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.

NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE HOLDERS BEWARE: NEW ILLEGAL HANDGUN CARRY ZONES — HERE, THERE, EVERYWHERE, THROUGHOUT NEW YORK

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

MULTISERIES

PART THIRTEEN

FRUSTRATED NEW YORKER GUN OWNERS CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL'S AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE'S GUN LAW AFTER BRUEN

NEW YORKERS CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO NEW YORK'S GUN LAW

Few Americans may know about a very recent New York Gun Case challenging amendments to New York’s Gun Law. But all Americans who cherish their God-given right to keep and bear arms should be mindful of it. The case is Antonyuk vs. Bruen, 2202 Lexis 15784 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022).Ivan Antonyuk, along with the NYSRPA, Plaintiff in the third major U.S. Supreme Court case, sued in federal court a few days after New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York’s Gun Law amendments into law, ostensibly in response to the Bruen rulings.The Hochul Government did not change the New York Gun Law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq., to comply with the High Court’s rulings in Bruen, but drafted the amendments to constrain and eliminate lawful concealed handgun carry throughout the State, consistent with her Government’s plans to negate exercise of the fundamental, unalienable natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. Hochul would like the public to believe that the amendments comply with the Bruen rulings. They do not. It is all a sham. But, to machinate such an elaborate hoax to waylay the U.S. Supreme Court and hoodwink the public takes time, money, effort, and cunning and Kathy Hochul must have had all of that, suggesting she surreptitiously received an advance copy of the decision after November 3, 2021, Oral Argument. This is reminiscent of the illegal unveiling of a draft opinion of the Dobbs abortion case weeks before the Court released the final and official version of the decision, albeit without the hoopla—which is just the way Hochul would want it.The breadth and depth of the amendments to the Gun Law are substantial. They are all collected under the vague, ambiguous, and deceptive title Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). The title doesn’t illuminate, it deliberately hides and obscures. Yes, the New York Government deleted the offending words “proper cause” from New York’s Gun Law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00, but doing so changes nothing apropos of compliance with the Bruen rulings. The CCIA is worse, much worse than the Gun Law had been with the offensive verbiage intact.The CCIA leaves present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses in a nebulous and precarious position. And the CCIA makes it no less difficult for those seeking to get a New York handgun carry license for the first time.Recall——Bruen held clearly and categorically the State’s “proper cause” requirement is unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the exercise of one’s natural law right of armed self-defense outside the home. Kathy Hochul and Albany remain undeterred. The State Legislature merely substituted “proper cause” with other verbiage that accomplishes the same thing, and, disturbingly, goes beyond the old and problematic “proper cause” requirement. And CCIA maintains the multiple-tier handgun licensing structure.Those who at present hold a valid New York handgun license, whether “unrestricted” or “restricted,” or hold a highly restrictive home or business premise license, under the original licensing scheme, should have known what was coming. On June 6, a few weeks before the official release of Bruen, Hochul signed a ten-bill antigun package into law. Both Albany and the Hochul Administration had no intention of allowing the U.S. Supreme Court to throw a wrench into the Government’s plan that had, heretofore, been going to plan to reduce lawful armed self-defense to a nullity.Recall that Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, had successfully fast-tracked into enactment of the notorious New York Safe Act of 2013. The enactment of the NY Safe Act was a harbinger of things to come. At the time Governor Cuomo signed the Act into Law, we at AQ had correctly pointed out that no one should construe the NY Safe Act as the end goal of the Anti-Second Amendment Government’s effort to constrain lawful possession and ownership of firearms. NY Safe Act is a work in progress, as we stated in an article posted in AQ, on February 18, 2020. And right, we were. The NY Safe Act and CCIA, and a plethora of other Anti-Second gun laws, are grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the New York Government's plan to constrain civilian citizen exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The genesis of that plan was hatched well over 100 years. It was the Sullivan Act of 1911. The Sullivan Act ushered handgun licensing into the State.Through each successive incarnation, the Sullivan Act became progressively worse, progressively constricting, and inhibiting the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense. And with each successive enactment, the Anti-Second Amendment Government became more emboldened; enacted more and more dubious and extravagant antigun laws. On June 24, 2022, just one day after the release of Bruen, Hochul issued a stern warning, albeit couched as a mild “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.” So said the Governor. And she did not bother to hide her bitter anger over the rulings, her hatred of the Second Amendment, her resentment of the U.S. Supreme Court, and her disgust toward those citizens who would dare to exercise their natural law right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Calling the Bruen rulings “appalling”, Hochul responded to them with affected piety, as she simultaneously rebuked the Court that issued them:“‘As the case returns to the lower court, we encourage responsible gun owners to continue to follow their current restrictions, and always put safety first. