WHO IS SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO AND HOW IS HE DEALING WITH NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LAW?

[NOTE TO OUR READERS: THIS ARTICLE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND WILL BE EDITED AND EXPANDED UPON IN THE DAYS AHEAD]

MULTIPART SERIES

PART ONE

FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO STANDS FIRM AGAINST NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN SCHEME

In the March 2023 issue of the NRA publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom,” the Arbalest Quarrel, in its daily review of publications, came across an article titled, “Shooting Straight with Sheriff Richard Giardino,” by Frank Miniter, Editor in Chief of the magazine.The NRA published the article in the form of a straightforward question-answer interview.The NRA contacted Sheriff Giardino to get his take on a pressing matter affecting law enforcement in New York: the impact of the Hochul Government’s amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, the deceptively named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), and its impact on policing.That was what NRA’s Frank Miniter wanted to know. That is what we wanted to know.The NRA said this about Sheriff Giardino:“As an elected official, Sheriff Giardino doesn’t mind being in front of the cameras. But I [the NRA Editor in Chief, Frank Miniter] also found him to be a serious and humble official. He listens. He thinks of the people first. He next thinks of his deputies and the other employees he manages. Finally, he responds based on his long experience. And he does have a lot of legal experience. Sheriff Giardino graduated in 1984 from Albany Law School. While in college and law school, he served as a part-time police officer. After law school, he was hired as an assistant district attorney in Nassau County, N.Y. In 1986, he returned to Fulton County as an assistant district attorney and, in 1991, he was elected to be the second-youngest district attorney in the state. In 1996, he was appointed by New York’s governor to be a county court judge. In this role, he was a local licensing official for concealed-carry permits in what was then a ‘may-issue’ state, but he behaved as if he was in a “shall-issue” state. He served 18 years as a judge. In that time, he tried over 200 cases, including over 40 murder or attempted-murder cases.Of course, as with anyone we interview, Sheriff Giardino’s opinions are his own. I [Frank Miniter] point this out because, as he is a county sheriff in a state run by a governor who sees the Second Amendment as a problem, Giardino does find himself in some uncomfortable legal positions. He has to abide by the state laws, but he also raised his right hand and swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and lately—again, thanks to officials such as Gov. Hochul—those two things have come into conflict. This conundrum puts him—as well as many other law-enforcement officials and citizens who simply want to exercise their rights in various states and jurisdictions around the country—in some legally problematic situations.”The “Leader-Herald” newspaper, in a January 23, 2023 article, added this about Sheriff Giardino:“Giardino, a 64-year-old Republican, first ran for countywide office in 1991. He is the only person in New York state history to have served as a county district attorney, county judge and county sheriff, having won eight consecutive countywide elections.” These articles by the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper whet our appetite to learn more about this intriguing, and highly learned man. And so, we got in touch with Sheriff Giardino.Thinking that we intended to employ a basic question/answer interview approach, as the NRA did, we instead pointed out that we wished to engage Sheriff Giardino in an informal, open-ended conversation, as that would be less constraining and, we felt, more productive.We spent substantial time talking to him, gaining insightful knowledge from the perspective of a man who deals, on a daily basis, with the practical problems associated with the CCIA and with the problems attendant to policing.This article segment and the segments to follow are a distillation of our talks with Sheriff Giardino, presented in the context of our own work, apropos of the Arbalest Quarrel’s raison d’être: to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution from all threats to it from forces both here and abroad aligned against the sovereignty of the American people.We learned a lot about and from this man, and he, in