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.

WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

Scarcely eight years had passed since ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 when the question of the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court came to a head in the famous case of Marbury versus Madison. The High Court made its authority felt in a clear, cogent, categorical, and indisputable language in this seminal 1803 case.The facts surrounding the case are abstruse, generating substantial scholarly debate. But what some legal scholars discern as having little importance to the logical and legal gymnastics the Court at the time had to wrestle with, and upon which legal scholars, historians, and logicians have directed their attention today, has become a cause célèbre today:“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. . . . This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; Cranch 137 (1803)Article 3, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution establishes the powers of the Court:“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. . . .” The Constitution’s Framers sought to make the import of the articles and amendments to it as plain and succinct. And they did a good job of it.Even so, ruthless, powerful individuals in the Federal Government and in the States ever strive to thwart the plain meaning and purport of the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of their own selfish interests, imputing vagaries to language even where the language is plain and unambiguous to serve their own selfish ends to the detriment of both Country and people. And that ruthlessness extends to those who, with vast sums of money at their disposal, influence these “servants of the people,” in pursuit of and to achieve their own nefarious interests and goals.Back then, over two centuries ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Court deftly side-stepped the delicate political and legislative issues of the day that gave rise to the case and carved out the Court’s own territory.The High Court made two points abundantly clear:One, the U.S. Supreme Court does not answer to either the Executive or Legislative Branch. It is not to be perceived as a poor stepchild of either of those two Branches. It is a Co-Equal Branch of the Federal Government.Two, on matters impacting the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, neither the U.S. President nor Congress can lawfully ignore the Court’s rulings. This means that, where the Court has spoken on challenges to unconstitutional laws, finding particular laws of Congress to be unconstitutional, Congress has no lawful authority to ignore and countermand those rulings, or circumvent those rulings by enacting new laws that purport to do the same thing as the laws that the Court has struck down. Nor can the U.S. President cannot override the Constitutional constraints imposed on his actions.The States, too, are forbidden to ignore Supreme Court rulings, striking down unconstitutional State enactments. Nor are the States permitted to repurpose old laws or create new laws that do the same thing—operate in violate of the U.S. Constitution.  Jump forward in time to the present day.The Federal Government and all too many State and municipal Governments routinely defy the High Court’s rulings, engaging in unconstitutional conduct.But this defiance and even contempt of the High Court rulings leaves an American to ponder, “why?”Even cursory reflection elucidates the answer to that question. The answer is as plain as the text of Article Three, Section 2 of the Constitution, itself.The High Court has neither power over “the purse” that Congress wields, nor power over the Nation’s “standing army” the Chief Executive controls.Yet, the fact remains the U.S. Supreme Court is the only Branch of Government with ultimate say over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as Marbury made clear, well over two hundred years ago. To say what the Constitution means, when conflict or challenge to that meaning arises is within the sole province of the High Court.Unfortunately, without the capacity to withhold funds over the operation of Government, nor power to enforce its judgments by force of arms, the Court’s rulings are all too often, blatantly ignored or cavalierly dismissed.As if this weren’t bad enough, the mere fact of the Court’s authority is now actively contested.Audaciously, some individuals in Government, in the Press, and in academia, have recently argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to say what the law is, should not be vested in the High Court, regardless of the strictures of Article Three, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution.Consider, an Op-Ed, titled, “Should the Supreme Court Matter So Much?” The essay appeared in The New York Times, and not that long ago, in 2018, written by Barry P. McDonald, an attorney and Law Professor no less who exclaims:“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the Court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the Court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” The question of interpreting the Constitution is the subject of some debate? Really? Apparently, this Law Professor, Barry McDonald, has wholly forgotten the import of Marbury versus Madison, a case burnt into the mind of every first-year law student. His remarks are eccentric, disturbing, and disheartening.If the Framers of the U.S. Constitution really had such a low opinion of the High Court, they would not have constructed a Government with a Third Branch but would have subsumed it into one of the first two? Obviously, the Framers thought enough about the singular importance of the U.S. Supreme Court, to include it in the framework of the Federal Government, and as a co-equal Branch of that Government.It is one thing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings because of an antipathy toward those rulings and claim the Court can’t do anything about it anyway because the Court hasn’t power to enforce its rulings. That is bad enough. But it is quite another thing to argue the Court has no reason to exist, ought not to exist, and thereupon rationalize doing away with the Third Branch of Government or otherwise reducing its authority to render rulings to a nullity by Executive Branch or Legislative Branch edict.Application of alien predilections, predispositions, and ideology to the Nation’s governance is a path to abject tyranny; to dissolution of the Republic; defilement of the Nation’s culture and history and heritage; destruction of societal order and cohesion; and abasement and subjugation of a sovereign people. The Nation is on a runaway train, running full throttle, about to make an impact with a massive brick wall.The New York Times just loves to publish articles by credentialed individuals who hold views well beyond the pale of those held by their brethren if those views happen to conform to, and strengthen, and push the socio-political narrative of the newspaper’s publishers and editorial staff.Use of such dubious, fringe views to support a viewpoint is a classic example of “confirmation bias,” an informal fallacy.There are dozens of informal fallacies. And the American public is force-fed ideas that routinely exemplify one or more of them.This defiance of State and Federal Government actors to adhere to the Court’s rulings and even to contest the authority of the Court is most pronounced, most acute, and, unfortunately, most prevalent, in matters pertaining to the import of fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people—and none more so than the citizen’s right of armed self-defense.Consider——In the first decade of the 21st Century, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled clearly and unequivocally in Heller versus District of Columbia that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority opinion.Among its other rulings in Heller, the High Court held the District of Columbia’s blanket ban on handguns impermissibly infringes the core of the Second Amendment. It thereupon struck down the D.C. ban on handguns as unconstitutional.And the Court also held a person has a right to immediate access to a handgun in one’s self-defense. Not surprisingly, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions disliked these rulings and were intent on disobeying them, and arrogantly defied the Court.Looking for an excuse to defy Heller, these jurisdictions argued that Heller applies only to the Federal Government, not to them. That led to an immediate challenge, and the High Court took up the case in McDonald vs. City of Chicago.Here, Justice Alito writing for the majority, opined the Heller rulings apply with equal force to the States, through operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Did the Anti-Second Amendment States abide by the Court’s rulings, after McDonald? No, they did not!They again defied the Court, conjuring up all sorts of reasons to deny to the American citizen his unalienable right to keep and bear arms in his self-defense.The States in these Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions claimed that, even if a person has a right to armed self-defense inside his home, the right to do so does not extend to the carrying of a handgun outside the home.The State and Federal Courts in these jurisdictions conveniently misconstrued the Supreme Court’s test for ascertaining the constitutionality of Government action infringing exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. These Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions also placed bans on semiautomatic weapons, fabricating a legal fiction for them; referring to them as “assault weapons.”  American citizens challenged the constitutionality of all these issues. And many of these cases wended their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, only to be thwarted because the Court could not muster sufficient support among the Justices to deal with the flagrant violation of Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning.One of these cases was the 2015 Seventh Circuit case, Friedman versus City of Highland Park, Illinois.The liberal wing of the Court didn’t want the case to be heard. That was no surprise.But, apparently, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy didn’t want to hear the case either.Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were furious and said so in a comprehensive dissenting opinion.Had the Court taken up the Friedman case, Americans would have been spared this nonsense of “assault weapon” bans. The Court would have ruled these bans unconstitutional on their face, in which event the Federal Government and Anti-Second Amendment State governments would be hard-pressed to make a case for wasting valuable time and taxpayer monies dealing with an issue the High Court had ruled on. Unfortunately, the Friedman case and many others were not taken up by the Court.Americans are compelled to continue to spend considerable time and money in challenging a continuous stream of unconstitutional Second Amendment Government action. And often, this is a futile expenditure of time, money, and effort, albeit a noble and necessary one all the same._________________________________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL UNFAZED BY CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK GUN LAW: “GO FOR IT,” SHE RETORTS!