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the safety of our communities, we are prepared to fight. I am planning for a special session of the legislature where we will explore a wide range of legislative options that will keep us in compliance with this ruling, while also creating a thorough and strict permitting process that prioritizes the safety of our communities. I look forward to working with the legislature, local and county government leaders, and legal experts, and will stop at nothing to protect New Yorkers.’” Id. So said, Governor Hochul.The Governor’s remarks are glaringly, blatantly inconsistent. In one sentence in the afore-recited passage, she expressly contradicts herself. Hochul says she and the Legislature in Albany “will explore a wide range of legislative options that will keep us in compliance with this ruling, while also creating a thorough and strict permitting process. . . .” Let’s analyze that.Hochul is saying she will comply with the Bruen rulings by making it more difficult to gain a concealed handgun carry license. In other words, “I, Kathy Hochul, will comply with the Bruen rulings by not complying with them.” Huh! Governor Hochul has just squared the circle. Quite an achievement.How does that work? If she can get away with this, it doesn't bode well for those expecting to now be able to exercise their right of armed self-defense in New York, unimpeded.Nonetheless, one is expected to take Hochul and Albany at their word, that they drafted the CCIA to comply with the Bruen rulings and allow for armed self-defense in the public realm, even as they clamp down even harder on one's right to armed self-defense outside the home as well as in it. Her arguments are nonsensical, and her actions were outrageous.Hochul intends to take from innocent New Yorkers the only effective means of self-defense available for them, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution, while doing nothing to protect New Yorkers against the horde of lunatics and psychopaths allowed to prey, at will, upon them. If it is this thing “Gun Violence” that so concerns her, Hochul will do well to implement a robust law and order system—and leave the law-abiding citizen who wishes to exercise his natural law right of armed self-defense, alone. She won't do either. The CCIA ostensibly allows some people—still very few—to get a concealed handgun carry license. But even for the seemingly lucky ones, it comes at a severe cost. They must sacrifice other fundamental Rights, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to get their prize: a New York concealed handgun carry license, and, ultimately, for all that time, money, and effort, the value of it comes to naught. It means nothing. The language of the CCIA is sufficiently vague, to support the conclusion that a person isn't permitted to use a handgun for self-defense outside the home, even with a valid concealed handgun license in tow. And, in many areas of the State, and especially in the Five Boroughs that comprise New York City, one definitely cannot use a handgun for self-defense, notwithstanding one's valid concealed handgun carry license.In the most dangerous areas of New York, effectively the entirety of Manhattan Island, the Governor and Albany have created a patchwork quilt of “sensitive locations” where the holder of a New York handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry a handgun.Consider what that means:Step in one block of the City and it is lawful to carry a handgun if you have a valid license, albeit you still may not lawfully use it if needed. But step into another block, and you have broken the law, for not only are you not permitted to use a handgun for self-defense, but it's also unlawful even to have it on your person in that area.Carry a handgun in the wrong area, and you have committed a Class E Felony. That means loss of your handgun license, the loss of your handgun, and any other firearm you may own and possess, and a felony record to boot. So what good is this license, for all the trouble that one must go through to get it? And few will ultimately be able to gain one, anyway.A valid New York concealed handgun carry license provides you no protection. Under the CCIA, it is more a liability than an asset. It is not a god-send but a booby-trap. That Class E Felony violation is created especially for law-abiding citizens, and expressly for holders of concealed handgun carry licenses. New York has codified that felony violation in a new code section: NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The tacit implication of this is plain: don't apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license. And for those who have a valid concealed handgun carry license, don't bother to renew it; and for peace of mind, the Hochul Government suggests surrendering the license to the police authorities because one always risks violating NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The CCIA has traps throughout the length and breadth of it for the concealed handgun carry licensee.Do you recall the playground game, hopscotch, a perennial favorite of young girls? If so, now imagine Manhattan Island as a mammoth hopscotch board with safe and non-safe squares. One who has a valid handgun license and carries a handgun has much to fear from Hochul’s hopscotch inspectors, no less so than from the myriad lunatics and psychopaths that do not need a license to carry a gun as they hunt for prey throughout the City. The no-bail policy gives predators free rein if they are caught by the police, for they are out on the streets again in no time. You, however, don't fare as well. A felony conviction here doesn't help the law-abiding citizen.This is what Hochul and Albany are——Petty Tyrants who adamantly defy both the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and clear and emphatic rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is what Hochul and Albany have wrought—— A climate of fear where the armed citizen is perceived as a latent threat to the Government, and a potential transgressor of State law. And that is how he is treated by the Hochul Government.And yet no graver threat to both the Security of a free State and the supreme sovereignty of the American people exists than upon the failure of the Federal Government and those State Governments that refuse to abide by the strictures of the U.S. Constitution, and the rulings of the Third Branch of the U.S. Government, and that sin against the natural law rights of man as bestowed upon him by the Divine Creator.New Yorkers were therefore compelled to file a new lawsuit once again, ever again, against an arrogant, defiant, recalcitrant, intransigent State Government. In the immortal words of the Great Sage, Yogi Berra:“It’s Déjà vu All Over Again.”—And it’s all because our Federal Government, and this New York Government, and all too many other State Governments, refuse to humble themselves to the strictures of the U.S. Constitution and refuse to accept the supreme sovereignty of the American people over Government and their Nation; and who even dare refuse the American citizen the right to exercise his unalienable natural law right to armed self-defense.We continue with our analysis of Antonyuk in the next several articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