turn, learned a lot about and from us at the Arbalest Quarrel.Sheriff Giardino’s philosophy pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and his socio-political attitude and stance apropos of the threats that face our Country today, are on all fours with our own.Sheriff Giardino’s adoration for our Constitution—especially for the natural law right to armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of a Free Constitutional Republic, the foundation of the sovereignty of the American people over Government, and the source of our Nation’s greatness, strength.Through what the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper say, we add a point derived from our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino.The Sheriff’s service to the Fulton County community means service to the U.S. Constitution. And what Sheriff Giardino means by “service to the U.S. Constitution” is no small matter.Service to the U.S. Constitution is what his job is all about. And the Rights contained in it are not to be dismissed.Those Rights are not—as many politicians argue, and as the legacy Press echoes—to be construed as some sort of archaic, mutable appendix to the Articles, to be constrained, modified, abrogated, or ignored because, to some, those rights don’t cohere with the current fad or fashion.The Bill of Rights is a codification of natural law.The Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are not man-made constructs. These Rights are not subject to modification, alteration, abrogation, obliteration, or perfunctory dismissal. These Rights are not attendant to a particular time and place. They are eternal, and they reside in man, as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. That is how the framers of the Constitution understood them and that, in fact, is what they are.That is our position and that is Sheriff Giardino’s position.It is the very sanctity, strength, and enduring power of the Bill of Rights that drives the would-be Destroyers of our Country to mount an incessant and aggressive campaign against it. Without the exercise of these cherished rights and liberties, our free Republic would cease to exist. But then, that is the aim of those ruthless forces that intend to eliminate their exercise of them: to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the people. These malevolent forces intend to create a completely different sort of socio, political, economic, and juridical framework—one antithetical to the Government the framers of the U.S. Constitution created for themselves and for their descendants. It is one where the people are seen as subservient to the Government, not the masters of and over the Government.Of all the fundamental, unalienable rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—the right to armed self-defense against lowly creatures, aggressive men, and tyrannical Government—is absolutely essential to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and the supremacy of the American citizenry over Government.Without the force of arms, this Country, as an independent, sovereign Nation-State and free Republic, could not exist; nor can our Republic persist through time if the citizen is denied access to firearms and ammunition.The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this to be true. Sheriff Giardino knows this to be true. And we know this to be true. Yet, many Americans in the Federal and State Governments, including the New York State Government do not know this to be so, or, otherwise, choose to ignore Truth, because it is counter to their running narrative and to their agenda. They, therefore, deny the TRUTH, outright.And, that has placed Sheriff Giardino and others in law enforcement, in a bind: Either uphold recent law that contradicts the Bill of Rights or uphold the Truth of the Bill of Rights and incur the wrath of “woke” leadership.This isn’t an academic matter. It is playing out now, and most acutely, in New York.The Hochul Government has placed Sheriff Giardino like his fellow Sheriffs in a difficult position.How does law enforcement chart a course between a transitory, ill-conceived man-made handgun law, the CCIA on the one hand, with man’s fundamental, unalienable, unalterable, eternal, immutable, natural law right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment?How does Sheriff Giardino “square that circle.” That question was the focus of our conversation with him, and it raised a host of questions and concerns that we dealt with in depth during our conversations with him.___________________________________________

