of all law-abiding civilian citizens in New York to carry a concealed handgun in the public realm for self-defense, thus imperiling the century-old Sullivan Act at its core. Better, then, Cuomo realized, simply to redraft the State Gun Law and the Rules of the City of New York, to allow a holder of a restricted premise license to carry a handgun outside the environs of the City, albeit, in a locked container, with ammunition separated from the firearm. This would still preclude the use of the handgun for self-defense in public if the need arose, and the Sullivan Act would remain intact. Cuomo and the other Anti-Second Amendment zealot power brokers don’t like to weaken their own gun laws, but they could do so here, as it wouldn’t have a disastrous impact on the core of the Gun Law—inhibiting the vast majority of law-abiding New Yorkers from lawfully relying on a firearm for self-defense.New York City changed its Rules and the State reconfigured the law to avoid a direct threat to the Sullivan Act. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. And there is nothing to prevent the New York Government from countermanding the law once the High Court dismisses it. The Petitioners made these points and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch concurred, but they were two votes shy of reviewing the case on the merits. So, for a time, at least, the Sullivan Act was spared direct confrontation. The reprieve for Anti-Second Amendment zealots, both in New York, and elsewhere, was short-lived. Everything changed with Bruen.

NYSRPA vs. BRUEN: DECISION ON THE MERITS UNAVOIDABLE

Unlike the NYC Gun Transport case, the constitutionality of armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home was now squarely before the High Court. Reconfiguring New York law to avoid a showdown was out of the question. There was no way the Hochul Government could finesse the Gun Law to avoid a High Court review of the case on the merits. And with three certain votes in favor of striking down the Sullivan Act, and with both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh compelled to add a fourth and fifth vote, the High Court had a majority, necessary to defeat the Liberal wing of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would look more the fool for siding with the liberal wing now, even if he likely wanted to. For to do so would be demonstrably inconsistent with his pro-Second Amendment votes in Heller and McDonald, and, as Chief Justice, he would prefer not to be situated with the losing side on any occasion, but certainly not on a case of this magnitude.And Kavanaugh would be compelled to side with the majority as he said as much in his concurring opinion in the NYC Gun Transport case. He made clear the Court would have ample opportunity to hear a Second Amendment case on the merits in the future, which he would support, and that day had come, even if he would prefer not to see it.Hochul and Albany were therefore on their own to devise a strategy to salvage the Sullivan Act. And, it would have to come after the fact once the case was decided on the merits. And since Bruen dealt squarely with State law, as it no longer had anything to do with New York City Rules, Mayor Adams would have done well to keep his mouth shut. He didn’t. Ever the lackey, under the thumb of Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, and discerning that it would be best for him not to disappoint Kathy Hochul, he would do what was expected of him; and that meant concurring with whatever the Governor had in mind. His own Press Release reflected that. On the official NYC website, Adams echoed the sentiments of both Hochul and of the State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins. In so doing, Adams made clear and indisputable, if ever there were any doubt, that he vehemently disapproves of the civilian citizen's right to armed self-defense. He declared, “Put simply, this Supreme Court ruling will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence. We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license. We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West. One thing is certain: We will do whatever is in our power, using every resource available to ensure that the gains we’ve seen during this administration are not undone, to make certain New Yorkers are not put in further danger of gun violence. This decision may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence, but we will do everything we can to dam it.” See also the article posted on the website, Reason, on November 10, 2021, a week after the Oral Argument in Bruen.“Before he was elected mayor of New York City . . . , Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. While those remarks were controversial, the real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense—a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer.That double standard came into focus last week, when the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to New York's carry permit law. Unlike the vast majority of states, which allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has ‘proper cause’ to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of the law's opponents, emphasized that applicants cannot pass the state's amorphous test by expressing a general desire to protect themselves against criminal assault. ‘In order to exercise a constitutional right that New York is willing to concede extends outside the home,’ he noted, ‘you have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community.’That situation, Clement said, ‘describes a privilege’ rather than ‘a constitutional right.’ Most of the justices seemed inclined to agree.”Six Justices did agree—two of them, Roberts and Kavanaugh, likely reluctantly—the flipside of what occurred a couple of years earlier, where it was 6 to 3 that voted against the NYSRPA and individual gun owners in the disastrous “Gun Transport” case.

A SCHEME IS HATCHED!

Hochul and the Democrats in Albany, with their band of attorneys, conceived and executed a plan to salvage the Sullivan Act, which meant, by logical implication, sabotaging the Bruen holdings, albeit without appearing overtly that they were doing just that. Hochul and the other conspirators in her Government had ample time to plot a way around Bruen, notwithstanding the clarity and conciseness of the case, delivered in the first sentence of the Opinion. Obviously, someone alerted Hochul as to what to expect. Could it have been the same law clerk who had presumptuously and illegally released an early copy of the Dobbs decision to the Press? In aPress Release, dated May 3, 2022, printed in full by the Washington Examiner, the Chief Justice said he has “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” Did the Chief Justice find the leaker? If so, he hasn’t reported it, which belies the sense of importance that he says he had placed upon it. See the article in the Federalist concerning it:“More than 100 days have passed since the infamous leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Americans are still no closer to finding out the identity of the leaker than the day the draft decision was published.”Deception and contrivance and false reporting and hiding findings seem to be the modus operandi of this Federal Government.But, concerning the Second Amendment—the importance the founders of the Republic, the framers of the Constitution, had placed on it is a matter always front in center. It is a matter as important to a tyrant who is as wary of the armed citizenry as the armed citizenry is wary of the tyrant. The matter of firearms is not a topic easily dismissed or swept under the rug. Tangible weapons in the hands of criminals and in the hands of a tyrant’s standing army—that may be used or have been used, or continue to be used, or will be used against the people—require arms in the hands of the people to counter the threat.Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party controlling majority in Albany see the law-abiding citizenry as a greater threat to themselves than the criminal element that is tearing down the community they are sworn to protect but do not. It is their design then, through their policies, to destroy society, just as on a National level it is the aim of the Democrat Party-controlled Congress and the Biden Administration to do the same to the Country. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court places a damper on both. It impacts New York immediately and directly, but it has a ripple effect across the Nation. Hochul and Albany meant to throw a wrench into the Bruen rulings.The scheme wasn’t perfect, and it really fooled no one—certainly not anyone who spends sufficient time to pour over the elaborate contrivance. But, it was the best they could muster, given the clear exposition of Bruen.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court majority, opined:“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”The holding was concise, unambiguous, and categorical. But would it suffice to prevent a New York Government, that had a long tradition of constraining the natural law right of armed self-defense, from devising an end run around the holding, while ostensibly complying with the dictates of it? Apparently, in anticipation of just that possibility—and with Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett in agreement, and with two others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, in tow, if only reluctantly—Justice Thomas set forth an additional holding in the second paragraph of the opinion. He wrote, in pertinent part:“The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. . . . Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”It would seem clear enough at least to a casual observer that the U.S. Supreme Court had covered two critical bases—seemingly sufficient to forestall Kathy Hochul and her compatriots in Albany from circumventing Bruen.Boiled down to its essence the Court’s first two holdings set forth in the first two paragraphs of the Opinion, established the following:

• The right of a law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun for self-defense exists beyond the confines of one’s home as well as in it; and
• New York’s Gun Law, requiring a person to justify a special need to carry a handgun for armed self-defense outside the home, is unconstitutional.

The implication of the first holding is that the right of armed self-defense, unconstrained by place, time, or circumstance, follows from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment for there is nothing in the language of the Second Amendment to suggest an American’s right of armed self-defense is limited.The implication of the second holding is that a showing of special need to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense. A claim of simple self-defense is sufficient and that simple claim need not be stated, for it is logically implied in the language of the Second Amendment. To require one to assert self-defense to justify the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license would be redundant.Did Justice Thomas, et. al., adequately cover their bases? Apparently, they didn’t realize just how cunning Hochul and  Albany could be, and how advanced notice of the decision gave her Government ample time to defuse the import of the holdings.Even with the Court’s acute legal minds and an unshakeable desire and resolve to preserve the citizen’s natural law right of armed self-defense—a right both fundamental and immutable, unalienable and eternal—Justices Thomas and Alito, in particular, might not have foreseen the lengths to which Kathy Hochul’s Government was prepared to go to protect a 100 plus old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act of 1911, and the diabolical cleverness of the Government’s scheme to override Bruen even as her Government created the illusion of complying with it, by striking the phrase, “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act. She could work around that and has done so. The “Good Moral Character,” of little importance given the “proper cause” requirement, has been re-engineered to function much like the “proper cause” requirement.Thus, it may well be that Justices Thomas and Alito did know or did suspect that New York would disobey the rulings of the Third Branch of Government. For, did they not have firsthand knowledge of how lower State and Federal Courts, including those of New York had hitherto disobeyed the clear rulings of Heller and McDonald?That Bruen was needed at all to rectify the matter of prolific disobedience to Heller and McDonald serves as proof of the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment State Governments as well as the tenacity of the Biden Administration and the Democrat-Party Controlled Congress, at the Federal level, to arrogantly dismiss the U.S. Constitution out-of-hand, even as it pretends to cohere to it, with its ludicrous claims of adhering to the Rule of Law and of claiming it is a steadfast defender of Democracy.It is interesting to behold that Democrats like to throw out terminology without ever bothering to define what they mean by it as if expressions like the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Democracy’ are self-explanatory. They aren’t. But, by referring to these phrases, ad nauseum, and positing undying faith and passion in them, Democrats presume the American public will take them at their word, reflexively, like a sneeze or cough, as if they care deeply about the well-being of the Nation and the American people. They don’t. And that is exemplified by policies systematically designed to wreck the economy, demoralize the citizenry, weaken the Nation militarily and geopolitically, dismantle our institutions, and shatter the cohesiveness and stability of society. Nothing better exemplifies the danger wrought by the Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution, who pretend to be Defenders of both, than the inexorable disintegration of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, especially that of the Second Amendment.Consider——The Heller case of 2008 reaffirmed what all rational minds know: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. That the prefatory “militia clause” might mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right flies in the face of the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. Apart from the dictates of the Tenth Amendment, referencing the doctrine of federalism underlying the relationship of the Federal Government to the States, the first Nine Amendments of the Bill of Rights codify the natural law rights of the individual and the Second Amendment is no exception.The militia clause—a dependent clause under the rules of English grammar—is not a thing that can, or does, stand-alone, for dependent clauses are not complete sentences: they don’t convey a complete thought.* The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion in Heller, explained the prefatory, dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State,” does not assert a limitation on the independent clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Rather, the prefatory clause provides a rationale for the independent clause that follows. Justice Scalia explained that the drafters of the Second Amendment knew that nothing less than a well-armed citizenry would serve as the best deterrent to tyranny emerging in the Federal Government. This was of great concern, especially to the Antifederalists, among the framers. They were justifiably wary of establishing a strong central government with its own standing army. Thus, an independent citizen army, unbeholden to a federal government, would have both the means and the frame of mind to deter tyranny if such should come to pass.Oddly, many academicians today ignore this or dismiss this. They argue that the Constitution’s framers could not have intended to create, in the Second Amendment, a mechanism through which the commonalty could overthrow their own Government. Therefore, any right to keep and bear arms had to be tied to a militia—but one that was constrained by the Federal Government itself. One academician says that the Federalists, among the framers of the Constitution—those who supported a strong centralized Government and a strong standing arming—intended for armed citizens, as part of a militia, to function under federal control. Can that be true? They write,“In the eyes of the Federalists, the past had proven that the militia, to be effective, had to be federalized. The discipline of militia members, in particular, was of paramount concern.  Federal authority over the militia would also create uniformity in arms and training. But of the two means of military power recognized by the document, a standing army and a militia, both were put under federal control.” Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” “The Inconvenient Militia Clause Of The Second Amendment: Why The Supreme Court Declines To Resolve The Debate Over The Right To Bear Arms,” 16 St. John's J.L. Comm. 41(Winter, 2002), by Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law at the University of Denver College of Law; and Elizabeth Gormley and Bryan Taylor, graduates of University College of Law 2001The writers go on to say, in support of the idea the Second Amendment must, on logical as well as legal grounds, only be construed as conferring a collective right to keep and bear arms:“One of the most commonly made arguments by the broad individual rights advocates is that the Second Amendment embodies some sort of right of insurrection. This is a difficult argument to sustain given the numerous, and sometimes explicit, provisions against insurrection in the Constitution. Perhaps the most obvious constitutional prohibition against insurrection is the treason clause which forbids making war against the United States. Armed insurrection obviously is making war on the United States. Therefore, far from embodying a right of insurrection, the Constitution explicitly criminalizes the act. Further, the militia clauses themselves deny any right of insurrection. One of the constitutional functions of the militia is to suppress insurrection. It strains credulity to believe that the same institution would be empowered with the right to engage in insurrection and the duty to suppress them. As one writer expresses, the Constitution cannot view the militia both as a means by which government can suppress insurrection and as an instrument for insurrection against the government. It must be one or the other. ‘The Militia Clauses make clear which one it is.’ Lastly, the militia was intended to implement the guarantee clause. This provision reflects Madison's desire to expressly guarantee the ‘tranquility of the states against internal as well as external dangers.’ The primary concern underlying the provision was to secure the ability to put down insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion. Taken together, these clauses ‘make it overwhelmingly clear that the Constitution was framed to forbid, prevent, and punish insurrection against its own laws - as, indeed, any constitution that claims legitimate authority must do.’ To assert a constitutional right of insurrection is fundamentally illogical. The Constitution could not embrace the means of its own destruction. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, ‘it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination . . . it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.’ The right of insurrection inheres intrinsically in all people, regardless of the government under which they live; it does not derive its sanction from a disputed interpretation of an amendment with an altogether different purpose.’” Id.It might be noted that the afore referenced law review article came out seven years before the Heller decision. AQ mentions this not to suggest that, perhaps, the writers would admit they were wrong in their thesis. Rather AQ mentions this because the writers would likely maintain they are correct and it's the U.S. Supreme Court authors of the majority opinion who are wrong. The entire thesis begins with the assumption that the antecedent dependent militia clause controls the import of the following independent clause and serves as a defining limitation of the right of that clause, i.e., that the people to keep and bear arms operates only as long as one serves in a State militia; and, as the notion of a 'state militia' has essentially been superseded by 'state national guard units.' The writers say, in that regard: “Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” The import of these assertions is not to be taken lightly. For, the writers allude to the idea that, since militias don't exist any longer, at least as they like to understand the meaning of the term, 'militia,' the Second Amendment is essentially nugatory, which means that it serves no function and, so, should be repealed. This is also the thesis of retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and that of Justice Steven Breyer as well, although Breyer did well to refrain from mentioning that position in his dissenting opinion in Bruen. But there is more at stake here. The argument made has disturbing implications impacting the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government. The writers of the afore referenced article claim that the framers of the U.S. Constitution could not and would not under any circumstance conceive of a situation where the citizenry would have the right and obligation to dismantle the Federal Government.The argument made begs the salient question, of whether “insurrection” qua revolt or rebellion against tyranny is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when penning the Second Amendment. After all, didn’t these men once take up arms against a Tyrant, the British Empire? The writers of the above article would rather not deal with the implications of their own thesis and the attendant, and very serious consequences of that thesis. They merely dismiss out of hand that there could exist any moral, and legal, justification for the American people taking it upon themselves to dismantle an unjust Federal Government, i.e., a tyrannical Government, and bringing the servants of that tyranny to justice. These writers, so careful in positing an argument against what they refer to as insurrection, slither around how it is, or whether, the American people could rightly, legally, dismantle a Government that no longer serves the interests of the American people, and, in fact, operates contrary to the interests of the American people. But, let us here take a closer look at that thesis and consider the legal and logical consequences of it. We begin by asking——  Would the founders of our Republic be so naïve as to believe that the “Federal Government” they were devising could not itself—even with their best efforts to constrain a powerful, centralized Government—one day devolve into tyranny? And, if so, would not the American people have a right and obligation, then, to take up arms against that tyranny just as they had once taken up arms against tyranny? The Federalists, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who supported a strong centralized Government, would certainly be well aware of the threat to life, and liberty, and well-being of the American people, as were the Antifederalists who emphasized their concern and who emphatically demanded inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution to prevent such an event occurring. And the Federalists relented realizing the obvious truth. The Antifederalists would not leave it as a matter of faith that Government servants would adhere to the express limitations on the exercise of Governmental power set forth in the Articles of the Constitution.It hardly takes much imagination to recognize that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution would be appalled, indeed horrified, to observe the powers that Government now wields—powers that go well beyond the strictures permitted by the Constitution, and this Federal Government doesn't deny it; in fact, perfunctorily acknowledges it and operates with abandon. And our Government is well on the road to tyranny if it hasn't already swung over into it.So, yes, the founders of the Republic did recognize and would agree that the American people would have a right to revolt against a tyrant. To argue otherwise is to infer that the people do not have a right to rebel against tyranny. The writers of the afore referenced law review article must have known the logical implications of their argument but felt it better not to acknowledge the flaw in their reasoning. It is one that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito made clear in Heller:Of course, Americans have the moral and the legal right—a sacred right and duty—to rebel against tyranny.But then, if the American people have both a right and a duty to revolt against tyranny, is that not to say that a Government that turns against its own people, has committed unforgivable violence against its people—a cardinal transgression against the Divine Creator as well. For tyranny of Government manifests as oppression and subjugation of a people and that destroys the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul. And that, in turn, amounts to sin against the Creator.Such violence, therefore, amounts to treason against the people. Is not the crime of high treason a two-way street, then? If Americans who rebel against a just and fair Government are justifiably, rightly to be roundly condemned and deemed traitors, and if they are to suffer the consequences merited for their egregious crime, is it not also so that an unjust Government that betrays its people should not be similarly deemed traitor against the people, and rightly rebuked for it? And would not that just rebuke include the dismantling of that Government and trial and punishment of those servants of the people who have—through their treachery and licentious betrayal of Oath to Country, and to Constitution, and to People—brought the Nation to ruin, and brought Constitution and people to harm? And ought not those disloyal servants suffer severely for their crimes, lest to forgo punishment serve to condone it. And if a Government is not to be considered a traitor to its own people, is that not to say the people are less to be regarded than the Government? But, in our Nation, it is the people who are Sovereign over Nation and Government and it is not the case that Government is Sovereign over Nation and people. If so, and if one remark that high treason is to be regarded as a crime against the sovereign, then wherefore is the argument to be made that no action of the Federal Government toward its people shall work as treason against them? What then is to be made of the assertion that the American people are sole Sovereign over the Government of the United States and that Government owes its existence and continued presence only by the will and consent of the Governed—the people who had created that Government to serve them. How is it that the servant, owing its existence and its duty to the people—the one true Sovereign—should entertain for itself that the people serve Government and the Government can do with the people as it pleases, even to oppress and subjugate them. Of what use is an electoral process at that point? To whom is it that the people can turn to as their elected representatives when those representatives are all of the same cloth—united against the people? Of what greater urgency and need exists then for armed revolt?Is not the tyranny of Government against its people, treachery of Government toward its people? If so, is not ‘tyranny’ then but equivalent to the term ‘treachery of Government’ and should not the term ‘traitor’ not apply with equal and bold force to that Government, any less so than to a person who would revolt against a just Government? Is not a “tyrant” but a “traitor’ to the people—certainly a people whom the founders pointedly ascribe the term “Sovereign” to, whom they could not and did not ascribe that term to when speaking of a tyrant who was Sovereign, namely, the King of England?Tyrants of course are the last sorts that would acknowledge that they are tyrants and would continue to deny that even as they are led to the gallows. Is it any wonder that tyrants such as those in the Biden Administration and in some State Governments would be oblivious to their own acts of treason against the people? Is it not curious that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, would proclaim that Americans who belong to “militias”—bands of armed citizens who are not connected with the “national guard”—are the greatest threat to the Nation? But is it not they, some of these servants of the people, rather than we, the People, who are the greater and graver threat to the Nation—to the Security of a free State?As can be seen through dissenting opinions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, these Justices do not recognize the right of the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms. Given the opportunity, these three cases would be overturned, marking the quickest reversal of U.S. Supreme Court thought in American jurisprudential history.At the State level, too, people like Kathy Hochul and those in control of the State Senate and Assembly in Albany, view the armed citizen as a graver threat to the State than common criminals and even well-armed and well-funded international criminal cartels. Strange that, but true nonetheless. Otherwise, her Government would have taken measures to bring these psychopaths and lunatics to justice. They don't! Ant that is telling. Thus, it is no surprise to see Hochul and Albany caustically attacking the High Court, with affected pieties, and insincere demonstrations of acquiescence to the Supreme Court's rulings. Who, indeed, has dangerous impulses here?Is it so beyond the pale for Americans to demand their right to armed self-defense against predatory creature, predatory man, and predatory Government? The High Court rightly admonishes Government actors who do not abide by the Constitution. The Court rightly ruled against the New York Government.Here, in New York, we see a Governor who claims by the power she exerts—as did her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—justification to exert that power, as she pleases. It is all circular reasoning, albeit with real-world, not mere academic consequences. Hochul fails to recognize that she is expected to serve the interests of the people of New York, consistent with the State and Federal Constitutions. Affected pieties don't serve as an adequate substitution for serving the interests of the people of the State.Kathy Hochul’s Government, like several others, ignored Heller. And they were prepared to ignore McDonald too, until the High Court made clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States, no less so than to the Federal Government, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. In New York, it is the Hochul Administration and the controlling Democrat Party Legislature in Albany that is acting the part of an unfettered out-of-control Tyrant.With the attitude of a tyrant—the Hochul Government and Legislature—behave with customary indignation at any authority that would dare dictate to them. But, the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that, dictating to the New York Government, that its Gun Law is inconsistent with the import of the Second Amendment, having found Petitioner’s case to have merit. Hochul and Albany aren't concerned about armed civilian citizens per se. Rather, they are concerned about what that armed self-defense represents: a threat to the Government itself. The New York Government has long abided lawlessness in New York, such coming from the criminal element. That lawlessness the Government will tolerate, perhaps even encourage. That criminal element poses no tenable threat to the Government. It is something the Government understands for that Government, too, like the omnipresent and ferocious and voracious criminal element, has become a law unto itself, unbeholden to New York's own Constitution and to its laws and to the Constitution and Laws of the United States Government. It has become lawless. A Government that refuses to recognize that it is the people whom it exists to serve, and not the other way around is a danger to the people and must be taken to task. The U.S. Supreme Court has done so. And New York isn't alone in its distrust of and its disdain for the common people.Somewhere in the last 250 years of our Nation’s existence, Governments at all levels forgot the fact of and the meaning of the American Revolution.Government tyranny has become the very thing the people must fight against. The Federal Government and many of the State Governments do not represent the will of the people, and care not at all for their needs; not anymore. These Governments, ironically, defer to the foreign dictators whom our Founders fought a successful war against. Back then, it was the mighty British Empire funded by the fabulously wealthy Rothschild financial clan. Today, it is much the same threat, albeit now restructured, reconstituted, as one even more powerful: the European Union and various supra-national constructs like the United Nations whom we are told do not wield any authority, but only advice. How is it then that the Biden Administration adheres to the pacts and tracts and treaties emanating from the United Nations that our Nation never signed, nor even discussed?The money behind these monstrous global entities belongs now, as in the past, to the powerful Rothschild family. The Rothschild clan and other mega-billionaires are working together to complete a transnational neo-feudalistic empire spanning the world, to replace all present western nation-states. The world of the 21st Century is shapingThe Rothschild family and its minions have extended their reach—through the vehicle of the central banking system—throughout the world. A world comprising two powers: a western neo-feudal empire and CCP China. A strong, vigorous, independent sovereign United States doesn't factor in that equation. It is in the process of disassembling.New York is its own little fiefdom—a Baron that owes allegiance to a Lord that doesn’t even reside in our Country.The purpose of  New York’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, was designed then as now, to constrain, and—as can be seen through further attempts by the Government, through time, to constrict and restrict the right of the law-abiding civilian citizens of New York to keep and bear arms ever further—eventually to curtail the exercise of the right, altogether. In her Press Release, upon official publication of the Bruen case decision, Governor Hochul made clear a passion to constrain the inherent right of armed self-defense, regardless of the rulings of the High Court. In both her tone and in the content of her messaging, Hochul conveyed a contemptuous attitude toward the High Court and made no attempt to disguise her contempt of the Court. Likely she is taking her talking points from others who pay for her campaign, and those who formulate her policies. She is essentially a messenger, and she is paid handsomely for doing the work of her benefactors, just as Biden takes his share of wealth from a shadowy network of benefactors. He has no compunction against selling out the Country. He has had plenty of decades of practice; nor does he mind mouthing platitudes, if he understands at all what it is he is asked to recite. So he informs the public that all is well and that he means well and everything will be just fine. He doesn't believe that he is capable of coherent thought any longer anyway. And the propagandists that feed him and his Administrators their lines, don't sound convincing, and it is not necessary that they do sound convincing to the public. The Federal Government is long past caring what the polity thinks anyway. It is only necessary that they obey. Meanwhile, the Country goes to Hell in a Handbasket.Further litigation and armed revolt are to be avoided. New York has an opportunity, through the electoral process, to throw out the petty tyrants, and vote into office people who respect the Constitution and the fundamental natural law rights of man. A vote for Lee Zeldin for Governor of New York is the most obvious way and the easiest way to turn the State back to its historical roots. So many people in New York and throughout the Country have been so conditioned to deny the truth before their eyes that they continue to reflexively vote into Office the same tyrants who do nothing to promote the well-being of the people and society. The Country was well on its way to recovering its security under Trump: economically, geopolitically, militarily, and societally. But the airwaves are now filled with negativity and our own tax dollars are being used against us. Americans must wake up to the truth and confront the lies and liars head-on. It just takes a little common sense and a leap of faith.It is far easier and much less time-consuming and expensive to prevent a petty tyrant from serving in Office in the first place than it is to attempt to remove a tyrant after the fact. California provides several textbook examples of what is to be avoided. New York should learn from this. How much more damage can New Yorkers be expected to take? How is it that so many people have taken leave of their senses—always believing that a better, safer, New York is just around the corner even as the truth illustrates something else entirely? And the not picture isn't an attractive one. And it won't become any more attractive if people keep electing the wrong people to Office. At some point, even the electoral process may well be denied to the citizenry. New Yorkers already have a good taste of Kathy Hochul and her brand of politics and politicking. It is no different than that of Andrew Cuomo. She shares the same set of beliefs; she conveys the same messaging, and she is backed by the same Globalist money. It isn't the average New Yorker that informs her policies and decisions. On crime, the right to armed self-defense, on abortion, Hochul packages her policies as candy; telling the voting public what she thinks the public would like to hear, but not what the public needs to hear. Between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin, there is a world of difference. Each New York resident should ask: which world would he or she prefer to live in? ___________________________________ *Every child learns this, or, at one time, had learned this. That was before the lunatics took control of public education and proclaimed the dogmas of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” “Critical Race Theory,” and “Transgender Doctrine,” more important to the structural formation of young minds than developing a child’s own critical thinking processes, by teaching the core traditional subjects, like “reading, writing, and arithmetic,” and those subjects that instill in our youth a love of and an appreciation for our history, heritage, and ethical system of justice through which our Nation can continue to survive and thrive: a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ABSURDITY OF BIDEN’S CALL FOR NATIONAL UNITY