MULTISERIES

PART TWELVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYSRPA vs. BRUEN: DECISION ON THE MERITS UNAVOIDABLE

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

A SCHEME IS HATCHED!

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

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

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

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

PART SIX

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

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

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

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

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

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

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

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

REMARKS OF ARBALEST QUARREL FOUNDER, STEPHEN L'DANRILLI, ON STEPHEN HALBROOK ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2020 NRA PUBLICATION, AMERICA'S 1ST FREEDOM

As a NYPD veteran police officer, and Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle, and shotgun), and Training Counselor, and active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and lifetime resident of New York City, I have dedicated my life to the preservation and strengthening of our cherished Second Amendment. This is no easy task, especially today, as we see constant, concerted, vigorous attacks on the fundamental right of personal defense with firearms.So, it was with more than a little interest I read Stephen Halbrook’s article, “How Does New York City Get Away With This,” published in the August 2020 edition of NRA’s publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom.”Stephen Halbrook is a Second Amendment Constitutional law expert and a prolific writer and author who has argued and won several important Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.In his article he provides a brief history of restrictive handgun licensing in New York City. He correctly observes that “[i]t all started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol even in the home.”  Toward the end of the article, he makes the point that:“Nothing has changed since 1911 when [an Italian-American] Mario Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.” It is of course disturbingly, depressingly, frustratingly true that, indeed, nothing has changed in New York City since 1911, insofar as the City continues to require a valid license to lawfully possess a handgun.Still, in a few important respects, much has changed, and for the worse, since enactment of the unconscionable and unconstitutional Sullivan Act.In the 109 years since handgun licensing began, New York City’s laws have become more extensive, more oppressive and repressive, and confoundingly difficult to understand. These laws are a labyrinthine maze of ambiguity and vagueness, and they are singularly bizarre.Unlike many other States that wisely preempt the field of gun regulation, as failure to do so invariably promotes and leads to confusion and inconsistencies across a State, the York State Government, in Albany, has not preempted the field. The New York Legislature gives local governments wide discretion in establishing their own firearms rules as long as local government enactments don’t conflict with basic State law mandates.Albany traditionally allows, and even encourages, local governments to devise their own, often numerous and extremely stringent, firearms rules. New York City has done so, and with glee, devising an extraordinarily complex and confusing array of rules directed to the ownership and possession of all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and handguns.New York State law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1) sets forth the basic handgun licensing scheme, applicable to all New York jurisdictions, making clear that possession of handguns falls within the province of the police and that,“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.” NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (3)(a) provides that,“Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.”New York City builds upon State Statute, establishing a mind-numbing set of tiers of handgun licensing, mandating the extent to which New York residents may exercise the privilege, not the right, to possess a handgun for self-defense.The Rules of the City of New York, specifically 38 RCNY 5-01, has established, at the moment, at least, no less than 6 different categories of handgun licenses:

• Premises License—Residence or Business
• Carry Business License
• Limited Carry Business License
• Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License
• Special Carry Business License
• Special Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License