“DISCRETION” IS THE MECHANISM NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO UTILIZES TO DEAL WITH NEW YORK’S INTRACTABLE CONCEALED CARRTY IMPROVEMENT ACT (“CCIA”)

PART TWO

The CCIA is the Hochul Government’s response to the June 23, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The Hochul Government fabricated the CCIA to defy and defeat the High Court rulings in Bruen that reinforce the natural law right to armed self-defense.How does a law enforcement officer square enforcement of the CCIA when that enforcement conflicts with the language of the Second Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings?This is what we wanted to obtain Sheriff Giardino’s thoughts on, as did NRA’s Editor in Chief of the NRA publication, “America’s 1st Freedom,” that preceded our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino. What we learned from the interview that NRA’s Editor in Chief conducted with Sheriff Giardino became the springboard for further explication of the Sheriff’s thoughts on the CCIA, the U.S. Constitution and Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, attacks on police, and violent crime in New York.In his interview with Sheriff Giardino, NRA’s Frank Miniter asked the Sheriff point blank: “Will you enforce New York’s concealed carry restrictions?”Without pause and in no uncertain terms, the Sheriff responded, “I raised my right hand to uphold the constitution. Now the governor of New York wants me to break that oath. Law enforcement has been placed in an untenable position of enforcing laws that we might believe are unconstitutional. As a former judge and district attorney, I still have my law license. My legal experience tells me that many provisions of this new gun-control law are unconstitutional. So, given all of that, I see the law here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce. So, we’re going to use our discretion. We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law [CCIA] now says, and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.”The issue of police “discretion” is something the NRA glossed over, perhaps given time constraints or publishing restrictions. Yet, to our mind, the point of “discretion” in light of the CCIA is of paramount importance to a consideration of the daily dilemma law enforcement officers are confronted with, especially when they must make a split-second decision.The NRA interviewer did not pursue what Sheriff Giardino meant by   “discretion” and Andrew Waite, a columnist for the Daily Gazette newspaper, whom Sheriff Giardino also spoke with, misconstrued what Sheriff Giardino meant by the term.The use of discretion in policing does not give carte blank authority to law enforcement. And Sheriff Giardino is not saying here or implying that he can do whatever he wants.The columnist for the Daily Gazette, Andrew Waite, incorrectly interpreted Sheriff Giardino as inferring, erroneously, that,“The sheriff is absolutely entitled to choose how to enforce just about any rule.”No! Sheriff Giardino is not saying or suggesting that. Rather, he is pointing to a confounding box the CCIA places him in and the way—the only way—he can extricate himself from it without offending the U.S. Constitution. Sheriff Giardino took an oath to enforce the U.S. Constitution. He did not take an oath to enforce the CCIA.The CCIA is codified in State Statute, Section 400. That is the State's handgun law. It is therefore a component of the Consolidated Laws of New York.A State Statute is not in any manner to be construed as part of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a State Statute doesn’t stand on the same footing as a State Constitution.The New York State Constitution stands above State Statute in prominence and authority. And, the U.S. Constitution stands above both State Statute and State Constitution, except where the doctrine of Federalism gives the States complementary power or powers that reside exclusively with the States that the Federal Government is not permitted to intrude upon.Sheriff Giardino is told to enforce New York law, but he must also enforce the Constitution of the United States, consistent with his oath. And where the two collide, the U.S. Constitution dictates his actions. That is an unalterable, inescapable TRUTH.Where the CCIA conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Giardino says he must adhere to the Constitution.Where the CCIA doesn’t make clear his duties or where there doesn’t seem to be a clear conflict with the Constitution, then he will use his discretion to chart a proper course, guided, all the while, by the Second Amendment guarantee.That is the import of Sheriff Giardino’s assertion, that——“I see the law [the CCIA] here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce.”The CCIA is a logical, legal, and logistical mess, a quagmire, manufactured by the Hochul Government to serve an agenda, one antagonistic to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. And, since all or part of the CCIA will, at some point in time be overturned either by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court, as litigation is ongoing at this time, that is the “state of flux” that Sheriff Giardino is referring to.Law enforcement officials, like Sheriff Giardino, cannot extricate themselves easily from this morass but must contend with it.The application of “broad discretion” to deal effectively with a multiplicity of contingencies and complexities is necessitated by the inherent illegality of the salient portions of the CCIA. Further, the inscrutability of some of its sections, and internal inconsistencies along with inconsistencies with other portions of New York law and inconsistencies with the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, apart from the CCIA’s inherent inconsistency with the Second, abound. That is why we call the CCIA a mess.Sheriff Giardino’s actions must therefore be nuanced. But, where conflict is clear, i.e., where illegal constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are acute and blatant, then he will enforce the U.S. Constitution, not the CCIA.As Sheriff Giardino says,“The fact that there are currently more than a dozen State and Federal Lawsuits at various stages in the litigation process in New York, over the new CCIA, can be very confusing, especially to those people who presently hold valid concealed handgun carry licenses.* And this confusion will continue to exist until, ultimately, the US Supreme Court decides, supports, and defends my decision to exercise broad discretion in favor of law-abiding citizens.”Adding to this awful burden there is a bitter irony.Sheriff Giardino points out that “on any given weekend, criminals, who can’t lawfully possess firearms, use firearms and, especially handguns, to commit dozens of robberies, murders, and attempted murders. Bear in mind that the chances that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license will use that handgun or any firearm in a crime is less than 1/6 of 1%, based on national studies.” So, ask yourself: ‘how many criminals will be adhering to Hochul’s new CCIA?” And to add insult to injury, Sheriff Giardino exclaims, “‘The Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ criminalizes conduct that, under the original New York handgun law, the law in place prior to September 1, 2022, the day the CCIA took effect, was legal.”The CCIA is simply a clever ruse——

• The CCIA is a scheme designed to further the Government agenda while giving lip service to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen.
• The CCIA further constrains the average law-abiding, responsible, rational citizen, who happens to reside and/or work in the State, from exercising his natural law right to armed self-defense.
• The CCIA does nothing to curb the misuse of firearms by the psychopathic criminal element running amok throughout the State, most noticeably in New York City.

