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

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

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

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

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

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

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

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS HIGH TIME THE HIGH COURT DEALT WITH GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES HEAD-ON

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FOUR

“MAY ISSUE” VERSUS “SHALL ISSUE” A HANDGUN LICENSE ISN’T OF SALIENT IMPORTANCE. GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING, PER SE, IS.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “May Issue” concealed handgun carry license “Proper Cause” requirement in New York on June 23, 2022, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That much is known among both friends and foes of the Second Amendment alike. And the Democrat Party legislative machinery in Albany, at the behest of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, did strike “Proper Cause” from the State’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act.But a comprehensive set of amendments to the Law did nothing to weaken the import of the Act.Hochul and Albany simply rejiggered it, leading immediately, and unsurprisingly, to a new round of challenges.But what accounts for this brazenness of the New York Government? And why is it fair to say the recent set of Amendments to New York’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act) is no less in conflict with the right codified in the Second Amendment, after Bruen, than before the Bruen decision?As we argue, the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 (“CCIA”), negatively impact not only the Second and Fourteenth Amendments but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights as well.Moreover, for holders of valid New York concealed carry licenses prior to Bruen, the Amendments to the Handgun Law do not secure acquiring a renewal of their concealed handgun carry license any easier, but create new hurdles for those licensees, no less so than for new applications for concealed carry licenses.And, for those individuals who do acquire a valid New York concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA, its usefulness is jeopardized.Prior to Bruen, the State had established two tiers of concealed handgun carry licenses: Restricted and Unrestricted. That distinction no longer exists. The CCIA collapses the two tiers. Henceforth, all concealed handgun carry licenses are now, in effect, “Restricted.”What is going on here? How has the New York Government come about?One must dig deep into Bruen for an answer, and that analysis must extend to Heller and McDonald. For the three landmark Second Amendment cases operate in tandem.

THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS EXPLOITED WEAKNESSES IN THE BRUEN DECISION

The New York Government has exploited weaknesses in the rulings and reasoning of Bruen and in the parent Heller and McDonald cases.Consistent with our prior analyses, we continue to delve deeply into U.S. Gun Law.In this and subsequent articles, we unpack and decipher the language of the three seminal 21^st Century Second Amendment cases to gain an understanding of the weaknesses and flaws that have allowed State Government foes of the Second Amendment to flaunt the High Court rulings.Sometimes these Government schemes demonstrate adroitness and cunning. At other times the schemes show ineptitude, appearing crude and amateurish. No matter. Foes of the Second Amendment illustrate, through their actions, unmitigated Government contempt for theArticle III power of the Third Branch of Government, a marked disdain for the natural law right to armed self-defense, and outright hatred toward Americans who exhibit a marked intention to keep and bear arms, consistent with the right guaranteed to them by eternal, immutable Divine Law, albeit contrary to transitory, ever-changing international norms.  High Court rulings do not and cannot transform innate and open hostility toward the Second Amendment, harbored by and exhibited by the legacy Press; a plethora of native Anti-Second Amendment interest groups; the Biden Administration and its toady functionaries; Democrat Party-Controlled State Governments; International Marxist-Communist, and Neoliberal Globalist influences; the fixtures of the EU and UN; the Nation's Political liberals, Progressives, and Radicals among the polity; and international-sponsored NGOs.Reason doesn't factor into the equation. Those forces hostile to the very existence of the Second Amendment remain so. The hostility is attributed to and engendered by the agenda of the Globalist Billionaire Class the goal of which is to bring to fruition a neo-feudalistic corporatist Globalist economic, and financial empire, around which a one-world socio-political Government is to be constructed, through which the Hoi Polloi of the world, amorphous billions, are to be ruled with an iron fist, keeping them corralled and constrained.Constitutions of individual nation-states, especially those of the U.S. that embrace God-Given natural law, beyond the lawful authority of any Government to tamper with, are antithetical to The Globalist end-game. And, so, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are deemed both dangerous and irrelevant.Yet, the salient job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to preserve the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution by interpreting the plain meaning of it as drafted, and, in so doing, constrain malevolent or opportunistic forces that would manipulate the Constitution to serve an agenda at odds with it, whose unstated goal, as has become increasingly apparent, amounts to the wholesale destruction of a free Republic and the Nation’s sovereign people. It need hardly be said, let alone argued, that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not and ought not to be determined by popular opinion. Inferring the plain meaning of the Constitution, the decisions of the Court are not to be shunted aside due to the fervor of the moment. In any event, public opinion is fickle; easily manipulated. The public, much of it, is easily roused to anger. Now a mob, it is whipped into a frenetic, frenzied rage through the launching of industry-wide propaganda campaigns— elaborate psychological conditioning programs, blanketing the entire Nation. It is in this climate of induced fear and rage toward firearms and toward those of us who intend to exercise our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal right to armed self-defense that the U.S. Supreme Court operates and must navigate in and through, never losing sight of one axiomatic principle enunciated by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, over two centuries ago in the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). All first-year law students come to know this case.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. 

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

See also, the article, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, on the High Court's website:

“When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: ‘We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.’” This suggests the High Court should never be tentative, circuitous, or vague in its opinions, especially when dealing with the Bill of Rights.Alas, that normative commandment is less objective practice and more unattainable goal. The elusiveness of it is due more likely to stormy conditions in the Court itself, among the Justices, that require them,  at times, to pull their punches.

THE PROBLEM WITH BRUEN RESTS NOT WITH THE RULINGS BUT WITH A  LACK OF CLARITY DUE POSSIBLY TO THE MACHINATIONS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE (?)

The problems attendant to Bruen rest not with the rulings themselves, but with abstruseness; a lack of clarity. The authors of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, could have closed the loopholes. They didn’t.But the fault does not lie with the late, eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Heller Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion.The fault, more likely than not, rests with Chief Justice Roberts. Conscious of the political headwinds, and desirous to establish a modicum of common ground between the two wings of the Court, he likely had demanded watered-down versions of the Majority Opinions.Were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas given free rein, they would have denied to State Government actors and their compliant Courts, an escape route, however narrow, allowing these foes of the Second Amendment to concoct mechanisms to skirt the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen rulings and reasoning that supports those rulings.

A CONUNDRUM RESTS AT THE HEART OF BRUEN AND HELLER AND MCDONALD

On a few major findings, the three landmark cases were patently clear.Heller held firmly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, and the Federal Government is prevented from disturbing that right. McDonald made clear the rulings and reasoning of Heller applied with equal force to the States. Bruen made clear the individual right to armed self-defense isn’t confined to one’s home but extends to the public domain.At each step, the three LandmarkSecond Amendment cases strengthened, in turn, an aspect of the plain meaning of the natural law right to armed self-defense, drawing upon and building upon and then clarifying a central plank of the predecessor case.The foes of these Landmark cases contested findings of law and fact. The arguments invariably began with a false premise: that the U.S. Supreme Court has impermissibly expanded the right embodied in the Second Amendment. The High Court did no such thing. It expanded nothing.The High Court simply laid out what exists in the language of the Second Amendment but that some State Governments fail to recognize or know but fail to acknowledge. And, in their actions, these Governments contort and distort, and inexorably weaken the clear, concise, and categorical meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment.The central thesis of the latest Landmark case, Bruen is this:

WHETHER AT HOME, OR IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE’S LIFE WITH THE FUNCTIONALLY BEST MEANS AVAILABLE, A FIREARM, A FACT TRUE CENTURIES AGO, AND NO LESS TRUE TODAY.

And, yet there exists a conundrum, a problem, a painful shard embedded in the heart of Bruen—a  carryover from Heller—that begs for resolution in a fourth Second Amendment case that likely is coming down the pike: Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, another New York case.That case is the progeny of an earlier case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen—the first major challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, amenable to the allegations made attacking the legality and Constitutionality of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, dismissed the case without prejudice, tacitly, but unsubtly, encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk to refile the case.New York Governor Hochul, apparently oblivious to the fact that the dismissal of Antonyuk vs. Bruen did not mean the Court found the CCIA Constitutional, pompously reported the District Court’s action as a win. She should have saved her breath. She would have looked less the fool.The Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, promptly filed a new complaint, and five other holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses joined him as Party Plaintiffs. During the litigation of the case, the Parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay enforcement of the CCIA, and the District Court granted the Motion.The Hochul Government appealed the Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court’s granting of the stay, and the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. In an unconventional request for a response from the Government to the Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Hochul Government filed its opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA case—eventually, recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli—and the High Court, in deference to the Second Circuit, did lift the stay, permitting the Government to enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit rules on the Preliminary Injunction.Having received what it wanted from the High Court and knowing or suspecting the core of the CCIA would likely be overturned on appeal of a final Order of the Second Circuit, the Hochul Government would have every reason to dawdle.The High Court, aware of this, cautioned the Government against this, in its Order, stating that that the Government must proceed apace with the case, and explicitly asserting that Plaintiffs can appeal to the High Court if the Government deliberately drags its feet.Yet, months later, the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, still sits at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A TENSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INTENT OF THOSE STATE GOVERNMENTS, THAT ABHOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, TO OPERATE IN DEFIANCE OF THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME

State Governments—like New York and others—that abhor exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment—will continue to enact Statutes spurning the High Court’s rulings until the Court deals with this conundrum.The central premise of Bruen is that the right to armed self-defense, inherent in the language of the Second Amendment, is not bounded in space or time.A person need not, then, present a reason to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. Self-defense is reason enough, and that reason is presumed in a person’s application for a carry license.It was the presumption of “May Issue” jurisdictions that an applicant for a handgun carry license must show the need for a handgun carry license that the U.S. Supreme Court attacked head-on.Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:  “New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standard. All of these ‘proper cause’ analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save  for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668, 431 U.S. App. D.C. 62 (CADC 2017).” [Bruen, Majority Opinion]Justice Thomas says Appellate Courts have upheld “May Issue” in six which include New York and the District of Columbia. What Justice Thomas doesn’t say but suggests is that “May Issue” is henceforth unconstitutional in all those jurisdictions because those jurisdictions embrace a“Proper Cause” schema even if the precise phrase, ‘Proper Cause,’ isn’t used in those “May Issue” in the handgun laws of those jurisdictions.Moreover, insofar as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in those jurisdictions have heretofore held “May Issue” Gun Laws Constitutional, the holdings of those Courts are henceforth overruled to the extent they conflict with Bruen. That means the reasoning in conjunction with and supporting those holdings is to be given no effect.A showing of “Extraordinary Need” is the mainstay of “Proper Cause”/“May Issue.” But, as to what had heretofore constituted this “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” was never defined in New York Statute. So, then, what is this thing, “Proper Cause?” How does New York define ‘Proper Cause’ since the Legislature never defined it?“No New York statute defines ‘proper cause.’ But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980). This ‘special need’ standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence ‘of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.’ In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199, 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department’s requirement of “‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5-03(b))).’”It was, then, left up to the various Licensing Authorities in New York to construct operational rules for “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”The expression, ‘Proper Cause,’ means ‘Special Need.’ And the expression, ‘Special Need’ means that an applicant for a concealed carry license must establish a reason for carrying beyond simple ‘self-defense.’A demand that a prospective concealed carry licensee convince the licensing authority that his need arises from an “Extraordinary Need,” i.e., a need beyond that faced by most people is what New York and similar “May Issue” jurisdictions demand. And it is this the U.S. Supreme Court finds both incongruous and repugnant under both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.Justice Thomas points out that “May Issue”/“Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need”—all allude to the fact that the Government licensing authority may exercise discretion in issuing a handgun license. This wasn’t a feature of New York’s Handgun Law Licensing Statute when the State Legislature enacted the Sullivan Act in 1911. “Magistrate” (i.e., Government Authority) discretion in issuing a carry license came about a couple of years later.“In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character” and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.” [Bruen, Majority Opinion] Through the passing years and decades, New York added more requirements, further constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The history of New York’s Sullivan Act illustrates a consistent and systematic course of action by foes of the Second Amendment to frustrate efforts by those individuals who desire to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense.  Eventually, as the trend toward ever more elaborate, convoluted, and oppressive amendments continued, the Handgun Law came to embrace several categories or tiers of handgun licensing and became increasingly difficult to decipher.New York’s Courts stamped their imprimatur on these Government actions, opining disingenuously, ludicrously that New York Law did indeed recognize a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but that exercise of that right required the acquisition of a license, and applicants had no right to demand a license of the Government. The Courts stated the obvious—that issuance of a license is a privilege, not a right, and one the New York Government reserved, to itself, the right to bestow or not, and to rescind once bestowed, as a matter of right.Americans who resided or worked in New York had had enough and challenged the legality and constitutionality of the State’s handgun law.  The process of obtaining a New York concealed handgun carry license is especially difficult demonstrating the Government’s callousness toward gun owners and its utter disdain for those civilian citizens who deign to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.“A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’ §§400.00(1)(a)-(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to ‘have and carry’ a concealed ‘pistol or revolver.’ §400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that ‘proper cause exists’ to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a ‘restricted’ license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438-439, 663 N. E. 2d 316, 316-317, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996); Babernitz v. Police Dept. of City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696-698, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).” [Bruen Majority Opinion]Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that demonstration of “extraordinary need” for carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, heretofore inextricably tied to “Proper Cause”/“May Issue”,  is unconstitutional. The Court articulated this point clearly and categorically. But, having taken this action, the Court stopped. It did not take the next logical step. It did not deal with the issue of “May Issue” Handgun Licensing itself.And that is why Bruen leaves us with a disheartening quandary; a diluted, seemingly equivocal opinion, as also occurred in Heller. The Hochul Government recognized this as a weakness in Bruen, and her Government ran with it.This must have frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion, along with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion.No doubt the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Majority Opinion in the parent Heller case would register his own frustration and indignation at repeated attempts by some on the High Court, to inhibit the citizenry’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The basic problem with the Bruen decision, and the source of the quandary, goes to the High Court’s handling of “May Issue” licensing.The Justices must have known that lukewarm handling of “May Issue” would provide the Hochul Government with a loophole—just enough, perhaps—to allow the Government to slither around the fundamental right of the people to armed self-defense at home and in the public arena.Drilling down the problem with“May Issue,” we proceed to the legitimacy of handgun licensing itself.

IS STATE GOVERNMENT “MAY ISSUE” HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL?