New York City’s tiered handgun licensing scheme is not only inconsistent with the Second Amendment, but it also promotes unlawful discrimination under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and invites both abuse by and corruption in the City’s Licensing Division. In fact, the City’s insufferable and puzzling handgun licensing scheme is, from a purely logical standpoint, apart from a legal standpoint, internally inconsistent and incoherent.Premise residence and business handgun licenses place considerable restraints on a licensee’s right of self-defense. Unrestricted handgun carry licenses, on the other hand, are issued only to a select few people who satisfy arbitrary “proper cause,” requirements. Of course, powerful, wealthy, politically-connected “elites” are exceptions, routinely obtaining rare and coveted unrestricted handgun carry licenses, unavailable to the average citizen, residing in the City.And criminals don’t obey handgun licensing rules or any other State law or City code, rule, or regulation pertaining to firearms. So they don’t care what the laws say. And this hasn’t changed.But it is deeply troubling, indeed mind-boggling, to believe New York City’s harsh, brutal, even despotic handgun licensing scheme continues to escape Constitutional scrutiny, a point Stephen Halbrook makes at the outset of his August 2020 NRA article, when he says,“‘Under New York law, it is a crime to possess a firearm’, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. vs. Sanchez-Villar (2004). This ruling was based on the state’s ban on the possession of an unlicensed handgun. This prohibition did not offend the Second Amendment, said this ruling, because ‘the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.’ Later rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—D.C v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010—begged to differ. . . . But the Second Circuit must not have gotten the memo. . . .”Stephen Halbrook makes clear that the New York licensing scheme is unlawful on its face because the very concept of licensing is grounded on the erroneous idea that gun possession is a privilege and not a fundamental right, a notion that is completely at odds with the Second Amendment and with High Court rulings. And I agree with Stephen Halbrook’s assessment.The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the Constitutional flaws inherent in gun licensing schemes over and over again, through the years, commencing with our first series of articles on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian and inane New York Safe Act of 2013.We called the Governor out on New York’s unconstitutional licensing scheme. See, e.g., our April 30, 2014 article where we concluded with this: “To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.” New York City residents have been forced to submit to unconstitutional firearms laws since 1911. New York’s gun control laws were and continue to be enacted to disarm the honest citizen and to discourage personal self-defense.If a person insists on possessing a handgun for self-defense, New York insists on one’s first obtaining permission from the police department to do so, through the acquisition of a license, issued by the police.Yet, the imposition of stringent handgun license requirements is inconsistent with the import of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Redress is necessary. It’s about time.Still, Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots interject that every State requires that a motorist obtain an operator’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public streets, and they ask, “why should gun possession be any different?” But in posing the question, these Anti-Second Amendment activists demonstrate an intention to reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the status of mere privilege, which, in fact, is what a motorist’s license is; merely a privilege to drive an automobile on public roadways. It is logically and legally wrong to view and to treat a fundamental right as a mere privilege.New York attempts to skirt addressing the inherent unconstitutionality of the entire firearms’ licensing scheme through pompous, imbecilic assurances that a person doesn’t need a handgun to defend him or herself because Government, protects a person. That is patently false and, in any event, it is wholly beside the point, as the Arbalest Quarrel made clear in an article posted on our site on November 21, 2019. That article was reprinted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on November 26, 2019, although in a different format with some editing.As we said, under the ‘doctrine of sovereign immunity’ the police are not, as a general rule, legally obligated to protect and guarantee the life and safety of any individual, and they cannot be held legally liable for failing to do so. Courts have routinely so held, including New York Courts. But many Americans fail to realize this because the seditious Press and politicians routinely lie to them.The purpose of a community police department is to protect the society-at-large, nothing more. I had pointed this out 30 years ago, in an article I co-authored with Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel. And that basic doctrine has not changed since.But, very recently, something has changed and drastically.Radical Left State and local governments are no longer even allowing their police departments to provide a modicum of protection for their community. This follows from the unrestrained actions and antics of volatile Marxist and Anarchist groups whom they kowtow to. They have called for the defunding of and disbanding of community police departments across the Country and some jurisdictions have done so. In New York City the Radical Left Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has slashed $1 Billion from the NYPD budget. This comes at a critical time when soaring crime and daily riots demand more funding for police, not less.This is a major change because the average American can, now, no longer depend on the police to provide even general protection to the community.It must be noted, too, that there are attempts by Marxists and Anarchists to rewrite the laws on sovereign immunity, to hold police accountable for harming citizens. But this is not for the purpose of securing more police protection and for making the police more accountable to the law-abiding public at large.To the contrary, the purpose of overturning police sovereign immunity rulings is  to provide the public with less protection and, at once, to allow lawless rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants to engage in attacks on the police and on innocent people without having to fear justifiable retribution for their lawless acts.So, in some ways, matters have changed. Radical Left Governments are leaving communities less safe by preventing the police from promoting law and order, and they are even prevented from protecting themselves as lawlessness occurs all around them, rendering them powerless to engage lawbreakers.The public sees the disturbing results: demoralized officers and less safe communities as police are not permitted to provide communities with even a modicum of safety. This obviously is not for the better.Moreover, even as Radical Left Government leaders restrain and constrain the police, they continue to resist recognition of the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense. These Marxist leaders demonstrate their contempt for the very sanctity of human life, even as they claim disingenuously to care about human life. They don’t care and they never did. Theirs is a recipe for disaster: for a complete breakdown of law and order in society.But a breakdown of society is precisely what these Radical Left Governments want. They wish to tear down the Nation, so they can reconfigure it in a manner completely at odds with the preservation of the free Constitutional Republic our founders gave us.Yet, despite the intentions of the Radical Left Collectivists, they can’t subvert the dictates of natural law. Natural law dictates that the right and responsibility of self-defense rests today, as it always did, on the individual.Americans must not listen to the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians who claim that defunding or eliminating the police is necessary and, who claim, at one and the same time, the necessity for curbing the personal right of armed self-defense as well; that taking these actions will improve society. That is not only false, it is absurd. The seditious Press and Radical Left politicians don’t have, and never did have, the best interests of the Nation or its people at heart. This is now transparent and, given the present state of affairs afflicting our Country, this fact is irrefutable.Although I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I never advocated that everyone should get a gun. I did support and continue to support freedom of choice in owning and possessing firearms. But now, it is time for every law-abiding American citizen to be armed. Learn how to properly use a gun and how to safeguard it.Our Country is at a crossroads. We stand to lose everything near and dear to us if we don’t pay to heed to the threats directed against us, bearing down relentlessly on all of us.It is the responsibility of all citizens to safeguard their own life and safety and that of their families, and to preserve our Republic as the founders intended; to protect it from the insinuation of tyranny that the Radical Left would dare impose on Americans.Stephen L. D'Andrilli________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