The Daily Gazette columnist Andrew Waite doesn’t weigh in on any of this because he doesn’t truly understand the nature of the issues, or, otherwise, he doesn’t even begin to perceive a problem.Like most newspaper reporters and columnists, Waite sees “gun rights” vs. “gun control”/“gun safety” as a legitimate issue because politicians and news people manufacture that issue. But it has no substance. It is a fabrication, an illusion, a makeweight.There is the natural law right to armed self-defense. That is a fact. But those who abhor firearms and who fear and detest Americans who keep and bear them and who wish firearms and the right to keep and bear them would just go away, perpetrate and perpetuate a phantom issue, and thrust that specter on the public.These same people also deny the existence of natural law rights. They see the Bill of Rights as man-made artifices, no different than any other law, and therefore subject to modification or abrogation like any other law when whim dictates.They see people like Sheriff Giardino as driving a wedge between those Americans who desire to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense and those who wish to severely constrain the exercise of the right or eliminate it.Yet, Sheriff Giardino is doing no such thing.Andrew Waite infers, oddly, that application of police discretion is less the result of a failure of the Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and in defense of innocent others, and to guard against the tyranny of Government, and more a personal predilection that causes consternation among those who abhor firearms and who hold disdain toward those Americans who do choose to exercise their natural law right.He says, in his article, supra: “But even gun-rights advocates who support Giardino’s positions on this issue should be worried about the ways in which a local sheriff’s discretion may only serve to further drive us apart.”Who are these “gun-rights advocates” that Waite refers to? Waite doesn’t say.Anyway, his remark is irrelevant, even discordant.It’s a logical red herring, introduced by unscrupulous politicians, and echoed by those in the legacy Press and social media, whether knowingly or not, to confound the public.Andrew Waite is right in the groove, reflexively singing a refrain piped into his psyche and then transmitted to millions of Americans.It is all projection, the product of an elaborate campaign of psychological conditioning, disbursed on an industrial scale, touching every part of the Country.Waite’s remark also shows a misunderstanding of the salient duty of all law enforcement officers.As Sheriff Giardino stated clearly, succinctly, and categorically in the Daily Gazette article, and as he has reiterated for those who do not understand:The duty of a law-enforcement officer is to “uphold the constitution.” That is the oath law enforcement officers swear to. That is and must be the predicate basis for and guiding principle for all his conduct in the field.Yet, in a Nation where the U.S. Constitution is routinely ignored, dismissed, deliberately misread, or even slammed and denigrated, there is, in that, for many, explanation enough explanation.That is how something as poisonous as New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” comes to be conceived, drafted, passed, and signed into law, and then, exalted as a fine, proper, and good thing.In a Country turned upside down and inside out, law enforcement officers like Sheriff Giardino must perforce contend with a situation that Government throws him into. It isn’t one of his own makings, but that of Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, and the secretive powers behind both that have engineered the destruction of our Country.Is Andrew Waite even aware of this?The reporter for the Daily Gazette falls into the very trap that many reporters and columnists fall into, viewing fundamental, immutable natural law rights as a matter of public opinion and failing to grasp that some rights are not a matter of natural law, but are merely man-made constructs.The public’s reaction to the Dobbs “abortion” case is a prime example of this.Andrew Waite writes,“With diametrically opposed laws and individualized interpretations of how to enforce those laws, it can be hard to know which way is up, and which way is down. Amid the confusion and the divergent standards, we become even more divided, and our positions can become even more extreme.”A person becomes lost when he is unaware of or fails to follow the proper guideposts. Such is the case presented above.In the matter of fundamental rights, a person’s guide is the U.S. Constitution. It has always been thus, and must always be so.The Dobbs case is inapposite because “abortion” isn’t a fundamental right. It isn’t natural law. It is a man-made artifice, a judge-made right, fabricated as a matter of convenience, because the U.S. Supreme Court was, at the time, apparently, too afraid to acknowledge that the issue of abortion is not a Federal Constitutional issue. It is merely a matter for public debate, and as such, it should be left to the States to determine how each wishes to treat abortion. And, no the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that. It leaves the matter to the States to work out.But many Americans don’t see this. The Press doesn’t allow them to see this, but, disreputably, stirs up conflict as does Congress. The public gets caught up in a maelstrom of confusion, anxiety, and rage deliberately fomented by politicians and vociferously magnified by the Press, relying on incessant sloganeering and messaging, at once vacuous and malevolent.Many Americans fall for the garbled nonsense visited upon them by unscrupulous politicians, and then amplified through social media and the Press. The results are dangerous, reverberating throughout the Nation, causing discord, social instability, and violence, none of which is unanticipated, but all calibrated to attain the end goal:The annihilation of an independent sovereign Nation, a free Republic, and a free and sovereign citizenry.____________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both the parent U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, and on Post-Bruen New York cases and we are keeping track of the progress of the litigation. To date, we have published over 40 articles on these cases.See, e.g., our article, posted on the AQ website on October 22, 2022, pertaining to the New York Government's interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to lift the Stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the lawsuit in Antonyuk vs. Hochul.The Antonyuk case was subsequently recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Governor Hochul from the lawsuit.Steven Nigrelli is the new “Acting” Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Governor Hochul. Steven Nigrelli replaces both the Governor and Kevin Bruen, as the principal named Party Defendant, the latter of whom was the previous Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Kathy Hochul's predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo.  See the AQ article posted on January 2, 2023.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