One of the most persistent and virulently Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions, that has spurred numerous challenges to unconstitutional and unconscionable constraints on the Second Amendment through the decades, is New York.In 2020, four years after Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, under disturbingly suspicious circumstances, and shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Bench, and the U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s first nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, to a seat on the High Court, the Court took up the case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York—often referred to colloquially as the “NY Gun Transport” case. An extensive explication of that case is found in a series of AQ articles posted on our website. See, e.g., our article posted on April 27, 2020, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on the same date. A second U.S. Supreme Court case, coming out of New York, NYSRPA versus Bruen, officially released on June 23, 2022, ruled New York’s “proper cause” requirement unconstitutional.New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany thereupon struck the words “proper cause” from the State’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, codified in Section 400.00 of the State’s Penal Code. But, doing so served merely as a blind.Had the Hochul Government refrained from tinkering with the rest of the text of the Statute and other Code sections, it might well have avoided further constitutional challenges from justifiably irate New Yorkers. It did not.Hochul and Albany did not stop with the striking of “proper cause” from the Gun Law. It went well beyond that. Her Government and Albany wrote a detailed set of amendments to the Gun Law. The package of amendments, titled the “Concealed Carry Law Improvement Act,” “CCIA,” do not conform to the Bruen rulings but, rather, slither all around them. On a superficial level, deletion of the words “proper cause” might be seen by some, as Hochul and Albany had perhaps hoped, to forestall legal challenge. But, if challenge came, time would be, after all, on the Government’s side. And Hochul knew this.The Government has money enough to fight a protracted Court battle. The challenger, more likely, does not. Even finding a suitable challenger takes considerable time, exorbitant sums of money to file a lawsuit, and substantial time to take a Second Amendment case to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it is far from certain the Court will review a case even if a petition for hearing is filed, for the Court grants very few petitions.For well over a century the New York Government has inexorably whittled away at the right of armed self-defense in New York. And it has successfully weathered all attacks all the while. The New York Government wasn’t going to let the U.S. Supreme Court now, in the Bruen case, to throw a wrench into attaining its end goal: the elimination of armed self-defense in New York. Much energy went into the creation of the CCIA. It is a decisive and defiant response to the U.S. Supreme Court and furthers its goal to constrain armed self-defense in the public sphere.Likely, given the length, breadth, and depth of the CCIA, the Government saw Bruen coming, long before the case was filed, and had ample time to draft the contours of the CCIA a couple of years ago. A clue that another U.S. Supreme Court case, challenging New York’s Gun Law, would loom, presented itself in Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.  Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch had made known their strong disapproval of the way the “Gun Transport” case was handled, after the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh cast their lot with the Anti-Second Amendment liberal wing of the Court, allowing the case to be unceremoniously and erroneously shunted aside, sans review of the merits of the case. A day of reckoning with New York’s insufferable Gun Law was coming. The Government of New York could not reasonably doubt that. The core of the Gun Law would be challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court would hear that challenge. The Government likely worked up a draft response to an antagonistic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the core of the Gun Law in 2020, shortly after the New York “Gun Transport” case ruling came down. That draft response would become the CCIA.The Government likely completed its draft of the CCIA well before Bruen was taken up by the High Court. The Government had only to fine-tune the CCIA immediately after oral argument in early November 2021. And the Government did so. Hochul almost certainly received advance notice of the text of the majority opinion within days or weeks after the hearing before the New Year had rung in. Nothing else can explain the speed at which Albany had passed the CCIA and Hochul had signed it into law: July 1, 2022, just eight days after the Court had released the Bruen decision, June 23, 2022.The CCIA amendments to the Gun Law integrate very nicely with and into other recent New York antigun legislation, passed by Albany and signed into law by Hochul. Thus, contrary to what the Governor’s website proclaims, the amendments were not “devised to align with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.” Rather these amendments were devised to align with other New York antigun legislation. What does this portend for New Yorkers? Those New Yorkers who had hoped to be able to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license with relative ease will now find procuring such a license no less difficult than before the enactment of the CCIA.Most hard-hit are those present holders of New York City and New York County unrestricted concealed handgun carry licenses. The “proper cause” hoop that present holders of such concealed handgun carry licenses were able to successfully jump through is of no use to them now. These renewal applicants must now satisfy a slew of new requirements—more draconian than the original ones they had previously successfully navigated. All New York concealed handgun carry applicants are now in the same boat. And meeting the new requirements are exceedingly difficult. Despite the clear intent of the Bruen rulings, to make it easier for more Americans to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, it is now harder. Likely, very few individuals will be able to successfully pass through the hurdles necessary to obtain a New York license the CCIA requires. Thus, getting a license will remain a coveted prize, difficult to gain as previously, and likely even more so.And the few individuals who do happen to secure a valid New York concealed handgun carry license will find themselves in a precarious situation for all the troubles they had in getting it.These new license holders will find exercise of the right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, in the public realm, full of traps and snares that did not previously exist. And there is something more alarming.The mere act of applying for a concealed carry license—whether the license is issued or not—now requires the applicant to divulge a wealth of highly personal information that, hitherto, an applicant never had to divulge, and the licensing authority had never asked an applicant to divulge. And, if a person fails to secure a license, his personal data will remain in his State police file, indefinitely, and will likely be turned over to the DOJ, DHS, ATF, IRS, and/or to a slew of State or Federal mental health agencies. All manner of harm may be visited upon the person that otherwise would not have occurred had the individual not bothered to apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license in the first place. To apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license, an applicant may unwittingly be alerting both the New York Government and the Federal Government that he is a “MAGA” supporter, and therefore a potential “Domestic Terrorist.” And, if so, he is then targeted for special treatment: surveillance, harassment, exploitation, or extortion. And he cannot claim a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because he voluntarily relinquished that right when he applied for a concealed handgun carry license.If one thinks this is farfetched, consider the excesses committed by the Biden Administration directed to average Americans in the last several months.We explore these troubling matters, in connection with the application requirements for a New York concealed handgun carry license, in the next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 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.

SIX MONTHS INTO THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE PROCESS OF DISMANTLING A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS WELL UNDERWAY

NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISTS AND NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITES TAKE A JACKHAMMER TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION*