THE RADICAL LEFT’S PLAN: PROTECT CRIMINALS; CONSTRAIN THE POLICE; AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC DISARMED AND DEFENSELESS

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system. The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later. The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We explain, below._____________________________________________

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

The presumption of innocence platitude applies to criminal trials. It has no application to pretrial events: arrest, arraignment, or detention awaiting trial. The platitude alludes to a legal procedural safeguard afforded the accused at trial, nothing more. The phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and does not invoke a substantive right. It is merely a colloquial expression, not a legal term of art, and, like many colloquial expressions, it conveys erroneous and exaggerated ideas that the seditious Press and Leftist activists latch onto in their ceaseless attack against our Constitution and our system of laws.

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence to prove the accused’s guilt of a crime. The accused does not bear the initial burden of having to prove his innocence. And the prosecutor’s burden—guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—is a difficult one to meet; deliberately so, decidedly so.Further, the burden of proving guilt in a criminal prosecution falls solely on the Government. The accused need not present evidence in his or her defense. What does that mean? It means the accused need not make a showing of—namely demonstrate—his or her innocence at all. If the prosecution fails to make a case for the accused’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest bar set in our system of law and justice—the Court must acquit the accused of the crime. The Court has no other choice.If, however, it appears the prosecution has met the difficult burden of proof, it behooves the accused to present evidence to rebut the State’s evidence. But the accused need not do so. The accused need not do anything to prove his or her innocence of the crime charged, and the prosecution must do everything to convince the trier of fact that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.The presumption of innocence platitude does not, then, really attach to anyone or to anything.The platitude simply alludes to the burden of proof and the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. In a criminal proceeding the burden of proof rests initially, and, in fact, solely, on the prosecutor, not on the accused.The prosecutor must prove, one, that a crime has been committed, two, that each statutory element of the crime has been met in the proof; and, three, that the person accused of committing the crime probably did commit the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The platitude, contrary to common belief, does not impute innocence onto the accused.Once trial concludes, the trier of fact, often a jury but sometimes the Court itself, if the accused agrees to a “Bench Trial” in lieu of a jury trial, considers whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused committed the crime he was charged with, weighing the prosecutorial evidence of guilt against such contrary evidence the accused presents if the accused wishes to present any evidence in his defense. The trier of fact then renders its verdict: to convict or to acquit.The prosecution has a heavy burden to lift and won’t generally prosecute a crime unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of the accused’s criminal conduct.Critically, such evidence a prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial must be admissible, which means that, on occasion, evidence of guilt of the accused may be incontrovertible and, yet, inadmissible in Court because, under the rules of evidence, the evidence that the prosecutor would like to use but cannot, is legally tainted.Thus, if a prosecutor does bring a case to trial, the prosecutor does so because the accused likely did commit the crime he or she was charged with, and the prosecutor has substantial, compelling, and admissible evidence to support a conviction.*Leftist activists, though, ever quick to condemn our system of laws, justice, and jurisprudence, in their zeal to promote the welfare of criminals over that of the safety and security of the law-abiding citizen, demonstrate their obliviousness to the heavy burden our legal system imposes on the State to prove the accused committed the crime he or she is charged with.Leftists routinely attack and constrain the police and concoct schemes to undermine our legal system. One such scheme involves bail reform. By ‘bail reform’ they mean doing away with the requirement of bail altogether, because they assume, erroneously, that the requirement for bail is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence platitude, which, as we explained, supra, doesn’t apply to pre-trial events at all. If the requirement of bail were incompatible with due process in all criminal proceedings, the Bill of Rights would have condemned the requirement of bail as inconsistent with a person’s necessary, fundamental, immutable, natural rights and liberties. Yet, that is not the case at all, as the Eighth Amendment makes abundantly clear. The setting of bail is permissible, but it cannot be excessive.

