WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE?

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 EIGHTEEN

THE NEW YORK HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION'S PROBLEMS ARE OF ITS OWN MAKING. IT WOULD RATHER SPEND ITS ENERGIES AND TAX-PAYER MONIES  FIGHTING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, RATHER THAN FIGHTING CRIME. NEW YORKERS CAN EXPECT MUCH MORE OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, FOUR YEARS OF IT.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its third seminal case law rulings, following Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010. The three cases, taken together, hold the right of armed self-defense is a natural law right embodied in the Second Amendment.These three cases don’t sit well with State and local jurisdictions that abhor both guns and the notion of the right of civilian citizens to keep and bear them. And they have weaseled around the Heller and McDonald cases for over a decade—well before Bruen.Bruen arose as a direct challenge to one of the most restrictive Gun Law regimes in the Nation: codified in N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00 et. seq. The foundation of New York’s Gun Law is its draconian licensing requirement. All handgun licensing interposes the Government between the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government that intrudes upon the exercise of that right.New York’s handgun licensing scheme is among the most intrusive in the Country.Prior to Bruen, a person who sought to carry a handgun had to demonstrate “proper cause” to do so. But the State Government held armed self-defense against a visible threat in public as de facto insufficient “proper cause” justification for issuance of a license to carry.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the right of armed self-defense applies equally outside the home and in it. This ruling isn’t a Court based legal fiction, as Anti-Second Amendment proponents maintain. The right of armed self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment.The Court in Bruen, and in Heller before it, simply illuminated and elucidated upon what the language of the Second Amendment asserts. It did not make new law.The Court thereupon struck down New York’s “may issue” “proper cause” requirement for those people applying for a concealed handgun carry license. Armed self-defense is de jure sufficient reason to carry, and it is presumptive in any application for a license. Therefore the applicant need not be required to expressly assert it.To be sure, New York Federal and State Courts never directly attacked the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms because that was irrefutable natural law, cemented in the U.S. Constitution. And, if the Courts harbored the belief that the right, though fundamental, applied only to one’s service in a militia, the Heller case settled the matter, cadit quaestio.Even so, New York Courts routinely affirmed licensing officials’ denial of handgun carry licenses. The Courts reasoned that, even if a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, the person must have a valid handgun license to exercise the right, and acquiring one is a privilege, not a right, a privilege bestowed upon one by the grace of the State, and a privilege easily revoked. And, because the license serves as a condition precedent to exercising the right, the New York Government effectively created a proverbial “Catch 22.”Thus, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions could continue to offend the Second Amendment guarantee while pretending to pay homage to it.New York’s handgun licensing scheme interferes with the exercise of a natural law right on an elementary level. There’s no doubt about that. That fact is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and irrefutable.The Court simply tinkered gingerly around the edges.But, by failing to strike down the New York handgun licensing, as unconstitutional, it remains rigid, unscathed.Justices Thomas and Alito knew that the Bruen rulings were faulty, that the rulings did not go far enough, and they could not have been happy about that.They would have struck down the entirety of the licensing structure if given a free hand, but Chief Justice Roberts, and possibly Justice Kavanaugh, too, likely prevented them from doing so if they were to obtain their votes.In Heller, the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, had to make concessions to Roberts and to Associate Justice Kennedy to get their votes.Now, in Bruen, Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions once again. That meant they must leave Government licensing of handguns alone.And that was all that New York Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany needed to know. It gave them the edge they needed to slither around the Bruen rulings.The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government machine did strike the words, “Proper Cause,” from State Statute, but that meant nothing. They simply inserted “Proper Cause” into the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the State’s Gun Law. And the High Court in Bruen never struck down that latter requirement from the Gun Law.The “Good Moral Character” Requirement had hitherto existed as an unnecessary appendage to New York Gun Law, affixed to a licensing official’s denial of an application for any kind of handgun license.A licensing officer might for example refer to a person’s past arrest record in denying issuance. In the denial letter, the licensing officer would point to the arrest record as the basis for refusal, adding the redundant phrase that such past arrest record shows the applicant lacks Good Moral Character to possess a handgun.In the package of amendments, referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or “CCIA,” the Hochul Administration’s “Good Moral Character” Requirement serves now as the salient basis for denying one a handgun license of any kind: restricted premise or unrestricted carry license.The applicant for a New York handgun license must now produce a volume of information, demonstrating his internal thought processes, especially his political and social ones.Given the depth and breadth of the Amendments to the Gun Law, the Hochul Government likely had the amendments prepared well in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings—their passage in the Senate and Hochul’s signing them into law operating as a mere formality, taking place scarcely a week after the Court came down with its decision.The challenges to those amendments came just as hurriedly.