PART FOUR

The last thing the Neo-Marxist Controlled Congress and Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist handlers of the dimwitted Biden and Harris want to contend with is an armed citizenry. For an armed citizenry is wholly incompatible with the Marxist-globalist agenda and with the construction of a uniform, unified autocratic world government they yearn to create from the hollowed-out shells of old Western Nation States. The U.S. Constitution must go, and a free Republic and sovereign People must go with it, into the dustbin of a forgotten history, making way for and replaced by a “Brave New World,” a technological New World Order, where billions of people, the Hoi Polloi of the Earth, now reduced to mindless, senseless, subservient automatons, no more than—and in a real sense—much less than the AI high-functioning robotic objects operating in this new world, co-existing all around them. Do you think this can't happen? The Deca and Centi-Billionaire Globalists are building these Cities of Tomorrow, right now and then plan to herd the public into them—tens of thousands of people will undoubtedly go willingly, at first, at least, buying into the soft-sell of how wonderful it is is to“live” in a “Smart-City” of the Future—and, eventually, all others will be compelled to do so, corraled against their will into a seemingly placid, tranquil, serene secure landscape. It is unlikely that Bill Gates and other mega-billionaires are buying up huge tracts of land simply to sate their penchant for farming, if that is truly the case, even if the public is told this. Can Gates truly be interested in farming? Is this for the purpose simply to grow food? Really? Huge agricultural combines such as Monsanto and huge food distributor companies like Conagra, already exist. Has Gates, probably at the behest of the Bilderberg Group et.al., of which he is a part, in fact must be a part, given his fabulous wealth, provided him and other Billionaires with their marching orders. The goal in the near term, after developing these so-called Smart Cities, is then selling the idea to the Hoi Polloi as a wonderful place for the Hoi Polloi to inhabit.  See, e.g., globest.com, pymnts.com, techrepublic.com, and iberdrola.com, smartcitiesdive.com, and the ruthless and thoroughly deceitful international management consulting firm, McKinsey, is getting into the act. In fact, a tremendous ad campaign is underway to sell this idea to investment groups, and, ultimately, to the public. See, e.g., SmartCitiesworld.com and Springer Open, and blog.bismart.com. Is this effort grounded on truly creating a better world for billions of common people? Does it even really have to do with making money? When a person has accumulated tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars, does a craving for billions more exist? Is that the motivation of these people? Is the motivation to benefit mankind? Or, rather, is the motivation all-too-human: to ensure a better, safer, more secure world for the multi-billionaire ruling elites, that can only be obtained by herding the billions of common people into vast enclosures, through which these masses can be best surveilled and controlled, effectively imprisoned. This is to be sold to the Hoi Polloi as better living through technology, of course. But, when the truth about the impetus for creating these so-called smart cities slowly dawns on some people at least, it will be much too late to resist. And, what then? Eventually, masses of people will be connected to vast neural networks, kept in check within ever smaller and smaller enclosures, perhaps one-room affairs, or large wards containing beds, of a sort, to which people will live their lives virtually, essentially asleep, needing very little nutrient and water, essentially existing as vegetables. And, what is the third step in this evolving strategy of control? Perhaps these billions of people will be dispensed with altogether. Since there is no need for them, even to perform limited custodial services as the simplest of robotic apparatuses could perform those functions and many such mechanical servants already do perform those services and quite well.But, the goal of shepherding billions of people into enclosures, a process to be replicated throughout the world, cannot be smoothly engineered through the present conceptual idea of a nation-state. This social construct must also be dispensed with as an inefficient use of and in fact waste of monies and resources and an ineffective societal device for controlling large populations of common folk. Obviously, the notion of the dignity of the individual and the idea of the sanctity of the human soul not only lose significance in this technologically balanced, unified, uniform, and well-ordered, and well-engineered, smooth-running, exceptionally streamlined society but are devoid of meaning. The next step in this development of a perfectly stable, well-ordered technologically streamlined world would involve the elimination of most of humanity, as superfluous, a drain on scarce resources. The slow dismantling of and hollowing out of the very concept of the nation-state has been gathering steam for some time.This process has been underway in EU for decades. The European Union operates as the initial experiment in the demise of nation-states. The process was sold on several nations of Europe as not involving the ceding of political and legal control over to a central government operating in Brussels, but, ceding a nation's economic control over to a transnational governing body, benefitting all the member nations. That was how the architects of the EU originally sold the idea of a European Union to the original member nations of Europe. But that was merely a ploy and pretext, and one that soured as Countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal eventually discovered that, when it came to economic fortunes in the EU, there were winners and losers no less so than there were before the artifice of a supra-transnational European Union of nation-states began implementation. But the true raison d’être behind the creation of the EU went far beyond the notion of an economic union of member nation-states that was sold, deceitfully, to these member states. The goal of the grand architects of the EU involved nothing less than the eventual dissolution of the idea of sovereign, independent nation-states. The grand design of the EU involves the reconfiguring of the member nation-states of the EU into a single monolithic transnational unified, uniform construct, with a super-government reigning body ensconced in Brussels, Belgium. See the official European Union website page, delineating the major organs of Government. And this transformative process has been gaining steam, especially in the 21^st Century, as Brussels has run roughshod over the member nations and their populations. And with ultimate political, social, cultural, and juridical control over the governments of these nations, as well as financial and economic control over the governments of these nations, it became easier to begin the process of erasing the national identity of these individual nation-states. This involves a two-step process. The first step involves destabilizing the societal and cultural structure of the member nations. This is accomplished through insinuating into the member nations of Europe, uneducated, poverty-stricken individuals from alien cultures, namely from the middle-east and from northern Africa. The denizens of those regions of Africa and the middle-east naturally resist the process of assimilation, as the cultures of the nations of Europe are at once incomprehensible to them, and incompatible with their own cultural and religious milieu. The governments of the member nation-states of the EU are denied the ability to effectively control the breakdown of the societal order. Any attempt to do so is met with resistance from the Neoliberal Globalist elites and from the International Neo-Marxists, both of whom share the same goal: the annihilation of all nation-states, and the application of the Neo-Marxist dogma serves that common goal. Neo-Marxists argue that such efforts to control denizens from North Africa and the middle-east that are running amok in the various member nations of the EU are to be perceived as immoral, and contrary to the dictates of the nonsense dogma thrust on the EU member states and in the U.S., as well: i.e., the dogma of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, terminology as meaningless to those elements from the middle east and North Africa, insinuating themselves into Europe, as that terminology is the citizens of the EU's member nation-states who wish only to hold onto their culture and national identity and culture and are prohibited from doing so by the ruling elites' overseers in Brussels and their toadies in some of the member states that weaseled their way into power: for example, Emmanuel Macron of France, and Angela Merkel of Germany, and Mario Draghi of Italy, to name a few.Yet, even as most of the populations of the member states are not  exactly ecstatic over the idea of ceding national political, social, cultural, and legal power over to a central transnational governing body in Brussels, whatever the ostensible benefits of an economic union might present—which is, at best, debatable—some have successfully resisted this unlawfully usurpation of political authority. Looking clearly and honestly at the structure of the EU governing organs, it is now clear to most populations of the member states that that the architects of the EU had engaged its member states with a Devil’s bargain as the these independent, sovereign nation-states would be required to cede all governing powers over to Brussels, not merely some governing power—i.e., economic power. Indeed, to cede economic power is, for all intents and purposes, to cede all other power—political, social, judicial.Countries like Hungary and Poland, though, have had enough of the EU and the unlawful encroachment of Brussels over their national sovereignty. Afraid of a general backlash, the Neoliberal Globalist architects of the EU treat those Nations as pariahs. The Neo-Marxist intelligentsia conjured up a specific derogatory expression to describe these malcontents, calling them seats of “illiberal Constitutionalism.”Legions of media puppets of the EU’s rulers attacked these Nations. The AP, for one, audaciously proclaimed: “Democratic standards in the European Union are eroding in several member countries, particularly in Hungary and Poland where judicial independence is under threat, the EU’s executive commission said Tuesday in its annual report on adherence to the rule of law.”This bit of propaganda, not surprisingly, emanates out of Brussels, the seat of the Globalist ruler “elite.” It is the very assertion of independence that Brussels abhors—a right that, curiously enough, is a right of every sovereign nation. Brussels, through the AP, is declaring that the member nations are not to be construed as truly sovereign countries—at least not anymore—and, in so saying, admits that the creation of the EU is predicated on the gravest of lies—telling each member State that it shall retain its inherent structure, as an independent sovereign nation, which means retaining all political and judicial power, when in fact, the EU governance requires the ceding of all of it, and slowly through the years and decades since the inception of the EU, has been drawing from their member nation-states powers that belong solely to those States. As the populations of all the member States are well aware of the Government in Brussels' unlawful usurpation of powers and authority, some of those member States have drawn a line in the sand, and said this cannot continue. The sovereign Nation-States of Hungary and Poland are two such that have basically told Brussels' tyrants to go to Hell. Unsurprisingly, the tyrants in Brussels haven't taken kindly to the reassertion of power and authority by Hungary and Poland. And the Globalists and Neo-Marxists here in the U.S. are chiming in to support EU's tyrants. Tucker Carlson makes the point in Budapest that it is time that Americans wake up to the fact that they are in danger of losing their Constitutional Republic if they don't reassert their sovereign authority over Government. In fact, our Constitution makes clear that true power and authority rests in the American people, not in Government. Limited and demarcated powers and authority made patently clear in the U.S. Constitution point to the fact that the Federal Government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. But, the Neoliberal Globalists and Internationalist Neo-Marxists don't give a damn whatever the Constitution has to say about the matter in whom sole, ultimate, and supreme authority resides. And the Bill of Rights, apart from the Articles, emphasizes in whom ultimate power and authority reside. The pack of lies coming from the Press that Donald Trump was an Autocrat is belied by the cavalier manner in which these Globalists in the U.S. Government, through their puppet, the senile Joe Biden, has systematically amassed powers in defiance of and in contradistinction to the clear meaning of the plain language of the Articles, and blatantly defies Congressional Statute, of which the Biden's open borders policy is a clear example of, or simply ignores Constitution and Congressional Statute, and operates as if the U.S. Constitution doesn't even exist. Tucker Carlson's visit to Budapest drives home the point that too many Americans have allowed themselves to be blindsided by the antics of tyrants here at home, in Congress and in the Executive Branch, who claim they aren't tyrants even as they go about terrorizing a goodly section of the populace that refuses to submit to their tyranny. Now the Press is going after Hungary and Tucker Carlson for fear that the American public will take notice of the loss of their Country and their liberty to Autocrats and demand an accounting of the actions of these Neo-Marxist Autocrat members of Congress and of the actions of the Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-run Executive Branch of Government.As an example of the Internationalist Neo-Marxist attack against Countries that dare to reassert their National sovereignty and National Identity, the Neo-Marxist Wilson Center think tank attacks the concept of ‘nationalism’ openly and arrogantly, stating, “Hungarian nationalism, indeed all the Central and East European nationalisms, are driven by martyrologies of defeat.” In the article, the Wilson Center makes use of the obligatory Neo-Marxist verbiage, ‘inclusion,’ drawing a contrast with and denigrating the concept of  ‘assimilation,’ as too confining and outmoded, reminiscent of nation-states. No surprise there. The Wilson Center goes on to