Is the practice of “May Issue” handgun licensing constitutional? This is the source of our inquiry here. It is a question that the U.S. Supreme Court must at some point contend with. We hope it does so, and in short order, in the next major Second Amendment case to come before it.In Bruen, the Court Majority doesn’t deal head-on with the matter of the legitimacy, legality, and Constitutionality of Government “May Issue” Licensing of firearms generally and with handguns particularly. The Court touches upon it, tentatively acknowledging the problem, noting that very few States, including New York, and the District of Columbia, are “May Issue” jurisdictions, but does not pursue it. This, to our mind, is a major failing of the case.That failing, a major and pervasive one, and one longstanding, going back fifteen years to Heller, has provided jurisdictions like New York, and others, with a path through which they not only are able to salvage draconian handgun licensing schemes but to strengthen them—all this despite the prominence and impact of Heller and Bruen that would seem at first glance to have closed all loopholes, demanding compliance.It is curious that obtaining a New York “restricted” handgun license for, say, hunting or target practice, is a relatively easy endeavor, at least in comparison to the hoops a person has had to jump through to acquire a concealed handgun “FULL CARRY” License. New York may be construed as a “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdiction apropos of restricted home or business premise licenses. In other words, so long as the applicant does not fall under a disability established in Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, (and the State embellishes those, making it even more difficult to overcome the disability provisions set forth in the Penal Code), the State licensing authority would issue a restricted handgun premise license. Generally, if the applicant did not meet the State's stringent “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” requirement, sufficient to acquire a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, the licensing authority would inquire of the applicant if he would accept a highly restrictive handgun premise license in its stead. That would, at least, avoid the need for the applicant to go through substantial time, effort, and expense necessary to reapply for a premise handgun license. And THAT would be the extent of the New York Government's concession to a person who wishes to exercise his right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment. The only requirement for one to obtain a limited use premise license is that a person isn’t under a disability which would entail automatic denial from legally possessing a firearm at all.Acceding to issue HIGHLY RESTRICTED, LIMITED USE HANDGUN LICENSES amounts to a booby prize. To this day, notwithstanding the Bruen rulings, New York remains a “MAY ISSUE” jurisdiction.The New York State Legislature has made the acquisition of a concealed carry license an extraordinarily difficult endeavor traditionally, and so it remains today. New York disincentivizes the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses post-Bruen, as it has done pre-Bruen. The process is lengthy, costly, and time-consuming. That doesn’t bother Associate Justice Steven Breyer. He feels acquisition of a handgun carry license should remain difficult, the reason articulated predicated on the prevalence of violent crime in society.He reminds the target audience of a connection between handguns and violent crimes that he and other foes of the Second Amendment invariably draw:“Consider, for one thing, that different types of firearms may pose different risks and serve different purposes. The Court has previously observed that handguns, the type of firearm at issue here, ‘are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). But handguns are also the most popular weapon chosen by perpetrators of violent crimes. In 2018, 64.4% of firearm homicides and 91.8% of nonfatal firearm assaults were committed with a handgun. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, G. Kena & J. Truman, Trends and Patterns in Firearm Violence, 1993-2018, pp. 5-6 (Apr. 2022).” [Breyer, Dissenting Opinion in Bruen]What is interesting about this argument—one routinely made by foes of the notion of civilian citizen armed self-defense—is the implication derived therefrom.The implication is that the lowest common denominator of society—inhabited by the common criminal opportunist, the psychopathic killer, and the psychotic maniac (all of whom Democrat-Party-Controlled Governments allow to run amok), and at times, here and there, the atypical, careless, irresponsible, but otherwise law-abiding, rational adult—should dictate firearms’ policy negatively impacting exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense for the rest of us: tens of millions of the common people, i.e., responsible, sane, trustworthy, law-abiding Americans. Who are these Americans? Roughly a third of the Country, over 80 million Americans. See, e.g., American Gun Facts.There are proven ways to deal with the lowest common denominator of society. Get them off the streets and into prisons or institutions for the criminally insane. But those Americans who consider themselves “Liberals” or “Progressives” and who are, as a group, antagonistic toward the very notion of a natural law right to armed self-defense, focus their energies on curbing or curtailing the right to armed self-defense of the vast commonalty—using a sledgehammer rather than a surgical knife to deal with violent crime posed by a small but virulent element of society.This suggests that intractable violent crime is but a pretext for the accomplishment of a goal: disarming the citizen. One wonders: Is it a pervasive violent crime that motivates Anti-Second Amendment sentiment among those who seek to eliminate the exercise of the right to armed self-defense, or is it something else, something much different: the threat that the armed citizenry poses to an Authoritarian Government? Is it not the latter, rather than the former that motivates and drives the Government to disarm the American public en masse?Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, discussed tyranny but there is nothing in that discussion to cement as a rationale for the “individual right to keep and bear arms” holding—what Justice Scalia points out to be the key point of the Second Amendment for the framers of the Constitution—that the Second Amendment is the final “fail-safe” to prevent or, at least, to forestall the onset of tyranny. Rather, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to a notion of armed self-defense against the criminal element. Thus, the Heller rulings operate as a counterweight to the dissenting opinions' arguments that guns should be removed from civilian citizens precisely because they are often utilized by criminals and lunatics, suggesting erroneously, that the way to prevent Gun Violence from thousands of psychopathic criminals and psychotic maniacs, whom the political and progressive elements in society are loathed to deal effectively with, is to remove guns from the hands of everyone else: approximately a third of the Nation, one hundred million law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens. But then, it is this armed citizenry—upward of one hundred million Americans—whom the Anti-Second Amendment contingent of the Country and one-world-government proponents are really targeting.Tyranny is what the world empire builders have sought for decades and what they intend to accomplish, for that is what a world government means. And the armed citizenry—that which is nonexistent in CCP China and Russia, the EU and in the British Commonwealth Nations, and in almost every other nation or political grouping of nations on Earth, save for Switzerland and Israel—is the one definitive preventive medicine to Tyranny. Our Constitution’s framers knew that. They fought a war over it. And, but for the force of arms, this Nation today would still, more likely than not, still be under British rule, a part of the British Commonwealth.  With the truth of this as a given, all talk of “Gun Violence” is to be perceived as a deflection—a “dodge,” irrelevant. True “Criminal Violence”—if there is any import to the expression equates with “Tyranny.” Armed self-defense against predatory animal and man is understood and need not be stated.The Second Amendment directs one’s attention to the threat to a free people as a whole—a dire threat, posed by Predatory Government. Justice Scalia undoubtedly recognized it. And, in Heller, he surmised that future scholars of U.S. case law would see in the Heller decision that the case is a doctrinal essay on the rationale for the Second Amendment, and, thus, for the central holding—the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, qua the armed citizenry, as necessary for the security of a Free State: Tyranny Thwarted only through the continued existence of the armed American citizenry.It is that idea that is both repugnant to and frightening too and therefore intolerable to those forces both within this Country and outside it, who understand, in these three cases, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, a direct assault on their goals and initiatives. Those goals and initiatives are directed at eliminating, not safeguarding, preserving, and strengthening the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to armed self-defense.This natural law right to armed self-defense is tied to the right of free speech, i.e., the right of the individual TO BE individual: the natural law right of the individual to dissent from Government dictates and mob rule and societal pressures that compel uniformity in thought and conduct; that demand obedience; demand the surrender of one’s will to the will of the “Greater Society,” to the will of “The Hive.”  Those forces that crush entire nations and populations into submission view the U.S. Supreme Court’s 21^st Century Second Amendment rulings in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen, as an unacceptable and intolerable assault on what they wish to achieve: a Neoliberal Globalist empire. These forces perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as anachronistic, antagonistic, and antithetical to that goal. Individual thought and an armed citizenry cannot coexist in such a reality. Thus, the goals and policy initiatives in vogue today are employed to drive a wedge between the American people and their history and heritage, culture, and ethos. The aims of these forces are directed at eliminating, not preserving and strengthening, the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to dissent and to armed self-defense. The New York Government has long resided in the camp of these Globalist, world empire builders.The New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul—and before her, Andrew Cuomo—is virulently opposed to civilian citizens carrying handguns in the public domain for personal defense.The New York Government, with the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, weathered the previous challenge to the Sullivan Act and New York City handgun rules, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020), but that case dealt only with the constitutionality of certain restrictions on the use of a restricted New York City premise license. The State and the City modified the Handgun Statute and the City modified the Rules of the City of New York to avoid a possible attack on the core of the Sullivan Act, involving the carrying of a handgun concealed in New York. The core of the Sullivan Act, though could not be avoided in Bruen. For, the legitimacy, the legality, the constitutionality of the core of the Sullivan Act was at issue.The Hochul Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany attempted an end-run around Bruen by complying with a superficial aspect of the Bruen holding. The High Court held that,“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”So, then, if the High Court found “Proper Cause” to be problematic, the Government would strike the words, “Proper Cause” from the Sullivan Act—which turned out to be a superficial genuflection. The Hochul Government thereupon bolstered the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Gun Law that the High Court mentioned in a cursory fashion in Bruen but did not remonstrate against because “Good Moral Character” had not functioned as anything more than a makeweight. It did not factor substantively into the equation whether the New York Handgun Licensing Authority would issue a person a concealed handgun carry license. What does that mean? How does the Licensing Authority process an application for a concealed handgun carry license in New York? The process of issuing a concealed carry license in New York, prior to Bruen, involved a two-step process. First, the licensing official determined whether the applicant falls under a disability that precludes that person from possessing a firearm at all.If the applicant falls into a category of disability as set forth in the “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” Section of Federal Law, Title 18, Part I (“Crimes”) Chapter 44 (“Firearms”), then that person is incapable of legally possessing any firearm.18 USCS § 922 sets forth:“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) who is a fugitive from justice;(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8) who is subject to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; [and](n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”In the letter of denial, the licensing officer will state the basis for denial and add that in the License Officer’s judgment the individual does not satisfy the “Good Moral Character” requirement. The words, “Good Moral Character” do not add anything