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

A seditious Press, like the NY Times, operating in flagrant disregard to news accuracy and truth, obsessively desirous of and complicit in achieving the Radical Left agenda, in service to millions of criminals and illegal aliens who daily dare to flaunt our laws—undermining our institutions, preying on our citizenry—argues for application of the prosecutorial burden at trial to pretrial events. Thus, a misunderstanding of the phrase “presumption of innocence” becomes the impetus for enactment of ludicrous laws and dangerous practices such as doing away with bail altogether and harboring a dismissive attitude toward prosecuting crime at all.Flash forward in time: NYC’s lackluster Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose bid for the DNC nomination for U.S. President quickly fizzled out, devised a plan to protect the criminal class: simply do away with the requirement for posting bail, while awaiting trial, and hamstring the police while you’re at it. The New York Post writes,“New York City voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that will boost a government watchdog’s oversight of the police department — coming just a day after the resignation of Police Commissioner James O’Neill and after years of tense cop-community relations.The amendment to the city constitution gives the Civilian Complaint Review Board more power to investigate cops it suspects lied to the panel regarding alleged brutality or other misconduct.“This slate of reforms will make the CCRB more efficient, make discipline more transparent, and bolster public confidence in the integrity of the agency’s process,” he said.But police unions fired back that the public’s decision undermined cops.“Today the NYPD was stabbed in the back by the very same people we swore to protect. With bail reform taking effect in January of 2020 and the passing of CCRBs political power grab, New Yorkers can only expect the NYPD to provide paralyzed policing on city streets,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins.O’Neill — who is leaving to take a private-sector gig in California — had been heard repeatedly warning others in law-enforcement that “It’s only going to get worse” under the changes, police sources have told The Post.”­­­­­­­­­­­It’s wondrous strange that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims the public doesn’t need firearms for self-defense because, as he contends, the police provide the public with all the safety they need. At least this is what he told the political commentator Sean Hannity on Hannity’s nightly Fox News program.But now we learn that Bill de Blasio doesn’t even want the police to do a modicum of police work, as he hampers their work, second guesses their actions, and releases hundreds of individuals charged with serious crimes from jail without requiring bail, presenting a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry.And, lest we forget, New York City is making it next to impossible for average American citizens residing in New York to obtain a handgun license for self-defense. And Leftists contend they care about the value of human life? Really? It is as if the Leftists in their condemnation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms and in their hasty desire for criminal reform, do intend to leave the citizenry defenseless. But, then, this is all part of the Radical Left and New Progressive Left game plan: to conduct a scarcely soft revolution, to tear down our free Republic.We are even now seeing the results of the Leftist game plan tragically playing out in major cities across our Nation.______________________________*Corrupt prosecutors may, as we unfortunately learn, manufacture false evidence of a crime or fail to provide exculpatory evidence of innocence. That’s always a problem, and, on an “industrial” scale, a serious problem, dangerous to the integrity of our entire judicial system. The sham Mueller investigation is a casebook study of a massive prosecutorial corruption scheme instituted for the sole purpose of unseating a duly elected President and harming many law-abiding citizens on the way. Ruthless forces both here and abroad, that seek to destroy the Trump Presidency, planned and carried out this charade. And the charade continues today, now in the guise of a Congressional impeachment against Trump. The forces that seek to unseat Trump perceive his policy goals summed up in the campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again,”—which, for Radical Leftists, amounts to a four-word phrase obscenity—as incompatible with their own goal of a one-world system of governance. But these forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission don’t stop there. Through the despicable secretive actions of George Soros, a henchman of the Globalist “elite,” prosecutors of a different sort, who Soros has inserted into several City Governments: Radical Left activists or willing toadies of Soros and of the Radical Left, who won’t prosecute crimes, even serious crimes, at all. As reported by the Washington Times, these puppets of neoliberal, Globalist, Transnationalist forces—who include Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts—regularly refuse to prosecute crimes, thereby endangering the safety and well-being of the public and making a mockery of our entire system of law and justice. That, of course, is all in accord with the Radical Left’s plan intentionally to disrupt the judicial process to destroy our Country from within.______________________________________________