say: “The word ‘inclusion’ rather than “‘assimilation’ is used in order to shift the focus onto the nation and the process of accepting minorities into a community, rather than on the actions of the minorities who are making the adaptation. Assimilation implies a solution, a kind of permanency, whereas inclusion suggests a process with ruptures and redefinitions. Policies of inclusion can be severed or reinstated more easily than assimilation.” See also the article in the Atlantic Council; the Council contemptuously refers to Hungary and Poland as “as a hotbed of nationalism and authoritarianism, a leading edge of bad trends in Europe generally.”Not to be outdone, the Neoliberal Globalist Jeff Bezos publication, The Washington Post, gets into the act, too, scorning Tucker Carlson for his visit to Budapest and for his meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister, Vicktor Orbán. Of note, the Washington Post defends Brussel’s criticism of Orban, asserting:“. . . the reason that E.U. leaders have criticized Orban as authoritarian is that he has embarked on an unabashed and explicit effort to shift Hungary away from the traditions of liberal democracy, in which power is assigned through free and fair elections. Orban is criticized as authoritarian because he has embraced autocracy.”Tucker Carlson conducted an interview of Hungary's Prime Minister a few days ago. See Fox News Article, titled, “Hungary's Viktor Orban tells Tucker Carlson: ‘Western liberals can't accept’ right-wing dissent.” During the interview, the Prime Minister said in pertinent part:“‘The Western liberals cannot accept that inside the Western civilization, there is a conservative national alternative which is more successful at everyday life, at the level of them—the liberal ones,’ he said. ‘That's the reason why they criticize us. They are fighting for themselves, not against us. But we are an example that a country which is based on traditional values, on national identity, on the tradition of Christianity can be successful—sometimes more successful than a leftist-liberal government. . . . But you can’t say, okay, it’s a nice country. I would like to come and live here because it’s a nicer life, it is not a human right to come here. No way. It’s our land. It’s a nation, a community, family, history, tradition, language.’”These remarks drove the Marxists in the Press apoplectic with rage. They couldn't let this pass. How dare an American news host take control of the Marxist/Globalist narrative, and attack their unholy Radical Left Gospel of  “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion!”And they let loose their venom on both Orban and Carlson, and, by extension, on American conservatives, as well—those Americans who have the audacity to cherish their history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical foundation and a free Constitutional Republic that the founders of the Nation bequeathed to America's descendants. The New York Times' posted two Op-Ed pieces on the matter, both of which were published in the newspaper on August 6, and 7 2021, respectively. One article deserves especial attention, for its discussion of an essay by George Orwell, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ That article by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Jamelle Bouie, sports the sarcastic title, “Tucker Carlson Has a New Hero,”—a title that manages to convey in six words, the author's contempt for both Fox News Host, Carlson, and Hungary's Prime Minister, Orban. Jamelle's Bouie's article is, though, not to be remarked upon for the unrestrained disdain in which he holds Carlson and Orban, of which the Op-Ed elicits much, but rather, for its attack on the notion of  ‘nationalism,’ which Bouie, perceives as contrary to the spirit of intellectualism and therefore, contrary to rational thought. And he sees the expression of nationalist fervor as a thing as relevant in today's world as corsets and buggy whips and as worthy of emulation as the Dictators of history that Bouie ties to the term. To support his attack on ‘nationalism,’ as something to be despised, he cites George Orwell—but not Orwell's famed novel, ‘1984,’ much-cited today by Progressives, Marxists, Anarchists, and the like, on the Leftside of the political spectrum, and by those on the Right of the political spectrum. Bouie cites, instead, a lesser-known work, a short essay, titled, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ for the proposition that Orwell considered ‘nationalism’ as anathema to rational thought. But, he made a point of asserting ‘nationalism’ to be a fault as much among the intelligentsia as among the common man.For Orwell, ‘nationalism’ is tied to a narrowness of thought and perception which therefore admits a multitude of sins. But for all that, the term is vague in meaning as is the term ‘patriotism’ which, for Orwell, is a thing to be lauded, not despised, although, here, in the United States at this particular time, the Neo-Marxists do not draw a distinction between the two, unlike Orwell, as the emulation of both is despised by the Neo-Marxists. Orwell writes,“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”It is not hard to see that, in our own Country, the Neo-Marxists at once will dismiss their insatiable desire, even lust, for the acquiring of absolute power for themselves, and are therefore nationalists, in a true Orwellian sense, and eschew any notion they are patriots, as that notion is tied inextricably to the American Revolution of 1776, which they revolt against, as they definitely have no devotion to the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, and they definitely do not believe the American way of life to be the best in the world given their desire to dismantle every vestige of the past and to rewrite history in accordance with their mythology. And, since they do indeed have wish to force Marxist Collectivism in this Country and world-wide, they can neither considered to be ‘patriots’ in the Orwellian sense, which happens to be consistent with the sense of the word that America's Conservatives ascribe to.In that Essay, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ George Orwell further explicates the meaning of ‘nationalism’.  He says, “A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist – that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating – but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the up-grade and some hated rival is on the down-grade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.”But, is this exposition on the meaning of  ‘nationalism’ not an apt description for the political failings of the Neo-Marxist? And, as for the idea of flagrant dishonesty and self-deception that marks the Marxists' inner thoughts and outer actions, we can add that the Neo-Marxists are unabashed, sanctimonious hypocrites whose tenets and precepts aren't even internally consistent and coherent.The New York Times Op-Ed writer, Jamelle Bouie, chides Tucker Carlson for admiring Hungary, and says that this is form of nationalism referred to as transferred nationalism, a term that Orwell coins. But is that so wrong? In fact Tucker Carlson only points to Hungary as an exemplary model because it alludes to a United States that existed for well over 200 years, a United States existing as a free Constitutional Republic, a Republic grounded in liberty, where is not a mere word, but reigns supreme, a Republic where the American people themselves, and only they, are the sole sovereign ruler,  power, and authority in the Nation, over the Federal Government and those who serve in it, at the pleasure of the American people, as the servants of the people, not their overseers. It is this Country, grounded in the tenets of Individualism that the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist abhors and seeks to change both here and abroad; indeed, seeks to transform the entire structure of Western Civilization, grounded on the concept of the nation-state. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist elite seek to evoke a horrific inter-nationalism or trans-nationalism to replace each independent, sovereign nation-state, and to inflict their radical makeover of Western political, social, economic, and juridical structures to reflect their warped philosophy; and they intend for that philosophy to embrace and shape the entire world, or at least that substantial portion of it included in the domain of Western Civilization. The world they envision is one in which one's every thought and conduct is conditioned and controlled; a world of incessant surveillance, in every sphere of influence, public and private, within the home and outside it; a world that tortures and subjugates body and spirit and that destroys mind and reason and will.The Neo-Marxist is a textbook case example of George Orwell's nationalist—an internationalist mindset that seeks to remake the entire world in accord with its tenets and precepts, and that will suffer no contrary viewpoint; will tolerate no dissenting voice; will abide no demonstration of uniqueness, of individuality; that will brook no interference, no opposition. The Neo-Marxist is one so enamored with him or herself—so certain of the truth of his or her beliefs, and so convinced of the perfection of the morality that undergirds those beliefs, that debate, any debate, is deemed to be unnecessary and superfluous, or worse, to admit of blasphemy or heresy, and must not be entertained, lest the purity of Marxism be contaminated and one's mind be confounded by impure thoughts. One must submit to the orthodoxy or be crushed into submission. This is nationalism as internationalism, transnationalism—the embrace of nationalism as universalism to overtake, overshadow, overpower every other system of belief, on any conceivable topic—Marxism, this new Neo-Marxism, not Classic Marxism, will shape any topic; have something to say about any subject, however prosaic or abstruse; and those entrusted to define and interpret this new Marxism are the lofty Priests of the new Marxism, those who inhabit the highest Caste, and woe be to that person who dares to disagree or, worse, to interfere with the musings of these High-Lord Muck-a-Mucks.Orwell writes,“As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. “Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied.”All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. . . . Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. [Think of last Summer's riots in Marxist-led Cities and States].“Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied. . . .  [P]ropaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. “Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. . . . One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. . . . The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world.”Jamelle Bouie should be careful of whom he cites for support when he demeans and debases a reputable news host and the Prime Minister of a Nation.Bouie defers to the Neoliberal Globalist propagandist messaging that “Orbán's Hungary is corrupt, repressive and authoritarian, a place where democracy is little more than window dressing and the state exists to plunder the public on behalf of a tiny ruling elite.” But consider what Hungary when through in the mid-Twentieth Century, as reported in History.com:“A spontaneous national uprising that began 12 days before in Hungary is viciously crushed by Soviet tanks and troops on November 4, 1956. Thousands were killed and wounded and nearly a quarter-million Hungarians fled the country.The problems in Hungary began in October 1956, when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding a more democratic political system and freedom from Soviet oppression. In response, Communist Party officials appointed Imre Nagy, a former premier who had been dismissed from the party for his criticisms of Stalinist policies, as the new premier. Nagy tried to restore peace and asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops. The Soviets did so, but Nagy then tried to push the Hungarian revolt forward by abolishing one-party rule. He also announced that Hungary was withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet bloc’s equivalent of NATO).On November 4, 1956, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush, once and for all, the national uprising. Vicious street fighting broke out, but the Soviets’ great power ensured victory. At 5:20 a.m., Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy announced the invasion to the nation in a grim, 35-second broadcast, declaring: “Our troops are fighting. The Government is in place.” Within hours, though, Nagy sought asylum at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest. He was captured shortly thereafter and executed two years later. Nagy’s former colleague and imminent replacement, János Kádár, who had been flown secretly from Moscow to the city of Szolnok, 60 miles southeast of the capital, prepared to take power with Moscow’s backing.The Soviet action stunned many people in the West. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had pledged a retreat from the Stalinist policies and repression of the past, but the violent actions in Budapest suggested otherwise. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Sporadic armed resistance, strikes and mass arrests continued for months thereafter, causing substantial economic disruption. Inaction on the part of the United States angered and frustrated many Hungarians. Voice of America radio broadcasts and speeches by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had recently suggested that the United States supported the “liberation” of “captive peoples” in communist nations. Yet, as Soviet tanks bore down on the protesters, the United States did nothing beyond issuing public statements of sympathy for their plight.” The people of Hungary know their history, and their parents and grandparents knew tyranny firsthand and the history of brutal Soviet oppression and subjugation won't be forgotten. It was no less the oppression of an independent sovereign Nation that is once again under attack, but not from Orbán. Rather this oppression is coming from the EU. It may not be through military force that the EU's Globalists Transnational Government, dictating policy from Brussels, has sought to oppress Hungary and the other nations of the EU that have opposed the usurpation of foreign authority on national sovereignty, but these overseers in Brussels have no less sought unlawfully to impose their iron rule upon Hungary, and the people of Hungary rejected that. Is it so wrong to admire one Nation's resolve against tyranny? But, Leftist writers like Jamelle Bouie are obviously oblivious to what it is in a Country that truly constitutes a trend, a direction toward tyranny. Bouie says,