As this article goes to post on the Arbalest Quarrel, we are only a few hours away from the beginning of the New Year. We would like to say that this New Year, 2021, would see President Trump sworn in on January 20, 2021, for his second term in Office, where he would work further on behalf of the Nation to cement his “America First” Legacy for future generations of Americans to come.As we say, we would like to see this, but it is becoming increasingly evident that we won’t see this even though we should see this.If one but looks at mountains of evidence of elections fraud it has become increasingly apparent to everyone, but the most obtuse among us, that Trump did indeed win the election. But the ruthless, powerful, well-organized, inordinately wealthy and eternally secretive and insufferable neoliberal globalist elites have, with the assistance of the media and Press that they control and with the active assistance of the courts that they oversee, clamped down hard on all attempts to bring this evidence out into the light of day to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, the sanctity of the Constitution and the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. If anyone harbors doubt about the truth of this conclusion, one need only look at the recent actions of the highest law enforcement official in the Land, Attorney General William Barr, and of the action of the highest Court in the Land, the U.S. Supreme Court.On December 1, 2020, The Associated Press reported Barr as saying that “the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”Let’s take a closer look at this remark. It suggests the Justice Department did find evidence of voter fraud, but Barr refuses to elaborate on the nature of that evidence; how that evidence was gathered; who did the investigating, and the extent of the investigation. And Barr says nothing about releasing a report on that investigation. Moreover, even if it were true that such evidence that was uncovered would not change the outcome of the election, that still begs the question as to the integrity of the 2020 election.Barr’s assertion is nothing more than an oblique attempt to hide from public scrutiny a matter the importance of which goes to the future of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State. The seditious Press was satisfied with Barr's action. It would be. Not one to investigate the matter of wholesale elections fraud itself, and having taken an active role in ridiculing evidence of fraud, the seditious Press certainly wouldn't take kindly to a DOJ and FBI investigation that put the lie to the Press narrative. Shortly, after Barr made his 0ffhand remark to the AP, Barr submitted his resignation as AG. One cannot  but wonder: Was Barr threatened, compromised? His perfunctory remarks to the AP are wholly out of character. Barr is not the sort of person who would willingly surrender on a matter of such monumental importance — a thing that decidedly and decisively impacts the future of our Country; indeed, a thing that portends the end of our Country as a free Constitutional Republic if it is Biden who in fact takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021, and not Donald Trump.Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. Here we have three perspicacious Justices—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—silently going along with Roberts, who must have made clear to the three junior Associate Justices that under no circumstance must the Texas case, Texas vs. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ____ (December 11, 2020) be entertained. Yet, who but the U.S. Supreme Court could allow a State versus State case to proceed?Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in clear terms:“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”In a brief, perfunctory Order, the Court Majority dismissed the case,  asserting that Texas does not have standing to sue. Really?For the Supreme Court to  assert that Texas did not have standing to bring action against another State on the matter of how a state conducts its elections, the Court cavalierly skirted the underlying question at stake: whether the matter in which Pennsylvania conducted the election for the United States President did in fact unconstitutionally negatively impact how Texas and other States conduct their own election. The framers of the Constitution made certain that the Constitution would give, indeed must give, to the Highest Court in the Land original jurisdiction in a State versus State lawsuit precisely because no lower Federal or State Court could ever have the authority to hear a legal dispute between one sovereign State and another sovereign State.And so, we have the prospect that the Great Pretender, Joseph Biden, the Manchurian Candidate and the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ Candidate for U.S. President will become the U.S. President, and thereupon make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. In administering the Oath of Office to Joseph Biden, Americans will bear witness to the final touch of farce. We may be seeing John Roberts, himself, as having played an active role in the takeover of our Nation, an elaborate hoax, the greatest tragedy to ever beset our Nation as the elevation of the Grand Imposter, Joe Biden, to the highest elected Office in the Land will mark the nadir of the United States. The U.S. will become a Dictatorship, where a consortium of ruthless powerful individuals and groups behind the scenes, along with Xi Jinping's Communist China, operating as the true rulers, utilizing their puppets, Biden and Harris and lesser Government figures, to institute a radical transformation of the Nation, an “inverted totalitarian regime,” to be immersed in and absorbed into a one world system of governance.

JOE BIDEN, THE GREAT UNIFIER?

Joe Biden’s call for “unity” is as nonsensical and as farcical as anything else that comes out of his mouth.Likely, Biden never came up with the idea for he lacks both intellect and imagination. But a vast coterie of Democrat Party handlers, speech writers, political consultants, acting coaches, and image makers apparently thought it would be good thing to utilize; something to wrap this listless, inept, empty vessel in, at once proclaiming this stooge to be a savior that he would deign, or dare, to save Americans from themselves.Have him yap long enough and often enough about unity, cooperation, solidarity, and togetherness and perhaps the American public will warm up to him, come around to accept him as a leader of the Nation, as the leader of the Nation: the Great Unifier, the Grand Unifier, the High Lord muck-a-muck of Civility and Propriety in contrast to that awful Disuniter—that brusque, uncouth, Racist, Misogynist a.k.a. Donald Trump.The mega billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites of the world must take Americans for fools; either that, or they take Americans for complete idiots.Don’t they realize the word ‘unity,’ apropos of a Nation’s people, only makes sense in the context OF A NATION, which, under a Biden Presidency would be a shaky and murky proposition at best. The Billionaire Globalists, along with the Marxist unionists, the Globalist elites’ foot soldiers, want none of that. Their goal is to merge our Nation with those of other western nations into a single world, transnational union—encompassing geographical regions, spread out across the Earth—comprising billions of people, a heterogeneous glob that shares neither common values and culture, nor unifying traditions and histories.If one can sensibly talk of a grand unity at all, it is something the destroyers of our Nation want; what it is the mega-Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists and the rabid, Globalist Marxists and Anarchists both want; and what it is both are intent on delivering to Americans: A Collectivist vision of the world finally realized, a veritable nightmare in which the populations of the developed countries are dragged down to the level of third world countries. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”—perceived by the Globalist elite and by the Marxists as a veritable obscenity agenda to be recast as and transmogrified into “Make America.”Both billionaire neoliberal globalists and trans-global Marxists and Anarchists find common ground on that score, if little else. But their goal of a one world order requires the demolishing of a free Constitutional Republic.The puppet masters’ marionettes, Biden and Harris, will happily assist them in this task, no less so than had Barack Obama, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton before Biden and Harris.But the Collectivist vision of a one world government is not what most Americans want, and it certainly isn’t something they need. It is decidedly and decisively what most of us don’t want and what anyone of us would need about as much as the plague sent to us courtesy of the Chinese Communist Government.The Collectivist vision of a one world government is wholly inconsistent with what our free Constitutional Republic demands: preservation of the Nation’s Constitution, grounded on the tenets of Individualism; an independent sovereign Nation-State where the American people themselves are the ultimate sovereign authority.How can two mutually exclusive visions of political and social reality cohere? Quite simply, they can’t. Still, there are some who talk glowingly of a unifying American spirit that seemingly transcends differing visions of the Nation, of the world, and of reality. But sober reflection demonstrates how preposterous such an idea is.Back in March 2020 the former Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. In that Op-Ed Jindal acknowledged the deep divide in America but claimed a unifying American spirit, reflected in his pronouncement, “there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise.”Jindal wrote in significant part,“America’s current political polarization seems to favor candidates like Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders, who mobilize their respective bases. The most committed conservative and progressive activists find common ground in their celebration of partisanship. They see fierce competition between principled partisans in the marketplace of ideas as benefiting the nation.Despite their deep ideological differences, they share a grudging respect for their political combatants, preferring them to be ‘cold or hot,’ in contrast with their ‘lukewarm’ fellow partisans. These activists view bipartisan compromises—from the Clinton-era crime and welfare reforms to the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare expansion—as capitulations.Yet Mr. Biden’s decisive victory in South Carolina suggests there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise. He may be wrong about many policies, but he’s right to try to include the other side and to denounce the growing hostility across ideological and partisan divides. Bipartisanship is built on recognizing differences, but also on recognizing that what unites Americans is stronger than what divides us.It is built on humility—on the recognition that the other side has value. Conservatives dedicated to limited government should be grateful for liberals ensuring society considers the needs of the poor. Liberals dedicated to powerful and expansive government should be grateful for conservatives ensuring that society generates prosperity and protects individual liberty.”Bobby Jindal ends his Op-Ed asserting,“A driving force behind today’s polarization is a combination of arrogance and insecurity. Liberals talk confidently of the coming demographic wave—growing numbers of female, young, college-educated, minority, urban and secular voters they believe guarantee them a majority sooner or later. They are impatient for conservatives to convert or die. Many conservatives view their plans as blessed by divine providence. Yet both sides act with a desperate urgency that belies their stated confidence, as if losing the next election could permanently endanger their beliefs.The path to civility requires both parties to display the humble belief that the other side consists of good, patriotic Americans with valuable insights, as well as the confident determination that their own beliefs are enduring and can eventually emerge victorious. That may prove a winning message for Mr. Biden.”Well, if this were Biden’s message it certainly isn’t a winning one.Sure, a few Americans might have viewed Jindal’s March 2020 article, at the time of posting, as conveying a message of hope and yearning for reconciliation.But jump ahead to the post 2020 election—an election result that, on its face, is so statistically anomalous and one that is so laden with criminal fraud and deceit, as to understandably generate and provoke anger and resentment in a vast majority of Americans as they see a free Republic literally wrenched from them.In retrospect, Jindal’s Op-Ed comes across as quaint and flowery, wistful, naïve, and syrupy at best, and, at worst, a thing trite, banal, nonsensical, even insulting.In fact, Jindal apparently realized the flaws in his earlier Op-Ed, for, in August 2020, he recalibrated his remarks. Gone was any message of hope and trust for a better future for our Country. Jindal saw things as they truly are, as manifesting uncomfortably in front of him. He wrote,“Rather than making the traditional move to the center after he secured the nomination, Mr. Biden has continued to move left. He seems more worried about persuading Mr. Sanders’s supporters to turn out than convincing Mr. Trump’s voters to consider a moderate alternative.Mr. Biden embraced identity politics by promising to name a female running mate. Anticipating a sweep of Congress, Democrats have announced their support for abolishing the Senate filibuster and pay-as-you-go rules. Democrats covet these new powers for the majority not to pursue moderate bipartisan policies. They would likely try to expand the courts, grant statehood to the District of Columbia, restrict gun ownership, give unions more power, and ease immigration restrictions and their enforcement.”How much further have we come since Jindal’s August 2020 Op-Ed, on the cusp of a new year, January 1, 2021. In Biden’s staged remarks, and in the selection of his Cabinet, we are witnessing the marshalling of forces to finally cement complete and lasting victory for the adherents of the Counter-revolution: the neoliberal Globalist elites and the transnational Marxists and Anarchists.Newfangled and singularly bizarre concepts of identity politics, critical race theory, intersectionality—mindless neologisms, concocted by and perpetuated by Marxists, all with the blessing of billionaire Globalist elites—have become Biden’s guiding principles, as perceived in Biden’s cabinet selection.In the Collectivist vision of the world, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” imperative, which embraces the notion of “America First,” has no place. Well beyond New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disdainful remark, delivered in a 2018 speech, that “America was never that great,”—alluding to and mocking Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan and at once contemptuous of our Nation’s traditions, history, heritage, and core values—we now have in Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, the neocon Anthony Blinken who, in a Biden Administration, is a man who eschews the notion of “America First,” whose foreign policy methodology marks a return to multilateral consensus building with western world leaders, all of whom acquiesce to a belligerent Communist China.If Biden does in fact ascend to the U.S. Presidency on January 20, 2021, and that appears to be more and more certain now, those Americans who adhere to their sacred values, traditions, and heritage, must not succumb to the idea that, come 2022, they will hold onto the Senate and retake the House, and that, in 2024, they will have an opportunity to revive a free Constitutional Republic along with their sacred, natural rights by reelection of Donald Trump as U.S. President. That is wishful thinking in the extreme.A Biden/Harris Presidency will move quickly to reverse all Trump’s gains and will plow ahead on many fronts to dismantle our Constitution, and our Nation-State. A free Constitutional Republic is breathing its last.We, Americans, stand to lose everything that truly defines us as Americans, as the concept of ‘American’ would be understood by our founding fathers; not as Neoliberal Globalist power brokers and Globalist Marxists and Anarchists twist and warp the concept out of any semblance of coherent, historical meaning and context.Once lost—our sacred rights and freedoms, our individuality, our existence as a true sovereign, independent Nation—those things that we cherish most are not coming back. The Globalist elites and their Marxist and Anarchist foot soldiers will see to it that they don’t._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR CUOMO AND NEW YORK CITY MAYOR DEBLASIO HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE

MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE IS CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE

It’s a curious thing about upper class and upper middle-class liberals. They routinely support the most blatantly disingenuous, hypocritical, loathsomely arrogant, smugly complacent, and inherently sanctimonious politicians in our Nation.Whether on the local, State, or federal level, these high level Democrat Party functionaries, whom the liberal upper and upper-middle classes invariably vote into Office and whom they insist on retaining in Office, stubbornly holding onto the false belief that these politicians can do no wrong, have done no wrong, even as their Democratic Party run Cities and States implode in chaotic fury all around them.No matter how deceitful and dishonest, incompetent and inept, corrupt and depraved these politicians happen to be, politically liberal upper class and liberal upper-middle class Americans continue to flatter and slobber, slaver and drool all over them, continually dismissing their worst excesses even when those excesses are clearly pointed out to them. They are adamant in their support of them. They routinely vote for them. And they march in lockstep with them, dragging severe economic decline and ruin and as those Cities and States witness extraordinary increases in crime: compliments of their politicians.If these Radical Left politicians, and the fawning electorate that continually votes them into Office and keeps them there, deign to admit of serious problems, they are adept at conjuring up bugaboos: systemic racism, toxic masculinity, the police, Russia, white supremacists, and, of course, Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables,” and, of course, President Trump—but never, ever blaming themselves. They will never at once admit that the chaos manifest in our Nation is a product of and is exemplified in their own fevered world vision.New York is a case study in the inexorable, inevitable disintegration of the State and of the lives and well-being of those Americans who happen to reside there. The calamity must be laid at the feet of Andrew Cuomo, a man who is presently serving a third term in Office, courtesy of the electorate that votes him into Office. And, given the lack of Gubernatorial term limits, that electorate can keep him there indefinitely, accumulating through the years, as is becoming disturbingly apparent, almost dictatorial powers over the lives of New Yorkers.What does a Cuomo reign, essentially for life, portend? Consider the “accomplishments” to date of the most progressive, i.e., radical, Governor in the State’s history:

• Abortion of human beings up to the moment of birth, making New York the “legal” murder capital of the Nation
• Creation of a set of the most draconian gun laws in the Nation
• Keeping gun stores closed indefinitely, leaving New York’s residents defenseless, during a time of endless rioting and mayhem; claiming, disingenuously that gun stores are non-essential businesses.
• Unparalleled corruption, graft, and scandal plaguing his Administration, leading to indictments, conviction, and incarceration of several of Cuomo’s henchmen
• Failed economic development policies
• Surge in crime throughout the State, and especially in New York City
• Illegal immigration policies costing New York’s taxpayers over five billion dollars a year
• Moving toward making New York a “Sanctuary State” and a haven for murderous illegal alien gang members and drug cartels to operate with abandon
• Failed Chinese Communist Coronavirus policies that have led to more deaths than in any other State

The main takeaway is that Governor Andrew Cuomo demonstrates little regard for human life. That is all the more remarkable since Cuomo was born and raised a Roman Catholic. One would therefore expect Cuomo to support and implement policies that would place a premium on the value of human life. Yet, the Governor's negative stance on abortion, on armed self-defense, and, most recently, on his handling of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague stand in marked contrast to what one would reasonably expect from a practicing Roman Catholic.

HOW IS IT THAT THE NEW YORK ELECTORATE CONTINUES TO VOTE FOR PEOPLE LIKE ANDREW CUOMO AND NEW YORK CITY MAYOR, BILL DE BLASIO?

This can be attributed, in part, at least, to a prevailing myth. It is one rarely mentioned but tacitly accepted as self-evident true among those who adhere to the liberal social and political mindset.Those Americans who espouse liberal social and political views consider themselves to be morally—and, no less, intellectually—superior to those Americans who espouse conservative social and political views.Liberals, as adherents of the tenets of Collectivism, claim to place a premium on the value of human life. They assume, erroneously, that Conservatives, adherents of the tenets of Individualism, upon which our Nation is grounded and through which our Nation has thrived, do not.Liberals qua Collectivists assume wrongly that those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism, as Conservatives do, are inherently selfish. That idea is false on its face. But it is a manifestation of the notion that Collectivists do not accept. It is that the responsibility for one’s life and well-being rests first and foremost on one’s self, and that the Country prospers from this inescapable, immutable fact. This idea is incompatible with their core tenets.Collectivists hold that the well-being of the individual derives from the well-being of the Collective and that the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of the Collective rests upon and is the primary function of the State, of Government. But history demonstrates both the falsity of and the futility of this idea. A Nation grounded on this idea is doomed to failure; the populace reduced to penury, subjugation, and abject misery; misery wrought by Government continually tinkering with the lives of the populace, ever suspicious of the populace. Such a society is marked by mediocrity and sameness. The populace becomes ever more dependent on the largess of Government. But where does that largess come from? It has to come from the people themselves, in the form of taxes. And it is a largess that must constantly dwindle; and a vicious cycle of dependency and ever dwindling largess comes into being.Still, adherents of Collectivism—and there are, unfortunately many of them in our Nation—continue to vote for and to support those politicians who hold to a vision of the Country and of the world consistent with that worldview of Collectivism.It is plain to the adherents of Individualism—upon which our Nation was founded, and upon which our Nation has prospered—that Collectivism leads down a blind alley, to degradation of the community, as well as to the Self and to the Soul; to physical, emotional, and spiritual deprivation.One need only look to Countries grounded on the principles of Collectivism—China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela to name a few—to see that Collectivism is bankrupt notion: one that places little regard on the life and well-being of their people.Rather than acceding to the obvious, the bankruptcy of Collectivism, the Liberal-minded Collectivist, “doubles down,” adopting ever more radical beliefs.An Op-Ed, appearing in the Wall Street Journal, in February 2020, explains this tendency of liberals to move toward the radical Left:“George Orwell noted the nervousness of people on the left when confronted by those even further to the left. This nervousness stems from leftists’ fear that they will be taken for impure in their own leftism, that their thought and actions don’t go far enough, that they are, finally, not really on the bus. In America during the 1930s, Communists mocked liberals for their weakness, and liberals worried about not measuring up. Hence the phenomenon of the ‘fellow traveler,’ someone who sympathized with the Communist Party but couldn’t bring himself to join it.”Ever apologetic, concentrating on the Nation’s past sins rather than extolling its virtues, feigning remorse for purported transgressions, these liberals are drawn to and allow themselves to be led by radical Left extremists. And so it is that Americans see Democrat politicians drawn inexorably closer to Radical Left extremism, shaped and molded by their dangerous philosophy. And many liberals, who consider themselves well-cultured and well-educated, jump, unthinkingly, on board the bandwagon; and, just as unthinkingly, dare to drag the rest of us, by rope—together with our Nation's Constitution, and our Nation's Flag, and our free Constitutional Republic—along with them on the ground behind them, leaving us all scraped and battered, in tatters and in ruin.______________________________________________________

AMERICANS MUST NOT GROW TOLERANT OF CORRUPTION AND INCOMPETENCE OF RADICAL LEFT POLITICIANS

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO STOP AND REVERSE AMERICA’S INEXORABLE MARCH TO DESTRUCTION?

It is much too late for many liberals who have, with exuberance, jumped on the Radical Left bandwagon. They are lost and beyond redemption. But other Americans who countenance themselves as political and social liberals, yet do not accept the excesses of the Radical Left, must rid themselves of the illusion that, were Biden to be voted into Office, America will return to normalcy and that the Radical Left agenda will be cast aside.The fact of the matter is that the electorate voted Trump into Office precisely because it understood that twenty years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama had slowly pushed the Nation dangerously toward the abyss of Radical Left Marxism. The Trump Presidency—far from moving us toward fascism—was actually a move toward normalcy: a return to our Nation’s sacred roots and to Republicanism. This is something liberals refuse to acknowledge. And, so, they feel that a course correction is necessary: a return to normalcy, when it was Trump who was returning America to normalcy. Liberals fail that a Biden-Harris (or, more likely, a Harris-Biden) Presidency is turning us back toward the trajectory that marks our doom; a jump off the cliff; driving a free Constitutional Republic head over heels into Radical Communism.