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

MULTISERIES

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

NEW YORK OPENLY DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN DECISION

PART NINE

PREFACE TO DEEP ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK’S RESPONSE TO BRUEN DECISION

The Arbalest Quarrel (“AQ”) has, in the last few weeks, spent, and will continue to spend, considerable time on the recent case NYSRPA vs. Bruen, for a few important reasons.

FIRST: THE BRUEN RULINGS ARE VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case decided by the High Court in twelve years and it is the most important U.S. Supreme Court case to be decided this term, October 2021 through October 2022.Not even the recent “abortion” case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization comes close to the import of Bruen. And there is a simple reason for that: There is no fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of abortion even as Congressional Democrats, along with the Biden Administration and proponents for it, in the Country at large, insist otherwise. The High Court made that point clear, in its decision released on June 24, 2022, overturning Roe vs. Wade.Contrariwise, armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government is a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law right even as those same Democrats chime in that it is not. And the High Court made that point clear, too, in its decision released one day before Dobbs, on June 23, 2022. In Bruen, the High Court reaffirmed and clarified its decisions in Heller and McDonald, and pointedly held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the boundaries of one’s home into the public sphere. That means the natural law right of self-defense, generally, and armed self-defense, particularly, isn’t limited in space and time. To hold otherwise is empirically wrong and even nonsensical. Because a firearm provides a person with the best means of defending one’s life, the right of armed self-defense, as subsumed in the natural law right of self-defense/personal survival can't be lawfully proscribed by Government. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court’s Majority, in Bruen, made this point emphatic: “. . . confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself. . .’ [adding] ‘Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps ‘most acute’ in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it.”Nothing is more essential to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and to the maintenance of the sovereignty of the American people over the Nation and its Government than the natural law right of armed self-defense.Bruen therefore demands our close attention and scrutiny.

SECOND, NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” GUN LAW REQUIREMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IT IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

Bruen came to the U.S. Supreme Court as a challenge to the core of New York’s handgun law. Therefore, New York’s response to the Bruen decision will be scrutinized by two groups of Americans: those who support and cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and who wish both to preserve and to strengthen that fundamental, unalienable right; and those who do not, and who desire to constrain exercise of this essential natural law right.This latter group that seeks to dismantle our free Constitutional Republic cannot do so for soever as long as an armed citizenry exists. Therefore, they seek de jure or de facto repeal of the right. This isn’t hyperbole. Retired Associate Justice John Paul Steven demonstrated his animosity toward an American armed citizenry in a combined Stevens-Breyer dissent to Heller. And, after he retired from the Court, this U.S. Supreme Court Justice went further. Stevens called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment—something he dared not suggest while serving as a Justice—for the duty of a Justice is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not tear it down. But the repeal of the Second Amendment is something Justice Stevens profoundly felt. See, e.g.,John Paul Stevens Op-Ed in the New York times, titled, “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment,” published on March 27, 2018. 