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the original suit filed against enforcement of the CCIA, without prejudice. But the Court had dismissed the case for administrative, not substantive failings, in the lawsuit. The Court made clear its concern with the law, tacitly encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, holder of a valid New York handgun carry license, to refile his complaint.Hochul, as the scurrilous politician she is, took the dismissal as a win and said in a statement on her website that the Court agreed with the constitutionality of the CCIA. It did not.The original Plaintiff, Antonyuk, along with several other holders of New York handgun carry licenses filed a new lawsuit.This time, they named Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, along with several other New York officials, including the Attorney General of the State.And this time the same U.S. District Court that heard and dismissed the original suit, granted the Plaintiffs a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).Hochul was furious and her Attorney General immediately filed an emergency appeal of the District Court’s order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Not unexpectedly, the Second Circuit did not act on the Appeal, probably because the Midterm Elections were around the corner, and the Court may have wished to wait to see whether Hochul was elected Governor although that should not factor into their decision.The Midterms are now over, and, whether Hochul won the election by hook or crook, she is York’s Governor, and the residents of the State must suffer her for at least four years. And that means, among other things, that she will fervently defend New York’s amendments to its Gun Law. And she has plenty of time to do so. And that raises the question:What will the Second Circuit do? Will it overturn the TRO or allow it to continue? If the TRO were the only matter before the Court, the Second Circuit would remand the case to the District Court that had issued it.The Second Circuit could issue its order keeping the stay in place while the District Court decides the substantive issues. That would benefit the Plaintiffs. Time would be on their side because Hochul could not lawfully enforce the CCIA during discovery and trial, however long that takes. Or the Second Circuit could lift the stay. That would benefit Hochul, as she would be free to enforce the CCIA while the District Court hears the Constitutional challenges to it. That would benefit Hochul and her Administration. They would likely prolong a final resolution of the case as the District Court had made known its antipathy toward the CCIA in lengthy Court opinions.But, as Hochul’s appeal of the TRO order remains still to be acted on by the Second Circuit, the District Court that ordered a TRO against Hochul’s enforcement of the CCIA had recently ruled on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on September 2022. The case is Antonyuk vs. Hochul, (Antonyuk II), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. November 7, 2022)Contributing Ammoland writer John Crump wrote about this in his article posted on Ammoland, on November 7, 2022.The District Court’s impetus for this new ruling on a Preliminary Injunction though might render the TRO moot.Why did the District Court rule on the Preliminary Injunction before the Second Circuit ruled on the TRO?This might be due to the actions of Hochul’s Government, itself.In a caustic, strident, YouTube video, a new Acting Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, replacing Kevin Bruen, threatened New York gun owners. The District Court wasn’t amused. In its comprehensive detailed opinion, the Court commented on Nigrelli’s outburst, saying this:“. . . unlike Superintendent Kevin Bruen in Antonyuk I, here Defendant Nigrelli has been shown to have threatened a ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement of the CCIA. On August 31, 2022, Defendant Nigrelli stated as follows in a YouTube video:‘We ensured that the lawful, responsible gun owners have the tools now to remain compliant with the law. For those who choose to violate this law . . . Governor, it's an easy message. I don't have to spell it out more than this. We'll have zero tolerance. If you violate this law, you will be arrested. Simple as that. Because the New York State Troopers are standing ready to do our job to ensure . . .  all laws are enforced.’Of course, here, Defendant Nigrelli did not limit his YouTube message to Plaintiffs. . . . However, five of the six Plaintiffs were members of the specific group of citizens (concealed-carry license holders) in New York State that was orally and visibly threatened by Defendant Nigrelli on August 31, 2022. The fact that the oral and visible threat occurred by video rather than in person fails to serve as a material distinction here, in the Court's view. For example, the fact that Nigrelli did not personally know yet of Defendant Mann's existence (as he does now) appears of little consequence, given that Defendant Nigrelli's 3,500 State Troopers were ‘standing ready’ to investigate and discover the violators. Indeed, the fact that the threat occurred by video actually increases the potency of it, due to its ability to be replayed. And Plaintiff Mann heard the message. It is difficult to see how one could fairly say that Defendant Nigrelli did not expressly direct his threat, in part, at Plaintiff Mann. In this way, Defendant Nigrelli's statement on August 31, 2022, was more than (as the State Defendants argue) a ‘generalized statement[] made . . . in the press.’ Rather, his statement specifically referenced arrest and was made in a YouTube video aimed specifically at license holders such as Plaintiff Mann who were considering violating Sections 4 or 5 of the CCIA.  As a result, the Court finds that Defendant Nigrelli has been charged with, and/or has assumed, the specific duty to enforce the CCIA.Finally, the Court finds that these threats of arrest and prosecution, or even mere citation and/or seizure of his handgun, are enough to show that Plaintiff Mann faces a credible threat of enforcement of Section 4 of the CCIA, which is fairly traceable to Defendants Hilton, Oakes and Nigrelli [Court documents and Case Citations omitted].”The Court opined that the Government’s message is demonstrative of the Plaintiffs’ concern they would be arrested for carrying a handgun in public—this notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiffs currently hold valid New York handgun carry licenses.The CCIA severely restricts where holders of New York handgun licenses can carry licenses.The Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction in substantial part, introduces a new wrinkle in what has grown into a complicated legal matter, and all due to Kathy Hochul’s stubborn refusal to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, along with her contemptuous attitude toward law-abiding American citizens who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural law right of armed self-defense.Hochul’s team will file a response to the District Court’s November 7, 2022, Preliminary Injunction ruling. No doubt the AG’s Office is working on it at this moment, and it will submit it to the Second Circuit in a few days.Hochul may ask the Second Circuit to suspend a ruling on the TRO in view of the District Court’s new ruling on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.The Second Circuit may itself, on its own motion, sua sponte, suspend a ruling on the TRO or, render the TRO matter given the District Court’s ruling on the Preliminary Injunction.The District Court ruling may have the effect of a final order on the merits. If so, this means the Second Circuit itself might render a final decision on at least a portion of the substantive merits of the issues on the constitutionality of the CCIA.If the Second Circuit affirms the Preliminary Injunction and, further, treats it like a Permanent Injunction that will render those portions of the CCIA affected by the Injunction permanently unenforceable.At that point, the administration's options will be limited. Hochul’s Government could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but she likely wouldn’t do that. Of course, the High Court need not hear the case. The problem is that it probably would, and that would be dangerous for both New York and all Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions.The Court could grant review and use the opportunity to strike down the entirety of the New York handgun licensing structure. The Court would likely be in the frame of mind to do so, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the Court.The Hochul Administration could also ask for an en banc Second Circuit Court hearing. That means the entire Second Circuit would be empaneled to hear the case. Hochul would prefer that option, as the safest strategy. But the Second Circuit need not grant her a hearing of the full Bench. As with the U.S. Supreme Court, an appellant cannot demand a hearing of the full Bench, as a matter of right.There are more wrinkles in this Post-Bruen morass than on a Shar Pei.We’ll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.The natural law right of armed self-defense is coming to an ultimate showdown. At present that showdown is being fought in the Courts. Hopefully, it will not have to be fought in the streets. It need not come to that. Let us all hope it doesn’t.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE NEW YORK ANTONYUK CASE: “BRUEN II” IN THE MAKING?

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 FIFTEEN

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL HAS HER HANDS FULL: THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUST THREW A WRENCH IN HER UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNCONSCIONABLE AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW YORK GUN LAW SUSPENDING ENFORCEMENT OF HER DRACONIAN CHANGES TO THE NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE REQUIREMENTS*

The ink wasn’t yet dry on Bruen when New York Governor Kathy Hochul, commanded the State Legislature to place the final touches on amendments to the New York Gun Law and to do so quickly. Clearly, Hochul had substantial early warning of the decision and had made ample provision for it. She had, or so she thought, figured out an ingenious way around so that it would not waylay the ongoing agenda to strip New Yorkers of their natural law right to bear arms in their own defense against predators lurking all over the place.Just as quickly as Hochul signed the amendments to New York’s unconstitutional and unconscionable Gun Law, an American citizen and resident of New York, Ivan Antonyuk, along with Gun Owners of America, Inc., and two sister organizations, filed their challenge to it.The case is Antonyuk vs. Bruen, 2202 Lexis 15784 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022).It is important to keep this case in mind, for the U.S. Supreme Court will deal with it. It will become Bruen II.The TRO suspends the operation of the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive Location” requirement of the CCIA, effectively gutting it. But why did the District Court grant the TRO? To understand why the Court did this, it helps to have a context for it. And, for context, it helps to have some understanding of the history of Antonyuk.It behooves one to reflect on the fact that the District Court denied the Plaintiffs’ original Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Hochul made much of that, gloating over it.