WHAT CAN AMERICANS DO TO CONSTRAIN AND REVERSE THE TENDENCY OF OUR NATION TOWARD COMMUNISM?

At the National level, Biden and Harris must be defeated in the coming election. At the State and local levels, Americans must get rid of Radical Left politicians, either through recall efforts, if that mechanism is available, or through Court action, if not.The Arbalest Quarrel has already explained the vehicle for holding New York politicians accountable.Recall efforts are not possible as the State Constitution and State Statutes do not provide for that. But State law does provide a mechanism for dealing with recalcitrant Mayors and Governors. We wrote about this in a comprehensive article posted on our website on August 22, 2020.  Ammoland Shooting Sports News reposted our article on its site, on September 3, 2020.Whether a lawsuits against Mayor de Blasio  for incompetence in Office is successful or not is beside the point. The important point of a lawsuit against these horrible politicians is to demonstrate that Radical Left politicians are not above the law. Clearly, a lawsuit against de Blasio would come as a shock to the Radical Left, just as defeat of Biden, on the National level, would shock the Liberal Left and the Radical Left, as occurred back in 2016 with the defeat of the corrupt Hillary Clinton.Similarly, New Yorkers should bring suit against Governor Cuomo. A specific charge of incompetence can be reasonably lodged against Cuomo for his responsibility in the mishandling of the Chinese Coronavirus, specifically apropos of his directives concerning New York’s nursing homes.The website KHN says Cuomo’s complicity in the deaths of thousands of frail senior citizens isn’t clear-cut. Still, Cuomo isn’t given a pass:“As the virus tore through nursing homes, killing dozens at some of them, Cuomo came under withering censure. His administration’s policy, implemented with an eye toward freeing up hospital beds for an onslaught of COVID patients, seemed to disregard the risks to frail and elderly nursing home residents who were especially vulnerable to the disease.According to the COVID Tracking Project, 6,624 people have died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in New York, accounting for 26% of the state’s 25,275 COVID deaths. Some say the true number of deaths is much higher because, unlike many states, New York does not count the deaths of former nursing home residents who are transferred to hospitals and die there as nursing home deaths.Cuomo’s explanation for the policy — that he was simply following guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — didn’t cut it. A recent PolitiFact piece examining his claim rated it ‘Mostly False.’In May, the governor amended the March order, prohibiting hospitals from discharging patients to nursing homes unless they tested negative for COVID-19.A Misguided ApproachIn the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when New York was the epicenter and more than a thousand people were being hospitalized daily, there was a genuine fear that hospitals would not be able to accommodate the influx of desperately ill patients.Moving people out of the hospitals and into nursing homes was one strategy to help hospitals meet these needs.According to the CDC guidance cited in the earlier PolitiFact story, there were two factors to consider when deciding whether to discharge a patient with COVID-19 to a long-term care facility: whether the patient was medically ready, and whether the facility could implement the recommended infection-control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus.A document from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said nursing homes should accept only patients they were able to care for.Long-standing state guidance is based on the same condition.Still, nursing homes didn’t believe turning away patients with COVID-19 was an option.‘On its face, it looked like a requirement,’ said Christopher Laxton, executive director of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, which represents medical professionals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. ‘The nursing homes we spoke to felt it was a mandate, and a number of them felt they had no choice but to take COVID patients.’” Cuomo certainly has some explaining to do. The AP writes,“New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.That statistic could add thousands to the state’s official care home death toll of just over 6,600. But so far the administration of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has refused to divulge the number, leading to speculation the state is manipulating the figures to make it appear it is doing better than other states and to make a tragic situation less dire.”Enough facts to support a claim of incompetence, sufficient to remove Cuomo from Office. At the very least a lawsuit will demonstrate to the Radical Left that their leaders aren’t above the law.As the public awaits the results of the Durham probe that would hopefully lead to indictments of high-level functionaries in the Federal Government, Americans should not be remiss in bringing suit against local and State politicians who deserve a day of reckoning, themselves.Americans have been much too passive and accepting of Radical Left criminal conduct. If the Republic is to weather the storm of internal disruption and ultimate dissolution, Americans must take a stand. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be much too late for that.We stand to lose everything of consequence, everything Americans down through the ages fought to protect and preserve: the right of armed self-defense, and the ability to prevent the intrusion of tyranny through the existence of an armed citizenry; the right to speak one’s mind without fear of censor and retribution; our history, traditions, and core Judeo-Christian values. We are at risk of losing our Nation’s very Soul.Our Nation is on a cusp. We, as a Nation, can either keep our sanity which requires maintaining the course correction that President Trump has set for us these past four years. Or we, as a Nation, can lose our grip on sanity by adopting the trajectory that Biden, Harris, and the Radical Left have set for us.We can either preserve a free Constitutional Republic and an independent Nation-State or we can enter uncharted waters—one that bodes ill for us: the loss of our free Republic and the disintegration of our Nation-State. Americans can have one future or the other. In a few short weeks we will know which future that shall be._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

ONLY GODLESS RADICAL LEFT PROGRESSIVES WOULD CONSIDER NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO’S LATE TERM AT-WILL ABORTION ACT A GODSEND

PART NINE

“ ‘The Reproductive Health Act is a historic victory for New Yorkers and for our progressive values. In the face of a federal government intent on rolling back Roe v. Wade and women’s reproductive rights, I promised that we would enact this critical legislation within the first 30 days of the new session—and we got it done. I am directing that New York's landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.’” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s boastful, defiant comment, as he preens before the cameras, having just signed into law, on January 22, 2019, New York’s abominable, Reproductive Health Act—a law that permits at-will abortion under any and all circumstances that heretofore amounted to Manslaughter under New York law.* Quotation obtained from the Daily WireWhat Lord Cuomo giveth, Lord Cuomo doth taketh away. So, this presumed preserver of life is very much the destroyer of life. Less Saint, more Sinner, except to his besotted flock of worshipers, Cuomo seems to be a permanent fixture in New York City. And Cuomo gloats over this "achievement," as reported by the Governor's own news source, just as he had gloated over enactment of the New York Safe Act, years earlier. The number of human beings murdered every year through abortion dwarfs the number of Americans  who lost their lives through the horrific attack on our Country by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001; and dwarfs the number of Americans who lost their lives through the reprehensible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.**In 2016, alone, over 87,000 abortions took place in New York, as reported by abort. 73.com, citing statistics of the New York State Department of Health.*** Reflect on this: that number, 87,000, is the number of human lives that were destroyed in New York before enactment of the Reproductive Health Act. How many abortions will occur in 2019 and in subsequent years in the State of New York, given that abortion, in New York, under any circumstances, is, henceforth, no longer a crime?**** That number will most certainly skyrocket with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, especially now that abortion, under any circumstances, is no longer a crime in New York, as any reference to abortion as a crime has been repealed in every section of the Penal Code of New York; and New York's Police Coroners are now forbidden to investigate any incidence of abortion. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "A License to Kill," Part Eight of this series, for details on the State Legislature's changes to New York law, mandated by the Reproductive Health Act.Too bad the Nation cannot quarantine this man, Andrew Cuomo, (Governor of New York), as a carrier of virulent plague, and quarantine, as well, those who share his bizarre world view—his base that, perennially, is of one mind with the idea that an unborn child is just one of many non-sentient body organs to be disposed of at whim.

ABORTION IS AN ABOMINATION

There is nothing pretty about abortion. That is a fact that those who argue for abortion, especially who no are pushing even for late term abortion, up to the very moment of birth, do not want the American public to know. Not surprisingly, the mainstream Press doesn't even hint at the horrors of late term abortion, fearing a massive public outcry and backlash. But, the Ghouls that seek to censor the horrific facts of late term abortion cannot control the entirety of the Web, at least at this present moment in time, much as they would like do so; albeit they have obtained Court Orders blocking the few major cable news networks that would otherwise report the sordid details. Still, abortion-rights fanatics cannot censor every news resource. View this video clip, provided by Abyssum.org; and this, from Lifesite; and this one from the Daily Wire. And, there are many more.Yet, despite the horror of abortion, the Dead Souls, the God Denying Atheists of the Radical Left, sing Cuomo’s praises with ebullient comments. The National Institute of Reproductive Health (NIRH) President, Andrea Miller gushes:“Today, Governor Cuomo recommitted to passing the Reproductive Health Act within the first 30 days of the new session – a position supported by New York voters who in November delivered a mandate to pass the RHA. . . . New Yorkers need and deserve stronger laws to protect their reproductive freedoms and enshrine them into state  NIRH applauds Governor Cuomo for recognizing that access to abortion care is a fundamental right, and for his promise to advance that right through New York law. Through our recently launched campaign to build grassroots support throughout the Hudson Valley and Long Island and raise awareness of and swiftly pass the RHA, NIRH looks forward to continuing our work with Governor Cuomo to turn this bill into law as soon as possible.” Miller also said this: “Governor Cuomo has tirelessly advocated for a woman’s access to quality reproductive health care, especially in the face of hostile attacks from the president, U.S. Congress and Supreme Court. Today, in signing the RHA, the CCCA, and the Boss Bill, he has cemented New York’s role as a progressive stronghold that prioritizes access to abortion care and contraception.” Planned Parenthood of New York adds its sentiments, writing:“Planned Parenthood of New York City applauds advocates and the New York State Legislature who today moved our state forward with milestone legislation securing sexual and reproductive health care and rights, including passing a groundbreaking bill updating New York’s abortion law for the first time since the law was originally passed in 1970.” A pro-abortion advocate and defender of late term abortions, Monica Klein, founding partner of the radical Left-wing Group, Seneca Strategies, one-time communications director for Mayor de Blasio’s re-election campaign in 2017, and regional press secretary for the Clinton campaign in Ohio in 2016 (according to her Bio), happened to be interviewed on Tucker Carlson, a few months ago. When asked about late term abortions, Klein refused to discuss the horror of infanticide. Instead she sarcastically, caustically attacked Tucker Carlson on his own program. Her facial mannerisms, in the video clip are telling: acutely disrespectful.And, the Left-wing weblog, HuffPost, apparently thinks Monica Klein’s behavior is not only acceptable, but commendable.In fact, abortion on demand is, or certainly will be, a principal platform of the Democratic Party going into the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. And each of the candidates hoping for the Party's nomination for U.S. President in 2020 are falling all over themselves, establishing their unqualified support for abortion--all that is but for Joe Biden, who is attempting to cast himself as an apparent hold-out centrist candidate. But, in Biden's present support of the Hyde Amendment, he has thereby incurred the wrath of abortion rights zealots. The Hill reports, "Former Vice President Joe Biden infuriated abortion rights advocates Wednesday when his campaign confirmed he supports a policy that blocks Medicaid and other federal health programs from paying for abortions, making him the only Democratic presidential candidate to hold that position.Biden's support of the the Hyde Amendment puts him at odds with party leaders, congressional Democrats and his 2020 competitors amid growing momentum to repeal the federal prohibition."That, at any rate, was Biden's position up to June 5, 2019. But, wait! Biden just reversed course. The New York Times reports, now, on June 6, 2019, that:"After two days of intense criticism, Joseph R. Biden Jr. reversed himself Thursday night on one of the issues most important to Democratic voters, saying he no longer supports a measure that bans federal funding for most abortions." This change of heart should come as a surprise to no one. We see politicians, generally, and Democrats in particular, routinely changing their position on the issues. They claim they were wrong, before, as for example, on the immigration issue, and they are correct, after; that their new position accurately reflects their "real" position. That is, of course, until they change their position once again, ever again, as they have a mind to do, with disturbing regularity and frequency.The fact of the matter is that these jackasses do not hold a consistent position on anything, even though, at any given moment of time, when you find them proselytizing, they claim to hold a firm and unyielding position on everything. It would've been refreshing if Joe Biden had the decency, at least, to be honest with his remarks to the American citizenry. He could have stated that he espouses no particular view on the killing of unborn human beings. The public could have, then at least, respected him for his honesty; for having demonstrated the courage to admit the simple truth, namely that he doesn't care; that, in fact, he couldn't care less, one way or the other, about the life of an unborn child. But, then, honesty isn't Biden's strong suit. Biden must revert to form, namely that of a slug. He must engage in pretense. He must provide a pathetic rationale for his "U-Turn" on the Hyde Amendment--an utterly implausible 180 degree turn, especially as Biden proffers it just a few days after having clearly, succinctly, categorically, and unequivocally asserted his support for the Hyde Amendment. So, then, are we supposed to believe the truth of Biden's earlier statement, or are we supposed to believe the truth of his later statement? Or, for that matter, should we believe what it is that this man has to say about anything at all? Well, there is one thing that the public can reasonably take to be true about Biden, and that is his desire to secure his Party's nomination for U.S. President; and that, of course, is the only thing the rest of the disgusting horde of Democratic Party candidates, vying for their Party's nomination care about, as well. To that end, Joe Biden, and the rest of this odious bunch will say and do anything.And so, Biden reverts to form, namely that of a spineless slug, as he offers a pathetic, implausible, and, in fact, ludicrous, rationale for his seeming reasonable change of heart on the Hyde Amendment.The Hill had this to say about Joe Biden's flip-flop:"Democratic presidential hopeful former Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment, just one day after reaffirming his decades-long support for the ban on federal funding for abortions.'If I believe health care is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone's ZIP code,' he said at a Democratic National Committee gala in Atlanta.Biden cited abortion restrictions recently passed by Republican governors for his change in position. 'I can't justify leaving millions of women without the access to care they need, and the ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right,' he said.The presidential front-runner added that he makes 'no apologies'  for his previous support for the Hyde Amendment [of course not, after all Joe Biden is slug]."But circumstances have changed. I've been working through the final details of my health care plan like others in this race, and I've been struggling with the problems that Hyde now presents," he said. Biden’s presidential campaign had said Wednesday that he still supported the controversial ban.The news sparked intense blowback from members of his party, including fellow presidential hopefuls, who criticized Biden for maintaining his stance amid a spate of abortion restrictions passing state legislatures.  The remarks also drew criticism from women's health and abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.Planned Parenthood CEO Leana Wen lauded Biden's announcement on Twitter.'Happy to see Joe Biden embrace what we have long known to be true: Hyde blocks people—particularly women of color and women with low incomes—from accessing safe, legal abortion care,' Wen wrote."And, we are supposed to take Biden at this word? But, think about this: "safe, legal abortion care?" Safe for whom? Definitely, not for the unborn child, who is unceremoniously and perfunctorily dispensed with like so much detritus. And, "legal" by what standard? Such makeshift expedient that is less law and more perversion and travesty, a thing merely masquerading as "law." And, the public is expected to kowtow to this sacrilege; to accept this out-of-hand, without recourse, without question, without debate?Clearly, the radical elements in society, who would dare turn law and morality on its head, don’t want debate, and, having essentially taken over the mainstream Press and the Democratic Party, they wish to shut down debate on all political, social, ethical, and legal issues; and that includes their refusal to discuss the issue of late-term abortion. They absolutely, adamantly, shamelessly, refuse to take well justified criticisms of their positions head-on, which they would clearly lose, given the unsoundness of their positions. They instead invoke fallacious straw man arguments and red herrings in an illogical, irrational attempt to make a case for the killing of the unborn child.And, especially in matters of the killing of an unborn child, these fanatics, these Dead Souls, prefer to use, and they invariably resort to indiscriminate use of, verbal slurs, insults, snubs, barbs, and rebuffs, even physical altercations against all those who disagree with them. That is how they proceed to make their case, ever preferring the use of vitriol and violence to that of calm and open discussion, as we see in this Lifenews clip. Threats of physical violence and actual physical violence, outbursts of vitriol and venom, and the use of harsh emotional rhetoric, devoid of rational, deliberate, intellectual substance is, after all, really all these Dead Souls have in their tool chest.And, where, in all of this, is the calm, reasoned, but forceful voice of Pope Francis to refute and rebuke these Radical Left fanatics, and to refute and rebuke, especially, the fanatic, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, a Roman Catholic no less, who has cajoled, coerced, and maneuvered the New York State Legislature into turning at-will, late term abortion--heretofore a serious crime, manslaughter--into a lawful act! 

THE PONTIFF IS NOTICEABLY SILENT ABOUT THE HORROR OF NEW YORK’S AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, NOW THE LAW THROUGHOUT NEW YORK

Pope Francis refuses to speak out against Governor Cuomo, by name; and he refuses to attack specific abortion policies, particularly the abhorrent the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, that has now been enacted into law. Of course, if Pope Francis did speak out, it follows that Governor Cuomo must be excommunicated from the Church, as, indeed, many Catholics have called for; and this is the takeaway from Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s own righteous denunciation of Governor Cuomo, as referenced in the National Catholic Register. See also this Fox News clip.It isn't by accident that  Pope Francis has remained reticent—apparently not willing and not prepared to take on a Governor of a major City in the United States, head-on.But, by doing nothing, by remaining noticeably silent, Pope Francis, as the religious leader of well over one billion Roman Catholics, has essentially acquiesced to the Governor of New York and to others like him. Pope Francis could could have denounced Andrew Cuomo, without suffering international backlash since the Governor is, after all, a Roman Catholic. He isn't an Islamist or a Jew, even though abortion is reprehensible to adherents of those mainstream religious faiths as well.The Pope would clearly have been targeting someone within the Roman Catholic faith, whose words and actions are inconsistent with Roman Catholicism. And, as a Roman Catholic, Andrew Cuomo's words and actions fall, then, squarely within the purview and jurisdiction of the Pope, on all matters having a spiritual nexus. And the matter of abortion certainly has that. What then explains the Pontiff's reticence in condemning Cuomo's words and actions. After all, Governor Cuomo bears personal, grave, and ultimate responsibility, for enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 as he was always the driving force for it and behind it.But, Pope Francis may have thought that speaking out directly against Cuomo--Roman Catholic though Cuomo be--might have negative repercussions for the Vatican. But, what could be more detrimental to the well-being of the Catholic Church than failure to speak out on behalf of the most innocent human beings among us; those who cannot speak for themselves; a human infant? Failure of Pope Francis to speak out against New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as a matter of pragmatic politics does not bode well either for New York or for the Vatican.It is only recently, on May 25, 2019, that Pope Francis did speak out on the horrors of abortion but he did so obliquely, directing outrage to no one in particular; nor to any specific radical abortion policy. The Hill reports,“Pope Francis compared having an abortion to hiring a ‘hitman’ and called the procedure always unacceptable on Saturday. ‘Is it legitimate to take out a human life to solve a problem?’ . . . . The pope characterized aborting an unhealthy fetus as “inhuman eugenics. ‘Human life is sacred and inviolable and the use of prenatal diagnosis for selective purposes should be discouraged with strength,’ Francis said. . . .”The Pontiff’s  remarks come as anti-abortion legislation sweeps across several U.S. states. In recent weeks, several state legislatures have advanced or passed bills outlawing abortion at about six weeks into a pregnancy. This month, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R) signed a bill into law that would outlaw almost all abortions." The Pope’s remarks are tepid at best, demonstrating that he would rather play the role of the follower, than that of a leader. This is decidedly contrary to what one would expect of a Pontiff. This isn’t the time for passivity and timidity. Andrew Cuomo and other Left-wing extremists must be called out for their deleterious, monstrous words and sinful actions--words and actions that have no parallel in our Nation’s history._________________________________________________________*A Reporter for The Daily Wire, reports: “On Tuesday [January 22, 2019] New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, delighted that the New York legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act which would allow mothers to kill (pardon me, abort) their babies up until birth, celebrated this legalized murder by ordering that the spire at One World Trade Center, the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany all be lit in pink on Tuesday night.”**The website History.com reports that, a total of 2,996 people lost their lives as a result of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings, more loss of American lives, 2,335, than occurred on the day Japan attacked the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, (as reported by the website, visitpearlharbor.org), horrific as that attack on our Country was.***Perhaps, Cuomo intends, through his “Pink Light,” “ to commemorate” the death of American infants by abortion. Consider these New York State abortion statistics in light of According to the website, Abort 73.com, “The New York State Department of Health reports that 87,325 abortions took place in New York during 2016 [and] this number includes abortions performed on out-of-state residents. . . .”  That same website reports that, from 2006 through 2012, there were, for each year, well over 100,000 abortions in New York. Now, however, with enactment of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, these numbers, high as they are, will undoubtedly climb much higher, increasing exponentially. Might one expect 500,000 abortions? 1,000,000? Certainly many women residing in other States will now flock to New York to obtain abortions, given the ease with which they can obtain them, no questions asked. The pro-abortion group Women’s Choice doesn’t hide its adulation over New York’s permissive abortion policy, asserting,“New York State has the most open and least restrictive laws regarding abortion. Many women travel from other states and other countries to New York to receive abortion care. New York State has the most open and least restrictive laws regarding abortion. Medicaid covers abortion for low-income women. Teenagers do not need a parent’s permission to have an abortion. There are no 24-hour waiting periods so abortions can be performed in one visit.” Keep in mind, too, that Governor Cuomo’s radical abortion policy is not something he conjured up in the last several months. Cuomo’s radical abortion initiatives hark back at least to the early days of  2017, and probably well before that. The Reproductive Health Act of 2019 is simply the culmination of a massive effort, commencing years before, to legalize at-will abortion up to the very moment of birth. With Democratic Party control of both Houses of the New York State Legislature in 2019, Cuomo found that he could now make his abortion policy goals a reality, and he proceeded to do so, with diabolical glee.****We invite the interested reader to see the Arbalest Quarrel article, "A License to Kill," Part Eight of this series.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LICENSE TO KILL: NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019 AMOUNTS TO “LAWFUL” MURDER

PART EIGHT

ANDREW CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, LEADER OF THE STATE AND A ROMAN CATHOLIC, NOT ONLY SANCTIONS MURDER OF INNOCENT LIVES, BUT, THROUGH AN UNQUESTIONED AT-WILL ABORTION POLICY, HE TACITLY ENCOURAGES THE TAKING OF LIFE OF INNOCENT AMERICAN INFANTS

And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 2 Kings 24:2 - 24:5 King James Version (KJV)These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look; a lying tongue; and hands that shed innocent blood; An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief; A false witness that speaketh lies; and he that soweth discord among brethren.~2 Kings 24:4 King James verison, Proverbs 6:16-19 King James Version (KJV)Governor Cuomo’s dangerous policy objectives and initiatives do not rest solely on his disdain for the Second Amendment. He also demonstrated a desire, indeed, a passion to upend all New York laws that had hitherto restrained abortion. With enactment of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, New York has now removed any constraint or restraint on abortion. The Governor muscled through his reprehensible abortion policy through the Democratic Party controlled New York Legislature, just as he had previously muscled through his horrible antigun policy. He did this with cold, calculated, laser-focused intention and resolveOnce enacted in Albany, it was a mere formality for Cuomo to sign the deceptively titled, “Reproductive Health Act of 2019,” into law. The 2019 Act, doesn’t promote health, any more than the 2013 NY Safe Act ensures safety from gun violence. Instead the “Reproductive Health Act of 2019” destroys life, the most innocent life, and it is now, all oh so nice and legal in New York to do so.How was Cuomo able to do this? He was able to accomplish this by sleight-of-hand. Heretofore, abortion was a crime in New York. But, with Democrats presently in control of both Houses of the Legislature in Albany--the Assembly and the State Senate--Cuomo encouraged and cajoled the Legislature into striking the word, ‘abortion,’ from the New York Penal Code and from other New York Statutes—wherever the the term, ‘abortion,’ appeared. This then opened the door to legally sanctioned murder, infanticide. Peculiarly and insidiously, Cuomo dares proclaim late-term abortion—abortion literally up to the moment of birth—to be a fundamental right even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution remotely supports such an absurd notion.* Cuomo and other supporters of late-term, essentially at-will, abortion believe that an audacious proclamation raising licensed murder to the level of a Constitutional right can pass Constitutional scrutiny. But, is that so? It is only a matter of time before New York’s Reproductive Health Act will be challenged in the Courts.