pertinent to the letter of denial. For, whether mentioned or not, the applicant cannot lawfully possess a firearm under federal law, once the licensing officer sets forth the ground or grounds of federal disability and/or the State's own grounds, which build on the Federal grounds of disability. For example, the New York Handgun Licensing Officer in New York City, i.e., the NYPD License Division, has routinely denied the issuance of handgun license, whether for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license or a restricted premise license if a person has an arrest record, even without conviction and even if the arrest or arrest and conviction occurred while the applicant was a juvenile, and the arrest or conviction record would likely be under seal, or if the individual has a history of mental illness whether or not the applicant had been institutionalized.It should be noted the NYPD License Division, for one, always denied a person’s application for any kind of handgun license if the individual had an arrest record, even sans conviction, although the denial in that circumstance could often—depending on the nature of the prior arrest or arrests, but not invariably—be overcome through an Administrative Hearing.Assuming the applicant did not fall into an 18 USCS § 922(g) or (n) category and the applicant did not seem, to the licensing officer, to have an “objective” flaw such as an arrest record, or history of mental illness, AND the applicant sought a concealed carry license, the officer would proceed to the second step, to ascertain whether that person satisfied the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement. This, traditionally, was difficult for the average applicant to satisfy, as noted, supra.Since the U.S. Supreme Court saw no Constitutional flaw in the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Handgun Law—and as the Plaintiffs in Bruen did not, apparently object to it—the High Court did not find fault with it either, apart from mentioning it in the Bruen Majority Opinion. It was never seen as an issue demanding resolution.The Hochul Government immediately perceived the “Good Moral Character” as a useful mechanism to maintain the “May Issue” prerogative and jumped on it.After the publication of the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government went to work to transform the “Good Moral Character” Requirement into a de facto “Proper Cause”  requirement. It did this by demanding that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license comply with a host of new requirements that had not heretofore existed in the Handgun Law.Now, under the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “current through 2023,” NY CLS Penal § 400.00(1),“. . . for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”Requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) are problematic on grounds of legality and constitutionality, and vagueness. Each one is a potential stumbling block—and this is by design.We will delve into each of these in a forthcoming article. In our analysis, we will also attempt to discern the reasoning behind each.But, for now, concerning the new “Good Moral Character” requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v), let it suffice to say that, since these requirements were not mandated before the Bruen decision, there is no legitimate rationale for mandating them now other than to maintain “May Issue” through the creation of a new set of hurdles to replace the loss of the “Proper Cause” requirement.These points are important. If true, this would strongly suggest, as applied to New York, that the mere act of striking the words ‘Proper Cause’ from New York’s Handgun Law doesn’t alter the subjective nature of the “May Issue” standard through which a New York licensing authority may, in its discretion, deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That discretion continues to exist under the CCIA.The Legislature in Albany basically transformed the “Good Moral Character” requirement that, prior to Bruen, was essentially redundant—which is why Plaintiffs did not claim fault with it—into a new “Proper Cause” requirement with a litany of new subjective criteria that a New York handgun licensing authority has as its disposal to confound the applicant and through which that licensing authority can effectively deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Although the Hochul Government was astute enough to refrain from tying this bolstered “Good Moral Character” with “Extraordinary Need,”  “May Issue” a concealed handgun carry license remains. And that is problematic.The CCIA “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive Place” restriction provisions are two principal bases of challenge that have generated, to date, at least two dozen lawsuits in New York. Again, this could have been avoided. Apart from finding New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement Unconstitutional, Justices Thomas and Alito, along with Trump’s nominees, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett might have made an unequivocal pronouncement that “May Issue” handgun licensing statutes are per se illegal and unconstitutional because “May Issue” jurisdictions allow for improper use of Government discretion. But they forbore doing so.That failure led to the enactment of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act and gave New York handgun licensing authorities the tools to continue to deny an applicant, not under a disability, from exercising his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Justices must have been aware of the problem, and they must have seen this coming. They probably realized the New York Government would recognize the weakness in the High Court’s rulings just as they did. In fact, Justice Thomas, alluded to the problem, when, he said, as we iterated, supra,“New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. [Bruen Majority Opinion].So, “MAY ISSUE”/“PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” lives on—unconditional, unalloyed, absolute Government Discretion to continue to refuse to issue concealed handgun carry licenses, contrary to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the public domain as well as in one's home.Did Chief Justice Roberts tie the hands of Justices Thomas and Alito in Bruen, just as both he and Justice Kennedy tied the hands of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in the Heller case?Unfettered Government discretion reduces an intrinsic, unalienable, right into a mere privilege: To be bestowed on one or not at the whim of Government, and just as easily rescinded, if once bestowed.New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul and her Democrat Party supporters in the State Legislature in Albany have taken advantage of the weaknesses and vagaries in Bruen, to launch a scheme to keep the core structural scheme of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government concocted a set of unconstitutional amendments to the Sullivan Act, referred to, collectively, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Together with a series of other oppressive Anti-Second Amendment Statutes, the State’s Gun Law is as potent and as noxious, and as illegal as it was prior to Bruen. And so, a flurry of new lawsuits ensued.The essence of the problem here isn’t ‘May Issue’ versus ‘Shall Issue’ a handgun carry license. The essence of the problem rests with the very act of requiring a license to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance.There is something deeply disturbing and discordant with State Government requiring licensing as a condition precedent to exercising a fundamental, unalienable right.Drilling down to the bedrock, the question is:  “Is the Act of Government Handgun Licensing Legal and Constitutional, at all?” The majority of States recognize inherent Constitutional problems with licensing, and as of January 2023, most States have established “permitless carry.”The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable right is legal and Constitutional. The Court alluded to it fifteen years ago in Heller, and once again in Bruen, last year, but that is as far as the Court went, as far as it was willing to go.But that doesn’t mean the Court condones Government firearms licensing regimes. And so, the legitimacy of State Government handgun licensing remains an open question. And jurisdictions like New York have taken advantage of the Court's failure to take firm and categorical action on this.,The tentativeness of the High Court to address this issue directly and the seeming elusiveness of the conjecture have led some jurisdictions to infer, erroneously, that gun licensing is a legitimate prerogative of the State. It is not, but that doesn’t stop foes of the Second Amendment from making the claim, anyway. And New York has made such a claim.In the New York’s “Brief in Opposition to Emergency Application for Relief and to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction” in Antonyuk versus Nigrelli, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Letitia James, Attorney General, representing the New York Government, made the blanket statement,“Indeed, this Court in Bruen endorsed shall-issue licensing regimes [citing Bruen at 2138 n.9; and Kavanaugh’s concurring at 2161-62.”But is that true? What DID the Court really say?Footnote 9 of Bruen reads, verbatim:“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].’ Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’ Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151, 89 S. Ct. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”Letitia James is wrong. Moreover, her remarks are insulting.The High Court HAS NOT endorsed the notion that Government licensing of handguns is Constitutional. To the contrary, the Court acknowledges only that licensing regimes in 43 “Shall Issue” Jurisdictions will be tolerated so long as they do not offend the core of the Second Amendment right. And even there, the Court said, “we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes.”That IS NOT an endorsement of licensing. Furthermore, the Court’s remarks, in dicta, categorically exclude “May Issue” regimes such as New York, which led to the Court’s review of New York’s licensing regime in Bruen, in the first place.Justice Kavanaugh’s remark on page 2162 of Bruen, which James also cites, reiterates the points appearing in FN 9 of the Majority Opinion.A complete analysis of the three seminal Second Amendment cases requires a perusal of Justice Scalia’s remarks in Heller.Scalia made clear that concessions made to State regulation of the Second Amendment do not mean the Court acknowledges an unbridled State right to license the exercise of a fundamental right.Scalia said this:“Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement ‘in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license.’  App. 59a.  The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District ‘may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one's house.’ . . . Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with . . . licensing’ and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’  Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.  We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance  of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”Keep in mind the last sentence: “We . . . do not address the licensing requirement.” In other words, the issue of the constitutionality of handgun licensing, per se, remains unsettled. It is certainly important, in fact vital. By pointing to it, Scalia suggests the issue will be taken up at a later time. That time is now.The Court cannot continue to evade the central issue: Is State Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable, right Constitutional? This issue must be addressed and must be addressed soon, and it must be addressed clearly, comprehensively, and emphatically.Foes of the Second Amendment in the States and in the Federal Government are pressing ahead with their agenda aimed at eliminating the exercise of the right to armed self-defense before the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.It no longer behooves the U.S. Supreme Court to simply review this or that provision of a State handgun law. Doing so does not get to the heart of the matter. It only results, as we have seen, in countless more brazen attempts by State Governments to intrude on one’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against animals, predatory men, and, worst of all, the predatory, tyrannical Government.The Founders of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution, did not envision the kind of wholesale unconscionable intrusion into the sovereign citizens’ exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms that Americans witness and suffer today. And they certainly wouldn't endorse this idea of Government licensing prior to exercising a fundamental right, that is prevalent in many jurisdictions.These unconstitutional, unconscionable actions by State actors must stop here and must stop now.The case Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Government and the Second Circuit are presently sitting on, in defiance of Justice Samuel Alito’s admonishment to the Government to avoid delay, is likely, at some point, to be reviewed by the High Court.If or when the Court does so, it should not quibble or equivocate any longer on the salient issue of the day but should deal directly with the constitutionality of handgun licensing.That is the only way to impede the inexorable erosion of our Nation’s most important Right—the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—in the absence of which preservation of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible, and Tyranny in all its horror is inevitable and unavoidable.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?