A TIMELINE OF STEPS LEADING UP TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S FIRST RULING IN ANTONYUK

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, along with Gun Owners of America, filed their complaint, claiming that the CCIA (the collective name for the most recent package of amendments to New York's Gun Law, the Sullivan Act) violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Statute of 1871.On July 20, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to suspend the CCIA immediately, before trial on the substantive issues, which could take months. A long wait was unacceptable since the CCIA was due to become effective in early September 2022.On August 15, 2022, Defendant, the New York Government, filed its opposition to the motion. On September 1, 2022, the Court issued its ruling dismissing the complaint on the Court’s own motion and denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as moot.Upon dismissal of the Complaint and denial of the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, on September 1, 2022, Kathy Hochul triumphantly boasted——“The court dismissed the case and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It is a just and right decision, and our smart, sensible gun laws will go into effect as planned tomorrow on September 1 to keep New Yorkers safe.” ~ See the Statement by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, posted on her website, on August 31, 2022, one day before the official release of the decision, having obviously received advance notice of the decision. Hochul’s boast would come back to haunt her.Hochul thought the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint and denial of the Motion signaled vindication for the CCIA.It didn’t, not by a long shot!Governor Kathy Hochul failed to mention in her remarks to New Yorkers that the Federal Court dismissed the Complaint and denied the Motion for Preliminary Judgment, “without prejudice.”This is important. It means the Plaintiffs were free to refile their case. Apparently, Hochul didn’t consider that possibility and what it might portend.In dismissing the case without prejudice the District Court did not merely permit the refiling of the case, the Court, in this instance, avidly encouraged the continuation of the case.And, the Plaintiffs did just that.One should not, then, view the U.S. District Court decision on September 1, 2022, as merely a perfunctory dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the CCIA. It was much more than that.The opinion was 101 pages long and highly detailed. It was a roadmap designed for the Plaintiffs.And the Plaintiffs followed that roadmap to the letter.In the September 1 opinion, the District Court lacerated Hochul's CCIA. She made no mention of the content of the opinion, nor did she even allude to it in her remarks.The Court showed its outrage not only for the breadth and depth of the New York Government's defiance toward the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen rulings—no less so than for its contemptuous attitude toward the Court itself—but also at the insouciance with which Governor Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany had acted to undercut the High Court's rulings and attempted now to extend that heedlessness and callousness toward the U.S. District Court.The amendments to New York's Gun Law make getting a New York concealed handgun carry license more difficult, not less so than prior to the enactment of the CCIA. And for those few individuals willing to sacrifice a severe invasion of their privacy, as the bitter price to pay for a New York State concealed handgun carry license, they will find it affords them little practical benefit for all the trouble it took them to gain it.The U.S. District Court saw right through Hochul's charade and would not suffer it: not for the American people, nor for itself, as a component of the Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court. But, one cannot fully appreciate the District Court's justified anger toward Hochul and toward the New York Legislature in Albany unless one reviews the original District Court opinion.AQ is doing the analysis and will provide the results to our readers and will forward our analysis to the publisher of Ammoland Shooting Sports News for consideration, for Ammoland's readers. Those articles are being prepared now for publication soon.