NEW YORK'S CARDINAL TIMOTHY DOLAN CALLS GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO OUT OVER THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019: CUOMO'S  LICENSE TO KILL

As the battle over abortion-murder brews in the States and is fought over in our Nation’s Courts, the horror over this act of legalized murder isn’t lost on the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan.Cardinal Dolan took Cuomo to task in blunt, forceful language, asserting in his Op-Ed appearing in the New York Post:“I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.As if that’s not enough, instead of admitting that abortion is always a tragic choice, and that life-giving alternatives should be more vigorously promoted, the governor and his ‘progressive’ supporters celebrated signing the bill. At the governor’s command, even the lights of the Freedom Tower sparkled with delight.Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.Then our governor insults and caricatures the church in what’s supposed to be an uplifting and unifying occasion, his ‘State of the State’ address.”The National Catholic Register ran Cardinal Dolan’s direct and vehement denunciation. And, it is patently clear that Cardinal Dolan isn’t simply venting his righteous outrage and indignation upon New York’s abortion Act that legally sanctions the murder of innocent lives, but is directing his outrage on the Governor Cuomo, since, after all, the Governor is the author of the Reproductive Health Act, and bears ultimate responsibility for it. Real blame rests, then, on Cuomo himself, for forcing through this abortion Act abomination in the State Legislature, and, in so, doing, making New York the Abortion Capital of the Country. Cardinal Dolan makes his disgust of Governor Cuomo, a Roman Catholic himself, crystal clear, as Cuomo's actions bespeak a direct attack on the Church itself!“ ‘Andrew Cuomo has insulted the Church, flaunted publicly his dissent from Catholic doctrine, and celebrated the Jan. 22 signing of the state’s ‘ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law.’Cardinal Dolan’s criticisms of Cuomo were direct: “Why would he publicly brag in a political address about his dissent from timeless and substantive Church belief? Why would he quote Pope Francis out of context as an applause line to misrepresent us bishops here as being opposed to our Holy Father? Why did he reduce the sexual abuse of minors, a broad societal and cultural curse that afflicts every family, public school, religion and government program, to a ‘Catholic problem?’”“I’m a pastor, not a politician, but I feel obliged to ask these questions, as daily do I hear them from my people, as well as colleagues from other creeds. I’ve been attacked in the past when I asked — sadly and reluctantly — if the party that my folks proudly claimed as their own, the Democrats, had chosen to alienate faithful Catholic voters. Now you know why I asked,” Cardinal Dolan added.Cardinal Dolan said that while the state’s Democrats purport to be progressive, their recent abortion bill is anything but.”Cardinal Dolan does not stand alone in his directed outrage toward Governor Cuomo. Cardinal Dolan has supporters in New York, standing firmly with him, including some Democrats, notably the Democrats for the Life of America. The National Catholic Register reports,In a Jan. 29 statement, the group said: “Abortion is big business in New York, with unlimited public funding and an abortion rate twice the national average. The governor’s new law will not address the high abortion rate, nor will it help pregnant women who feel pressured or coerced into abortion. The law will help influential and financially flush abortion corporations increase their customer base and profit margin. One in three aborted children were African-American, and one in four were Hispanic. The new law further exploits women, particularly minority populations who are overrepresented in these numbers,” the group said.“We call on New York legislators — particularly Democrats — to embark on a mission to make New York, the state, have the lowest abortion rate in the nation. The estimated $18 million that would be spent yearly on abortion could be put toward programs to prevent pregnancy, including contraction and sex education, prenatal and postnatal health care, public housing, affordable child care and paid maternity leave. Furthermore, we recommend outreach to minority communities to vastly bring down the perceived targeting of women and babies of color.”“As Democrats, we advocate for progressive solutions to problems facing the weakest in society: the poor, minorities, women and children — even if they are yet to be born. New York should repeal this anti-women law, and no other state should replicate it,” the statement added.The National Catholic Register added, in its article, this critical point about Excommunication from the Catholic Church:While Cardinal Dolan has been outspoken in his opposition to the abortion law and Cuomo’s support for it, some Catholics have called for him to excommunicate or impose some other canonical sanctions on the governor, but Cardinal Dolan has recently indicated he is unlikely to do so. The cardinal’s office did not respond to a request from CNA for comments on that possibility. Excommunication from the Church is an extremely serious action, reserved for the most serious of transgressions against the Church. But is excommunication of the Roman Catholic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, practicable, even if clearly warranted, as it is here?

WHAT IS EXCOMMUNICATION?

The website Vatican.com explains the act of 'Excommunication':“Excommunication was a method used by the Roman Catholic Church to exclude one of its members from participating in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. The Roman Catholic Church operates as a society and therefore has the right to excommunicate any of its members, either temporarily or permanently. . . if they go against the church’s constitution and teachings or do not operate within the given authority. According to the Roman Catholic Church, excommunication is the most serious ecclesiastical penalty.” Governor Cuomo must answer the charge. What does he do? Like the adept and cunning rhetorician that Cuomo is, he attempts to reconcile Catholic stricture against abortion with his public policy avidly supporting abortion. As reported in the Weblog, The Deacon’s Bench, Cuomo tries to parry Cardinal Dolan's strident criticism:“I was educated in religious schools, and I am a former altar boy. My Roman Catholic values are my personal values. The decisions I choose to make in my life, or in counseling my daughters, are based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.Thanks to the nation’s founders, no elected official is empowered to make personal religious beliefs the law of the land. My oath of office is to the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York — not to the Catholic Church. My religion cannot demand favoritism as I execute my public duties.”Cuomo cannot and does not refute what amounts to demonstrable hypocrisy, try as he might, for there is an inherent problem with Cuomo’s sanctimonious remarks. Catholic stricture condemns murder; but, then, the laws and Constitutions of both this Nation and of New York condemn murder, too! There is no safe harbor for Cuomo and others of the Radical Left on the matter.** The intentional taking of innocent human life is contrary to God's will, and, therefore, no less contrary to what may be otherwise deemed a justifiable act of man.  ___________________________________________*Cuomo’s statements to the contrary, the New York abortion law permits abortion at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of birth. This is clear from the text of the actual Act. See AQ article.**Abortion, the intentional taking of a human life sans any ethical justification, such as to secure the life of the mother, is a homicide, the unjustified taking of human life: namely, manslaughter or murder. The New York Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 125.27 of Article 125, Homicide and Related Offenses, of Part Three of the Penal Code of New York, defines the crime of 'murder' in the first degree' as follows: "A person is guilty of murder in the first degree when, with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person and [specific conditions set forth]. Note: while 'abortion', in New York historically and technically fell under the serious crime of manslaughter, and not, murder, even when conducted with intent, it was nonetheless still a homicide in New York, and therefore punishable as such, with serious penalties attached. Abortion was defined as a specific form of  homicide, falling within the purview of Manslaughter, either in the first degree or second degree, both forms of which were specifically and categorically repealed on January 22, 2019, as specifically set forth in the Reproductive Health Act of 2019, enacted on January 22, 2019. There is, at present, no crime under which abortion falls, in New York. It is for this reason that abortion may be performed at any time, for any reason whether self-induced or performed by a third party, in New York, regardless of both newspaper accounts and the accounts of other pro-abortion apologists to the contrary. If there is no penalty associated with an act, there is in effect, no crime, and there is no  longer any crime of abortion in New York. Understandably, and certainly unsurprisingly, many, many non-residents are traveling to New York for the very purpose of having an abortion. This is likely to continue and gather speed in the future, especially as some States are enacting laws to curb abortion. Hence, New York will likely become, and be known as, the abortion Capital of the Nation, as well as the Nation's financial hub. ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. . . . There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

LEFTISTS URGE AMERICANS TO BETRAY THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART THREE

The Power of Emotional Rhetoric Shamelessly Exploited to Undermine the Second Amendment

People like New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), know full well the power of rhetoric. And, as they are well versed in it, they know how to use it. They know the power of persuasion. They know how to woo some members of the public—those susceptible to their vitriolic, superficial, and specious polemics. They have mastered well the art of rhetoric and they know well the power of fallacious argumentation.Cuomo and Swalwell appeal unashamedly, unabashedly, and irresponsibly to raw emotion rather than to reason as they impose their personal abhorrence of guns onto an ill-informed public. And these sanctimonious fomenters of public guilt, don’t stop there. Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to foster a sense of collective guilt in gun owners as a class; simultaneously and deliberately rousing rage in the antigun mob against guns and gun owners. Cuomo and Swalwell strongly suggest that gun owners bear a measure of responsibility for every horrific act of gun violence that occurs. And that, too, is in vein with their vision for this Country--an enclave of Socialism. Socialism, as conceived today, embraces a broad  economic, social, political, and cultural belief system predicated on the tenets of Collectivism. The tenets of Collectivism do not cohere with the notion of a fundamental right of the American citizenry to keep and bear arms, independent of Government say-so. And, those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, such as Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, do not accept the Lockean view that there exists a set of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights inherent in the people--rights that exist independent of and that therefore, in the purest sense, transcend all Governmental authority to prescribe, regulate, ignore, amend, or abrogate. One such fundamental, natural, unalienable, sacred right, intrinsic to and inviolate in each American citizen is the one codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Concomitant with their belief in the tenets of Collectivism, as a product of economic and political Socialism, Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to create, in the gun-owning public, a sense of collective guilt, for having—as Cuomo and Swalwell see it—the temerity to dare exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cuomo and Swalwell create myths surrounding guns and gun ownership. They audaciously argue that it is the gun, itself, an inanimate object, rather than the sentient miscreant--the lunatic or the criminal--who bears moral responsibility for gun violence. Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, including the Press, seek, by extension, to assign and cast moral and legal blame, too, for gun violence to those who revere the Second Amendment--namely NRA, its members, and anyone else who seeks to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Through their appeal to emotion, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and others like them, attempt to foment societal rage against both guns and the gun-owning public. These new modern-day witch-hunting moralists, seek to burn both guns and gun owners at the stake for having dared to revere, even adore, the Bill of Rights that the framers lovingly bequeathed to the American people for the very purpose of securing, for the American people, freedom and liberty, against tyranny. But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution--the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived--a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights. But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve.  As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.The destroyers of our Nation--these callous, pretentious grand inquisitors, Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell--will not hesitate to impose harsh punishment on each gun owner who fails to surrender their firearms to Governmental authority. And Americans would see this if the machinery of mass confiscation of guns that Cuomo and Swalwell, and that others like them, seek, were implemented.And implementation of the Collectivists' design for a new America—a new Collectivist world order—will be set in motion if these Democratic Socialists (as they apparently prefer to call themselves) ever gain the reins of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government.

The Power of Appealing to Emotion Over Reason

The ancient Greek philosophers—whom the founders of our free Republic clearly were certainly mindful of and clearly held in great esteem, and for whom our moral philosophy derives—referred to the fallacy of appealing to emotion as “argumentum ad misericordiam.” The Greeks knew that rhetoric devoid of reason is dangerous because of its very power to persuade the unwary. We see constant use of this fallacy by unscrupulous politicians today. With a deceptive air, along with a curt smile, or grimace, these politicians deliberately mislead the public. They do this to encourage the public to accept, as good, and virtuous, and well-meaning, policy that is, in fact, pernicious; policy that is detrimental to Americans’ well-being, and to the well-being of the Nation.Those Americans who are easily moved by emotion have shown themselves to be sensitive to and amenable to the efforts of Cuomo and Swalwell to rein in this presumed plague of guns in America. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. If Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell succeed—and with their comrades in the mainstream media to assist them in their endeavor--they may yet succeed, albeit not without an ensuing bloodbath. Of that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other antigun zealots, would do well to consider.Will the Collectivists win? Will the Second Amendment teeter and, ultimately, fall? Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and other Collectivists like them, would be ecstatic when or if that happens; and they are doing everything in their power to see that it does happen. Those who hold the Bill of Rights most dear must see to it that it doesn’t.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN CONTROL IS A MYTH: THE SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS STRONG OR NOT AT ALL

IS LOSS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A PRICE TOO HIGH? FOR DEMOCRATS IT ISN'T. JUST ASK THEM.

PART ONE

“I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it's political. I know it's controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It's simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!” ~ Quotation from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech, delivered on January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York Safe Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that the New York gun control Act will produce the "toughest assault weapons ban in the nation." “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.” ~Quotation from Op-Ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat-California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.” Never in the history of this Nation have we, Americans, seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21^st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free Republic. The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that Government serves at the behest of the American people; not at its own pleasure for its own benefit; for its own aims.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY

The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose. One, it signals, and is meant to signal, to Government, that ultimate power and authority resides in the American people, not in Government; never in Government. Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in Government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the American people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And, three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen. What does this third salient point mean? Just this: it means each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the founders of a free Republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this Country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups comprising "victims" and "those who would enslave them." It does this to play one group off against the other. It is a game the radical Left invented. It is called, “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the radical Left’s efforts?Consider: There exist individuals in the world, today, who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power; and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in our institution of education and in the massive media sector. They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance. They see the United States, a Nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there is a catch. The U.S. Constitution does not permit subordination of the United States to any other Nation, group of Nations, or interest groups. That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason; and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.These secretive, powerful, ruthless overseers that seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans will not, cannot abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment. They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and to rule with an iron fist.The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly and vociferously to the public. The arguments are delivered through both a compliant Press and through accommodating politicians. That is how propaganda works; and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans. But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. The overseers of a new transnational system of governance have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers. And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019), overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that Party Plaintiffs— comprising survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the estates of those murdered by the lunatic, Adam Lanza, can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs. That Plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the Bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment. The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails in it. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the import and purport of the Second Amendment since the  seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.Apart from use of the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, antigun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the State Legislatures, on the one hand, and in the State and Federal Courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new Chief Executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat holding the Oval Office in 2020, will most certainly continue that effort. No doubt about it.Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. In fact, at a recent CNN sponsored Town Hall event, as reported in Newsweek, Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, stated, in no uncertain terms: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”Misuse of the Office of the U.S. President by the Democratic (Socialist) Party would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment; worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020. This scourge of Democrats, and those who support them--those who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our Nation, against our Nation's unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution--must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANDREW CUOMO SEEKS TO IMPOSE NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS ON THE ENTIRE NATION

In November 2018 an elated New York Times reported that Andrew M. Cuomo had secured a third term in Office as Governor of New York. The newspaper asserted, with typical exuberance and fanfare, that:“In defeating Marcus J. Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, Mr. Cuomo, 60, soaked up the vast majority of votes in New York City, mirroring his success in the September primary, in which he defeated Cynthia Nixon, the actress and education advocate. The race was called by The Associated Press shortly after polls had closed at 9 p.m.Addressing a crowd gathered at a Midtown hotel, Mr. Cuomo said that his victory symbolized the liberal ways of New York, which he called the ‘progressive capital’ of the nation and a fortress against the policies of Donald Trump, a New Yorker himself."Andrew Cuomo—never one to exercise humility and restraint either in words spoken or in actions taken—has shaped and molded New York into his own image, a bastion of Left-wing ideology, increasingly out-of-touch with the Nation at large, and a slap-in-the-face to the vision our founders had for the Nation. Yet, what he has wrought upon the people of New York, he would dare impose on the entire Nation.In the last few months since the election, Cuomo has become increasingly emboldened. And, why shouldn’t he be emboldened? After all, as the Democratic Party has lurched ever Leftward, openly extolling the tenets of Socialism and Communism, and exhorting the Nation to follow suit, Cuomo has made abundantly clear that his own star must continue to rise.Indeed, The New York Times suggested, in its Sunday March 10, 2019 edition, titled, “Centrist Democrats Squirm as Rivals Swerve left in Presidential Race,” that Andrew Cuomo may be one of two logical choices to wear “the moderate mantle” as Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, now that former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has bowed out of the race, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden presently remains undecided.Yet, if Andrew Cuomo can reasonably be considered a political moderate or centrist, it goes to show just how far off the deep end the Democratic Party has fallen. Or, perhaps, The New York Times simply seeks to create the impression that Cuomo is a stalwart, solid, and stolid political moderate or centrist, knowing that an outright Socialist such as Bernie Sanders would not likely pull-off a victory against Trump in 2020.The fact remains that Andrew Cuomo is no less a Left-wing radical than is Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand. Andrew Cuomo is as radical in his politics and in his policy choices as they are. He is as radical as they come. Simply look at the New York policy measures that Cuomo campaigned for and that he signed into law. Consider: Cuomo was instrumental in signing into law, in February 2019, an abortion measure that literally sanctions murder. Even pro-choice Americans look askance at late term abortions, much less abortions at the moment of birth, but not Andrew Cuomo.Keep in mind that the very word, ‘abortion,’ has literally been written out of New York’s Penal Code. Given that fact, it follows from this action, both logically and legally, that abortion at any time, up to and including the moment of birth, is now in effect lawful, even if apologists for the law, insist that isn’t the case at all. It is. Since no penalty is exacted from the perpetrator of an abortion, effectively, then, no crime exists upon which the perpetrator of the act can be indicted. This New York law that Cuomo gloats over is hardly representative of a political moderate or political centrist.But if you were to ask him, Andrew Cuomo would likely tell you that he is a political moderate. He would tell you, consistent with his belief—or, if not, then, consistent, at least, with his claim, hoping you would believe him—that his political views and policy objectives are clearly within the mainstream of the Country even if they really aren’t. And, of course, they aren’t. New York’s abortion law is a prime example. Take another: Cuomo’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In 2018, during his campaign for a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo, made clear that the New York Safe Act—what he and others would claim as his true signature achievement—was not the endgame; not by a longshot. It is but a mere skirmish in Cuomo’s ongoing campaign to weaken the Second Amendment, and eventually to obliterate it. He would if he could do so in New York, and he would relish doing the same well beyond the borders of New York, namely, throughout the Nation.The weblog, Spectrum Local News reported that, during his campaign for a third term in Office, “Cuomo has not just defended his staunch support for gun control, he’s pledging to expand the existing law.” If anyone were to think this was an empty campaign pledge, think again. It wasn’t. Cuomo was deadly serious. In January of 2019, as reported by Hudson Valley 360, Cuomo, “announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,” and he further chortled, “‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation.’”To some, this may be viewed as a hopeful promise. But, to the vast majority of the Nation's citizenry this is a singular, dire threat that must be taken seriously and fought ferociously against.Now that Democrats control both the New York Assembly and the New York State Senate, Governor Cuomo is able to make good on that frightful promise. But, one may well ask: why would Cuomo do so; why would he think it necessary to do so? What would that really accomplish other than making it increasingly onerous, if not impossible, for the average law-abiding New York resident and citizen of the United States to exercise his or her fundamental right, under the Second Amendment? But, then, is not that really the point? Is not that really Cuomo’s ultimate objective: the dissolution of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And, Is not that a primary goal of all radical Leftists?Of course no one can, with a straight face, argue that New York’s present gun laws are lenient, relaxed, or sensible. New York's gun laws--especially those in New York City, and in a couple of New York's Counties--are anything but lenient and relaxed; And those gun laws are anything but ‘sensible’—to use a common appellation of antigun zealots, in reference to their constant call for ever more “sensible gun control” measures. No! New York has long had the most restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws in the Nation. Antigun groups revel in that fact. Apparently, Cuomo and others of his ilk do not think that New York’s restrictive gun laws are oppressive and repressive enough. They look forward to building upon the NY Safe Act, devising ever further ways in which to confound, antagonize, and demoralize law-abiding citizens who wish merely to be left alone; free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed to the Nation's citizenry in the Nation's Bill of Rights.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS A TRAVESTY.

Recall that, in 2013, Cuomo machinated behind closed doors, to instigate enactment of the reprehensible New York Safe Act, which otherwise certainly would not have been enacted. For the NY Safe Act could not have been enacted—likely would not have been enacted—if it had seen the light of day. The Act should have been debated in open session by all Legislators, Republican and Democrat, and the public should have been able to review it and comment on it. After all, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? But, what we see in the New York Safe Act is reprehensible. It is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment and inconsistent with the very idea of the sanctity and autonomy of the individual American citizen. Cuomo and those who detest the Second Amendment knew that the NY Safe Act could not, likely, survive legislative and public scrutiny. Subterfuge was necessary for NY Safe to be enacted.But, subterfuge is not the way to enact law. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to operate. But, that is how the Governor of New York operates and that is how his henchmen in Albany operate. And, to add insult to injury, the Governor and his henchmen in Albany rejoice in their ability to circumvent the law, to attain the aims they wish to attain, the public be damned. To this day the Governor and his comrades in Albany boast of their ability to operate within the periphery of the legislative process to get done those things they want to get done. And, the mainstream media, the echo chamber of these radical Leftist elements, gloats along with them.The New York Times gleefully writes: “The governor successfully corralled recalcitrant Senate Republicans into supporting the so-called Safe Act that expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons, tightened certification requirements, increased criminal penalties for illegal guns and closed private sale loopholes.”  And, so, the NY Safe Act, 2013 Bill Text NY S.B. 2230,was spawned; enacted in Albany, as an “emergency measure,” and signed into law by Cuomo, during his second term as New York Governor, on January 15, 2013.With passage of the New York Safe Act in 2013, New York’s already restrictive gun laws became more restrictive as more and more firearms were classified as illegal ‘assault weapons.’ The Safe Act also imposed new restrictions on ammunition magazine capacity. But that’s not all. The Safe Act did not limit its reach to restrictions to firearms and ammunition.The Act imposed ominous disclosure requirements on health care professionals, impinging uncomfortably on the privilege of confidentiality existent between medical doctor and patient. The Safe Act even imposed new obligations on the Courts, taking judicial discretion away from the Courts on matters involving revocation and suspension of firearms’ licenses and rifle and shotgun permits. And, new, stringent penalties were imposed on law-abiding gun owners who failed to comply with the convoluted new antigun laws, permeating through the Consolidated Laws of New York.Cuomo and the antigun crowd in Albany are fully enamored with themselves. And, with each success, in robbing Americans of their birthright, they consider yet other and more devious ways to divest the public of their sacred right to keep and bear arms, as they escalate their war on the Second Amendment. With Democrats now holding majorities in the New York Assembly and in the State Senate, the State’s antigun Legislators have unleashed a flurry of antigun measures in the first month of 2019:As reported by The Evening Sun newspaper, on January 29, 2019,“The Democrat-controlled New York Legislature is set Tuesday to pass several bills aimed at making the state’s already tough gun laws even stricter. At least eight measures are expected to pass the Assembly and Senate, including legislation to prohibit schools from allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in schools.” While Cuomo muscles through his antigun legislation in Albany, he suffers not any attempt by Republican Legislators to enact legislation that might throw a wrench into his policy objectives; he suffers not any attempt by those in Albany who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2017 the liberal weblog, Politico, reported that State Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from Buffalo, New York, attempted to do just that. He introduced legislation to curtail Cuomo’s Safe Act in its entirety. Governor Cuomo was petulant, stating:“‘If they try to overrule the state of New York, we will sue, because the state has rights, too,’ Cuomo said. ‘And especially with this federal government, it’s very important that the states represent their rights and assert their rights. And I will assert my right to the fullest extent of the law, because I am diametrically opposed and the people of my state are diametrically opposed to much of what this federal government is trying to do.’” Undeterred, Representative Collins fired back,“‘The 10th Amendment respects state’s rights until they violate another amendment,’ Collins said at a press conference, flanked by several state legislators. ‘We’re not going to let them stomp on our right to the Second Amendment.’”State Representative Collins is right. He might also have reminded the Governor that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The U.S. Supreme Court made that point abundantly clear in the seminal Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And, in the subsequent McDonald case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the high Court held that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, applies to the States too. That means the Second Amendment applies to New York. Cuomo apparently doesn’t think so, or would rather that it did not because, if Cuomo is aware of that the Second Amendment applies to New York, he couldn’t care less. He will not allow a fundamental right of the people get in the way of his policy objectives.

COULD A TENTH AMENDMENT LEGAL GAMBIT WORK TO SECURE THE NY SAFE ACT AGAINST A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE ACT LEGISLATIVELY?