“But at this moment in American life, it’s conservatives who have set their sights abroad. Parts of the movement have even adopted a kind of anti-Americanism, a contempt for the United States as it exists. These conservatives still call themselves “patriots” — and disdain their opponents as “traitors” — but theirs is an abstract loyalty to an idealized country. “When they contemplate the actual United States,” Beauchamp wrote in Vox, “they are filled with scorn.”

It makes sense that as this tendency develops, so too does the yearning for a country that can be hailed as a model and a lodestar — the soaring and gilded counterpoint to our fallen and decadent society.” 

But that too is projection. And sooner or later, the conservatives who hail Hungary under Orban as an attractive alternative to the United States will see that their vision of that country is as false as their image of this one is.”

“Projection”? Really? That notion is absurd. What it is that draws Americans' attention to Hungary, and why many Americans admire Hungary, is not due to the psychological device of “projection” that the Times' writer Jamelle Bouie recites in his Op-Ed, but to the fact that this small Nation has taken a stand against unlawful usurpation of power by the EU, as political power belongs solely to Hungary, and rightfully so since Hungary is an independent sovereign Nation. It IS Hungary's will to resist unlawful encroachment of power that Americans find a thing to emulate. As Hungary has gained its independence from the Neoliberal Globalist forces in Brussels that dare to crush Hungary's independence, the United States has begun a process of decline in all aspects, politically, socially, economically, militarily, geopolitically, juridically, as those same Neoliberal Globalist forces, together with the Neo-Marxist rabble, seeks to unwind all sovereign, independent Western nation-states and to subsume them in a new transnational world order. The Neoliberal Globalist (these so-called) ‘elites’ and Internationalist Neo-Marxists have taken their cue from the EU, which is what they emulate and seek to replicate in the U.S.: A transnationalist governmental scheme, embracing all the major Western nation-states. In this scheme, there exist no national borders and no defined national identity. These powerful forces that crush seek no less than the annihilation of a powerful, independent sovereign Nation-State, one framed as a free Constitutional Republic in which the citizenry are sole sovereign, and whose power and authority as sole sovereign over Nation and Government derive from and are grounded in a carefully considered, extraordinary Constitution, establishing a Government with clearly defined and demarcated powers, all the rest of which, including Natural Rights existing intrinsically in Man, several of which are codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights, are reserved alone to the several States and to the People. This, the Leftists' Internationalist Marxist intellectual elite and the Neoliberal Globalist elites intend to obliterate. They see this as a good thing and with Donald Trump who sought to preserve the Nation in the form the founders created, callously swept aside through a rigged election, the forces that crush have wasted no time dismantling the U.S. Constitution, erasing all vestige of the Nation's past, destroying the Nation's culture along with the Nation's Judeo-Christian ethic, insinuating itself into every political, quasi-political, and semi-political structure, and institution of State, Federal, and local Government, compelling all private organizations and businesses to prostrate themselves to the new world order to be, deliberately destabilizing society, confounding the public, and denying to the common man the unfettered exercise of his or her natural Rights. This, they see as ‘Liberal Democracy’, something to be applauded.But, the trend toward ‘Liberal Democracy’ is nothing more than a seeming innocuous code for the annihilation of the Nation-State, and the creation of a new political, social, economic, and cultural structure to embrace the entirety of western civilization. The depth and breadth of this audacious effort to reconfigure the entirety of Western Civilization is not confined to Europe or to the U.S. or to the Commonwealth Nations. It embraces the entirety of Western Civilization—it amounts to the most audacious reconfiguration of Western Civilization yet conceived, resulting not in freeing the populations of the West, but, perversely, subjugating those populations, reducing them to abject poverty and to the strictest of control. And to this day, it is remarkable the ease to which the Press and social media redefine concepts or create new concepts out of whole cloth and refer to freedom fighters, such as Orban of Hungary, and Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland, and, yes, Donald Trump, too, as autocrats and despots and authoritarians.It is easy for the seditious Press to point to specific leaders who seek to save their Nations from the insidious encroachment of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism, for the public never sees the faces of the true rulers. They guard their secrecy jealously. The public only sees the faces of their current crop of puppets—whom their propaganda organs extol as righteous beacons of “liberal democracy: people like Angela Merkel of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen; and other western puppet leaders of the secretive ruling “elite” Rothschild clan, et.al., including marionettes such as Justin Trudeau of Canada, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand; and, in our own Country, don’t you know—the decrepit, cardboard cutout mannequins of the secretive “elites,” Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.The U.S. is being similarly attacked by the toady media outlets of the Neoliberal Globalists' hidden leaders, and the U.S. is headed for the same usurpation of Nation-State independence as the nations of the EU, despite the apparent pushback in some countries. This unlawful usurpation of power is happening simultaneously throughout the globe.The eventual shakeout, if it comes to pass, will see the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structures of government much different than in the past few centuries. The “nation-state” construct will be dissolved. Through the embrace of and charade of economic Neoliberal globalism and Neo-Marxism, the world will be carved up between two ascendant unstoppable totalitarian regimes: on the one hand, a vast Communist Chinese empire and, and, on the other, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure. An uneasy truce will exist between the two, with fractures occurring from time to time, as inevitable flareups and squabbles between the two salient empires occur in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.For, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure to be able to successfully, withstand, if at all, the military, economic, and geopolitical might of Communist China, the West's Neoliberal Globalist elites understand that the linchpin for creating a formidable transnational totalitarian Western empire or bloc rests with bringing the EU into the fold of the U.S. and likely that would require Russia as well. China will continue its attempts to neutralize the military and economic power of the U.S. The unleashing of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus plague bioweapon on the world—predominately targeting the U.S., an act of war if there ever was one—has devastated the economy of the U.S. and has provided the impetus for exerting Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist control over the thought and action of the citizenry. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” were likely in on this which might explain the odd reticence in engaging in a serious investigation of China’s conduct from the inception: involving gain of function research, of which Dr. Anthony Fauci was clearly aware of, and has much to explain to the American people. See, e.g., Fox News story on this, and Wall Street Journal report. This would suggest that the Neoliberal Globalist elites, along with the Neo-Marxists in Congress knowingly, willingly compromised the security of the Nation to amass personal wealth. In other words, the Globalists in the U.S. allowed China to treat their Companies, along with the U.S. Government as a commodity to be traded like any other commodity on the open market. China preyed upon this weakness in America's business and Government leaders; an insatiable lust to amass personal wealth even at the expense of the well-being of the Nation. The well-being of the American public and compliance with our Nation's laws and Constitution apparently doesn't factor into the equation. They have sold out the Nation. Communist China is the Nation's enemy, not merely an economic, military, and geopolitical competitor. Article 3, Sections 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth that:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”What might be done were Congress itself and the Executive Branch of Government complicit in committing treason? Who is it that might give testimony under oath against a member of Congress or of others in High Office? The Constitution doesn't seem to provide for this eventuality, given the sheer scope and audaciousness of the offense. In fact, it is only through the effects of and tremendous scale of the harm done that any American should see the harm that has been done to the Nation, the U.S. Constitution, and to the American people. But, perhaps it is precisely because of the massive scale of the harm that many Americans fail to take appreciable notice of the extent of it or, one might say that these events are less to be construed as incalculably horrific human misery compounded one tragedy + one tragedy + one tragedy, and so on, each to be pondered, but merely to be seen as a matter of banal Government statistics. In an article published on the website reason on January 7, 2009,  the writer, Ronald Bailey, writes:“ ‘The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.’That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.Virtually by definition, the central feature of humanitarian disasters and genocide is that there are a large number of victims’‘The first life lost is very precious, but we don't react very much to the difference between 88 deaths and 87 deaths," Slovic said in an interview. ‘You don't feel worse about 88 than you do about 87.’”The inexorable weakening of the U.S. economy, the death of hundreds of thousands in this Country due to the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus in the U.S., whether through reckless or depraved indifference or through cold, calculated deliberation, and as its after-effects are still much with us, and with the rapid unraveling of the social order through the machinations of a well-coordinated and well-funded Neo-Marxist reeducation campaign affecting every institution of our Nation, even our military, and through this Harris-Biden Administration's deliberate, calculated unleashing of millions of destitute illegal aliens into and throughout our Country, many of them diseased—all this human misery and all this major calamity confronting the Country in a Post-Trump Nation bespeaks treachery to Country, to Constitution, and to the citizenry by myriads of humanoid creatures in High Government Office, in the Press, in social media, in our Nation's institution of public education, in high finance, and in academia, that is of another order of magnitude.A backlash, which the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist Internationalists must surely have seen coming, is unlikely to forestall the inexorable dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, unless Republican legislators—and not the Cheney/Romney/Kinzinger et.al. sort—regain control of Congress in 2022, and the Constitution remains intact. Otherwise, this Nation will continue down the road to dissolution—its skeletal remains to be consolidated with and absorbed into the skeletal remains of the other major Western Nation States. But in the Nation’s death throes a bloodbath is likely to ensue. Americans will not readily surrender their firearms. It is because the U.S. has a well-drafted Constitution—and the longest surviving Constitution of the modern Nation-State and one grounded on the tenets of Individualism—that the adherents of Collectivism, i.e., the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites find frustratingly and confoundingly difficult to contend with, despite the powers they wield in America and those they continue to gather up.Enough Americans, tens of millions of Americans—fortunate to have been spared academic indoctrination—resist attempts to dismantle a Free Constitutional Republic—all this in spite of the ever-increasing usurpation of power of the federal Government; the disintegration of a truly independent Press; the entrenchment of Neo-Marxist dogma in society; and the rabid attempt to federalize Constitutional structures historically belonging to and reserved to the several States, under the Tenth Amendment: control of public education; protecting the public health’s and providing for the public’s safety; conducting elections free from federal government interference; making marriage laws; punishing criminals; establishing local governments; and providing police and fire protection.Some powers, and the most important of late, relate to the controlling of borders. The Federal Government has the duty to protect the Nation’s borders from invasion. To the contrary, the Harris-Biden is openly inviting tidal waves of illegal aliens into our Country many of whom bear infectious diseases and deadly exotic pathogens; most of whom are destitute; all of whom are freeloaders; and too many of whom are murderous, psychopathic drug and sex traffickers or otherwise, incorrigible common criminals, including rapists, muggers, arsonists, child molesters, and other assorted lunatics.The present open border policy is not only inconsistent with federal statute it is a violation of the President’s oath of Office under Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and it is a violation of duties of both the President and Congress under Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S.  Constitution.Yet the present inhabitants of the Executive Branch of Government pretend the Constitution is infinitely malleable and can mean whatever they wish it to mean, or they simply dismiss the Constitution out-of-hand. That raises the question: who is the Chief Executive of the Nation? Article 2 of the Constitution makes clear that there is, at any one time, one and only one Chief Executive. And the Chief Executive IS the ultimate decider of policy of the Executive Branch. That person is expected to give Orders, not take them.The present occupier of the seat of U.S. President, Joe Biden, is merely the titular Head of State whether in fact he was legitimately elected U.S. President. And there is considerable reasonable doubt as to that. But one thing about Biden, there can be no reasonable doubt and that has to do with whom it is who is making the decisions.No one honestly believes this sorry excuse for the Head of the Greatest Nation on Earth is making any decision for himself apart from deciding the flavor of ice cream he has a hankering for on any given day. For serious doubt exists whether the man is capable of rational thought any longer when it comes to serious matters of State, or whether Biden truly cares about, or even has the capacity to care about, heavy matters of State.And Congress is no better. All too many members of Congress treat the blueprint of the Nation as an ossified relic that ought to be and at some point in time must be formally discarded, and in the interim these Marxists interpret the Constitution Congress in any fanciful way they wish, or otherwise ignore the Constitution’s strictures outright, especially those strictures involving that aspect of the Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights.We know the Neo-Marxist Congress and the true policymakers in the Executive Branch wish to scrap the Bill of Rights. They do not conceive of the Rights as codifications of natural law anyway. They do not accept the Bill of Rights as a set of fundamental, primordial rights existent in man before the creation of the Republic.Americans are witnessing the rapid decline and ultimate cessation of sacred Rights hitherto exercised. They are witnessing the de facto repeal of basic liberties that cannot lawfully be repealed or denied but are being de facto repealed or otherwise denied. And that portends the inevitable demise of the Republic; for once the Bill of Rights goes the Nation goes out with it. And there is evidence galore for this. We have already seen the Fourth Amendment's dictate against unreasonable searches and seizures essentially eradicated due to Congressional lack of oversight of both Government and of the Internet media monopolies and other technology companies that has resulted in the vacuuming up of every iota of electronic communication, and the attacks against the First Amendment's Right of Free Speech is well underway through censorship of books and curtailing of information on the world web that doesn't comport with the Neo-Marxist dogma and the fluid notions of liberal democracy that the Neoliberal Globalist elites wish to convey to the public. And the public is just beginning to obtain a glimpse of a concerted plan to curtail civilian citizen ownership of firearms, contrary to the dictates of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Implementation of this plan will probably begin in earnest in the coming months by Congressional Marxists, and the Harris-Biden Administration.Even during the first few days of the Harris-Biden Administration, Americans have seen the issuance of dozens of executive orders and other executive actions that the storefront mannequin Biden signed off one after the other. Congress, too, simply, is indifferent to or is defiant of the very laws it has enacted and is contemptuous of the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.The Marxist-controlled Democrat Party Congress is on board with or is one with the Harris-Biden Administration on its single-minded goal to dismantle the Republic. And most of the Republicans have themselves acquiesced or capitulated to or are in league with the Neo-Marxist game plan, if surreptitiously.As events unfold, it won’t be long before the U.S. becomes a hollowed-out shell of a Nation-State itself, not unlike most of those nations of the EU—ripe for a merger with the EU or whatever the EU eventually morphs into. And the remains of the major commonwealth Nations— Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada will follow suit.Six months into the Harris-Biden Administration and we the Anti-American Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution in full swing. The Nation is rapidly transitioning from a healthy, independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic borne of the American Revolution of 1776 into a political, economic, social, and moral decrepitude. Tens of millions of Americans know this to be true.But, having unceremoniously ushered Donald Trump from High Office through the application of massive, unprecedented, and outrageous electoral chicanery, the Neo-Marxists and immensely powerful, well-organized, and incredibly wealthy Neoliberal Globalists are moving apace to destabilize society through a policy of open borders, control of the Federal Government, the Press, social media, the banks, the business sector, many State Governments, Marxist organizations such as the ACLU, and so on and so forth.At some point, Americans will have to take a stand to halt the plunder of their Nation and of their sacred Constitution, and of their sacred, inviolate Rights. Either they take a stand, or they shall lose everything and for all time: Country, Constitution, Liberty, their very Soul. And of that, there can be no reasonable doubt.___________________________________*Article substantially expanded, August 8, 2021___________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