A TIMELINE OF THE ANTONYUK CASE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE DISMISSAL OF BOTH THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On September 22, 2022, Ivan Antonyuk, the original Party Plaintiff, and five additional individuals filed their Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Gun Owners of America and its sister organizations dropped out as Party Defendants to the new action for a TRO because the District Court had determined in the earlier case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen, that Gun Owners of America lacked legal standing and could not overcome the standing issue. The Defendants in the TRO action now included a slew of State and various County Government officials. And the first-named principal Defendant was now none other than the New York Governor Kathy Hochul, herself, in her Official Capacity, as Governor. Kevin Bruen still appears as a Party Defendant, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the New York Police, but is now relegated to second-named Defendant. However, Bruen remains a fixture in the Antonyuk and he was, of course, the principal Defendant in the “Granddaddy” U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Hochul, though, is now raised to the status of principal ignominious antagonist in the epic tragedy she had orchestrated and which she has inflicted on herself and on all New Yorkers. She has no one to blame for the mess but herself.On September 28, 2022, the State Defendants and the Oswego County Defendants submitted their briefs in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.On September 29, 2022, the Court conducted an oral argument. At the end of the oral argument, the Court reserved the decision and stated that its decision would follow. On October 6, 2022, the Court decided the TRO, granting it in part and denying it in part.For a Court to grant a TRO is no mean accomplishment. Getting a Court to grant a TRO is even more difficult than getting a Court to grant a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which is itself difficult.For a Court to grant a TRO, a plaintiff must, show: one, that the case presents a “sufficiently serious question,” two, a likelihood of success on the merits, and, three, that the public interest would not be “dis-served” by proffering the relief requested. The Court determined that all those factors were met.For the Hochul Government, an award of a TRO immediately throws a wrench into both the operation of the CCIA and the Government's broad agenda to eviscerate the exercise of Americans' natural law right of armed self-defense.The Hochul Government is climbing a wall in rage. And, Hochul herself must be no less happy at the prospect of appearing as a jackass for having claimed complete vindication after the District Court had dismissed the Complaint and denied the Preliminary Injunction back on September 1, 2o22.Hochul was too quick on the draw, her exaltation at the dismissal of the case in September was premature. Did she even bother herself to read the District Court's decision? Did she honestly think the Plaintiffs wouldn't continue to seek redress and that they would not likely prevail on a subsequent Court filing, especially when the Court had encouraged the Plaintiffs to refile and went further, explaining how Plaintiffs can overcome the procedural problem of “standing” that had flawed the original Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction?Had Hochul taken a more cautious stance and reasoned tone in her remarks on September 1, 2022, she would not now come across as a complete buffoon. But, she couldn’t help herself. And her image makers did her no service. The one constant and ineradicable character flaw of all social and political Progressives, Neo-Marxists, and Neoliberal Globalists both here in the United States and in the world at large is their unbelievable, irrepressible arrogance.The question at the moment is: “what will Hochul and her Government do now?”The Hochul Government will almost certainly file an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking a reversal of the U.S. District Court decision. But that appeal will probably fail. And the appeal will probably fail for this reason:“Because a TRO is interlocutory and is not technically an injunction, it is ordinarily not appealable.” Romer v. Green Point Sav. Bank, 27 F.3d 12, 15 (2d Cir. 1994).Hochul cannot weasel her way around the TRO. This means that the case will go to trial, and that takes time. And, with the TRO in place, time is no longer on her side, but on the side of those New Yorkers who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The granting of the TRO means that the Bruen rulings stay in place.Hochul cannot weasel her way around the TRO. This means that the case will go to trial, and that takes time. And, with the TRO in place, time is no longer on her side, but, rather, on the side of those New Yorkers who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This also means, one, the Bruen rulings stay in place, and, two, the Hochul Government cannot lawfully make use of a fortified and bloated “Good Moral Character” requirement along with the imbecilic “sensitive location” requirement to defy the High Court and curtail the right of armed self-defense. The principal provisions in the CCIA are suspended!Kathy Hochul's Government must adhere to the High Court's Bruen rulings! The Antonyuk case will proceed to trial, and that will take time!Hochul cannot defy the High Court. And she cannot, by legerdemain, curtail the right of armed self-defense.Kathy Hochul's Government must adhere to the High Court's Bruen rulings! The Antonyuk case will proceed to trial and that will take time.This is a definite win-win outcome for New Yorkers. But, for Hochul and her Government, this is a no-win situation and it could not come at a worse time.Perhaps Hochul will ignore the District Court’s order outright just as she defied the High Court. We wouldn’t put it past her. But, with the Midterm Elections fast approaching and her Governorship on the line, would Hochul dare to defy “the rule of law” that Democrats make so much of in their oratory and yet care so little about as evidenced in their actions and policies? How will Hochul's political consultants and image makers play this? It will be interesting to see.___________________________________* This is an important update to the previous version of this article. AQ has corrected the recitation of the named Party Plaintiffs and the named Party Defendants.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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