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

Just how far is the radical Left willing to go to carry out their vision for a new America? Well, let’s consider how far one Leftist, namely, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, is willing to go. The Wall Street Journal provides us with an inkling, reporting on May 28, 2019:“More teens accused of serious felonies will be released from jail without bail under New York City’s latest push to limit incarceration, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday.The new policy, which begins June 1, would affect hundreds of teens accused of serious crimes like assault, robbery and burglary, allowing them to be eligible for release without bail, while they await adjudication of their case.”Releasing dangerous people, charged with serious crimes, on the street, and, at once, hamstringing the police will hardly make the City safer.And doing away with bail altogether serves only to worsen the situation. Doing so is foolhardy and takes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which cautions that bail cannot be excessive, too far. The Eighth Amendment mandates only that the bail amount set must be commensurate with the crime. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment to suggest that the imposition of bail is inconsistent with due process in criminal proceedings.The Eighth Amendment sets forth:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”Obviously, bail has a basis in criminal law and procedure. It isn’t a mere legal nicety. It has a place in our criminal justice system to ensure the accused will appear for trial. A dollar amount set by the Court reflects the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. If the accused does not have funds on hand to meet bail, the accused has recourse to bail bondsmen.But Leftist activists like de Blasio have an agenda and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding our citizenry and preserving both a free Republic and the Constitution. The Leftist agenda has everything to do with tearing down our free Republic and rewriting the Constitution to cohere to the Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism—tenets at odds with those of Individualism upon which our Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic, rests.Recently, the New York Post reported:Nearly 900 city jailbirds could be celebrating Christmas early courtesy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a plan to quietly free them before the state’s bail-reform law goes into effect next year, The Post has learned.And if that weren’t enough of a gift, Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising to follow up with even more presents for the lucky accused criminals — by giving them free baseball tickets, movie passes and gift cards to encourage them to return to court, sources familiar with the program said.'You’re literally rewarding them for committing a crime,' said a disgusted senior staffer in Manhattan Criminal Court.The proposed early jail release is tied to a law that Cuomo signed in the spring to eliminate bail for defendants charged with an array of misdemeanor and felony crimes.The more than 400 offenses include such heinous acts as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault on a child under 11 and selling drugs on or near school grounds, according to a memo being circulated by prosecutors across the state and obtained by The Post.The law goes into effect Jan. 1 but it will be retroactive — meaning inmates who are already locked up on such cases can apply to have their bail lifted and to be freed.In the Big Apple, court officials estimate that 880 prisoners — about 16 percent of all pretrial detainees housed by the Department of Correction — will be eligible for the get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

Substantive and substantial legal Constitutional and Procedural safeguards and protections exist to protect the rights of the criminal accused at trial. We don’t need more. This would only serve to endanger the public.First, common law crime no longer exists in our Country. No conduct is illegal unless such conduct is set forth statutorily, in our State and Federal Criminal Codes. The elements of each crime are set forth clearly and unambiguously. To support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of a crime.Second, the accused enjoys substantial procedural safeguards under extensive State and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.Third, and most critically, the U.S. Constitution accords the accused a full panoply of substantive, fundamental, natural rights. Under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with rights laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, the accused has substantially more legal protections than those accorded the accused in any other Nation.Regardless, Radical left activists continue to malign our Constitution and our system of laws, contending that those charged with crimes don’t have enough legal protection. That notion is patently false; even ridiculous. But, why does the Radical Left constantly go on about the presumed inequities and iniquities of our criminal justice system? Is it that they truly care about what befalls serial criminals or do the motivations of Leftist activists lie elsewhere?