The secretive powers operating in the Harris-Biden Administration, along with the Democrat Party have forced Americans into a tight corner. The forces that have boxed in Americans know this to be true. They did this intentionally. They have thrown down their gauntlet. They fully expect a backlash. And they fully intend to counter it.The forces that crush have instituted a comprehensive and insidious program designed to contain and constrain dissenting Americans.Their program must have taken shape during the early days of the transition of Government in 2021. And it is now available for all to see. The PROGRAM—really a POGROM—targeting Americans who refuse to get on board with the game plan is contained in a lengthy document, titled: “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”This Document, recently made available to the public,  serves a dual purpose for the Harris-Biden Administration. It operates, one, as a Declaration setting forth the raison d’être for a Marxist Counterrevolution in this Country to overturn the American Revolution of 1776, and, operates,  two, as an express and brazen threat to the autonomy of the American citizen. Never before in American History has the Federal Government professed to declare war on its own citizens. In that regard, the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” goes much further than even the infamousU.S. Patriot Act, in presenting a direct threat to an American citizen's fundamental Rights and Liberties. See also the article on the U.S. Patriot Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.But who are these “Domestic Terrorists” that the Harris-Biden Administration has declared war against? In the broadest sense, a “Domestic Terrorist” is any American who professes disagreement with the Globalist/Marxist agenda.

ATTEMPTS AT OBFUSCATION DO NOT DISGUISE THE FACT THAT “DOMESTIC TERRORIST” REFERS TO ALL AMERICANS WHO ACTIVELY DISAGREE WITH AND WHO DISSENT FROM THE HARRIS-BIDEN AGENDA.

The expression “Domestic Terrorist” drags in a sizable portion of the American citizenry, at least a third of the Country, that cherishes the Nation's founding, formative Documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Articles, and the Bill of Rights—and takes them at face value, in accordance with the plain meaning of the language therein.And, what do these Documents proclaim and prescribe? They proclaim and prescribe the preeminence of liberty and personal autonomy and of the existence of natural, God-given rights that exist intrinsically in each person; rights that precede the formation of nations and of governments and make clear that the American people, themselves, and not the Government they happen to form, are the Sole Sovereign of their Nation, and that they alone have the God-given right to control their own destiny.This presents a conundrum for the Harris-Biden Administration, which is to say, a profound dilemma for those secretive, powerful insiders who are orchestrating and choreographing the Administration’s every move.One thing is clear: Those elements presently in control of the reins of the Federal Government do not perceive themselves as servants of the people but, rather, as master over them.The Harris-Biden Administration, the Democrat Party controlled Congress, the Bureaucratic Deep State, the Legacy Press, and the major social media and technology monopolies have dismissed the founding, formative documents of our Country, out-of-hand, and, in so doing, have effectively declared war on the American people.But, a sizable chunk of the American people, though, cherish and extol the tenets, principles, and precepts contained in the Nation’s sacred Documents. That means the American people pose a threat to Government. They must therefore be brought to heel lest they exert their sovereignty over the Government. Imagine that!The Nation’s founding Fathers—yes, dare we use the expression, “THE FATHERS” of the Nation—understood well that a massively large, powerful centralized Government would, if left to its own devices, eventually, inexorably, inevitably usurp from the people,  that sovereign power belonging only to the people.The Founding Fathers knew that, while a Federal Government with limited powers, assiduously demarcated among three salient Branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—may serve to forestall usurpation of power unto itself, the rise of tyranny would be inevitable. It would only be a matter of time. Only the presence of an armed citizenry could prevent this from happening, as the Founding Fathers well knew; hence the reason for the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an Amendment to the Constitution.It should come as no surprise to any American that the Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic would therefore mount a furious assault on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms.Not since the Nation’s inception in 1776, have the Obstructors of the Country come so close transforming it from a free Republic into an Authoritarian State—made all the easier through the use of information technology: technology that is capable of exerting vast control over content creation and dissemination of information, and the censure of it; technology that makes possible, the surreptitious, collection of private information and omnipresent surveillance of the Nation’s citizenry.The pillar of free speech, codified in the First Amendment and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, codified in the Fourth, are both suffering slow strangulation as a result of the application of technology on a massive scale.The public has little to say about the application of, and has even less control over, technological advances that allow Government to nullify the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.And powerful Liberal Progressive and Marxist interests in the Federal Government flagrantly violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, operating through major social media monopolies, that share Progressive Left and Marxist sympathies and goals. The result is a blatant, shameless, unethical, illegal censure of speech.These elements in Government and business, operating in concert, have been successful at constraining public discourse, in recent years, to an extent never before countenanced. And they intend to upend this Nation’s Constitutional Republic now and for all time.Concomitant with censure of speech, and contrary to the dictates of the First Amendment, destructive forces in Government and in the technology monopolies have unleashed a campaign of propaganda to turn American against American and to indoctrinate children and adult alike. No institution is free from the onslaught; not even the military.