Cuomo’s threat to kill an attempt to waylay the New York Safe Act via a Tenth Amendment challenge could not succeed were Representative Collins successful in repealing the New York Safe Act. Perhaps, Cuomo knows this. But, apart from Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment challenge, it was Collin’s remarks, alone, that Cuomo took particular exception to. Cuomo didn’t like what he heard. Cuomo could not stomach what he perceived to be Collins’ audacious assault on the Governor’s signature gun policy achievement. And, Cuomo didn’t like the tacit idea expressed in Representative Collins’ remarks, namely, that a cause supportive of the Second Amendment might be seen by the public as a noble effort.Cuomo finds most disconcerting that he cannot obliterate the Second Amendment at once, but must do so incrementally. Yet, Republican Legislators and Second Amendment groups are, as well, left, at best, to attempt to defeat an oppressive, unconstitutional Act through piecemeal efforts, tinkering around the Act’s edges to weaken a swollen monstrosity, even as Cuomo and fellow antigun zealots seek to add to an already bloated set of repressive anti-Second Amendment measures that, together, constitute, the New York Safe Act.To date, Republican actions have yielded little positive result, as the bulk of the NY Safe Act remains untouched, seemingly impervious to assault. And Cuomo, for his part, with Democratic Party majorities in both the Assembly and in the State Senate, are better situated to enact further oppressive and repressive antigun laws.But, contrary to Cuomo’s assertions, States cannot justifiably claim a general right under the Tenth Amendment to strip the fundamental right existent in each individual citizen, as codified in the Second Amendment. State Representative Collins correctly and unambiguously points out, a Tenth Amendment States’ rights claim does not trump the Second Amendment right existent in each American citizen. Collins is absolutely correct on that score.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not simply refer to States’ rights. It also refers to rights held by the people. The Tenth Amendment sets forth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Like all too many politicians, Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a proclivity toward duplicity and incongruity, along with a barely concealed tendency to exact revenge, through the power of his Office, against those he perceives have offended him. And, so it is that Cuomo dares to threaten a lawsuit against State Legislators who would take action to repeal a State law that Cuomo happens to champion.In threatening a Tenth Amendment States’ rights challenge against State Representative Collins and anyone else who would dare repeal the New York Safe Act, Cuomo is also relying on, albeit tacitly, the doctrine of federalism that demarcates power between the Federal Government and the States. But does the doctrine of federalism apply here? No, it doesn’t. Federalism doesn’t apply because Representative Collins isn’t operating at the behest of the Federal Government in challenging the Constitutionality of the New York Safe Act. He is acting as a State Legislator, on behalf of those American citizens who happen to be New York residents, and he is representing the interests of the residents of the City of Buffalo, who elected him to represent their interests.So, in challenging the constitutionality of NY Safe, Representative Collins is operating within the confines of the State to protect citizens who reside in New York, in order to protect their Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Andrew Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment threat directed against New York Representative Collins is both wrong and wrongheaded.The States’ rights aspect of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply here since, one, the Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people too, not merely rights of the States, and, two, because States’ rights do not, in any event, supersede the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. And, the doctrine of federalism isn’t applicable here, either, because NY Safe does not apply to the Nation at large. It applies only to the residents of New York, and it as an unconstitutional Governmental action against the residents of New York, alone, whom the Act targets, and it is interests of New York residents that that Representative Collins’ has sought, then, to protect and vindicate.Governor Cuomo, for his part, though, doesn’t bother to consider all the negative ramifications of the Tenth Amendment that work against him and he doesn’t consider the negative ramifications of the doctrine of Federalism when it comes to expanding NY Safe to the entire Nation. Cuomo has been quite vocal and blunt on this. The State of Politics weblog, points to Cuomo’s position on this:“The rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the SAFE Act gun control measure approved in 2013 in New York.” “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in a statement. “‘We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation. The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners—but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities. It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people. It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.’Cuomo has previously urged Democrats in Congress to take a more truculent stance on the issue of gun control.” So, even as Andrew Cuomo dares threaten a States’ rights Tenth Amendment challenge against Representative Chris Collins, Andrew Cuomo seems curiously blasé about a true States’ rights challenge that any other State could raise against Congress were Congress to attempt to impose the New York Safe Act on every other State, which is precisely what Congress and Cuomo would like to do. Cuomo is hardly the States’ right advocate he pretends to be when it is his intention to impose New York law, especially, the New York Safe Act, on everyone else.

ANDREW CUOMO "PROJECTS" HIS PERSONAL FAILINGS ONTO OTHERS.

The psychological defense mechanism of projection comes into play when one looks to the Governor Cuomo’s chicanery and antics. Cuomo constantly projects his own moral deficiencies onto those whom he happens to disagree with.The weblog, “The Rant” reports that,“Cuomo has used the gun control issue to knock Republicans.‘They have a different world view of America. They are systemically trying to impose their world view on this country,’ said Cuomo.”

WHO IS IMPOSING WHAT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Cuomo is wrong about Republicans. Republicans aren’t trying to impose a world view of America at all. Republicans—many of them at least—simply seek to adhere to the vision of America as conceived by the founders of our Republic, as set down in the blueprint of our Nation, our Constitution. It is Cuomo and other extremists in the Democratic Party, both in Congress, and in States such as New York, who are hellbent on imposing their world view on the rest of us, in contradistinction to the dictates of the United States Constitution. What they seek is a world view at loggerheads with the will of the majority of the Nation’s citizenry and one singularly at odds with the traditions of our forebears.The recent antigun legislation coming out of the Democratic Party controlled House is a prime example of the Democrats’ rancor toward our Nation’s history, our Nation’s traditions, and our Nation’s core values. Consider the outrageous: For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1. A perusal of the Act, aptly illustrates just how out-of-touch the Democratic Party is with the American citizenry. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that the For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1, is dead on arrival in the Senate, as is the House antigun, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, H.R. 8.But the Democratic Party controlled House isn’t done. The public can expect to see a plethora of unconstitutional laws oozing out of Congress in the months ahead, along with unconstitutional laws emanating from Democratic Party controlled State Governments, such as New York. The U.S. Senate will likely kill all or most Congressional bills coming out of the House. And, those that do make it out of Congress will surely see a Trump veto. But, for State Legislatures that hold Democratic Party majorities, and where the Governor of the State is also a Democrat—as is the case in New York—the people of those States will continue to suffer the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

WILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS TRULY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TRULY TO EXIST AS THE NATION’S FOUNDERS ENVISIONED IT, AS A FREE REPUBLIC, OR WILL THE NATION EXIST MERELY WITH THE TRAPPINGS OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND WITH MERELY THE TRAPPINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT IN THE PEOPLE?

As the Late Eighteenth-Early Nineteenth Century French Philosopher and Diplomat, Joseph de Maistre, said, “Every Nation Gets the Government, It deserves.”  This means the people of a Nation ultimately decide on the form of their Government, and must accept the result of a bad choice.The founders of our Nation carefully considered various models for Government. They created a Constitutional Republic. They realized that Government is best that serves the people, and not the other way around. They fought to overthrow an oppressor,George III of Great Britain.They were successful. But, in creating a new Nation, they did not wish to substitute one oppressor for yet another. So, they established a federal Government with limited, circumscribed powers; and they incorporated into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, codifying fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties upon which Government cannot, must not tread. The Bill of Rights makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the people, not Government. Thus, was the framework for a new Nation established.But, there are ruthless, inordinately wealthy, very well-organized, and extremely powerful forces at work today, both here and abroad, that look on our Nation and its people with jealous eyes. They seek to destroy the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ that the President, Donald Trump was elected, by the people, to preserve, and which he has worked tirelessly to preserve even as there are those hell-bent to destroy both him and his Administration.What we see occurring in the EU can unfold here in the U.S. There are powerful ruthless forces at work that seek to insert the U.S. eventually into a unified trans-world government. They realize that the United States, with the most powerful military apparatus in the world and with its mighty economic clout, must submit to this new trans-world government, if they are to succeed in their effort to consolidate power in a one world Government. They cannot succeed unless they bring the U.S. into its fold. These ruthless forces have control over our Press that actively misleads the people, distorting the news, creating false narratives, and they have their flunkies in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy.The American people are becoming indoctrinated; are becoming predisposed to elect the kinds of people in both Congress and in State Government, who seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; who see our Constitution, with its predominant Bill of Rights, as a relic of a bygone age; and they seek to radically alter our Constitution, and, in so doing, radically alter the foundation of a free Republic.We see this through blatant efforts to rewrite the Constitution; attempts to weaken the unalienable right of free Speech as codified in the First Amendment; attempts to obliterate the unalienable right of the people to keep in bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment; attempts to weaken the unalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment; and attempts to defeat the very concept of ‘private property,’ as embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We see attempts by these new representatives in Congress, and in the States, as echoed by a compliant Press, to admit into the ranks of the citizenry, millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of a Constitutional Republic, who cannot assimilate, and who are not meant to assimilate. They are people who mystifyingly claim a right to reside in our Nation in defiance of our laws. These are people who seek Government largess in return for their vote and the radical Left that has infiltrated the Democratic Party is ever willing to give them tokens in return for their unswerving loyalty.We see attempts to do away with the electoral college as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, we see attempts to rewrite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, with an aim to increase the number of representatives in left leaning States. Were these efforts to come to fruition, the Constitutional Republic as conceived by the founders of our Nation, would cease to exist. Yet, the public is led to believe that all this is for their own benefit; that it is all for their own good; that it is for the well-being of society as a whole; that it is for the welfare of the collective, even as it comes to the detriment of the individual.But, a Government created to serve the people would mushroom into the overseer of the people. And this would be explained to the people as a good thing. The world is complex, they say. The people need guidance. Government must not be constrained. The Government can provide the best care for the people. People must simply be willing to give up a few of their rights and liberties—no big thing!Is there a price high enough that a person would willingly sell their soul? Some would do so. More and more members of the public are becoming hoodwinked.Until the electorate in our Nation comes to its senses, expect to see individuals like Andrew Cuomo and many others contorting this Nation into their vision of a proper world; proper for Cuomo and other radical Leftists, perhaps, but a living Hell for most everyone else: a Hell world as conceived in the radical Left’s own tortured, warped souls, and in their own feverish minds; a world they would force everyone else to live in.It is too late for Andrew Cuomo, and for people like him: people like Eric Swalwell and Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders; and for people like Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. And it is much too late for such arrogant, hateful, spiteful, surly creatures like Senator Krysten Sinema, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and for radical Muslim hatemongers such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.It is, not, however, too late for the rest of us, but it soon will be as we are rapidly approaching the Eleventh Hour. If we do not act to vote these aforesaid individuals, and many like them, out of Office, and if we fail to support U.S. President Trump, we will indeed acquire the Government we deserve—tyranny and servitude.  ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THROUGH ENACTMENT OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019, NEW YORK NOW SANCTIONS MURDER

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Those two reprehensible New York policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies; and  with his political clout he has forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former Act into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter Act into law, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as all awful laws invariably do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But Cuomo is lying. A perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public, in order to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane New York laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. The drafters of the NY Safe Act peppered the myriad laws that comprise the Act, here and there, throughout the New York State Code. Even an attorney must spend considerable effort to locate them all in this behemoth compendium of laws that comprise the Consolidated laws of the State of New York. Once found, the meaning of many of these laws is difficult to discern and fathom as much of the verbiage is ambiguous and vague.Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or from a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Andrew Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the American citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Governor Cuomo exclaims, disingenuously, that he is simply more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act only serves to make the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as law-abiding citizens who reside in New York become an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety--which are mere mindless messaging--and has everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability, all intrinsic to the Second Amendment.It should come as no surprise, then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a second measure—certainly a measure he undoubtedly had a hand in crafting and shaping like the first one—a measure that is as sweeping in conception and implementation and as abhorrent to the conscience as the earlier one is.This second measure is, on any estimation, is horrific, as it amounts to legally sanctioned murder. This policy measure has the decidedly false appellation of: “Reproductive Health Act of 2019.”Make no mistake, regardless of protestations to the contrary, it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets for death; for extinction. The Act has little if anything to do with the life and health of the mother and it has everything to do with State licensed execution of an innocent, defenseless child.Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability and sanctity of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ Collectivists concern themselves with society, in its entirety, not with the welfare and well-being of the individual in society. So, then, when Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in the broadest sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called Utilitarian Consequentialism. This is an ethical system unconcerned with and therefore devoid of any reference to a person’s intentions and motivations.Utilitarian Consequentialism derives ethical maxims essentially from the results or effects of one’s actions on society. An individual's motives and intentions for acting fall out of the equation entirely or almost entirely since motives and intentions are deemed essentially irrelevant. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil essentially from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective, the hive.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is a nebulous concept. And, as a nebulous concept it is therefore, ultimately, an unsatisfactory one upon which to build an ethical system, for the concept of 'utility maximization,' means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means. It is therefore arbitrary and constantly subject to revision. It is ever subject to the whim and caprice of the rulers of society, as they utilize it to dictate morality for the populace. Morality for Collectivists, those people, who espouse Utilitarian Consequentialism, perceive morality as a relative notion, not exact, not definite and definitive, not concrete.Utilitarian Consequentialism, grounded as it is on the concept of ‘utility maximization,’ is a bankrupt ethical system, because, for the Utilitarian Consequentialist, good and evil, are relative to time, place and circumstance, and to the wiles of those who define the expression for everyone else.Utilitarian Consequentialism is a form of moral relativism, and moral relativism of any kind or form, is hardly something upon which to establish a system for distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct, as any act, however reprehensible, can be deemed morally permissible. In fact, it is this very moral relativism that allows for something like New York's obscene Reproductive Health Act to be enacted.Only a purported ethical system like Utilitarian Consequentialism could allow for something as horrific as New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” to exist. And, only those who espouse Collectivism and who therefore adhere to the seeming ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism--as does Andrew Cuomo--would be capable of devising and implementing a monstrosity such as the Reproductive Health Act. And, only a Collectivist, such as Andrew Cuomo, would perceive licensed murder, as ethically defensible, indeed, even righteous.But Cuomo isn't done. He goes further. He dares raise abortion to the level of a fundamental right. But abortion qua the murder of a child, does not appear anywhere in this Nation’s Bill of Rights, either expressly or tacitly, and understandably so. Fundamental rights are natural rights, endowed by God, the Creator, on Man. Fundamental rights are not to be perceived as relative to a particular time, place, or circumstance. Fundamental rights are not mere creatures of Man. They are immutable. The idea that God, the creator of human souls, would ever sanction abortion, amounts to the very crucifixion of sanity. But, of course, nowhere in utilitarian consequentialism is there any discussion of a Divine Creator anyway.Not surprisingly Collectivists would espouse an “ethical” system like utilitarian consequentialism for they are atheists. Since they dispense with the very notion of a Divine Creator, they exhibit no humility. And, we see the results of their lack of restraint through the public policy they espouse. They have no inhibition; no shame. They lack all restraint. They are governed by raw ambition, and they are ever ruled by a lust for power and self-aggrandizement. These are exemplified in the present Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.Now, Andrew Cuomo would probably vehemently disagree with the assertion he is an atheist, having been born and raised as a Catholic; and he has never  disavowed or, in any manner, severed his relationship to or ties with the Catholic Church--at least as far as we can ascertain. But, then, that fact only serves to make his association with an abortion policy, any abortion policy, but especially one he had a hand in crafting and forcing through the New York Legislature--and one as disturbing and confounding and distressing as the one he signed into law--particularly egregious and incongruous; deeply so, and much more so than if Cuomo were to proclaim himself an atheist.

PEOPLE WHO ESPOUSE COLLECTIVISM ARE A COLD, CALLOUS LOT

Not surprisingly, Collectivists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but, profess only concern for an amorphous mass, a Chimera, which is to profess, then, really, no concern for anyone at all. And, indeed, they don't. Thus, they can tell you with cold, calculated certainty that the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual even if those two individuals are serial killers, and the one individual is a simple, God-fearing, law-abiding American citizen. The argument would simply devolve into numbers: two is greater than one, so the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual, and there is no need to consider the nature of those lives. Thus, the Collectivist argues for "gun control." Better, the Collectivist would say, for two killers to murder an innocent individual than for the innocent individual, in an act of simple, basic self-preservation--to kill the two would-be killers with a firearm, as society, in its entirety, will be the better for removal of firearms, according to the reasoning of the Collectivist. Thus, sacrifice of the one individual serves society, as a whole. But, why, really, ought a person to accept sanctity in numbers for the sake of mere numbers?If one cares less for the life of one individual simply because one life is one less than two, why emphasize the import of the lives of the many at all? It is in fact this very preoccupation with raw numbers, rather than with concern for the particular individual life in question that allows Collectivists to sanction abortion. Only a Collectivist can somehow rationalize that the public as a whole will benefit from an abortion policy at all only because there are, presumably, according to the logic of the Collectivist, many more individuals that comprise the body politic than are the number of innocent lives that will be lost--sacrificed--as a result of an abortion policy. In other words, many more women--Cuomo and other proponents of New York's Reproductive Health Act tell us--would personally benefit from disrupting a human life. They tell us that society is better served by killing the unborn child than would be served if the mother were required to carry the child to birth, as society as a whole, somehow, in the mind of the Collectivist is better served for having an abortion policy, notwithstanding the clear, irremediable, irreversible loss of an innocent child that having an abortion policy entails.It is this convoluted, shallow logic that permits New York, now, to permit human sacrifice--sacrifice of the most innocent among us. But this is not reason. It is Satanic sophistry.Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, doesn’t express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the innocent individual souls that might, if they had a chance at life, comprise part of the body politic. Cuomo, and other Collectivists only express ostensible concern, then, for the well-being and welfare of the Collective, of “the hive.” How it can it be any other way than this?It is very much in vein then that Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist, the Utilitarian Consequentialist, would help craft the text of, and avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Given the detrimental impact of these horrific measures on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen, Cuomo and others of his ilk strive to hide the dire impact of these schemes on the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen, and suggest that they are something different from what they truly purport to be.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it.Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.  Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system; nor do they wish to adapt themselves to it. But they have no choice. Cuomo thrusts his beliefs and his bizarre belief system onto others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in exercising that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the residents of the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse; he seeks to control all thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, like so many other Collectivists in the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs; oblivious to and, indeed, disdainful of the thoughts and feelings and beliefs of others.As a private citizen, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right as an American citizen as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor, Cuomo can and does ordain his belief system for others, that harms everyone and cannot and ought not be countenanced, and ought to be roundly and soundly condemned and fought against.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental, natural, unalienable right—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment, and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. He thereupon rams through the State Legislature, surreptitiously, without debate, in the dark of night, an extraordinarily restrictive firearms' measure that operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist.Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, Andrew Cuomo operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and, so, may be summarily and unceremoniously erased.

GOVERNOR CUOMO CATEGORICALLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; YET, AMAZINGLY AND BIZARRELY HE PROPOSES TO CREATE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE SEES AS A RIGHT INHERENT, APPARENTLY, IN A GENERAL, NOTION OF PRIVACY; BUT NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES SUCH A GENERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXIST.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Andrew Cuomo dares attempt to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who then signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. In creating such monstrous policy, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other living soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.But contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to an abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. Yet, now, with the enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, the State of York has taken the rash, unprecedented step of literally sanctioning legal murder--an oxymoron, to be sure--but there is no better way to refer to it for that is what it is. Under law, legal murder is not murder at all. But, a purposeful act of snuffing out the life of an innocent soul has occurred nonetheless. And, as if that were not enough, in having enacted such a law, the Legislature of New York and the Governor of New York now audaciously raise a certain instance of murder to the level of a fundamental right, as the preamble to the Act, makes plain. The Governor of New York and those members of the State Legislature who had a hand in drafting the Reproductive Health Act or who otherwise voted for the Act's enactment, categorically declare that abortion is a fundamental right under both the State Constitution and under the U.S. Constitution. A certain kind of act that heretofore did constitute a criminal act, no longer does constitute a criminal act in New York.How does Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act, literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy of the  the mother reside? Cuomo doesn't say. But, assuming arguendo, it does reside and must reside somewhere, implied, and tacit, in the Constitution, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy happen, then, to reside? Where in the U.S. Constitution does such presumed fundamental right preside over that of the very life and well-being of the unborn child? The answer is: nowhere!If a vague, generalized right to privacy exists at all, it is nowhere to be found in nor can it be extracted from any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and it is not to be found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution or in any other Amendment of the Bill of Rights; nor is it to be extracted from the text of any one of the subsequent Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive, explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise and explicit. The concept of ‘privacy,’ on the other hand, is abstract and vague.

SUPPOSE, FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, A FUNDAMENTAL, SUBSTANTIVE, GENERAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES FEASIBLY EXIST IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CAN THAT EVER JUSTIFY ABORTION?

Certainly, no rational argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child is somehow subordinated to a general notion of privacy, even if such general right of privacy can be extracted somewhere from the text of the U.S. Constitution. Some people may argue that a general implicit right of privacy exists in or is subsumed in the explicit unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. Even so, such general right of privacy cannot rationally justify abortion. The framers of the Constitution could not have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise. Cuomo is one such fevered mind that does. But, if a general, fundamental right of privacy does exist, and, if not in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then where else might such substantive fundamental right be found upon which abortion might reasonably be Constitutionally sanctioned?Some may argue, that, if a general right of privacy cannot be found tacit in the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, then, perhaps, a general right to privacy exists as one of the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But, once again, no one can reasonably, rationally, logically construe the idea that an assault on the life of an unborn child is always Constitutionally permissible through the notion of a fundamental but unenumerated general right of privacy. Yet, advocates for abortion would argue that a general right of privacy--whether perceived, somehow as a substantive and fundamental but unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment or as tacitly existent in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, or, perhaps, as residing in the due process clause or equal protection clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, or in the text of any other part of the Constitution--serves, legally, to override concern for the life and well-being of the unborn child. In other words, if State sanctioned murder is to be lawfully permitted, then it must be Constitutionally protected, but one must twist and contort the Constitution to find a way to justify what is, on its face, a horrific act. And, however one attempts to do so, the attempt invariably fails.

ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND ACTIVISTS MUST FACE THE FACT THAT ABORTION, WHETHER EARLY TERM OR LATE TERM OR AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, ALWAYS INVOLVES THE KILLING OF A LIVING, ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS AND INNOCENT CHILD.