THIRD, AN ARMED CITIZENRY IS VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT: THE DISRUPTION OF IT IS MEANT TO T

Our free Republic cannot continue to exist in the absence of America’s citizen army. Those who exercise the right know this as axiomatic. And those powerful forces that seek to destroy the Republic also know this to be self-evident true. But, apart from a few individuals—and most notoriously, John Paul Stevens—few people do not boldly pronounce this. Instead, the legacy Press proclaims disarming the public is all about ensuring public safety, public order, and public harmony, adding as an afterthought, that constraining the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ostensibly for the good of society, does not mean erasing it. But the appeal to public safety is mere deflection. Yet many Americans fall into the trap—all too willing to sacrifice their natural law rights, believing erroneously that this is for the good of society. It is absolute control over the commonalty of this Country that the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists want and intend to attain. The continuation of an armed citizenry is inconsistent with that goal. That can't come about as long as an armed citizenry exists in the Nation. 

FOURTH, THE BRUEN CASE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE TOO MANY STATES AND COURTS REFUSED TO COHERE TO THE STRICTURES OF HELLER AND MCDONALD

The Bruen decision is one more salvo in a continuing war for the soul of the Nation. The Hochul Government, for one, has openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court. Why has Hochul done this?The “why” is obvious. Kathy Hochul, who once received an “A” rating from NRA, now works for the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” who fund her bid for Governor in 2022. These are the same wealthy and powerful people who had continuously funded her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo’s campaign. See article in the New York Post. The notion of an armed citizenry is incompatible with the goal of the interests of those people who are funding her campaign. These people are Globalists. They seek an end to our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State. They perceive the Bill of Rights as inconsistent with their goal of a one-world government devoid of nation-states and devoid of citizen armies. So, Kathy Hochul no longer supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But in classic politician-fashion Hochul doesn’t acknowledge the inconsistency in her position, nor does she allude, much less assert, to what and to whom she now owes allegiance. Rather, she maintains her position has “evolved.” 

THE BRUEN CASE DEMANDS THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION LEST THE PUBLIC LOSE BOTH THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHT AND THEIR COUNTRY

How is it that Hochul and the New York State Legislature continue to offend the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court?The “how” unlike the “why” is not obvious and demands thorough attention.The “how” unlike the “why,” apropos of the changes to New York’s gun law, isn’t obvious and it is not easy to understand. It demands explication so Americans who cherish the right of the people to keep and be armed understand what it is they are up against. A new round of lawsuits has recently been filed. This, unfortunately, is a disturbingly familiar pattern-scenario—costly, time-consuming, and wearying on Americans. AQ’s contribution comprises a series of articles to explicate New York’s Gun Law considering Bruen and to provide both first-time prospective New York handgun licensees and those applicants seeking renewals of existing handgun licenses, a roadmap as to what to expect and how to proceed. In that vein, one should keep in mind that, although the Hochul Government has signed new amendments into law, those amendments aren’t operational rules. The City of New York and the Counties, and the State Police must work out what those rules are, to implement the changes in the Gun Law. To that end AQ looks at what Heller, McDonald, and Bruen require apropos of what the New York Government has done to create further obstacles for New Yorkers. A complete treatment requires not only an exploration of the recent New York amendments to its Gun Law in specific response to Bruen, but also a consideration of a panoply of recent changes to and additions to the Gun Law and to the entirety of New York’s elaborate handgun licensing regime that goes back to the Safe Act of 2013, and even before that—to the Sullivan Act of 1911, the progenitor of handgun licensing in New York. Given the present urgency, AQ will spend its energy reviewing both the recent amendments to the Gun licensing regime apropos of Bruen, and amendments to New York’s handgun regime Pre-Bruen that complement the Post-Bruen changes. A full discussion must include a consideration of New York’s recent “Red Flag” law that Hochul and Albany have incorporated into the Post-Bruen amendments, and which further endangers a citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

WHAT IS BRUEN ALL ABOUT?