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

Radical Left groups and politicians, along with a seditious Press, foment societal confusion, dissension, and unrest. They encourage disrespect for our Constitution, our laws, our social and political institutions, our culture, our history, our core ethical Judeo-Christian values, and our National identity.Through a caustic, diabolically planned and orchestrated agenda, they seek to induce mass hysteria and rend the very soul and psyche of the Nation, thereby disrupting societal cohesion and creating societal instability. Thus, the polity becomes soft, malleable; and open to a completely new vision of reality: The Collectivists’ vision; a vision that entails the end of our Nation-State; the end of our fundamental, natural rights and liberties; and the insertion of the tatters that remain of our Nation into a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance where the polity sees itself subject to abject penury and misery, subjugation and harassment, and under constant surveillance.Leftists, swift to promote social justice for the criminal class, in their zeal to tear down the social order and to rebuild it in accordance with the tenets of Collectivism, the criminal class becomes a useful tool to accomplish their goals, and, so, dismiss the safety and welfare of the law-abiding citizenry.Thus, do Leftists show their disdain for the welfare of human beings, as they, one, release upon the citizenry, a plague of criminals, free to disrupt and harm; two, constrain the police, making it difficult for them to promote the public welfare; and, three, dispossess average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans of their firearms, leaving them defenseless in the face of the criminal element now given carté blanche to run amok in society. This, then, is a major component of the Leftist plan for the re-ordering of society.Would these Leftist policies establish a Socialist or Communist Utopia? If so, what might that Utopia look like? Do you really want to know? Peer down at Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Do you like what you see? If so, you will be most happy to know this is what the Radical Left has in store for the entire Nation.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE ANTIGUN MOVEMENT

The ultimate goal of the antigun movement is this: the universal elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and possession. This is true and incontrovertible. Everything the antigun movement does is directed to the attainment of that goal. Nothing the antigun movement does diverges from the path to that goal. When asked to admit the truth of the assertion, the antigun movement, and its sounding board, the mainstream corporate media, will deny it, curtly and vehemently. But, the antigun movement’s actions belie its blunt denial.Realization of the movement’s goal amounts to de facto repeal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms – a right expressed clearly and cogently, succinctly and indelibly, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, if there exist any residual doubt as to the import of that right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid such doubt to rest in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.In Heller the Supreme Court held: “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This right, the high Court maintains, operates as a constraint on the federal government. The question subsequently arose, in McDonald, whether the Heller holding applies to the States as well. The high Court held that it did, asserting, clearly, categorically, unequivocally, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Still, the antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings. The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following: one, no one needs a gun because the police will protect you; two, curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents; three, civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them; four, since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession; and, five, the Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either. These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.The antigun movement does not recognize the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, which is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. Rather, the antigun movement sees each individual American as a random bit of unharmonious energy, running hither and yon – an individual who is likely to harm self or others unless appropriately constrained for his or her own good and for the good of the greater society. A firearm in the hands of a civilian lessens government’s ability to control that individual. Ergo, the government must keep the two – firearm and individual – separated. What NRA works to keep conjoined, antigun groups wish to sever and keep disjoined.As the antigun movement works incessantly, inexorably toward its ultimate goal, the movement invariably butts up against the NRA, which the movement routinely and pejoratively refers to as the “gun lobby.” But, the antigun movement refrains from referring to itself as the “antigun lobby.” Now, lobbying activities are protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and NRA is open about its lobbying efforts on behalf of its millions of members. Yet the antigun movement cloak’s its own lobbying activities and blatantly panders to the U.S. President. President Obama, for his part, has not shied away from using the power of his Office to further the agenda of the antigun movement through issuance of executive actions, and he has formally announced, in January of 2016, his intention to do so.Now, Congress, under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, has sole authority to make law. The question is whether Obama’s antigun measures operate within the framework of existing Congressional firearms laws, as he claims, or operate beyond the boundaries of existing law. That Congress might obtain some resolution of that question, U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., Chairman of the Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice and Science, requested Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appear at a hearing, held on January 20, 2016, to discuss the President’s recent executive actions.Senator Shelby made abundantly clear that the President does not have the authority to tell Congress what it must do. But the President has done just that, using the mechanism of executive directives, crafted by the Attorney General, herself, to conduct an “end-run” around Congress. The President isn’t asking Congress and the American people for permission to do what he wants to do. He is telling Congress and the American people what he’s going to do and cajoling both Congress and the American people to get on board with his game plan. That is extreme hubris.If the antigun movement is able to harness the Office of the President to craft its own laws to further a personal agenda, in defiance of both Congressional legislation and U.S. Supreme Court decision, then the Constitution is belittled and the Republic is endangered.[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.