Although there have been attempts to insert privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn, child. Even if one assumes,  as Cuomo does, the existence of a general and fundamental right of privacy, albeit without proof, it is of dubious value to argue that such general privacy concern is superior to the life and well-being of an unborn child, and that such right of privacy is to be secured to the detriment of the unborn child. But, Cuomo's Reproductive Health Act has, by contriving a general fundamental right of privacy, placed that contrived general right of privacy over the very real life and well-being of the child. The Reproductive Health Act operates from just such an implausible assumption.But, do we allow Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act to get away with murder? Do we allow State-sanctioned murder simply because the proponents of abortion perfunctorily couch the act of abortion in something palatable, namely in the language of a fundamental right of health, privacy, or equality, despite the absence of a clear legal and moral foundation for it? They should not be let so easily off the hook.For those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, inherent in a fundamental, but unproved general right of privacy, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child, which, for these abortion rights advocates and activists, even includes a right to abortion even up to commencement of birth of a living human being. These people, though, do not wish to admit that fact, overtly, even if, among themselves they are perfectly content with it. So they tend to skip over it, rather than contend openly with it. If pressed, however, these advocates of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child, including the child about to be born, and even the child in the midst of live birth, isn’t a person.Those advocating for abortion simply view the unborn child as a nonentity. They deny to a living soul, the sacred, inviolate idea of 'personhood.' Advocates of abortion thereupon deny, to the unborn child and to the child about to be born and even to the child in the midst of live birth, the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim, through it all, a concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Statute and in the New York Safe Act. Both Acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act shows, in the language of it, and in its operation, a complete lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at substantial cost: a concomitant loss of benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society, comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a clear and callous lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent of living beings. As with the NY Safe Act, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act claim the Act benefits society as a whole, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of decidedly the most critical need of all—life itself—for it is innocent individuals who suffer the dire and immediate consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER, PLAINLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by submerging the act of abortion into the context of a presumed fundamental general right of privacy. But, that isn't enough. The problem is that, under the laws of New York, abortion is a crime. So, the Reproductive Health Act must change those provisions of New York law that make abortion a crime. The Reproductive Health Act amends New York law by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other State laws regarding abortion.A new Section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion on demand up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” But is that true? A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion until the third trimester, we must not lose sight of the fact that the New York's Reproductive Health Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Abortions' rights advocates like to skirt over that fact. But, the fact remains that a living soul exists in the womb.Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. So what! whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether one talks about viability of the child during the first, second, or third trimester. The question is whether abortion can be ethically justified at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may perform an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give everyone pause.Third, when analyzing New York's Reproductive Health Act, one should pay attention to how the Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten to cohere with the precepts of the Act.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly so as to conclude that the Act proscribes abortions at the point of the third trimester, as Cuomo and those who advocate for his abortion Act do so claim--apparently to assuage those who oppose the Reproductive Health Act--the claim is actually false.Still, despite the apparent language of the Act, and contrary to the remarks of those who justify the Act, claiming built-in limitations on abortion, the fact remains that with Cuomo's imprimatur, ab0rtion on demand is now perfectly legal in New York, not simply up to the third trimester, but at any time. That signals a legal right to abortion on demand through the third trimester, and, in fact, up to and including the very point of birth of the child. But, is that true? Yes, it is. The statement is true because abortion qua the killing of a child at any point in time, from conception up to the point of delivery and even beyond, is no longer a crime in New York. The very word, 'abortion' has been stricken from the Consolidated Laws of New York.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ABORTION NO LONGER ATTACHES IN NEW YORK

Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. What does that mean? It means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and, further, it means that abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.Where there is no penalty for committing a crime, there does not, in effect, exist a crime, regardless of what a criminal code sets forth. Any words to the contrary are nugatory, and, so, in effect, meaningless.  Abortion is no longer a crime in New York.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e) A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”Sections (d) and (e) have been excised from New York law. And, New York's Legislators, who crafted the Reproductive Health Act, did so for an important reason. They took this rash step to make clear that the very act of abortion is lawful, even moral, because it is consistent, in the mind of the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, as a fundamental right.What does this Section of New York law mean? It means that abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time. For, where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, once again, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York. It has been indelibly stricken.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that: Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse, when one considers various scenarios that play out.Consider one scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, the mother loses the baby. While the attacker can can still be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot any longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.Where a perpetrator violently attacks a pregnant woman, in New York, we can extrapolate from that a peculiar "benefit" that accrues to the perpetrator of the violent attack: The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. But, since abortion, whether intended or not, is no longer a crime in New York, the loss of the child from abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act provides substantial benefit to a class of society in New York beyond the amorphous class of women who may seek to have an abortion--the criminal element now benefits directly from the fact that abortion, under any set of circumstances is no longer deemed a crime in New York.Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. It is an inane and singularly odd remark, but, apart from that, it misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not in this instance, for she is not responsible for the loss of her child. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., whether the person who harms the mother, the perpetrator of the attack on the mother, can be held, as well, criminally liable for the death of the child. The perpetrator of the attack cannot be charged with any crime related to the death of the unborn child, under New York’s new Reproductive Health Act.Obviously, Cuomo doesn't want to address the fact that, with passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a person cannot be indicted for any crime--not for murder, not for manslaughter, not even for criminal negligence--where, but for a perpetrator's criminal assault on a pregnant woman, the woman would not have lost her unborn child. The perpetrator of the attack on the mother can only be criminally charged for harm done to the mother that is directly attributable to the perpetrator of the attack. Under New York law, the unborn child is not recognized as a living soul. The unborn child simply doesn't exist. Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. Once, again, and it needs to be stressed: New York's Reproductive Health Act operates as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO SAYS: "AMERICA IS NOT GREAT."

CUOMO DEMEANS THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH INSULTING, OUTRAGEOUS, VINDICTIVE REMARKS.

Ever pandering for votes in his bid for a third term as Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo shamelessly blurts out increasingly incendiary, outrageous, and shameful remarks.During a speech on Monday, August 13, 2018, at an event hosted for women and girls, this so-called “leader” of New York, who might harbor greater ambitions—U.S. President perhaps?—slammed, denigrated, and insulted the United States and its people. Yet, strangely, he evidently believes he is the best person to represent and to lead this Country and its people even though he has such a low regard for both. In pertinent part, he said this, as reported by one source, the Daily News:"We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” Without going into the nuances and expansive exposition of the meaning of the word, ‘great,’ suffice it to say that the common understanding of the word when applied either to a person or to a Country is that such a person or country is great if perceived as eminent, honorable, or worthy of respect, reverence, and veneration.By exclaiming that America “was never that great,” and that the Nation “has not reached greatness,” Cuomo has denigrated the Country he resides in; the Country he would deign to lead. And he has denigrated, too, the people whom he believes he can, in good conscience, represent and lead.Cuomo’s half-hearted attempt to walk back his explosive, inane diatribe—after the fallout that, not surprisingly, ensued—cannot reasonably be, and should not honestly be, considered heartfelt. But, were it so, still, Americans should not forgive Cuomo’s use of reprehensible insults leveled at the Country and its people. Some words, by their nature, cannot be taken back. Cuomo’s insolent words fall into that category. Like a bullet from a spent cartridge of a gun, once a shot has been fired, the bullet, like Cuomo’s abhorrent remarks, cannot be taken back.The defeated Democratic Party Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, learned this hard lesson when, at a fund raising event on September 9, 2016, she insulted Trump supporters, saying that half of them are a “basket of deplorables.” Americans don’t take kindly to politicians that scoff at them; nor should they.What this man blurted out to his audience that Monday night—a group of people on the far left of the political spectrum, whom Cuomo felt, would, apparently, be receptive to anything this left-wing politician had to say, even the most hateful, spiteful, disgusting, disparaging anti-American rhetoric he could muster—shocked the conscience, as it turned out, as well it should have, of many, even in that audience. The depths of depravity to which Cuomo could and would wallow, as illustrated in his abhorrent rhetoric, amply reflects what this man is and always has been: a petty, yet pompous  politician—a man surrounded by sycophants; a megalomaniac, bloated with delusions of grandeur and feelings of smug self-aggrandizement; a man who will do or say anything, no matter how ludicrous, or outrageous, or abhorrent the pronouncements or actions may be, as long as they happen to serve the particular moment and the serve the man’s copious and ruthless, power hungry ambitions. But, some assertions fall well beyond the pale. Some words cannot be convincingly retracted.

EVEN THE LEFTIST LATE-NIGHT SHOW HOST, STEPHEN COLBERT, WAS SURPRISED BY CUOMO’S VITUPERATIVE REMARKS, AND SAW FIT TO ADMONISH CUOMO.

As reported by The New York Times, Stephen Colbert exclaimed on hearing Cuomo’s bizarre remarks: “That is the dumbest thing you can say as a politician.” One may wonder whether Colbert, hardly one averse to taking cheap shots at his favorite target—Republicans and Conservatives—was, as an American, himself, really put off by Cuomo’s loathsome remarks, or felt, rather, that Cuomo, along with the despicable messaging, and antics, and violent tactics of extremist socialist, communist, and anarchist groups, active in this Country, was harming Democrats’ chances to retake the House in the 2016 Midterm Elections.

CUOMO’S DIABRIBE OPERATES AS A PERSONAL VITUPERATIVE, VINDICTIVE INDICTMENT OF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Americans need only consider what Andrew Cuomo’s damning pronouncements mean. In pertinent part Cuomo has, through his disrespectful, insulting, damning words, vehemently denounced this Nation’s history, its culture, its values, its laws and legal system, its institutions, and its people.This, then, is, in part, the import of Cuomo’s words:1)  In pandering to the progressive far left, Cuomo apparently cares not at all of the work and effort of those men who founded our Nation and wrote its Constitution. For Cuomo, the founders of the Nation, who had the courage to stand up to the might of Great Britain— a despotic Monarchy and the most powerful Nation on Earth at that time—who placed their good names and their lives on the line, and, who, having done so successfully, established a free Republic, where sovereignty resides in the people, not in the State, are not, according to Andrew Cuomo, worthy of emulation. For Andrew Cuomo, neither these men, nor the Republic they established, nor the natural, unalienable rights and liberties they codified in a Constitution that has stood the test of time, are worthy of emulation, or respect, or reverence. They are not deemed to be great; they were not engaged; and this Nation has not, for Cuomo, achieved greatness.2)  Americans who fought and, for many, who died in foreign lands to secure this Nation’s safety and security and the safety and security of many other Nations, from the threat and scourge of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, are not, in Cuomo’s estimate, to be considered great, and are not to be considered to have achieved greatness either for themselves or for their Country.3)  This Nation and its people that stood up to and that defeated the threat posed to the security of the World by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—the old USSR—and the economic doctrine this despotic empire espoused for the entire world—communism—are not to be considered worthy of respect, or reverence, or emulation. This Nation and its people are not, then, to be considered, great, according to Cuomo. And, these Americans according to Cuomo, were not to be considered, “fully engaged.” Really? What, for Cuomo, amounts to the full engagement of the American people?4)  This Nation that provided economic opportunity for its people, creating more wealth for more people, through the operation of free market principles, and through the principle reflected in the private ownership of property—a Nation that has become the envy of the World—is not considered worthy of reverence and veneration. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great, for Cuomo; they have not reached greatness; and they have not been fully engaged.5)  This Nation and its people that provided incredible innovations in science, technology, nuclear physics, medicine, aerospace, are not to be considered worthy of respect, and awe, and reverence. This Nation and its people are not to be considered, great; have not reached greatness; and were not fully engaged.6)  This Nation that realizes the importance of diversity of thought and of expression and that understands that this Nation’s strength and fortitude rests first and foremost in its armed citizenry, composed of the common man—and not in such power of arms that a small group of elite noblemen and royalty might bear for themselves—is not to be considered worthy of respect. This Nation and its citizenry are not to be considered great, according to Cuomo; are not to be considered to have reached greatness; and are not to be considered fully engaged.

IF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE UNREMARKABLE, OF WHAT, THEN, DOES "GREATNESS" REALLY CONSIST?

We must ask Andrew Cuomo, if this Nation and its people are not great, have never been that great, and have never achieved greatness, and have not been fully engaged—are, in a word, ‘unremarkable,’—then:1)  Why do tens of millions of foreigners seek, nonetheless, to come to this Country?2)  How is it that this Nation is the wealthiest, per capita, in the World?3)  How is it that this Nation has become the most powerful Nation, militarily?4)  Why is it that many Nations espouse to adopt our Nation’s democratic principles?5)  Why is it that in no other Nation but our own do we see the sanctity of the individual held to such great esteem?

IF OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED GREAT, WE HAVE A MODEST SUGGESTION FOR ANDREW CUOMO.

If you, Andrew, have such a low opinion of this Nation, we think it best that you renounce your citizenship, and, simply, leave.Select a Country that meets your personal standard of greatness, whatever that standard happens to be; however it is that you define, ‘greatness,’ in a Nation and however it is that you define ‘greatness’ in a Nation’s people. For, obviously, your standard for "greatness" has not been met in the United States, nor has it been met by any of its people, either now in the present; in the recent or more distant past; or at the founding of our Nation.Clearly, you do not deem this Nation and its people to be worthy of your talents, of your own greatness of spirit and of your piety. That being so, we think it best for all concerned, that you take "your own “greatness” somewhere else, to a land where the populace can truly appreciate "your greatness" and where the people are truly worthy of "your greatness." There, perhaps, in some other land, among another group of people, where "greatness," as you understand it, as you define it in your own private dictionary--where "greatness as you see it, already exists, in that land and in its people--"your own greatness" can, perhaps, shine and flourish. But that, obviously, isn't here, in the United States, among the American people. Clearly, "your own greatness" will not be able to shine and flourish in a Nation and in a people whom, as you say, are not and never have been great, and likely never will be great._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES SAFE ACT IN THE MAKING: PENNED AND PENCILED BY ANDREW CUOMO

GUN RIGHTS STAY CENTER STAGE

With the midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial elections just around the corner, those Americans who support a strong Second Amendment must not sit idle, but must vote for Congressional candidates and State Governors who will not only support the right of the people to keep and bear arms but who will actively defend that right against those who dare to destroy it. The gun rights issue is of paramount importance and will take center stage if Cuomo Democrats win control of the House and Senate and if they take control of the States.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR CUOMO DEMOCRATS.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in our article, posted on August 1, 2018, that, although the immigration issue has been hyped by the mainstream media and by leftist politicians, in recent weeks and months, it is the Second Amendment that remains first and foremost, firmly in the crosshairs of those who seek to undermine our sacred Bill of Rights. And, sure enough, the exercise of gun rights is once again in the antigun zealots’ crosshairs.In recent days, as the Governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, gears up for a third term bid, he has taken direct aim at the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the Country, the NRA. NRA exists to defend the single, most important right of the American people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic, and critical to guaranteeing the autonomy and sanctity of the individual citizen, as the true sovereign authority in and of the United States.The New York Times has taken the lead in shepherding New York residents to elect Cuomo to a third term in Office, making the point of telling the public, in an August 5, 2018 article, titled, “A New Brawl With the N.R.A.? Cuomo Seizes an Opportunity as a Primary Looms”— that “Mr. Cuomo has had a longstanding ideological commitment to gun control. . . [and that] in 2013, Mr. Cuomo successfully fought for passage of the Safe Act, making New York the first state to enact more stringent gun regulations after the Sandy Hook massacre. He has proudly touted his ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A.” Lest there be any doubt where Cuomo’s ultimate ambition lies, the New York Times adds, in that same article, that “he [Cuomo] has also made no secret of his belief that his actions on gun control have made his state a model for the nation—a handy argument for a politician who has garnered some mention as a possible 2020 candidate. ‘Use New York as a test case,’ Mr. Cuomo said in an interview of his gun control measures, including the Safe Act. ‘The state is a laboratory of democracy where I can say: We passed the law five years ago. Come look at our state.’”Come look at New York, indeed! Imagine, if you will, a Nation, where the model for gun control, the New York Safe Act, becomes federal law—thrust on every State in the Union.De Facto, if not outright de jure, repeal of the Second Amendment has been the goal of the Democratic Party for decades. And, Andrew Cuomo will lead the charge on eviscerating the Second Amendment. Long before Democrats changed their position on illegal immigration—calling at an earlier time for curbs on such immigration, but now extolling an open borders policy that would essentially open the floodgates, letting flow, like an angry river into this Country, tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of low-skilled migrants, along with a large contingent of criminal gangs and refugees from failed states of the Middle East—Democrats have never wavered but have consistently attacked the sacred, natural right codified in the Second Amendment. They have done so incessantly, unceasingly, vehemently. That single issue is what defines them. That single issue is what motivates them, like no other. For, they know that: once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is destroyed, they--these Cuomo Democrats and other leftists--will do away with other fundamental rights and liberties. In so doing, they contrive and machinate to contort our Nation into a thing unrecognizable, an entity completely alien to the aims and desires of the founders of a Free Republic. These Cuomo Democrats seek to create a quagmire, a geographical "Place," no longer an Independent, Sovereign Nation--but merely a place--overrun by unassimilable alien people. These Cuomo Democrats and other leftists who seek to destroy our Nation--a Nation founded on natural rights and liberties--intend to destroy the very fabric of our Nation: its memory; its history, its values, its culture, its ethos. They intend to wipe the slate clean. And, to assist them in their detestable endeavor, they conspire to bring into our Country, such denizens of other Countries who have no understanding of, no appreciation for and, in fact, no concept, of a Nation that exists under and by the will of the people alone--a Nation whose people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, natural rights and liberties--rights and liberties intrinsic to their very being: incorruptible, immutable, beyond the power of Government to deny, to ignore, to erase.

CUOMO DEMOCRATS DO NOT PERCEIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS CODIFYING NATURAL RIGHTS BUT AS A CREATION OF MAN THAT CAN, THEREFORE, BE AMENDED OR DELETED AT WILL.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo Democrats and other leftists' disdain for the Second Amendment is reflected in their rebuke of the very notion that the Bill of Rights embodies and codifies a set of basic, natural rights endowed to man by the Creator, intrinsic to man's very being. As Cuomo Democrats and other leftists savagely, mindlessly, mercilessly attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, they have also attacked the right of free speech, codified in the First Amendment, and they have attacked the very notion of private property rights codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They consider these rights trivial, anachronistic to, and an anathema to the "new" Socialist Order they wish to create. In their scheme, these Cuomo Democrats, and these other leftists residing in our Nation, consider the Nation's sacred rights to be merely man-made conventions, capable of excision or rescission, at the stroke of the pen.Thus, these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists belittle the Nation's Bill of Rights, and belittle, too, and especially, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At every turn these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists contrive to undermine the sanctity of our sacred rights. In their insidious design first to trivialize the Nation's fundamental rights--natural rights, codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution--they seek, second, eventually, to strike these fundamental, natural rights from the Constitution, substituting for them, such man-made rights, they happen to construct for the moment; rights that happen, for the moment, to comprise their wish list, consistent with and commensurate with their plans for a new Socialist Order they intend to impose on Americans.And what are some of these new rights? Investor Business Daily wrote, presciently, in 2016, that: “They [Democrats] talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage.’ But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.” 

CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS MUST SPEAK OUT!

Conservative commentators must speak out against the perils of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, and they must do so continuously. They must emphasize the threat that Cuomo Democrats and other leftists pose to the continued sanctity of and continuity of the Bill of Rights and, especially, the threat they pose to the Second Amendment.Yet, conservative commentators remain, for the most part, reticent. Oddly, even the conservative commentator Sean Hannity fails to mention that Cuomo Democrats would strive to weaken the Second Amendment if they gained control of the House and the Senate. On his nightly Fox news broadcasts, Hannity rightly warns the American public about specific dangers posed by a Democratic Party takeover of Congress, including Democrats’ intention to impeach President Trump and their commitment to an open borders immigration policy, but he says nothing about Cuomo led Democrats’ devious, scurrilous plans to enact restrictive firearms measures, on the National stage, in the event they take over the House, and, possibly, the Senate as well.

IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL?

If Democrats do in fact take over Congress, after the November 2018 midterm elections, and if Andrew Cuomo is elected to a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo will be taking his plans for a National New York Safe Act to a receptive Congress, where he will lead the pack to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of that, there can be no doubt._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO VERSUS NRA: NEW YORK GOVERNOR ATTACKS NRA AND SILENT MAJORITY IN BID FOR THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK.

“ ‘It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages.  The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great.  The  public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.’ ” New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281; 84 S. Ct. 710, 727; 11 L. Ed. 2d  686, 707 (1964), citing, Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 724; 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908)(Opinion by Judge Burch, Kansas State Supreme Court).{Parenthetical Note to Our Readers: The Arbalest Quarrel took the original version of this article off the site yesterday in order to do an extensive rewrite. We apologize for any puzzlement this may have caused.}

IS CUOMO USING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO LAUNCH A BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2020?

Andrew M. Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York and present sitting Governor, seeks a third term in Office. But is Cuomo contemplating a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020, as the Democratic Party nominee? To the casual observer, it certainly appears so, even as he leaves the option open when asked.  That would certainly be in keeping with Cuomo's character, for Andrew Cuomo is an ambitious man. It is “Andrew M. Cuomo, 46^th President of the United States,” that Cuomo  may very well see in the mirror when he looks at himself. But, if this is indeed Cuomo's desire--this ultimate prize--the Silent Majority*  cannot allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must not allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must stop Cuomo in his tracks, and that means stopping Andrew Cuomo's election to a third term as Governor of New York.  But to stop Cuomo, the Silent Majority must first understand Cuomo.

WHO IS ANDREW CUOMO, REALLY?

Andrew Cuomo is a self-complacent, ruthlessly ambitious, smugly self-assured man. He is the last of “The Three Amigos,” all three of whom, under cover of darkness, spawned and machinated to secure enactment of the oppressive and reprehensible New York Safe Act—legislation that undercuts, and in its very conception is designed to undercut, the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York Safe Act also negatively impacts the personal property clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as language in the Act makes it impossible for one spouse to transfer his or her firearms to the other spouse as well as to other family members.But, what became of the two close allies of Cuomo—two of the “three Amigos” that we hear so little about today? One of the two Amigos, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York Assembly, resides in federal prison. The New York Post reports that a federal Court sentenced Silver to 7 years in prison, and  fined Silver $1.75 million dollars, having found Silver guilty of public corruption. In that article, the Post reports that the judge reduced an earlier sentence of 12 years imposed on Silver, apparently as an act of mercy, given Silver's advanced age.Ten days after Sheldon Silver, was sentenced, a U.S. District Court, as reported by the Daily News, sentenced Skelos, Speaker of the New York Assembly, to 5 years in prison, for bribery, extortion, and conspiracy, and ordered him to pay $500,000 in fines. Skelos presently remains free on bail, according to The New York Times, while the Court considers the former Speaker's conviction on the specific charge of graft.And what of the kingpin, himself, the third Amigo, Andrew M. Cuomo? The Governor of New York has since attempted to distance himself from his two former friends and allies. Cuomo seems to remain unscathed, while his underlings, Silver and Skelos, get hit with criminal indictments and convictions. But perceptions can be deceiving. Public corruption is systematic in, systemic of, and endemic to Cuomo’s Administration, and, in fact, to Andrew Cuomo, himself.

ANDREW CUOMO: A MAN OF THE PEOPLE? HARDLY!

Several years ago, when Cuomo first ran for Governor of New York, The New York Times wrote that Cuomo was a man of the people. But, fast forward several years to this present moment in time, it is clear that Cuomo is nothing of the sort. No doubt Cuomo would claim that, then, as now, he represents the best interests of New York residents, but, truthfully, Cuomo has done nothing to earn the trust, support and confidence of New York residents in the heartland of the State.In point of fact Cuomo is unaccountable to and dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of New York. By extension, Cuomo would be unaccountable to and would be dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of citizens of the entire Nation were he to win the Oval Office in 2020.Cuomo cannot wash the sins of public corruption away, much as he may try. Evidence of Cuomo's embrace of public corruption is legion. The New York Post's expose of Andrew Cuomo is telling. The New York Post writes, ". . . Gov. Cuomo’s political interference with his Moreland Commission panel’s investigation of public corruption pulled the veil from one of the biggest open secrets at the state Capitol: The governor is a liar and almost anything he promises will turn out to be false. Cuomo’s betrayal of major pledges is well known: the promise to cut taxes in a meaningful way, encourage job creation without government handouts, reduce local mandates, conduct public work transparently and have science — not politics — determine if fracking can be done safely.But it wasn’t until it Cuomo violated his No. 1 pledge to rid New York of the “culture of corruption’’ that has dominated Albany for decades that the full extent of his betrayal of the public became clear.People who have known Cuomo for years, including some who go back to the days he served as the thuggish chief enforcer of his father, then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, say they aren’t surprised Cuomo’s penchant for lying has finally exploded in full public view.Andrew Cuomo has surrounded himself with unsavory characters. His own disreputable character is longstanding and his ties to unsavory types deeply entrenched. A case in point: Joe Percoco, a former aide to Governor Cuomo who was sentenced for public corruption. The times union, pointing to charges brought against Percoco in a federal bribery and fraud case, in 2016—which, according to the NY Post, subsequently led to Percoco's conviction on several charges—said that:“Joe Percoco, ‘has long been a bruising political enforcer at times feared by those in the Capitol sphere.‘Trained as a lawyer, he had the guts, brains and stick-to-itiveness necessary to attack any project — hard,’ Gov. Andrew Cuomo called his longtime confidant and former aide in his 2014 memoir, ‘All Things Possible.’ Percoco [first] worked for Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario, during his time as governor, beginning political life at the age of 19, according to Cuomo's memoir. At Mario Cuomo's January 2015 funeral, Andrew Cuomo called Percoco ‘my father's third son, who sometimes I think he loved the most.” 