AQ has heretofore laid out the basics of Bruen. In an earlier segment (Part 2) of our analysis, we pointed out: There are two key components to the Bruen Majority Opinion. One key component involves the test Federal, and State Courts must employ when they review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.The second involves the matter of “proper cause” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and was the central topic at oral argument in Bruen, held on February 2022.AQ now deals with those two key component parts in depth, turning first to the “proper cause” aspect of the Bruen ruling, which we get to in the next segment of our Post-Bruen case series analysis._______________________________________________

PROPER CAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS IN NEW YORK GUN LAW BUT ITS REPLACEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 2^ND, LEAVES NEW YORKERS WORSE OFF THAN UNDER THE PRESENT GUN LAW

PART TEN

The “proper cause” issue is what Governor Kathy Hochul’s Administration, along with the New York State Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, had to contend with, once the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” requirement of the Gun Law, as unconstitutional. Hochul made clear in her statements to the Press that New York would not buckle under to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her remarks are both seditious and provocative. The Governor’s remarks are seditious because the amendments to the Gun Law demonstrate the State’s disregard for the Court’s rulings, even as Hochul claims to adhere to them. She has made clear, on the official Governor's website, that there will be no immediate changes to gun policies and the permitting process.  The Governor’s remarks are also disrespectful and presumptuous. See these remarks as well as published on the Governor's official website. Hochul’s Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature, and their respective teams of lawyers, meticulously crafted a set of amendments to the New York handgun law. The amendments they crafted serve not only to preserve the law—the Sullivan Act of 1911, long since codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq.—but, as with the New York Safe Act of 2013, the amendments bolster New York’s stringent gun laws. The amendments exemplify Hochul’s resolve to defeat the impact of the Bruen rulings, notwithstanding the elimination of the “proper cause” requirement and make acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license even more difficult than it had been since the Legislature enacted a “proper cause” requirement. In a feat of legerdemain, the drafters toughened, did not ease, the standard for obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Clearly, Hochul doesn’t want to make acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses an easy procedure. To frustrate that process, her Government wishes to continue to offer a restricted license as a “booby prize.” Yet, even in that, an applicant will find that obtaining a restricted handgun license is no longer a sure thing either.The amendments to New York’s Sullivan Act negatively impact all categories of handgun licenses, restrictive and unrestrictive. Thus, the stringent character of New York’s Gun Licensing regime remains intact.  To fully comprehend and appreciate how the State maneuvered around Bruen, pulling a switcheroo on both the U.S. Supreme Court and those who may have thought it easy now to obtain an unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license, we peruse the language of the handgun law, comparing the law as it presently exists and the changes to it, effective September 2, 2022.

THE NEW YORK GUN LAW IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

One first notices that New York’s Gun Law is confounding and mystifying. There is a dizzying array of handgun licenses. The full array of handgun licenses is set forth in NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) of New York’s Penal Code. It is titled, “Types of Licenses,” and it reads:“A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession; . . . .” You would think that the three seminal Second Amendment case holdings, Heller, McDonald, and now, Bruen, would have swept away NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) but for NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) (f)—a handgun license to “have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession.” But, surprisingly, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) remains in its entirety, thus demonstrating the Anti-Second Amendment fervor of New York’s Governor and that of the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature. If the Hochul Government had sought to cohere to the Bruen rulings, she would have called upon the Legislature in Albany to draft the Gun Law to eliminate handgun license categories as redundant, except for the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license category, and she would have liberalized the standard in acquiring an unrestricted handgun carry license. After all, why would a person wish to acquire only a restrictive handgun premise license since the U.S. Supreme Court held the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the home?Yet, Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany had other ideas, and the multi-tiered hierarchical handgun licensing structure remains intact.

THE TAKEAWAY

That the whole of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) still exists after Bruen, demonstrates not only the tenacity and stubbornness of Anti-Second Amendment politicians to thwart both the Bill of Rights and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but their ingenuity and cunning in subverting the rulings of the High Court. The amendments to NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) make acquisition of a handgun license tortuous and as difficult to come by as before Bruen.In the next segment, AQ explains how New York’s Anti-Second Amendment Government has exploited a seeming loophole in Bruen to defeat compliance with the Court’s ruling on “proper cause.”_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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