A reader of the Arbalest Quarrel asked us whether New York bans the Maxim 50, manufactured by SilencerCo. To answer this question, we first went to the manufacturer’s website to get a handle on what the Maxim 50 is since the manufacturer’s description of it serves as the basis for legal analysis. The central issue is whether the Maxim 50 is a firearm under Federal and New York law. If the Maxim 50 is construed as a firearm under Federal law, it comes under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and, as applicable, under the purview of those Acts as subsequently amended.The manufacturer, SilencerCo, describes the Maxim 50 as an “integrally suppressed muzzleloader.” The manufacturer says:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilenceCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL.

BUT, IS THE MANUFACTURER’S STATEMENT ACCURATE? CAN A NEW YORK RESIDENT, NOT UNDER DISABILITY, PURCHASE THE MAXIM 50, LAWFULLY, THROUGH A LICENSED NEW YORK GUN DEALER EVEN IF THAT NEW YORK RESIDENT CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE MAXIM 50 THROUGH THE MANUFACTURER, DIRECTLY?

Can a resident of New York, who wishes to purchase the Maxim 50 obtain it, lawfully, then, through an FFL?To begin to answer this question intelligently, we must first ask what sort of thing the Maxim 50 integrally suppressed muzzleloader is, when viewed under federal law and under New York law.Let us look at the Maxim 50 from the standpoint of Federal law, first. Two federal code sections are critical to our investigation: 26 USCS § 5845 (Definitions) of the United States Code of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E; Alcohol, Tobacco, And Certain Other Excise Taxes; Chapter 53 Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, And Certain Other Firearms; Subchapter B. General Provisions and Exemptions, Part I. General Provisions; and we look to 18 USCS § 921 (Definitions); Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Part I. Crimes; Chapter 44. Firearms. We know that the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loader, since the manufacturer of the product describes it as such, and as the manufacturer further explains its nature, in detail, in the product manual, we can rest assured that the Maxim 50 is, in fact, a muzzle loader. The question for us is whether a muzzle loader is a firearm, under federal law. For, if federal law defines the Maxim 50 as a muzzle loader, then that fact is determinative of whether the device--which, as the manufacturer says comes equipped with an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--falls under federal firearms restrictions. We begin with the assumption that the expressions ‘firearm suppressor’  and ‘firearm silencer’ refer, from a legal standpoint, essentially to the same sort of thing. The term ‘silencer’ may be a misnomer to firearms experts, but, as it is that expression, 'silencer,' that is used in federal law and in New York law, rather than the more appropriate expression, 'firearm suppressor,' we need not quibble about the relative inaccuracy of the expression, 'firearm silencer,' when considering the legality of possession of the device by the average law-abiding American citizen. The firearms expert will understand that, to the legislator and to the police, and to the lawyer, the expressions, ‘firearm silencer,’ and ‘firearm suppressor,’ and ‘integrally suppressed firearm,’ or, as in the instant case, ‘integrally suppressed muzzleloader,’ mean pretty much the same thing in respect to what it is that the component is designed to do.