ANDREW CUOMO IS, DEFINED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS DEFINED, SECOND—WHETHER THROUGH PERSONAL CONVICTION OR SIMPLY THROUGH POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY—WITH THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AS HE HAS, THROUGH BOTH HIS WORDS, AND ACTIONS, CAST THE FATE OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE WITH THAT FAR LEFT-WING POLITICAL FACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Andrew Cuomo is known as the man who, more than anything else, detests the Second Amendment, and the NRA, and all those Americans, the silent majority who reside both in New York and in the heartland of this Nation. Nothing defines Cuomo more than his utter contempt for, and his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. His signature Legislation, the New York Safe Act, more than anything else, defines what he stands for and what his vision for America consists of. The NY Safe Act is a testament to his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Residents of other States may scoff at Cuomo, perceiving him to be little more than a political con artist who, for political reasons, has consciously, calculatedly cast his lot with the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party, who also detest the Second Amendment and who have, of late, insinuated themselves inextricably into the web of the Democratic Party machinery. Centrists within the Democratic Party seem powerless to constrain these insurgent progressive left elements, or otherwise lack the will to do so, and have capitulated to their aims and wishes.The Democratic Party is the mechanism through which these insurgent progressive elements intend to destroy this Nation; and the centrist liberal elements within the Party, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have shown, through their clearly abject weakness, a willingness to join these progressive forces by either echoing the sentiments of their sentiments and aims or otherwise standing by placidly, ineffectively, unable or unwilling to control them.  Make no mistake about this. The Progressive Left in this Nation seeks to undermine this Nation’s sovereignty, and to undercut this Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration, as the 45th President of the United States, the Progressive Left in this Country have been systematically working toward their destructive goals—although more openly than they had wished; for, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, much to their surprise and consternation, they have been forced to show their hand.To accomplish their reprehensible goal, those who would destroy our Nation and who would destroy our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values have launched an all-out war—a war against the very foundation of our free Republic and of a free People: a war against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is destruction of the Second Amendment that exists, first and foremost, in their crosshairs. It is the destruction of the Second Amendment they want. It is destruction of the Second Amendment they need.  And it is the destruction of the Second Amendment they intend to bring off, to effectuate their ultimate goal: subordination of the Country as an independent sovereign Nation State; subordination of the Nation's Constitution and the Nation's laws to international laws and international tribunals; and the erasing of our history, traditions, and values, and the subversion of the very concept of  'citizen,' paving the way for the infusion of tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the heart of our Country. To accomplish their despicable end game, Andrew Cuomo is their man.The destroyers of this Nation, no less so than the silent majority, know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the very backbone of this Nation. Were the Second Amendment eliminated, the entirety of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, along with the autonomy and sanctity of the American citizen, and, too, the very structure of this Nation’s Government, as laid out in the Articles, as set forth in the Constitution, would topple like a house of cards. The socialists, communists, anarchists, and those that finance their operations in this Country are working tirelessly, unceasingly to see that this happens. The silent majority in this Country, for their part, must see to it that this doesn’t happen.

ANDREW CUOMO ATTACKS THE NRA

Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)). Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRA a terrorist organization. Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization, these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of our Constitution and its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent. At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.

NRA FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO

On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit, NRA sets forth: “This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York. This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether. 

ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!

Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA--as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights--an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone,  as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred  Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority. Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights, and therefore disdainful of all those--the silent majority of this Nation--that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation "safe" and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.

IN CONCLUSION

Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights; fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority._____________________*The expression, ‘silent majority,’—referring to the vast majority of American citizens throughout the Country whose voice is drowned out by the cacophony of noise incessantly, unceasingly, and obnoxiously generated by the mainstream media and by a vocal minority of extremists around the Country and in the halls of Congress whom the mainstream media represents and with whom the mainstream media is closely identified—is, perhaps, most closely associated with and most likely popularized by President Richard Nixon, after a speech he gave to the Nation in 1969. But, significantly, it was President John F. Kennedy, not Nixon, who earlier coined the expression. The expression appears in President Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Profiles in Courage,”where he wrote: “Some of them may have been representing the actual sentiments of the silent majority of their constituents in opposition to the screams of a vocal minority. . . .”  **See August 3, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in the Daily News, and the August 5, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in The New York Times. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: FURTHER EROSION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EMPIRE STATE, AS ENVISIONED BY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO

While Congressional and State Democrats and Centrist Republicans fret over and complain about President Donald Trump’s lawful immigration enforcement actions, directed at tens of thousands of aliens attempting illegal entry across our Nation's Southern Border, these same members of Congress and legislators in State Government are no less busy, albeit at the moment ever so quietly, at work machinating to deprive American citizens’ of their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is singularly odd that Congressional and State legislators and various State and Government officials and media commentators of a liberal bent bemoan what they describe, with a rhetorical flourish, as Border Patrol agents “stripping (or ripping) children from the arms of migrant Moms and Dads” who, for all that, when one stops to consider, have dared enter our Nation illegally. And, it is equally odd that these same legislators and federal Government officials and leftist media commentators wrongly and unabashedly slur federal ICE agents for simply doing their job, for the benefit of the citizens of this Country, and at considerable risk to their own lives, arresting illegal aliens who—showing contempt for our laws, having  illicitly entered our Country and having embedded themselves in our Nation, and who having further compounded their criminal actions by failing to report to the Courts for their deportation hearing—dare argue that these criminals have a moral and legal right to remain lawfully in our Country. And, third, these leftist legislators, leftist Government officials and leftist mainstream media types attempt, outrageously, to inflame public passion over HHS handling of illegal alien children and adults. But, these illegal aliens have dared to skirt our immigration and naturalization laws by entering our Country illegally. These leftist legislators and leftist Government officials and leftist news reporters and commentators ludicrously liken HHS detention of illegal aliens to concentration camp internment, yet, at once fail to acknowledge one inescapable, indisputable fact: American Government officials have not rounded up illegal aliens, spiriting them out of their native Countries, forcing them into detention in the United States.  No! These aliens came illegally to our Country through their own volition. They are, then, by any reasonable consideration, hardly in a position to contest their less than five star hotel treatment.Yet, despite, arguing for the existence of rights and liberties these illegal aliens simply do not have, and never have had--rights and liberties they would nonetheless lavishly bestow on illegal aliens--these sanctimonious leftist Congressional and State legislators, and leftist federal Government officials, and leftist media types, surprisingly, do not demonstrate equal concern for protecting the unalienable and fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms. We see just the opposite to be the case. These leftist Congressional and State legislators work strenuously, tirelessly to strip or rip away a sacred right of the American people, codified clearly and succinctly in the U.S. Constitution. And, our free Press, constantly heralding the right to spout dangerous nonsense—a right, just the same, protected under the First Amendment, constantly, consistently echo the work of these leftist Congressional and State legislators, proclaiming, and arguing for, the imposition of ever more restraints on the citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, some among the media's commentators, like the New York Times' Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, even argue, outrageously and insidiously, for outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—even though it is only through the preservation of and through the continued force and efficacy of the fundamental, sacred, and natural right codified in the Second Amendment that the ultimate, failsafe check by the People, on a runaway autocratic Government, exists to impose accountability on a Government that might run amok.

LEFTISTS PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, ACCRUING TO ALIEN PEOPLES, THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, DARE TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOST SALIENT FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT CLEARLY, AND LITERALLY DOES EXIST, AS MANIFESTLY CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION.

In point of fact no non-citizen can assert, as a matter of right, a bald claim to reside in our Nation. Still, many individuals in Government, in the mainstream media, in entertainment, in liberal and socialist groups, along with “elitist” internationalists, assert that virtually anyone who seeks to reside in our Nation has the right to do so even when no such right exists either in our Constitution or in our Nation’s Statutes. At one and the same time these same leftists exclaim vociferously, incessantly, and inconsistently that parts of our Nation’s Constitution ought to be and can be patently ignored, even where the rights are etched firmly in stone.A collectivist mentality infects the airwaves. Collectivists have carefully orchestrated a campaign of propaganda, a campaign designed to divest a Nation’s people of their cultural heritage and history, of their sense of uniqueness and pride. These destroyers of the Nation State utilize a flexible sense of morality, predicated on utilitarian axioms that proceed from the notion that what is in the best interests of the world’s multitude, overrides what is in the best interests of the citizens of a Nation; and that what is deemed to be right, and fitting, and good, and fair, and just, in accordance with collectivist ideology, overrides the laws of a Nation; overrides a Nation’s Constitution; overrides the very needs, rights, personal safety, and sanctity of the individual citizen of a Nation.Collectivists do not like the fact that our Nation is an independent sovereign Nation State and that our Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation, operates through a set of concrete laws, and through a Constitution that exists as the supreme Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution and the laws that Congress enacts are not subject to acceptance or rejection on a whim, predicated, ostensibly, on a collectivist notion of what constitutes correct action and what constitutes eggregious action. To deny the truth of this statement is to accept in its stead, a state of lawlessness, of anarchy. It is this lawlessness, this anarchy, that the destroyers of our Nation seek, even as they disingenuously and insidiously claim to defend our Constitution and the laws of the Nation. Consider, for example, the confounding, bizarre Collectivist message that proclaims a desire to destroy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And through the softening of our Nation’s laws and of our Nation’s Constitution, we, ourselves, become weakened, malleable. In the end, a new international world order, overseeing the conduct of all Nation States, would predominate, and our own free Republic would, in fact, not merely in name, cease to exist.Contrary to those dissemblers of our Nation, our Constitution is not to be toyed with. Our Country ceases to exist but for our Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made patently clear in the seminal immigration law case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270; 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1063; 108 L. Ed. 2d 222, 236; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1175, that: “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution” “[and that] for better or worse, we live a world of nation-states in which our Government must be able to ‘function effectively in the company of [other] sovereign nations.’” 494 U.S. at 275; 110 S. Ct. at 1066; 108 L. Ed. 2d at 239. President Donald Trump understands this limitation and accepts this limitation and operates within the confines of our laws and our Constitution. And, by the same token, President Trump understands his duty, as Chief Executive of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation-State, to maintain the integrity of our Nation’s Borders.Unfortunately there are all too many members of Congress and in the State Legislatures who allow raw emotion to cloud their judgment. They remonstrate against the President even as he operates within the stricture of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”Emotion must never override nor cloud reason. Collectivist notions of morality are not and never have been a justifiable reason for ignoring the authority of and stricture of Constitutional precepts. Yet, Democrats and Centrist Republicans—through the echo chamber of the mainstream media—daily denigrate our Constitution and our Statutes even as they assert, disingenuously, to operate within the confines of the rule of law.Both in the matter of immigration and naturalization matters and in the matter of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, we, Americans, are constantly beset with a fusillade of false and misleading pronouncements aimed at confusing us as to the meaning of and purport of our Statutes and of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.Even before the two mass shooting incidents—one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, and the second at Santa Fe High School, in Santa Fe, Texas—State legislators contrived new ways to deprive citizens of owning any firearm, thereby directly impinging on and infringing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States started looking at further ways to impede the citizen’s exercise of his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms.In New York, for example, in March 2017, Democrat, Brian Kavanagh, introduced A.B. 6994, in the State Assembly. The bill is described as: “AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the criminal procedure law and the penal law, in relation to establishing extreme risk protection orders as court-issued orders of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.” AB 6994 has already passed the Assembly—the First Chamber of the New York State Government, in Albany New York—and it now sits in the Second Chamber, the New York State Senate. AB 6994 appears, fortunately, at least at this moment in time, to have a low chance of passage, but such passage should not be ruled out, especially in light of the two fairly recent high school mass shooting incidents.Those Americans who support our Second Amendment should bear in mind that New York’s AB 6994—along with similar predecessor bills that were introduced in the New York Assembly or State Senate, and that failed—is an altogether new restriction on gun owners. If enacted, this bill amounts not merely to a change in existing restrictive New York gun laws, but to the creation of a wholly new restriction in conjunction with New York’s present, extensive, oppressive set of restrictive gun laws.If enacted into law, AB 6994 says that “the civil practice law and rules are amended by adding a new article 63-A.”What does the bill say? The bill sets forth both the rationale and requirements, in addition those presently existent in New York, for removing firearms from a New York resident’s possession, along with a detailed list of mechanisms for such removal.

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: A NEW AND OUTRAGEOUS TWIST ON AN OLD LEGAL DEVICE--ORDERS OF PROTECTION AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

We first set forth the bill in its entirety, and then explicate the salient portions of the bill.AB 6994 [AMENDING ARTICLE 63-A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK]:[NOTE: UPPER CASE LETTERS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BILL; NUMBERING HAS BEEN REMOVED GIVEN EDITING DIFFICULTIES]EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERSDEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE:‘EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER’ MEANS A COURT-ISSUED ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM PURCHASING, POSSESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.‘PETITIONER’ MEANS: (A) A POLICE OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY OR CITY WHERE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT RESIDES; OR (B) A FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE-A OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, OF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT.‘RESPONDENT’ MEANS THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS OR MAY BE SOUGHT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.APPLICATION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, A PETITIONER MAY FILE A SWORN APPLICATION, AND ACCOMPANYING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT RESIDES. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. SUCH APPLICATION FORM SHALL INCLUDE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER KNOWS, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE RESPONDENT OWNS, POSSESSES OR HAS ACCESS TO A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN AND IF SO, A REQUEST THAT THE PETITIONER LIST OR DESCRIBE SUCH FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS, AND THE RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS THEREOF, WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE.A STATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT: DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT PURCHASE, POSSESS OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHILE THE ORDER IS IN EFFECT AND THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN POSSESSED BY SUCH RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROMPTLY SURRENDERED TO ANY AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL;INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING NO SOONER THAN THREE NOR MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WILL BE ISSUED AND THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF SUCH HEARING, PROVIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX DAYS UPON REQUEST IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING; AND (III) INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THE HE OR SHE MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY AND THAT AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY; ANDA FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHICH ELICITS A LIST OF ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULAR LOCATION OF EACH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LISTED.IF THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE PETITIONER AND, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER, NONETHELESS SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD PROMPTLY, BUT IN ANY EVENT NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. A NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE COURT AND SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ADDRESS OF THE COURT, AND THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF ANY SUCH PROTECTION ORDER, ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.UPON ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, OR UPON SETTING A HEARING FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHERE A TEMPORARY ORDER IS DENIED OR NOT REQUESTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO THE COURT AND, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE REDACTIONS TO PROTECT ANY PERSON, EACH PARTY REGARDING WHETHER THE RESPONDENT:HAS ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, USE OF A WEAPON, OR OTHER VIOLENCE;HAS ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE OR VIOLATION CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST HIM OR HER;IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE OR PROBATION;POSSESSES ANY REGISTERED FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS; ANDHAS BEEN, OR IS, SUBJECT TO ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION OR HAS VIOLATED OR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION.ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, NO SOONER THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS NOR LATER THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, ALTERNATIVELY, NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THIS ARTICLE WHERE NO TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, WHEN APPLICABLE, WHETHER A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED BY, OR REMOVED FROM, THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS IF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. WHERE NO TEMPORARY ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THE TEN DAYS TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING.AT THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE PETITIONER SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW. THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE PETITION AND ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, ANY TESTIMONY PRESENTED, AND THE REPORT OF THE RELEVANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE. THE COURT SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.AFTER THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION. IF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH ORDER IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.UPON ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER: (I) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN REMOVED PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR SUCH EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER, UNLESS OWNERSHIP OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; (II) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ANY EXISTING FIREARM LICENSE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ORDER THE RESPONDENT TEMPORARILY INELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A LICENSE; (III) THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; AND (IV) THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION.AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND, AS SPECIFIED BY THE COURT, FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF SUCH ORDER WAS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THEN THE DURATION OF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN A RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER AND ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN HAS BEEN SURRENDERED BY OR REMOVED FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENTLY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF PROOF, THE COURT'S FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A WRITTEN ORDER, ISSUED TO ALL PARTIES, DIRECTING THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT.IF ANY OTHER PERSON DEMONSTRATES THAT HE OR SHE IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AND PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE PERSON'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED OR REMOVED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT MAY, AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, DIRECT THAT SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BE RETURNED TO SUCH LAWFUL OWNER.THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED ON THE RECORD AND IN WRITING BY THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE MAY SUBMIT ONE WRITTEN REQUEST, AT ANY TIME DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, FOR A HEARING SETTING ASIDE ANY PORTION OF SUCH ORDER. THE REQUEST SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS. UPON SUCH REQUEST, THE COURT SHALL PROMPTLY HOLD A HEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ANY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY JUSTIFY A CHANGE TO THE ORDER.SURRENDER AND REMOVAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS PURSUANT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TAKES ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS TAKEN A RECEIPT OR VOUCHER FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY IN DETAIL. IN THE ABSENCE OF A PERSON, THE OFFICER SHALL LEAVE THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER IN THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND, MAIL A COPY OF THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER, RETAINING PROOF OF MAILING, TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND, IF DIFFERENT, THE OWNER OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND FILE A COPY OF SUCH RECEIPT OR VOUCHER WITH THE COURT. ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SHALL BE RETAINED AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS UNLESS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF THE LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS JOINTLY OCCUPIED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES, AND A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LOCATED DURING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDER IS OWNED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT MAY ALLOW RETURN OF SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IF IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WILL BE SAFELY STORED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 265.45 OF THE PENAL LAW, SO THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR CONTROL OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BY THE OWNER.REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IF A PETITIONER BELIEVES A PERSON SUBJECT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER CONTINUES TO BE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SUCH PETITIONER MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH EXISTING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, INITIATE A REQUEST FOR A RENEWAL OF SUCH ORDER, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING THE REQUEST. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTYTHREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE, DURING THE PERIOD THAT A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTYTHREE OF THIS ARTICLE, TO DETERMINE IF A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF THE ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE SERVED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH APPLICATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.EXPIRATION OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. 1. A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND ALL RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, SHALL BE SEALED UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH ORDER AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, THE HEADS OF ALL APPROPRIATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT THE ORDER HAS EXPIRED AND THAT THE RECORD OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE SEALED AND NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY, EXCEPT THAT SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO:(A)    THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATED AGENT;(B)     COURTS IN THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;(C)     POLICE FORCES AND DEPARTMENTS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE GENERAL CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATE;(D)    ANY STATE OR LOCAL OFFICER OR AGENCY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAS MADE APPLICATION FOR SUCH A LICENSE; AND(E)      ANY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SUBDIVISIONS THIRTY-THREE AND THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AS A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS AN APPLICANT FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF ALL RECORDS OBTAINED UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH AND AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION THERETO.UPON EXPIRATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE AND UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE PETITIONER AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARM LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR OF THIS ARTICLE. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.EFFECT OF FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY CLAIM BASED ON COMMON LAW OR A PROVISION OF ANY OTHER LAW, NO FINDING OR DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INTERPRETED AS BINDING, OR HAVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR SIMILAR EFFECT, IN ANY OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER DETERMINATION OR FINDING, IN ANY COURT, FORUM OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.PARAGRAPH (B) OF SUBDIVISION 5 OF SECTION 530.14 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, AS ADDED BY CHAPTER 644 OF THE LAWS OF 1996, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE PROMPT SURRENDER OF ONE OR MORE FIREARMS PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY SURRENDER FOR PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 OF THE PENAL LAW. THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH FIREARMS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW  ; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT UPON TERMINATION OF ANY SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-TWO-A OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE PROTECTED PARTY, AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE SUBJECT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, ANY COURT OF RECORD EXERCISING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.________________________________________________________ 

1. AN EXPLICATION OF AB 6994

A couple of observations are in order. First, this bill is not to be considered an adjunct of the Federal “Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994” even though a family member, pursuant to both AB 6994 and the Federal Act, may petition the Court for protection against another family member. Under both AB 6994, in the event it becomes law in New York, and, under the federal domestic violence statute, an individual, against whom a Court order is issued, will lose possession of firearms. That much is the same and is clear.In New York, revocation or suspension of firearms licenses, and concomitantly, loss of one’s firearms follows upon issuance of an order of protection. See, NY CLS CPL § 530.14. Second, the merits of statutes aimed at protecting individuals against violence notwithstanding, Americans are in danger of turning against each other as we become a Nation of undercover “shooflies,” constantly reporting on each other, turning family member against family member and turning the police against everyone.In their zeal to protect society from the misuse of firearms, antigun proponents attempt to negate the import of the Second Amendment altogether, leaving ever more people altogether defenseless against criminal assailants. No matter, as antigun groups would rather the Second Amendment did not exist at all. But, the codification of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, and the constant whittling away of that right under the mask of promoting public safety is not lost on those of us who place the Nation’s well-being on the strength of the citizenry’s Bill of Rights.In reviewing AB 6994, there is a presumption in the bill that sufficient due process requirements are met. But are they? Police officers and district attorneys and family members may both file a petition for a “temporary extreme protection order.” Once filed, that petition takes effect immediately, namely, prior to an evidentiary hearing. The individual against whom the petition is issued immediately loses his or her firearms, as the police are authorized to secure those weapons at once. The respondent is informed of a hearing date to present his case, and the petitioner has the burden of showing that the threat posed by the respondent warrants issuance of a permanent extreme protection order.  Disconcertingly, even before a hearing is held, the Court will notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the issuance of a temporary extreme protection order. That hardly accords with protecting the civil rights of an individual before he has had a chance to proffer evidence in his or her own defense that may warrant revocation of the temporary extreme protection order.As bad as this bill is, for Governor Cuomo, AB 6994, as written, doesn’t go far enough. He would include in the role of petitioners entitled to file for “temporary extreme protection orders,” classroom teachers, along with police officers, district attorneys, and family members. On June 5, 2018, wskg.org, in Albany New York, reported that:“Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed an expansion to his Extreme Risk Protection Order bill that would give teachers the power to go to court to prevent a student’s access to guns.Cuomo said the measure gives that power to teachers and school administrators who believe a student might use guns to be a danger to themselves or others.“If a teacher believes there is a troubled student who might be dangerous, that teacher has the legal authority to go to a judge directly,” Cuomo said.A judge could then determine whether the student needs a mental health exam, and whether the student’s or their family’s guns should be taken away.”The session is scheduled to end in a couple of weeks, and Cuomo concedes that he does not expect the measure to pass in the state Senate, which is gridlocked with 31 seats each in the Democratic and Republican factions.But Cuomo said he believes people in the state overwhelmingly support the measure and predicted that it will become an election issue in the fall.”It need hardly be said that teachers are not trained psychologists; nor are they police officers who deal with criminals on a daily basis; nor are they district attorneys, trained in the law; nor are they family members who have an intimate familial relationship with each other; and yet Governor Cuomo would bestow immense authority onto teachers to petition Courts directly against their students with whom they spend little time with. Of course, if teachers truly believe that a student poses a danger to self or others, the teacher may inform and should inform school officials. But, it is one thing for teachers to exercise authority to inform school officials of a possible danger posed by a particular student. It is quite another to grant to a teacher, on his or her own behalf, the power to file a petition with a court to secure a temporary extreme risk protection order. Imagine how this would play out, were a teacher permitted under law to secure such a protection order. Once such an extreme risk protection order issues, police officers would be empowered to go to the student’s home, and with court order in hand, the police would have the authority to secure the firearms belonging to the student’s parents, under the presumption that the student would otherwise be able to gain access to his or her parents’ firearms. The parent’s own firearm’s license would thereupon be suspended. If this scenario seems unlikely, keep in mind that Governor Cuomo hasn’t suggested any checks against such an occurrence. Bear in mind that in the few States that have enacted extreme risk protection laws, none have gone so far as to permit teachers to file such a petition. But, then, few individuals in any State have as far-reaching political ambitions as does Governor Andrew Cuomo, in preempting the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We will have to wait and see how AB 6994 plays out in the months ahead and whether Governor Cuomo’s desire to expand AB 6994 results in further amendment prior to further action in Albany. But, we know full well Cuomo's antithesis toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo has frustrated the right of citizens of the State to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That is bad enough; yet his power is constrained, limited to New York. But, Cuomo's ambitions extend well beyond that of Governor of a State. Cuomo has aspirations to become President of the United States in 2020. Were that to happen, the war he would wage against the Second Amendment would be far worse for Americans--the likes of which Americans have not yet seen--having a ripple effect throughout the Country._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ORDER, BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, LIKELY VIOLATES FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

CAN A STATE OR ANY JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE BAN PUBLIC GUN SHOWS OUTRIGHT, WITHOUT ILLEGALY TRAMPLING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

“And, now, come to this spot Where the spotlight is hot And you’ll see in the spotlight A Juggling Jott Who can juggle some stuff You might think he could not. . . Such as twenty-two question marks, Which is a lot. Also forty-four commas And, also, one dot! That’s the kind of Circus McGurkus I’ve got!” ~ From the Children’s Book, “If I Ran the Circus," by Dr. Seuss (published by Random House 1956) 

We see with disturbing regularity, Governments, be they the federal Government, a State Government, or Government of a County, township, or municipality, blindly, indiscriminately, with stunning alacrity, and feverish abandon, enacting laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, or, as in the case, recently, in the County of Westchester, in the State of New York, an Executive Order that negatively impacts substantive, fundamental Constitutional Rights. Those in power, like the Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, seek, in the fiefdom, they "rule," a fanciful, but nightmarish world, a personal circus, that mirrors a conception of reality acceptable to them--a conception of reality consistent with their personal philosophy and ethical system but one at once inconsistent with the blueprint for a free Republic that the founders of our Nation designed and established for the American people, and one inconsistent with the rights and liberties that the framers of our Bill of Rights insisted on as a critical component of the Nation's Constitution, as a safeguard against the very actions that people such as George Latimer take. People, like the present Westchester County Executive, filled with their own smug certainty of what is right and proper, would dare to force the ordinary citizens, who reside in their domain of power, to live in the "circus" they create, compelled to obey and abide by the law they lay down, irrespective of natural law, codified as sacred rights and liberties comprising our Bill of Rights--rights existent intrinsically in each American citizen, as placed in each American soul, by the hand of the Divine Creator, that no man, acting as a demigod, may rationally and lawfully counteract or nullify.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER OVERTURNS THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, ROB ASTORINO.