WITH FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ESSENTIALLY ERADICATED, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER CONTINUOUS, RUINOUS, HARASSING ASSAULT, ONLY FREEDOM TO OWN AND POSSESS GUNS REMAINS, OBSTINATELY RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.

Only the right of the people to keep and bear arms effectively resists systematic and debilitating attempts by Progressive and Marxist influences to annihilate the exercise of this fundamental Right. But why is that? The reasons are plain. First, Americans recognize that no other Right defines them or the Country they are sovereign masters of, as the Right to own and possess firearms. So, Americans furiously defend that Right—more so than any other. Second, firearms are after all tangible implements, not intangible, digital objects, like words. It is not so easy for Government to purloin away one’s firearms as they have purloined away Americans’ private conversations and private documents and as they have systematically whittled away at the right of free discourse and free association among Americans of like kind.It’s impossible to take physical control over a citizen’s firearms surreptitiously. A person either has possession of them or he does not. And he will not so easily part with them. This angers the would-be Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic to no end.How does one effectively separate a person from his firearms without causing a bloodbath in the Nation? This isn’t simply a matter of academic exercise for the Destroyers of our Country. They are well aware that the presence of—the continued existence of—armed citizens poses a direct, imminent threat to the installment of a Marxist totalitarian State and submergence of the remains of a free Republic in a Globalist Marxist new world order. But they also know that any attempt at a wholesale round-up of firearms would result in revolt—that is to say, armed revolt!It follows that no compromise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logically sensical despite the remonstrations of “antigun” groups carping endlessly over the need for more “commonsense gun laws”—as if they mean only that and nothing more. The idea is absurd on its face. It is all mere rhetoric designed to deceive. Americans have had more than enough of this nonsense.The question is: Now that Americans know the extent to which a free Constitutional Republic is in the crosshairs for destruction, and that the Federal Government has essentially declared war on its own citizens' sacred Rights and Liberties, what are Americans going to do to safeguard their Bill of Rights and their sovereignty over Government?___________________________________

PART TWO

A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT LONG CONTAIN OR CONSTRAIN AN ARMED CITIZENRY.

If the American people are well-armed, then they can effectively, successfully resist Governmental attempts to control thought and action; they can effectively resist concerted efforts by tyrants to subjugate them; and they will always resist such efforts. But, if the American people are disarmed, they are defenseless before both two-legged predators and a predatory, tyrannical Government. So, the American people must continue to be well-armed. It is that simple.Thus, among those Destructive forces—neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements—who strive for firm Government control over the citizenry, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be merely constrained, exercise of the Right must be curtailed. But, because it is immensely difficult to curtail citizen ownership and possession of firearms outright, absent wholesale bloodshed, which is to be avoided, the liberal Progressive Left and Marxists have been forced to undercut the Right of the people to keep and bear arms through a gradual escalating legislative process.The Federal Government’s assault on the Second Amendment started in earnest almost ninety years ago, with the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As with all antigun legislation, the pretext for the enactment of the NFA was an attempt to prevent criminal gangs from engaging in shooting rampages with certain classes of weapons, primarily fully automatic weapons and so-called short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The impact this law had on crime reduction was and is negligible. Its greatest and gravest impact was on infringing law-abiding American citizens' right to possess those firearms.Apart from actions by several State Americans to continue to enact laws to restrict and constrain the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, the public was provided with a respite from the enactment of wholesale restrictive Federal firearms legislation for a period of sixty years, when Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That Act contained a subsection titled innocuously, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban,” the latter descriptor of which is more accurate and to the point.Once again, the public was told that the purpose of an assault weapons Ban was directed to curbing violent crimes committed with a certain category of guns. It did no such thing. It was all a lie, having nothing to do with constraining criminal use of firearms.All the Act succeeded in doing and was designed to do was to target average, law-abiding Americans, not to reduce violent gun crime. The salient if tacit purpose of the Act was to ban lawful ownership and possession of a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. The Act wasn’t designed to prevent gun crimes. And the banned firearms were not even utilized in the vast majority of gun crimes anyway.The law was set to expire ten years later, in 2004. It did expire and not surprisingly, it wasn’t renewed. The public wasn’t deceived and demanded access to semiautomatic firearms.Notwithstanding the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn’t stop Anti-Second Amendment forces in Congress to try to enact new laws restricting Americans’ access to semiautomatic firearms. They were relentless in their pursuit to curtail the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. And they continued their effort up to the present time. To date, all such attempts have failed, and that has frustrated the forces that seek to destroy this free Constitutional Republic and its sovereign people. It was therefore left to Anti-Second Amendment State Governments to fill the gap and States like New York and California did so, with relish.With the neoliberal Globalist Obama in the Oval Office, to be followed by Hillary Clinton, the Destroyers of an independent sovereign United States felt confident that they could gradually tighten the noose around the neck of the American people so that, by the time the citizenry realized they had lost their Nation, along with their Bill of Rights, it would be much too late for them to do anything about it.But Hillary Clinton didn’t make it into Office. Donald Trump did. And once the sobering reality of that had sunk in for the neoliberal Globalists and the Marxists, they no longer took for granted that they could work leisurely and quietly to reconfigure the institutions of the Nation; disregard the dictates of or redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit their goals; and implement their plans for a takeover of the Country incrementally.The forces that crush entire nations went to work on our own; frenetically, ceaselessly, assiduously, to sabotage Trump’s policy initiatives; engaging in a virulent media campaign of vicious personal attacks on him, on his family, on campaign officials, and on Americans who voted for and who avidly supported him, who had realized the singular importance of the Trump initiatives and policy goals and promises in getting the Nation back on track to regain its historical roots and sensibilities. Yet, all the efforts to dislodge Trump from Office met with abject failure and Trump was successful in realizing many of his goals.The forces that crush entire nations couldn’t understand Trump’s emotional strength; his resourcefulness, his fortitude; his resilience. The more vociferous and vicious the attacks became, the more implacable did Trump become.The public saw that Trump’s “America First” domestic and foreign policies actually benefitted the American people, Americans of all races. Trump was primed to win a second term in Office.The neoliberal Globalists and international Marxists would have not of that. And they pulled out all the stops to prevent that from happening.So, as a last resort, the enemies of the American people, both within the Republic and outside it, including likely the CCP and the EU Government in Brussels, machinated and conspired to prevent Trump from serving a Second Term. And they succeeded. Now, with Trump out of the way, and with Bush-era Republicans or otherwise meek Republicans offering no meaningful, substantial resistance to the agenda of Marxist Democrats, those Congressional Democrats are wasting no time consolidating their power over the Country and over the American people, before the 2022 midterm elections.

DEMOCRATS' TEN-PART PROGRAM TO CONSOLIDATE POWER AND GAIN CONTROL OVER THE NATION AND ITS CITIZENS

The Democrats' program involves, one, systematically corralling the voices of tens of millions of Americans; two indoctrinating the public in the tenets of Collectivism; three, consolidating control over the military and police; four, continuing to create mass upheaval and volatility in society with the assistance of criminal gangs, and Marxist and Anarchist agitators; five, maintaining dossiers on every person residing in the United States; six, inducing fear in the minds of all Americans that Government may designate them as “Domestic Terrorists” and commence to hound and harass them; seven, asserting Government control over the operation of the entire electoral process in order to control the outcome of elections; eight, continuing, indefinitely, an open borders policy, allowing a continuous deluge of illegal alien migrants and murderous drug cartel gangs to invade our Country, thereby further disrupting society; nine, creating the conditions for hyper-inflation to proceed, to reduce the mass of America to abject penury; and, ten, curtailing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to preclude the ability of the American people to revolt successfully against the inception of tyranny.Concerning the last item of business, expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CANIGLIA CASE: U.S. SUPREME COURT APPALLED BY ACTIONS OF RENEGADE GOVERNMENT AND LAX JUDICIARY

Nothing, absolutely nothing, defines the essence of what it means to be an American citizen more than the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; in other words, “personal autonomy.” The sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy, logically entails freedom from unwarranted Governmental intrusion over person and personal effects. ‘Personal autonomy’ is the sine qua non of what it means to be an American.The notion of ‘personal autonomy’ is embedded in and is the raison d’être of the Nation’s Bill of Rights; the central theme running throughout it, and the predicate basis for it. Without it freedom and liberty in the truest, most basic, and rawest sense are impossible.The Nation’s very existence as a free Constitutional Republic, along with the inherent sovereignty of the American people and the supremacy of the American people over Government, depends absolutely upon it.Caniglia, as treated by both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island is a “case study” of the mishandling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent by lower Federal Courts—glaringly so. And, as a result, those lower Federal Courts erred in the decision they reached. This happenstance isn’t all that unusual, unfortunately,Too many lower Federal and State Courts—their judgment clouded by unyielding and flawed ideological, philosophical prejudices, impulses, and biases pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights—routinely misread and misapply U.S. Supreme Court rulings and holdings.This is likely intentional. Many of these Courts know exactly what they are doing but go ahead misapprehending and misapplying High Court rulings, misconstruing High Court reasoning, and blatantly ignoring High Court precedent anyway, cloaking their flawed reasoning, rulings, and logic in abstruse legalese. This is seen most prominently in the mishandling and misreading of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings. And it occurred most recently in the Fourth Amendment Caniglia case.