IS THE MAXIM 50 A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

26 USCS § 5845(a) says that, “The term 'firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term 'firearm' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.” 26 USCS § 5845(a). AND,26 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.Through 26 USCS § 5845(a) and 26 USCS § 921(a)(3), it doesn’t appear the Maxim 50 is a “firearm.” But further clarification is necessary. We obtain that clarification in another U.S. Federal Code Section. We ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 AN ‘ANTIQUE FIREARM’ UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

If the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm,” then, under 26 USCS § 5845(a), it is not a ‘Firearm.’ How does federal law define an ‘Antique Firearm?’ The expression ‘Antique Firearm,’ has two definitions. If the Maxim 50 falls under either one of those two definitions, then, the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm’ under Federal law.18 USCS § 921(a)(16) says:“The term ‘antique firearm’ means—(A)  any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or(B)  any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—(i)  is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or(ii)  uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or(C)  any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.”AND,26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”The Maxim 50 is, of course, a weapon manufactured after 1898, so it doesn’t qualify as an ‘antique firearm’ under 26 USCS § 5845(g), but, it is a muzzle loader that does in fact use black powder, according to the manufacturer’s instruction manual. And, if we can infer that the Maxim 50 does not incorporate a “firearm frame or receiver” and that it cannot “be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock or any combination thereof,” then it is not a ‘firearm,’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(16), and that is sufficient to remove the Maxim 50 from the category of ‘firearm’ under federal law.But, wait a second. Even if the Maxim 50 is an ‘antique firearm’ and, hence, not a ‘firearm’ under federal law, isn’t the Maxim 50 a “silencer?” Yes. BUT, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “firearm silencer.” That fact is crucial. But, how do we know this? We know this because federal law makes clear that, since the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm, under federal law, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “silencer” either, under federal law. Once again,18 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. Since The Maxim 50, as a black powder muzzle loader  with integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer), isn't a firearm under federal law, then, by legal implication, the Maxim 50's silencer--more to the point, integrally suppressed muzzleloader--isn't a “firearm silencer,” under federal law, either.But, we still aren’t quite finished with our analysis. We must ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS “ANY OTHER WEAPON” UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

But, once again, the answer is, "No." The expression 'Any Other Weapon'--a generic description of 'weapon'--also finds its way in federal law. 26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'any other weapon' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.”The Maxim 50 cannot be readily concealed “on the person,” and, indeed, it isn’t designed to be the sort of implement to be capable of being concealed on the person. So, the Maxim 50 is not defined, in federal law as, ‘any other weapon.’So, under federal law, we conclude that the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm and it doesn't fall under restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, or under restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.So, under federal law, the Maxim 50 doesn’t appear to run into problems under federal law.BUT,What about New York law, specifically. Is the Maxim 50, with integrated suppressor, considered a firearm within the jurisdiction of New York?

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW YORK GUN CONTROL LAWS?

To some extent New York law follows the dictates of federal law, but New York law has its own twists.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW YORK LAW?

We look to the Consolidated laws of New York for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions under Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2) and (3) of Article 265 provide us with two definitions of importance to us here.“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.”“3. ‘Firearm’ means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.”The Consolidated laws of New York do not, to the best of our information and belief, define an implement that has the characteristics of the Maxim 50. New York law does define the expression, ‘antique firearm,’ but that definition does not track the federal law definitions.NY CLS Penal § 265.00(16) says, “‘Antique firearm’ means: Any unloaded muzzle loading pistol or revolver with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, or a pistol or revolver which uses fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.” Under New York law the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loading device but it isn’t a pistol or revolver.It would appear, at first glance, that the Maxim 50 doesn’t come under the purview of Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. But, on closer inspection, it’s clear that the Maxim 50 does come under the purview of Article 265. Let’s look once again at NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.” The expression, ‘firearm silencer’ refers to “any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance . . . to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun. . . .” Pay close attention to the word, ‘gun.’The term, ‘gun,’ is an amorphous concept that can reasonably apply to the Maxim 50. New York law doesn't define the word, 'gun.' It is simply mentioned in New York law. And, we don't see a definition for the word, 'gun,' as such, defined in federal law either. So, we have to go to a common dictionary source to get a handle on the plain meaning of the word. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory.’ The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines, the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.’  Clearly enough, the Maxim 50 is a gun under New York law. Since the Maxim 50 is manufactured with an integrated silencer component--as the manufacturer refers to the Maxim 50 as an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--the Maxim 50 does fall under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).The drafters of ‘firearm silencer’ clearly and poignantly intended to make firearm silencers unlawful in New York. Case law makes this point clearer still. The Opinion of the Appellate Court of Albany is insightful and is quoted at length in the 1984 New York case, Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881.In Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, “The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denied the gunsmith's request for permission to transfer two machine guns and a firearm silencer to persons who could lawfully possess them in New York. The gunsmith, who was also a dealer, filed an action for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the state police's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court modified the trial court's judgment so as to allow a declaratory judgment because such was designed to allow the adjudication of rights before a wrong took place. Thus, the gunsmith did not need to be in danger of prosecution before a declaratory judgment as to his rights could be entered. The court then declared that the gunsmith could not lawfully possess or dispose of firearm silencers and machine guns.  N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(8), (9) defined a ‘gunsmith’ and a ‘dealer in firearms’ and prescribed the activities in which persons who were duly licensed for those businesses could lawfully engage. Because possession and disposition of a silencer or machine gun were not mentioned in N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(8), (9), 265.02(2), 265.10(3), they were not permissible.”The Appellate Court of Albany said this about the possession of silencers by either a New York licensed dealer or gunsmith: "Penal Law § 265.00 (8) defines a ‘gunsmith’ and Penal Law § 265.00 (9) defines a ‘dealer in firearms.’ “These definitions specifically prescribe the activities in which those persons or entities who are duly licensed for those businesses under Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) can lawfully engage.  Applying the rule of statutory construction that states expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded' (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208-209, quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240).  It follows that inasmuch as subdivisions (8) and (9) of Penal Law § 265.00 contain no reference to firearm silencer possession and disposition by a ‘gunsmith’ or a ‘dealer in firearms,’ such possession and disposition are not permissible (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) provides an exemption for gunsmiths and dealers in firearms from all of the penalties provided by Penal Law article 265. The exemption provided by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) permits gunsmiths and dealers in firearms to engage only in the activities prescribed in the definitions of those terms in Penal Law § 265.00 (8) and (9), for without such exemption the prescribed activities would be  unlawful. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, however, the exemption cannot be construed to broaden and expand the statutory activities in which a gunsmith or dealer in firearms can lawfully engage.”“By similar reasoning and applying the same statutory rule of construction, a ‘dealer in firearms’ is not authorized to possess or in any other way deal in ‘machine guns’ (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  The definition of ‘firearm’ contained in Penal Law § 265.00 (3) does not include ‘machine guns,’ which are separately defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (1).  Again, contrary to plaintiff's contention, no exemption is provided in Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) for a licensed dealer in firearms to possess or dispose of machine guns to any individual who may lawfully possess them.  The activities of licensed dealers in firearms are limited to pistols or revolvers (Penal Law § 265.00 [9]).  As to licensed gunsmiths, the activities permitted by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (8) in respect to machine guns applies only if they are the [manufacturers]’ of machine guns. Since plaintiff is not such a ‘manufacturer’ of machine guns, the statute has no application to him. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (8), a licensed gunsmith may engage in certain activities with respect to machine guns, but disposition is not one of those activities.  Plaintiff's other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.”Under New York law, as interpreted by the Appellate Court of Albany, licensed dealers and gunsmiths are not permitted to transfer machine guns or silencers. Whether the integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer) of the Maxim 50 is integrated into a device that is not construed as a firearm under federal law or New York law is, then, decidedly and decisively legally irrelevant.The Maxim 50 is a “gun” under New York law, and since the suppressor (silencer) is integrated into that gun, it is the Arbalest Quarrel’s educated opinion (albeit, not a formal legal opinion), that the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York.FURTHER NOTE:The Arbalest Quarrel has spoken with one licensed gun dealer in New York, and holder of an FFL, who told us that, under no circumstances, would he accept delivery of the Maxim 50 for anyone. And, it is doubtful that a New York resident, not under disability, would be able to locate any conscientious licensed New York gun dealer or gunsmith who would be willing to accept delivery of the Maxim 50 on behalf of a customer, for transfer to that customer. It should go without saying, then, that, under no circumstance should a resident of New York attempt to obtain delivery of the Maxim 50 directly from the manufacturer; for, to do so would be to invite serious criminal repercussions under New York State law. Such attempt to obtain possession of the Maxim 50 in New York would invite unwelcome attention from the BATF as well. Interested parties should peruse the National Firearms Handbook which can be found on the BATF website. Other web pages on the BATF website contain a wealth of information on firearms rules and regulations.To its credit SilenceCo does make clear that “customers from any state should verify they are abiding by all state, local, and federal laws before purchasing.”  Individuals interested in obtaining the Maxim 50 should takes those words to heart.BOTTOM LINE: The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50, as with “Assault Weapons,” as the expression ‘Assault Weapon’ is defined in the Consolidated Laws of New York, is illegal in New York. Therefore, no New York resident should attempt to obtain one.Whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONGRESSMAN CHRIS COLLINS’ SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT (“SAGA”): A GOOD START BUT NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

INTRODUCTION

The seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) made categorically clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia; and the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that followed Heller, two years later, made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms—an individual right—applies to the States as well as to the federal Government. Unfortunately, many State Legislatures, along with many legislators in Congress and, worst of all, many jurists on State or Federal Courts strongly oppose the holdings and reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. This animosity carries over to and is reflected in poorly drafted legislation and in poorly crafted legal opinions. Occasionally, though, State Legislatures and Congress get it right, and do draft laws recognizing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congressman Chris Collins’ (NY-27) Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”) that the Congressman recently introduced in Congress is just such a bill. We heartily support the Congressman’s efforts. But, what might we expect?

WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF PASSAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Unfortunately, not good. We take our cue from other pro-Second Amendment bills. We have yet to see movement on several national handgun carry reciprocity bills that presently exist in a state of limbo, locked up in Committee.  Even if Congressman Collins’ bill makes it out of Committee, and, further, is voted on and passes a full House vote, it likely would be held up in the Senate where it must garner a super majority—60 votes—to pass and see enactment. The bill likely would not pass as a “stand-alone” bill in any event. That means the bill would have to be tacked on to other legislation to have any chance of passage. But, assuming the bill were enacted, what might we expect from it?

WHY DID CONGRESSMAN COLLINS DRAFT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL?

Congressman Collins, a Representative of New York, obviously had Governor Cuomo’s signature anti-Second Amendment legislation, the NY Safe Act, in mind, when he drafted this bill; for the bill, if enacted, is, ostensibly at least, at loggerheads with a key feature of the Safe Act—Section 37 of the Act—the Section that bans the possession and sale of all firearms defined as ‘assault weapons.’According to the Congressman’s Press Release “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void." But, is that true? Is the Press Release accurate? Or, does the Press Release presume more about the bill than what the bill produces, in the event the bill, as drafted, sees the light of day and becomes law?

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY?

The bill (H.R. 3576), amends Section 927 (Effect on State Law) of Chapter 44 (Firearms), of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) of the U.S. Code.As presently enacted Section 927, says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” In pertinent part, Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 sets forth:“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.”What does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code purport to do; and what does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code mean?To understand the import of Congressman Collins’ bill, it is first helpful, in this instance, to understand what those who oppose it would do to challenge it, assuming the Second Amendment Guarantee Act does become law—which is far from clear given Democrats’ hysterical aversion to the Second Amendment and Republicans’ constant foot-dragging.

IF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND LEGISLATORS CHALLENGE THE BILL IN THE EVENT IT BECAME LAW, UNDER WHAT GROUND MIGHT THE BILL BE CHALLENGED?

Congressman Collins’ bill is likely to face stiff opposition and resistance in Congress prior to enactment—assuming it even moves out of Committee—as it would almost certainly be challenged, inter alia, on Constitutional, Tenth Amendment grounds were the bill to become law.What does the Tenth Amendment say? The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment has always been a sticky wicket, especially in matters involving the Second Amendment because the matter of firearms’ regulations and licensing, apart from the regulation and licensing of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices, falls, traditionally, within the police powers of a State. Although the federal Government has, in the last several decades, amassed ever more powers unto itself, the fact of the matter is that this Nation is a confederation of independent sovereign States. This idea seems to be lost on people, not least of all in light of the present “Charlottesville” episode—a matter which the Arbalest Quarrel will be writing on in the near future, taking the mainstream news media to task for unleashing a wave of opinionated fake news on the matter, and which the mainstream media is egging the Trump Administration to handle, on the federal level, to support Marxist efforts to erase our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values.Yet, the federal Government cannot indiscriminately, lawfully, run roughshod over the States and the people. In the matter of Congressman Collins’ bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, this creates something of a quandary; for, the bill—as the Congressman articulates through his Press Release—substantially preempts States’ rights on matters of firearms regulations and licensing. The paramount question is this: if Congressman Collins’ bill does become law, can those, who would then seek to mount a Tenth Amendment challenge against it, likely succeed in the Courts? The answer isn’t clear, but, a careful analysis of the bill’s text suggests the bill can survive a Tenth Amendment challenge, as it was carefully drafted to sidestep just such a challenge. Why do we say this? Well, looking at the Tenth Amendment issue, the actual drafter or drafters of the bill made clear the intent of the Act to supersede State regulation of and licensing of firearms; for, Congress would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, be exercising its authority to regulate firearms moving in interstate commerce. It is a categorical, unequivocal principle of law that Congress has plenary power to regulate goods moving in interstate commerce under the Commerce clause. On that matter, no legitimate legal question exists, as the U.S. Supreme Court has made this point abundantly clear.“As we observed in Lopez, [United States v Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624] modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has ‘identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276-277, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1, 101 S. Ct. 2352 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150, 28 L. Ed. 2d 686, 91 S. Ct. 1357 (1971)). ‘First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256, 85 S. Ct. 348, 13 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1964); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114, 85 L. Ed. 609, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941)). ‘Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 32 S. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72 (1911); Perez, supra, at 150). ‘Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558-559 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 37). United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609; 120 S Ct. 1740, 1749; 146 L. Ed. 2d 658, 670 (2000).”So, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would likely survive a Tenth Amendment challenge. But, the strength of the bill, as drafted, also poses a weakness, notwithstanding. For, while State laws, such as New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, cannot, if Collins’ bill is enacted, most likely preclude importation of firearms into their State—including and importantly so-called assault weapons, as importation of such firearms affects interstate commerce and federal law, would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, preempt State law in matters affecting interstate commerce—still, once the firearms are presented in States such as New York and Maryland, it isn’t clear, from the present language of the bill, that firearms’ dealers would be able to sell or trade such “assault weapons” to individuals residing in those States, so long as laws such as the SAFE Act and the Firearm Safety Act are in effect. And, those Acts would still be in effect. For, contrary to Collins’ Press Release, restrictive State gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, do not, ipso facto, become nugatory. A legal challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act would have to be made. But, once made, it is still unclear whether the Safe Act and the Firearm Safety Act could not prevent transfers of "assault weapons" to individuals, not under disability, within the State, on the ground that regulation of "assault weapons" was being conducted intrastate, thereby not affecting interstate commerce.The question, from the standpoint of those challenging restrictive gun legislation existent in States such as New York, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others, then becomes whether so-called “assault weapons” that some States wish to ban and, at present, have banned outright, can be sold as “protected” firearms under federal law, once they are in a State, such as New York. If so, that means, then, that States could not legally proscribe the transfer, ownership, and possession of those weapons, try as they might. The issue raised by the Second Amendment Guarantee Act is analogous to the matter pertaining to machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons, as federal law completely preempts the field concerning those weapons, which means that States have absolutely no legal power to enact laws involving the regulation, licensing, and disposition of those kinds of weapons in their States. Federal law completely preempts the field in matters involving the licensing, regulation, and disposition of machine guns. Language in Section 922 (Unlawful Acts) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes clear the intent of Congress to preempt the field, in its entirety, in matters pertaining to the transfer and ownership and possession of machine guns. Paragraph “o” of Section 922 of Title 18 says,“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.(2)  This subsection does not apply with respect to—(A)  a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or(B)  any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect [effective May 19, 1986].”Curiously, the expressions, ‘firearm,’ ‘rifle,’ ‘shotgun,’ and ‘machine gun,’ are not defined in Section 922 of Chapter 4 (Firearms) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, where a person might expect to find them, but in Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Service Code of the U.S. Code, 26 USCS § 5845. In 26 USCS § 5845(b), “The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”Keep in mind that Congressman Collins’ bill modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code only, which deals with federal preemption of State law regulation of firearms,  generally, but the bill modifies nothing in Section 922 of Title 18, where one would expect to find an assertion of those particular firearms and firearms’ components that federal law is preempting States from regulating and there is no modification of Section 5845 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) where firearm terminology is specifically defined. And, it is in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that we see federal preemption of regulation of machine guns; and it is in that same Section of Title 18 that, in 1994, Congress expressly banned ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” nationally—as part of antigun efforts that orchestrated enactment of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” A national ban on the transfer of and ownership of so-called “assault weapons,” along with a ban on LCMs, was set forth in federal law, subsumed in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. But inclusion of an “assault weapons” provision of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which added a paragraph “v” which made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” and inclusion of a ban on large capacity magazines, set forth in paragraph “w” of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which made it “unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” both expired in September of 2003. Those provisions of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were never reauthorized, despite subsequent and numerous efforts by antigun politicians to do so.Since the impetus for the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was predicated, obviously and reasonably, on Congressman Collins' laudable desire to negate the impact of the NY Safe Act on the federal level, through the federal preemption—since Albany appears either unwilling or incapable of repealing the NY Safe Act on the State level itself—we can infer that the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was designed principally to preclude States, such as New York, from banning substantial numbers of semiautomatic firearms that’s State antigun legislators, with great fanfare, cast into the category of “assault weapons.”Congressman Collins, a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment, clearly seeks, through enactment of his bill, to provide Americans the converse—the flipside—of efforts to curb exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, as some would argue, proscribes States from regulating all categories of rifle and shotgun, thereby curbing, with one fell swoop, attempts by any State Legislature to impose specific restrictions on the ownership and possession of one large category of firearms, those subsumed under the nomenclature “assault weapons,” and curbing, as well, attempts by any State Legislature to impose size restrictions on ammunition magazines.But, does Congressman Collins’ bill, that modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, make federal preemption of regulation of assault weapons and other firearms’ components absolutely clear?Once again, as presently enacted Section 927 says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” But, and this is an important, but, is such language enough to negate restrictive State firearms’ legislation such as the NY Safe Act? We don’t think so—thus, the failings of the bill, in its current form. For, what do the words, ‘more restrictive with respect to such a rifle or shotgun,’ mean, here?The reader must understand that federal law preemption of firearms, Sections 921, et. seq., of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, is directed essentially to a specific class of firearms, namely machine guns. As made clear in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Federal law preempts the field as to those kinds of firearms only, and the language of the law makes federal preemption in matters involving the regulation of machine guns patently clear. Congressman Collins’ bill is silent on the subject of so-called “assault weapons”—which some believe Congressman Collins’ bill, if enacted, would adequately address, and which it must address if it were to do what it purports to do: preclude States from prohibiting the transfer and possession of firearms that New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act prohibit, expressly, and prohibit outright--"assault weapons."Had Congressman Collins’ bill been more explicit and precise, we believe that language should appear in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that would work in tandem with the language appearing in Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. And, in Section 5845 of Title 26, we would like to see language that clearly and specifically defines the expression 'semiautomatic weapons.' And, in Section 922 of Title 18, we would like to see language that sets forth the lawful transfer of all semiautomatic weapons to individuals, not under disability. The federal preemption Statute, namely, Section 927 of Title 18, as modified in the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would then make federal preemption of the entire field of semiautomatic firearms abundantly and categorically clear. Ideally, language modifying Section 5845 of Title 26, and modifying Sections 922 and 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code would establish federal preemption of the entire field of firearms but--and this next point is critical--only to the extent that such modifications serve to enhance the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. We have no desire to see federal preemption leading to mass registration of firearms and draconian licensing measures on the federal level that we already see much too often on the State level.Ideally, language in the Congressman’s bill would have set forth, in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code explicit protection of all commercial transactions, among all the people, who are not under disability (as categories of disability are set forth with particularity in paragraph “g” of Section 922 of Title 18), involving all firearms—rifles, shotguns and pistols, whatever the configuration or mode of operation of those rifles, shotguns, and pistols; and, further, Collins’ bill should have included language doing away with BATFE licensing of such firearms as well, which, in the case of machine guns, involves a lengthy, time-consuming, expensive and mentally exhaustive process that does nothing to enshrine the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, as exercise of that fundamental right is unduly hampered by a multitude of administrative obstacles. Lastly, we would like to see firearms’ licensing at both the State and Federal levels ended. As a parenthetical note, we point out that Congressman Collins’ bill is altogether silent on the matter of handguns which means that, under his bill, handguns would not be subject to federal preemption. States would still be able to impose draconian restrictions on the American citizenry in matters involving handguns. But, why should Americans suffer the indignity of exhaustive, extensive, and expensive firearms’ regulatory hurdles at all?One doesn’t need a license to freely exercise one’s right of free speech—at least at the moment—although leftwing groups—most notoriously, the so-called “ANTIFA,” an anarchist/communist, domestic terrorist group (as much as any other terrorist group that this Country formally recognizes), is doing its best to constrain the right of free expression in this Country. Why must one secure a license to exercise a fundamental natural right of self-defense, as firearms are the best means available to secure one's safety and well-being when threatened and access to firearms, for those not under disability (as set forth in paragraph "g" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code), is guaranteed under the Second Amendment!Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, alone, does not, we believe, adequately establish federal preemption of firearms’ regulation because the purpose of Section 927 is simply designed to preclude conflict between State and Federal firearms laws. That is the Section’s only purpose. Its purpose is not to define the kinds of firearms that fall under the auspices of federal preemption—which is addressed, and is meant to be addressed in Section 5845 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (referred to more specifically as the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. Code) and does not set forth the manner in which federal preemption of firearms is specifically addressed, as is the case with machine guns, as set forth in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. We also note that the Congressman’s bill, as drafted, uses the permissive ‘may,’ rather than the obligatory ‘shall’ suggesting, then, that States might still regulate firearms, transecting, then, federal preemption, rather than being totally eclipsed by it. Furthermore, as drafted, Congressman Collins’ bill does not adequately establish the kinds of firearms that he intends federal law to preempt. The draft language of the bill simply sets forth that State law “may not” enact a law “that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law.” But, federal law, Sections 921 et. seq., direct attention to machine guns. Federal law does not address so-called “assault weapons”—semiautomatic weapons and, in New York, revolving cylinder shotguns (which are also defined as 'assault weapons'). Consider: had federal law still imposed federal licensing requirements on “assault weapons,” as it once had, in 1994, then New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, regulating such weapons, likely would have been struck down as unlawful under Section 927 because Federal law had, at that time, in effect, at least, preempted the field as to the regulation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. What this means is that such restrictive State gun laws, regulating or proscribing ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” at that time, would either have been redundant, if otherwise consistent with federal law, or unlawful, if inconsistent with federal law.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line: In its present form, Congressman Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”), is a good start toward giving the Second Amendment full effect, as the framers of our Bill of Rights intended. And the Congressman is to be commended for his effort. But the bill, as drafted, leaves, we feel, too much uncertainty, in its present form, to be effective in defeating restrictive, draconian State gun measures like the New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, contrary to the opinions of some. More work on the bill is needed. But, such work would, we feel, certainly be a worthwhile endeavor._________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OBAMA: JUMPING THE GUN!