On January 2, 2018, George Latimer, a Democrat, took the oath of Office in his White Plains, New York Office, as the new County Executive of Westchester County, and wasted no time to attack the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “On his second day as Westchester County Executive, George Latimer delivered on a promise from in [sic] his campaign, and signed an Executive Order prohibiting the sale of guns on Westchester County property.” What precipitated this Executive Order? Apparently, George Latimer sought to reimpose on the American public that resides in Westchester County an earlier ban on public gun shows ordered by a prior Westchester County Executive, Andrew J. Spano, that had been lifted by George Latimer's immediate predecessor, Rob Astorino. As explained, further, on the Westchester Government website,“In 1999, gun shows were banned at the Westchester County Center by former County Executive Andrew J. Spano [a Democrat] in the wake of the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. That prohibition was later revoked by Latimer’s immediate predecessor [Rob Astorino, a Republican].‘Westchester County government should not be in the business of advancing the sale of weapons and other items often sold at gun shows – plain and simple,’ said Latimer. ‘This is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but rather just on public land.’Text from the Executive Order states that 'WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth. Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for.'"Several websites dryly report this event; several with approval, some not.The seesawing of actions, up and down, back and forth—where one Westchester County Executive bans public guns shows, another County Executive lifts the ban, and a third County Executive reimposes the public gun show ban—reflects a clash of philosophies pertaining to import and purport of the Second Amendment, and to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well, played out on a small scale. How this clash of philosophies ultimately pans out, when fought out on the broad national scale, in Congress and in the U.S. Supreme Court, though, will have, for the American citizenry, vast implications and ramifications, for good or ill, for generations of Americans to come.

THE INDEFATIGABLE OBSTINANCE OF THOSE FORCES THAT DENIGRATE AND REFUSE TO TOLERATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

George Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, represents the latest effort of antigun forces to place obstacles in the path of those American citizens who, as Latimer and his fellow travelers see it, have the audacity to exercise the natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that the framers codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The framers, for their part, with clarity of foresight, provided to them with guidance from Divine Providence, saw abundant need for this sacred right to be codified in the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights, the founders of our free Republic, knew full well that nothing but force of arms serves to check tyranny and nothing but force of arms best protects the life, well-being, and sanctity of the individual. Thus, as Latimer and his cohorts in the antigun conspiracy take exception with those American citizens who wish merely to exercise, unimpeded, the right to own and possess firearms for their protection and to safeguard the continued existence of a free Republic, George Latimer and his antigun cohorts must also take exception with the framers of the Bill of Rights, for it is they, who made clear enough, beyond the power of anyone to ignore, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, that the right is sacred and indelible, and that this right, more than any other, defines our Nation and defines what it means to be an American citizen.

GEORGE LATIMER LAYS OUT FOR THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA PRESS THE PREDICATE BASIS FOR HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, SIGNALING HIS VEHEMENT DISAPPROVAL OF FIREARMS AND HIS STRONG DISAPPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Where George Latimer’s sympathies lie on matters pertaining to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, one can readily ascertain. Talking to the Press, Latimer resorts to use of simplistic, superficial, banal political oratory, eschewing erudite, logical discourse—treating the public with condescension and contempt, as politicians customarily and most sadly do—punctuating his well-rehearsed talking points with the confident self-assurance and moral certitude of a televangelist delivering a weekly sermon to his TV audience. “Latimer said Tuesday that gun shows do not represent the family values reflected in the other events held at the county facilities. The ban is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but just on public land, he said. ‘The County Center hosts basketball, Westchester Knicks play there in the developmental league, we have had the Harlem Globetrotters come in for performances, we have a bridal show coming up, we have a model train show that normally comes into the arena, we have job fairs and high school graduations and concerts, all very friendly family fare,’ he said.”The County Executive, George Latimer, also proclaims: “I believe the majority of the Board of Legislators, and myself as executive, believe very strongly that this is the wrong venue for a gun show. . . .” Well, who would dare oppose George Latimer; for, after all, as stated in County Code: “The County Executive shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the county and the official head of the county government.” Westchester County Code of Ordinances, Part I, Charter, Article 110, County Executive.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S BAN ON PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY SIGNALS HIS SUPPORT OF GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD GUNS AND THE GOVERNOR'S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

As George Latimer, County Executive, sets his imprimatur on the County level, one would do well to recall Governor Andrew Cuomo’s own actions, negatively infringing the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the State level. After all, it was Governor Cuomo who signed into law, on January 15, 2013, and who exclaims with visible pride, enactment of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY Safe Act), one of the most restrictive and draconian set of firearms laws ever to be enacted in the United States—and a direct and clear repudiation of and affront to the fundamental right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other anti-Second Amendment Governors have used the NY Safe Act as a model for enactment of their own restrictive firearms laws. And, on the national stage, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein had envisioned and had hopes of engineering similar NY Safe Act legislation for the entire Nation—a direct and cold and calculated and audacious challenge to any American citizen who might wish to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, she did not succeed in that endeavor. But, like a true fanatic, she employs indefatigable resolve, constantly introducing anti-Second Amendment bills in the U.S. Senate, and forever scheming behind closed doors.Antigun Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, and Senator Dianne Feinstein know they can always rely on the mainstream news media to trumpet, with great fanfare, their antigun message.

THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA “PRESS” SERVES IS OWN ENDS, AND THOSE OF ITS BENEFACTORS—THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL, RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST GLOBAL “ELITE” THAT IT OBSEQUIOUSLY SERVES—TO DENIGRATE, INCESSANTLY, UNCEASINGLY, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Arguably, one of the most unforgiveable actions of the ‘mainstream news media’—where the expression, ‘mainstream news media,’ is generally equated with the term, 'Press,' as the word, ‘Press,’ appears prominently in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution —is that the Press, id est, “this mainstream news media Press,” fails to defend the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. That is bad enough. Worse, the mainstream news media Press caustically, audaciously, and emphatically attacks those who defend the right codified in the Second Amendment. This mainstream news media Press, scurrilously abets the actions of those governmental leaders, who, with the power they wield through the Legislative Office they hold, do their utmost to undermine, rather than defend the right.Mainstream news media organization newspaper publishers like The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, and USA Today, and mainstream news media broadcast outlets like ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and BBC all provide a quick and ready and willing forum for those Congressional and State legislators and for those antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and for those obstreperous left-wing agitators that allows them to malign those American citizens who hold to traditional American values and who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. With customary malicious and malevolent bravado, and self-assured smugness, these mainstream news media newspapers and other mainstream media news organizations and their affiliates denigrate the Second Amendment and denigrate those who support it and denigrate those who support the framers' conception of the other Nine Amendments as well. Through their commentary and  Op-Eds, and through their news reporting, too--where mainstream media news coverage is seen less as hard, so-called "straight" news and more as editorial slants posing as news stories--these mainstream media news organizations deliberately and disingenuously concoct a central theme, a story-line, a story narrative, that, day-by-day, builds upon the story of the day before, not unlike what one sees when reading a work of fiction,that, chapter by chapter, builds sequentially on what came before, to a pre-ordained conclusion that the author mandates in the template for the work of fiction that the author creates.This same mainstream news media Press malevolently assails, with sanctimonious conviction and obvious glee, anyone who might dare challenge its pronouncements; for, the Press quickly reminds the American public that freedom of the Press is, after all, a fundamental right, even as that same Press insists that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t. The irony in the claim—selectively and vehemently defending one fundamental right while viciously attacking another—is, apparently, lost on those who work for the mainstream news media Press, even if that irony isn’t lost on any other American.So, it should not be surprising that some Governmental leaders operate with characteristic aplomb and abandon to enact laws and take actions that undercut the right of the people to keep and bear arms as they have a powerful ally in the mainstream news media Press on their side. George Latimer evidently knows he has the backing of this mainstream news media Press, and with this Press on his side, he acts with impunity. Together, with a compliant County Government he leads, he obviously feels confident that his bold, legally dubious Executive Order, banning public gun shows, will go essentially unchallenged. For, who would dare confront him?Well, the Arbalest Quarrel does challenge Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County. And, we do proclaim loudly, assertively and confidently: Meaningful, compelling, deserving and discerning bases exist, in law, to challenge County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order, on that portion of the Executive Order we have seen, as posted on the County Government website.Why do we say this? We have the weight of legal authority on our side.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ACTION, BANNING PUBLIC SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY IS LIKELY UNLAWFUL, AND A COGENT LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR CHALLENGING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN COURT.

Granted, the Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t had an opportunity to review the full text of George Latimer’s Executive Order. The reason is that the full text of the Executive Order has not been published on the Westchester County website. In time, perhaps, the full text of the Executive Order will be posted on the County Government website. There is, apparently, more to it.But, what we do see, from that portion of the Executive Order that has been published, namely that “recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for,” says enough for purpose of challenging the lawfulness of the Order. For, consistent with and supportive of George Latimer’s sentiments about firearms and about gun shows, as expressed to the mainstream news media Press, along with the language of the Executive Order itself, we conclude the language of the Order, as buttressed by the Westchester County Executive’s statements to the mainstream news media Press, demonstrate not only the County Executive’s open and visceral abhorrence of firearms, and not only his distaste for the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and not only his contempt for American citizens who wish to exercise that right, but constitute, too, unconscionable violations of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.That portion of the Westchester County Executive Order we have read, be it coupled with the Westchester County Executive’s statements to mainstream media newspapers and broadcast outlets, or not, amounts to an open admission of violation of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.The Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis in a future article. Suffice it to say, here, that George Latimer’s Executive Order, through its very language, contravenes United States Supreme Court law.In critical part, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, in the 1994 case, Turner Broadcasting System vs. FCC, 512 U.S. 622; 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. at 449 (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971));West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 640-642, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943). Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions ‘raise the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’ Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,  414, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989). Our precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at; id., at (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. National Federation for Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. at 798; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, supra. In contrast, regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 104 S. Ct. 3065 (1984), because in most cases they pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Let’s deconstruct a portion of this high Court opinion: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.” There is a marked tension between the words of the U.S. Supreme Court and the words expressed in Westchester County Executive’s Order; for the language of the Executive Order stands in clear, categorical defiance to the well-reasoned opinion of the high Court in Turner. Again, the specific language of the Westchester County Executive Order of George Latimer reads: “WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for [emphasis our own].” This is a presumptuous, arrogant assertion. Latimer predicates this Executive Order on, and attempts to support an unlawful and despicable Governmental act on, false moral piety. It is a ruse; no less so, if George Latimer truly believes that his Executive Order is justified because, in his mind, he has generated it from a sense of superior moral conviction, and sees it as an act of beneficence toward the residents of Westchester rather than, for what it really is, an act of defiance toward the supreme authority, establishing, in no uncertain words, the fundamental rights and liberties etched in stone in the Bill of Rights. Yet, Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, is nothing less than illegal gag order on free expression, posing as a righteous moral edict. For George Latimer is doing no less than thrusting his personal beliefs into the public sphere concerning what he sees, or what he would like to see, as the appropriate use of public County land and what he perceives as not constituting appropriate use of public land. Latimer obviously detests  guns, and he obviously abhors a citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. By banning public gun shows, George Latimer uses his Office to make manifest in law, to actualize in Westchester County, his personal opinions and pompous high-minded moral judgments of what he deems to constitute appropriate behavior and what he signals as inappropriate behavior, informing residents of Westchester County, in no uncertain terms, as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in the County and what does not. Obviously, for George Latimer, those who wish to promote and hold public gun shows and those who wish to attend public gun shows are both engaging in inappropriate, immoral or amoral behavior, and he has signaled his clear disapproval of that behavior through the Executive Order he has issued on the matter. Undoubtedly, we will see more such Executive Orders emanating from his Office in White Plains, New York.George Latimer takes upon himself the role of guardian of public morality, and he has, through issuance of his Executive Order, given himself, albeit tacitly, the title of High Priest of Moral Order and Rectitude. It is George Latimer who determines what behavior is worthy of free speech protection under the First Amendment and what speech is not worthy of such protection, in Westchester County. Through his actions George Latimer demonstrates the height of arrogance and presumption. He uses a heavy hand to constrain the right of free speech that Westchester County residents might, one would think, reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy, as such right is codified in the First Amendment; and he uses a heavy hand to constrain, as well, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment--another fundamental right that Westchester County  residents might, one would think, also reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy. Not so, according to George Latimer. But, the Courts may think differently. Latimer's Executive Order is not likely to stand up to rigorous legal scrutiny. For, contrary to George Latimer’s assertions as manifested in his actions, the Bill of Rights doesn’t stop at the border of Westchester County. Moreover, that the County Executive would deign, at least for a time, to allow gun shows to proceed unimpeded on “private” land within the County, for those Westchester residents who would wish to attend them, the fact that private gun shows may be permitted in Westchester County, when public gun shows cannot, under Latimer's Executive Order, does not suffice to circumvent a charge of Constitutional violations impacting public gun shows, whether private gun shows are a feasible, practical alternative or not.Under our system of laws, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, George Latimer, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, but also as an American citizen, thrusts a personal view toward firearms on others which sees expression as a ban on public gun shows. But, it is one thing for an American citizen to dislike guns, to dislike gun shows, and to dislike the Second Amendment and to hold personal views on what should, in that person's mind constitute limits on free expression under the First Amendment, and, thereupon, to express views consistent with those preferences. That is permitted. That itself reflects a sacred right that an American citizen shall, as he or she wishes, exercise, freely, without constraint. That entails, as well, the sanctity and inviolability of each individual American citizen to be individual--a basic precept that underlies the entirety of the Nation's Bill of Rights. But where, as here, an American citizen—who wields power as a Government official—would dare impose, indeed, inflict, his belief systems on others, by erecting barriers to another American citizen’s fundamental and substantive Constitutional rights, that cannot and must not be borne. Governmental officers are, after all, in this Nation, under our Constitution and under our system of laws, public servants. Their duty is to serve the people, not to command subservience of the people, to bend the will of the American citizenry to that official's will. The Bill of Rights operates as an absolute constraint on the authority of any Governmental official, whether serving at the Federal, State, County, or local level. The Bill of Rights cannot lawfully be overridden, either by Statute or by Executive fiat. The Bill of Rights sets the parameters beyond which no Governmental official is permitted lawfully to enter.The U.S. Supreme Court further stated, in Turner,“As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content-based. See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197, 119 L. Ed. 2d 5, 112 S. Ct. 1846 (1992) (‘Whether individuals may exercise their free-speech rights near polling places  depends entirely on whether their speech is related to a political campaign’); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318-319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333, 108 S. Ct. 1157 (1988) (plurality opinion) (whether municipal ordinance permits individuals to ‘picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not’). By contrast, laws that confer benefits or impose burdens on speech without reference to the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content-neutral. See, e.g.  City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104 S. Ct. 2118 (1984) (ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property ‘is neutral—indeed it is silent—concerning any speaker's point of view’); Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 69 L. Ed. 2d 298, 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981) (State Fair regulation requiring that sales and solicitations take place at designated locations ‘applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds’).”The language of Latimer’s Executive Order is, on its face, content-based, not merely neutral-based. The Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, would, therefore, in our estimate, not withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES DO NOT EXIST IN AN ACADEMIC VACUUM. THEY AFFECT THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS IN A TANGIBLE WAY; AND TWO OR MORE RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF THE SECOND, OFTEN COHERE. THEY OFTEN, AS HERE, IN THE CASE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, GO HAND-IN-HAND.

Much of restrictive gun law legislation, apart from expressly conflicting with the Second Amendment, casts a bright light on the views of those who support such draconian legislation. It is demonstrative evidence for inferring that the proponents of such legislation seek not only to curb exercise of the fundamental, substantive right codified in the Second Amendment, but to curb the American citizen's First Amendment expression of that Second Amendment right. These two Rights go hand-in-hand. When antigun proponents talk disparagingly of a so-called "gun culture" or "culture of guns," that they seek to curb, they really mean to contravene, to place unconstitutional constraints on the free speech clause of the First Amendment too. George Latimer’s Executive Order, unlike many restrictive gun measures, overtly—not merely impliedly—infringes the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, afforded all American citizens and would, if challenged, likely be struck down as an unlawful overt and absolute attempt to control content of speech, well beyond the regulation of time, place, and manner of speech. George Latimer seeks to control expression of what to some constitutes an unpopular view as much as he seeks to contain gun shows in Westchester County. He sees public gun shows as unwanted displays of "gun culture" and of the "culture of guns" that he, along with other like-minded antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs denigrate, They thereupon attempt to contain, constrain and constrict and, eventually, to eradicate gun ownership and gun possession in this Nation, in the tangible, physical sense, But, they go beyond that. They seek much, much more. They seek no less than to eradicate, to excise from the memory of man, from the mind of the American citizenry, the very desire for, the very wish to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms--to erase, then, from the mind of each American citizen that anything sacred exists in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They seek for a day to arrive when people here perceive the Second Amendment as not merely archaic, anachronistic, and obsolete, but incongruent, bizarre, meaningless. To that end the mainstream news media Press and our Nation's Educational system is hard at work--hard at work to disrupt and destroy the Second Amendment and hard at work to destroy the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and hard at work to change the American public's perceptions toward and to severely constrain the notion of freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment

GEORGE LATIMER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY RAISES OTHER LEGAL, AS WELL AS PERTINENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS, APART FROM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER'S NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

George Latimer's Westchester ban on public gun shows in Westchester County--a ban that does not simply regulate time, place and manner of public gun shows but amounts to a total prohibition on gun shows--must be seen for what it really is: pernicious, discriminatory State regulation, operating to deny to a substantial class of American citizens use of a public forum for a legitimate Constitutional purpose. The question posed for review is this: Does not George Latimer's Executive order operate overtly, and unconscionably, and contemptuously to unconstitutionally discriminate against an entire class of citizenry, namely those American citizens who desire to own and possess firearms, by denying to these American citizens a vehicle, in the form of a public forum, through which an American citizen, not under disability, may seek to view and purchase firearms and such other items, such as memorabilia, that an American citizen has the right to own and possess? If an American citizen seeks merely and only to exercise a fundamental, substantive Constitutional right and if a public accommodation allows that citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right, on what basis can a Governmental agent--in this particular case, the County Executive, George Latimer--lawfully deny, in totality, to an American citizen, the use of a public accommodation in which that substantive, Constitutional right may be exercised? If a legal basis does not exist for a total ban on gun shows, then George Latimer's unilateral action constitutes no less than an overt, unconstitutional discrimination against gun owners who desire to own and possess firearms. If true, then, does not George Latimer's Executive order impinge on and infringe the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as operating as an infringement of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and as an infringement of the Second?That George Latimer deigns to allow private gun shows to continue to be held in Westchester County, apart from public gun shows--at least for the time being--does permissible use of private accommodations for gun shows obviate Constitutional issues associated with a total ban on public gun shows in Westchester County? Then, too, does not George Latimer's ban on public gun shows operate as a shifty and deceitful attempt to slide around what antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators see as the public gun show "loophole" to the instant criminal background check system under federal law? For, if public gun shows do not exist, then, the perceived "loophole" issue disappears into mist. But, is not the "loophole" issue and is not the very expression 'gun show loophole' itself a myth perpetrated by and perpetuated by antigun proponents, antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators to strain and constrain exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?We will continue with our analysis of the Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order in a forthcoming article.

A CLOSING NOTE: WHAT WE ARE SEEING; WHAT IS AT STAKE.

We see, of late, and with more insistent and incessant fury, a bold attack on the very cultural traditions and core values and belief systems of this Country underway. Do American citizens not see that, despite the electoral triumph of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, there is a conscious, sinister, insidious, diabolical effort underway to undercut our most cherished rights and liberties, and that this process is being carried out by the sinister forces that crush Nation States? Do American citizens not see that these forces intend to crush our Nation State through a systematic, orchestrated scheme of disinformation, misinformation, pseudo-information, and non-information designed to demoralize the American citizenry; to impose a false sense of guilt onto the American citizenry; to confuse and confound the American citizenry; to devalue the Bill of Rights, to devalue the notion of 'American citizen,' to soften and mold and reshape the contours of this Nation's citizenry as if the American people were but a lump of clay; to transform the American citizenry into weak, guilt-ridden, anxious souls.We see that Americans have lost the right to privacy. They have lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They have lost the right of free speech, the right to speak their mind, as threat of public reprimand, and threat of loss of employment are omnipresent. They are slowly losing their God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms.We see monopolistic corporate mega-structures emerging in all business sectors: technology, finance, media, entertainment. We see these colossal mega-structures imposing bizarre, alien rules and bizarre principles of behavior on society, across society. They are doing this with impertinence, impudence, false piety, and with a disgusting sense of self-righteousness, and with impunity. And they are using their horde of wealth and outsize power to influence Government. They are operating as if they were Government, but as a Government free of constraints imposed on Government by the Bill of Rights--a Document that is systematically being dismissed as irrelevant. We see our Nation awash in waves of illegal aliens, falsely and loudly clamoring for and oddly claiming rights they do not have and should never be given. And, we see waves of unassimilable, poverty-stricken, ill-informed, mentally lazy refugees flooding into our Country from failed States. These individuals make an unwieldy welfare State, that we are becoming, even more untenable. They strain our resources and require support from our citizenry. And, many in Congress support this, would allow this; would encourage this. They would enact new immigration laws that would further disrupt our economy, and negatively impact our mores, our values, our sacred roots. We see, even now, our history revised; our children taught alien ideas. Our sense of National identity is being turned on its head. More than questioned, national identity, as perceived by the founders of our free Republic, is now scorned, and reviled, and slowly revised.How far can this awful state of affairs go? When will the American people fight back to recover their sacred birthright? _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.