Obama's Executive Action Not Only Unlawfully Expands Federal Law, But Operates To Convert Private Sellers Of Guns Into Gun Dealers

President Barack Obama claims that his executive action, using the mechanism of executive orders to expand gun background checks, falls within his lawful authority. But does it? For all his pontificating at the CNN Town Hall Meeting, televised on Thursday, primetime, that one remark, stated and reiterated during the Town Hall Meeting, is deserving of close consideration and dissection because, if Obama is wrong, then we can dispense with any further discussion of the purported merits of his antigun agenda.We begin with one incontrovertible fact. The very use of executive orders is fraught with peril because the President is essentially making law, not executing law. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all legislative functions rest with Congress. The making of law does not rest with the President. The President’s duty is not to make law but to execute the laws that Congress makes.In accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means that the Chief Executive has no authority to tell Congress what Congress must do. But that is precisely what the Chief Executive, Obama, does when he issues an executive decree. He is in fact saying to Congress: “you haven’t done what I want you to do, so I will take action myself.” Well, Congress doesn’t work for the President of the United States. Congress works for the American People. If Congress doesn’t legislate in the manner that the President wishes, or if Congress fails to legislate at all in an area that the President wants, that failure to legislate is not lawful grounds for the President to do so. But, that is precisely what the President is doing here.One of the four key features of the antigun executive orders President Barack Obama plans to issue in the coming days or weeks pertains to expansive gun background checks. President Obama has set forth his intentions in his “Fact Sheet” what he intends to do. Just a few of the significant ways in which Obama is taking aim at Congress and at the Second Amendment involves gun sales. Through his executive orders he intends to:“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’ For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.”Is Obama saying that anyone who sells a firearm is ipso facto a ‘dealer of firearms’ and, therefore, according to Obama, 'in the business of selling firearms?' It would seem so. For, Obama has not clarified what it means to be in the business of selling firearms but, rather, has muddied the waters. Both in the above Fact Sheet and at the Town Hall meeting, Obama fails to clarify what it means to be a “gun dealer” and what it means for a person to be “in the business of selling firearms.” And, this is clearly intentional. Obama sees anyone, who sells or transfers a gun, is a “gun dealer” – that is to say, “a person who is in the business of selling firearms.” But, are these expressions truly nebulous? Not at all!Contrary to what Obama would have the American public believe, the phrases, ‘dealer in firearms,’ and, ‘in the business of selling firearms,’ are not subject to myriad definitions, dependent upon the personal whim of the President. They are legal terms of art, specifically defined in law by Congress. They are not subject to tweaking by the President.Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11), “The term ‘dealer’ means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ‘licensed dealer’ means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq].”Case law further clarifies the meaning of ‘dealer in firearms’ and ‘in the business of selling firearms.’ In the annotated notes of the U.S. Code, there are several cases that clarify the meaning of these important expressions. See, e.g. United States vs. Fifty two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d (MD Fla. 2005). A “person is ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms’ at wholesale or retail’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(21)(C)  if that person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as regular course of trade or business with principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such person does not include person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for enhancement of personal collection or for hobby, or who sells all or part of that person's personal collection of firearms.” And, in United States vs. Masters (CA4 SC 1980), the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said, “For defendant to be ‘dealer’ within meaning of 18 USCS § 921, there must be willingness on defendant's part to deal, profit motive and greater degree of activity than occasional sales by hobbyist; defendant's primary business need not be dealing in firearms nor need he necessarily make profit from such dealings; showing that defendant had guns on hand or was ready and able to procure them and sell them to such persons as might accept them is sufficient to establish defendant as ‘dealer’.”Obama wishes to make anyone who sells a firearm into a “dealer of firearms.” In so doing, he would make it a crime for a person, even the occasional "hobbyist," to lawfully sell or, for that matter, even to give away a firearm to another person, if the transferee does not have an "FFL." And, in so doing, Obama wishes to do away with the very possibility of a "private sale" or, for that matter, even a "private transfer" of a firearm that does not amount to a sale or trade in and of firearms. He cannot lawfully do this because that amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law.Now, Obama claims that his executive actions, directed to firearms, fall within existing federal law and that he is only proposing regulations to effectuate existing federal law and not creating new law. But, that is absolutely false because, in his executive actions, he is expanding the very concept of what it means to be a person who is “in the business of selling firearms.” When Obama attempts to transform anyone who sells or transfers a firearm into a person who is "in the business of selling firearms," he is attempting to make the transferee of a firearm, who is merely a “hobbyist,” into a criminal who is impermissibly selling or transferring a firearm, absent a federal license, in violation of 18 USCS Section 1922(a)(1) and 18 USCS Section 924(a). In effect Obama is attempting, unlawfully, to turn the occasional hobbyist into a "criminal arms dealer,” namely, someone who is, in fact, in the business of selling firearms, but is doing so, as a criminal, selling to other criminals, in clear contravention to federal law.For the federal government to prove that a person was operating unlawfully as a dealer in firearms – essentially, a criminal arms dealer – “the federal government must prove the status of the defendant as a ‘dealer in firearms.' In order to satisfy this burden the Government need not prove that the defendant's primary business was dealing in firearms or that he necessarily made a profit from such dealing; ‘it must (however) show a willingness (on the defendant's part) to deal, a profit motive, and a greater degree of activity than occasional sales by a hobbyist.’ United States v. Huffman, (4th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 80, 81, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 123, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92; United States v. Tarr, (1st Cir. 1978) 589 F.2d 55, 59."Thus, under federal statute and federal case law, in order for the government to prove that the person, who is selling a firearm to another person is doing so unlawfully, it is not enough for the government to prove that the seller of the firearm(s) is attempting to make a profit from the sale of a firearm or firearms. The government must also prove that the seller is not making an occasional sale of a firearm “as a hobbyist.” In other words, the federal government must prove, under existing law, that the person who is making a sale of a firearm or firearms is not a “criminal arms dealer” – a criminal who is selling firearms to make a profit.Obama is unlawfully expanding the notion of a “criminal arms dealer” to a law-abiding citizen, who is really only a “hobbyist,” under existing federal law. Such an attempt by Obama amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law, not a theoretical permissible executive action, that amounts merely to regulation within existing federal law. When Obama expands federal law, he is entering into the purview of Congress, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of the Separation of Powers Doctrine because he is legislating – that is to say – he is making new law. He is not merely effectuating the intentions of Congress through the promulgation of rules within the framework of existing law.Obama begs the very question at issue by asserting that anyone who transfers firearms to another is, ipso facto, a “gun dealer” and “in the business of selling firearms” under federal law and is doing so illegally if that person does not have a federal firearm's license (FFL). Why does Obama want even private sellers of firearms -- "hobbyists" -- to obtain a federal firearm's license? He wants private sellers of firearms to obtain a federal firearm's license because, licensed dealers in firearms are required to perform a criminal background check under existing federal law, pursuant to the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922. A person who is not “in the business of selling firearm,” is under no such legal mandate to conduct an national instant criminal background check. In fact, a “hobbyist” cannot even access that system precisely because that person doesn’t have an FFL!So, what is Obama doing? Just this: he is placing the “hobbyist” in an impossible position if that “hobbyist” wishes to sell, trade, gift to, or otherwise, in some manner, transfer his firearm to another person. Obama is saying to that person: “we are assuming that you are a gun dealer and, if you are a gun dealer, you must undertake a criminal background check on the transferee. But, in order to be able to have access to FBI NICS files, you must first obtain an FFL. If you do not have an FFL, you better get one, if you can. If you can’t obtain an FFL, do not attempt, under any circumstances to transfer a firearm to another because my Administration will assume that you are an unlawful arms dealer, and I will see to it that the Justice Department prosecutes you to the fullest extent of the law.”Do you understand what more Obama is attempting to do through his unlawful executive actions? He is using his Office to enact new gun laws. In effect he is precluding, under threat of federal criminal indictment, the transfer of any firearm by one private law-abiding gun owner to another private law-abiding gun owner. Obama is not attempting to close a so-called “gun loophole.” He is in effect precluding every individual from transferring firearms, regardless of venue. This amounts to the unlawful regulation of commerce by the Executive Branch to stifle legitimate trade in firearms between two law-abiding individuals who happen to be “hobbyists.” Moreover, Obama’s unlawful executive actions negatively impact the absolute and exclusive interest that a person has in his or her own private property.If Obama admits to this but argues that his executive directives are necessary to prevent a private person, who is not a gun dealer, from transferring a gun in interstate commerce, his executive directive is redundant because, under, 18 USCS § 922(a)(1)(A), “it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, if I, for example, as a "hobbyist," who is not, then, in the business of selling firearms, wish to sell a gun over the internet, and I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, I cannot lawfully do so in any event. I may, however, transfer a firearm to another through the mediation of a licensed dealer who will then be required to perform a necessary background check on the transferee. Thus, further regulation of firearms' sales on or over the internet aren't necessary. Such sales are already regulated!What about sales of guns at gun shows? Well, gun shows, too, do not present a problem. Most sellers of firearms at gun shows are licensed dealers in firearms and, so, must, under present federal law, perform a criminal background check on anyone whom the dealer is transferring the gun to. Now, if I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, and I, as a law-abiding American and gun owner, wish, as a private person -- a hobbyist, not a licensed dealer in firearms -- to sell a firearm to another person, at a gun show, I can make a transfer of a firearm to another, without performing a background check, but, that does not mean that I am permitted to sell a firearm to a person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. Under 18 USCS 922(d), it is unlawful for anyone – whether a licensed dealer in firearms or a private individual – to sell to individuals who are not permitted to own or possess a firearm. These include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, an individual who has been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution or who is an illegal alien. So, then, if I, as a private individual and law-abiding American citizen and gun owner and, as defined in law, a “hobbyist,” not a “licensed dealer in firearms,” offered a firearm for sale or trade, to a person, whom I did not know, and that person was a convicted felon who cannot lawfully own or possess a firearm, I have committed a crime in taking part in that sale, and I can and ought to be prosecuted. So, I, as a law-abiding citizen, have to be damn careful whom it is that I am transferring that firearm to.Now, will criminals sell firearms to other criminals? Of course they will. And they will do so in venues other than at gun shows which are likely to be carefully monitored by the State police. Obama’s executive orders, though, clearly are not directed to precluding firearms’ transactions among criminals. They are directed to further restricting gun transactions among law-abiding Americans. Obama’s goal, is -- as is the penultimate goal of all antigun groups -- just this: restricting the number and kinds of guns that a law-abiding citizen may own; and restricting the extent to which an individual may exercise control over his or her own property. What these executive actions of Obama won’t do – and, in fact are not designed to do – is curb criminal sales of firearms. They are specifically designed to curb what has, prior to Obama’s executive actions, amounted to the lawful transfer of firearms between and among law-abiding Americans, who do not fall, under the federal legal definition of ‘dealer in firearms,’  and 'in the business of selling firearms.'Obama intends to extend the scope of federal law beyond that which Congress has authorized. He cannot do so legally. Moreover, there is no need for further federal law. There are no loopholes. So, there is nothing that requires closing.Obama fails to appreciate and respect the fact that our federal statutes and federal case law are sufficiently broad to encapsulate all firearms’ transfers in every conceivable venue. Criminal transfers of firearms would be effective if existing federal law was enforced. They are not. But, that is not the fault of Congress. It is the fault of the Chief Executive. Obama, who fails to enforce federal law.Obama also fails to appreciate the sanctity of the Separation of Powers Doctrine upon which a Free Republic is able to survive and thrive. The very structure of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution establishes that no one Branch may subsume the duties of the other two within it.Obama’s executive actions are demonstrative of his disrespect for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Nothing he can assert or suggest, predicated on his personal notion of morality, and personal distaste for firearms ownership and firearms possession among law-abiding Americans can condone and justify his actions. But, then, Obama is not interested in the rule of law. He has a personal agenda: the very dismantling of the Bill of Rights, using, as singular pretext, his stated concern to curb firearms’ violence.Congress has, in the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, as cited supra, made it unlawful for a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to a person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. § 923 absent the appropriate background information on the individual as set forth in Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) says, in pertinent part, "No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business." Other federal law, cited supra, precludes anyone, whether a licensed dealer in firearms or not, to lawfully transfer a firearm to a person who is not permitted under federal law to own and possess firearm.Obama’s executive actions are unnecessary if he believes there are loopholes in the law – for there aren’t any. And, they are otherwise inscrutable. Obama is unlawfully attempting to preclude firearms’ transfers among law-abiding Americans and gun owners who are not licensed dealers in firearms and who would not wish to obtain a federal firearm's license and, more to the point, could not obtain a federal firearm’s license had they wish to do so precisely because they are not in the business of selling firearms.Obama's executive directives are a scarcely disguised attempt to hide his an intent to control the distribution of one's private property.Again, what President Obama is doing, surreptitiously, insidiously, and unlawfully, through his executive directives, is destroying the very concept of a “private sale” of a firearm, and he does this by unlawfully transforming, through Presidential edit, every individual, who wishes to sell a firearm, into a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a federal license to sell firearms. Federal firearms’ licenses are expensive. Even to attempt to obtain one is a time-consuming process, administered through the BATF. It is difficult to acquire – impossible, really, for a person who simply owns one or two or a few firearms and who wishes to transfer them to another law-abiding American and who cannot legitimately make the case that he or she is anything other than a "hobbyist." Obama's executive directives are not necessary because they are not directed to curbing transfer of firearms among criminals.  These executive directives are directed to revising what it means to be a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who is a licensed dealer in firearms. Obama's executive directives are inconsistent with current federal law; they impermissibly expand federal law; and, lastly, they are inconsistent with current BATF regulations, promulgated on what federal law actually says about who is a dealer in firearms and not on what the President would like the definition of ‘dealer in firearms’ to mean. Obama cannot lawfully prevent private sales of firearms; he cannot require a private seller, who is not in the business of selling firearms, to obtain a federal license – which is impossible for a private individual to obtain anyway; and he cannot require a private seller of a firearms to perform a federal background check. But, Obama doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about limitations on executive authority. He doesn’t care that he is placing law-abiding gun owners, who are not gun dealers, and who may wish to transfer a firearm to another law-abiding American, in a precarious, impossible position. He doesn’t care about any of this. He intends to press ahead with the antigun agenda: destruction of the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.