WHY DID THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDE TO REVIEW THE CANIGLIA CASE?

It is rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case, any case, for review. Petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, demand that the High Court do so.Rarer still does the Court come to a unanimous agreement in cases that it does review. Nonetheless, all nine Justices came to a unanimous agreement in Caniglia.This happenstance is all the more remarkable today, where differences in jurisprudential and methodological approaches to case analysis exist and where philosophical differences between the two wings of the High Court are so vast and so stark as to make well-nigh impossible nine Justices coming to a mutual agreement on anything.A broad gulf exists between the liberal wing and the conservative wing of the Court, and that wide divide and bright-line are mirrored in Congress and in the Nation at large.Also remarkable is the fact that Caniglia is short in length and that several Justices wrote independent concurring opinions, joining in the concurring opinions of the others, suggesting they were much of one mind.For all these reasons and for one more, that the case at bar involves an issue that goes to the very core of a fundamental right, with ramifications on several others, the Caniglia case begs for close scrutiny.Caniglia speaks volumes about the importance—at least in some instances, as in the case at bar—where the liberal wing of the High Court, attaches as much importance to the sanctity and inviolability of one’s personhood, and, by extension, to one’s personal effects, as does the conservative wing of the Court.Also, as noted by many writers, Caniglia touches upon, albeit briefly, so-called “Red Flag” laws. Justice Alito mentions this in his Concurrence, asserting: “This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. . . . Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”Since the liberal wing of the High Court is loath to strengthen, or for that matter, loath to preserve exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Alito asserts his hope that the Constitutionality of “Red Flag” laws might at some point be addressed by way of the Fourth Amendment, rather than via the Second since the liberal wing is sensitive to the Fourth Amendment. He seems to direct this point to his brethren in the liberal wing. That would explain why he bothered to mention “Red Flag” laws in his Concurrence. After all, Petitioner's firearms were unlawfully taken from him, and Petitioner did raise the Second Amendment issue in his complaint at the U.S. District Court level. The Second Amendment was certainly implicated even if the Second Amendment issue wasn't addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court level.Red Flag laws are the sort of thing that the Progressive Left in our Nation and the far more extreme Marxist faction have pushed for in the last few years in their ongoing overzealous attack on the Second Amendment to the Constitution—a full-frontal assault on the Second borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence of it and of their marked frustration with it, exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with it once and for all time. Progressives and Marxists see this as necessary because, for them, the very existence of an armed citizenry is an anathema, something totally at odds with their agenda, the ultimate goal of which is the realization of a single, all-powerful, one-world government. Achievement of that goal is impossible as long as the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment, continues to exist.Progressives and Marxists all ascribe to the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM, encompassing a vast domain and array of political, social, economic, and cultural precepts all of which are antithetical to the core principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM, upon which the free Constitutional Republic was constructed. INDIVIDUALISM is the polar opposite of COLLECTIVISM, as the precepts of COLLECTIVISM are precisely what the founding principles and tenets of our Nation ARE NOT grounded on.The tenets and principles of INDIVIDUALISM extol the virtues and qualities of Personal Autonomy and Personal Responsibility. Morality emanates from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, loving, Divine Creator. COLLECTIVISTS deny this. They argue that morality is an artificial social and political and cultural construct, and they infer that the Nation’s Bill of Rights, are, as well, nothing more than a set of social and political constructs devised by Government that may be lawfully dispensed with by the Government that creates them.As the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM gain prominence and impetus in America, concomitant with control of the Legislative and Executive Branches firmly in the hands of Progressives and Marxists, the principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM lose prominence and recede into the background; eventually to be erased from the public's awareness. and, thence, from the public's memory.To accomplish the task of eroding the historical, cultural, and ethical foundations of our Nation, the Progressives and Marxists will leave neither Americans nor their institutions alone. They intend to use their power to encode an entirely new set of precepts in the psyche of Americans, grounded in the precepts of COLLECTIVISM. This requires controlling both thought and conduct. Progressives and Marxists intend to preclude all dissent and to corral and redirect all impulses toward an embrace of COLLECTIVISM.Progressives and Marxists argue that all behavior and thought that does not cohere to dictated Governmental norms is deviant and contrary to the running of a well-ordered society and must not and will not be tolerated. Progressives and Marxists insist that Americans must learn to behave to the New Order. Americans must acquiesce to Government encroachment in and intrusion upon all aspects of their lives.Naturally, Progressives and Marxists would be and are suspicious and jealous of those Americans who wish for nothing more than to be left alone and who insist on being left alone; Americans who cherish and revere above all else the right of the individual TO BE individual; free from suffocating rigidity of thought and conduct thrust upon them by the mindless drones of a NEW DOGMA, who compel blind, obsequious obedience to the dictates of “DIVERSITY, EQUITY” and INCLUSION—the new mantra of the Authoritarian Progressive and Marxist extremists.“RED FLAG” laws—the common vernacular for the more accurate, legal expression, “EXTREME PROTECTION ORDERS” —have become a prominent fixture in the mind of the Anti-Second Amendment, seditious Press and in the mind of other Anti-Second Progressive Left and Marxist elements in our Nation.With control of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government presently in the hands of Radical Democrats, these Progressives and Marxists have now launched a full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment, borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence and naked fear of it and from their marked frustration with it. Their recent actions, of which the American people have obtained as yet just a foretaste, are exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with the Second Amendment altogether.Group Responsibility and, concomitantly, Group Dynamics are features of and critical to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism eschews the notion of personal autonomy and personal responsibility in favor of Group identity where the Self is immersed in and lost in the Societal Collective, the Hive.The impetus behind the enactment of and application of “Red Flag” laws is to quell even minimal threats to the cohesiveness of the Collective, the Societal Hive. To contain the “Threat to Self and Others” by dispossessing a person of his firearms is the purported goal of “Red Flag” laws, or so those who ascribe to their enactment say. But containing the perceived “Threat to Self and Others” is itself a basic tenet of Collectivism. For, personal autonomy is itself the basic threat to Self and Others.Progressives and Marxists believe that the Individual Self is only adequately contained when the Self is fully immersed in and merges with THE GROUP, in THE COLLECTIVE, i.e., when one loses Oneself to the Group. Only then is the threat of SELF ‘TO ITSELF’ and ‘TO OTHERS’ contained, neutralized. And, as the ‘FIREARM’ is identified with and emblematic of SELF and with “PERSONHOOD,” and with “PERSONAL AUTONOMY,” in a clear and emphatic way, the FIREARM, the “GUN,” must be removed from the “SELF.”And this brings us back to consideration of the critical importance of the Caniglia case.The truly frightening thing about the actions of the police in Caniglia, and with the lower Federal Courts’ handling of Caniglia is not the allusion to the creeping, dire influence of “Red Flag” laws on one’s personal identity and autonomy, horrible as those laws are, but, rather, that the Police didn’t even comply with those laws, and the lower Federal Courts didn't so much as suggest that they should have done so. The police didn't obtain a judicial warrant but unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's home; unlawfully confiscated his personal property, his firearms; and unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's right of personal autonomy, the right to the integrity of Body, Mind,  and Soul.This is particularly worrisome and distressing because Rhode Island did enact a Red Flag law. The Red Flag law of Rhode Island is found in the General Laws of Rhode Island, Title 8, Chapter 8.3—Extreme Protection Orders, Sections 8-8.3-1—8-8.3-14 et. seq.These laws lay out in minute detail:Filing of the Petition for an emergency protection order; Contents of the petition; Temporary Order Proceedings; Hearings on the Petition, including grounds for issuance, and the Contents of the Order; Service of One-Year Extreme Protection Orders; Termination, Expiration, including Renewal of Orders; Firearms Return or Disposal; Penalties; Liability; Required Notice on Orders and Confidentiality of Proceedings; Appeal; and Severability.In particular, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-8, provides that, (a)Any firearm seized or surrendered in accordance with this chapter shall be returned to the respondent upon his or her request, within ten (10) days, when:(1) The respondent produces documentation issued by the court indicating that any extreme risk protective order issued pursuant to this chapter has expired, terminated, or has not been renewed. Respondent shall not be required to acquire any additional court order granting the return of seized or surrendered firearms; and(2) The law enforcement agency in possession of the firearms conducts a national criminal records check and determines that the respondent is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.Rhode Island’s Red Flag laws, had they been adhered to, would have provided at least a modicum of due process, at least in respect to Petitioner's firearms, because judicial intervention would have been necessary before the Government could dispossess an American citizen of his firearms. In Caniglia, though, the Red Flag laws weren’t applied. They could have been, but they weren’t.In Caniglia, the police not only unlawfully confiscated Petitioner’s firearms but forced a psychiatric evaluation on the Petitioner. The police unlawfully invaded the sanctity of Petitioner's house; they unlawfully deprived Petitioner of his personal property; they violated Petitioner's personal liberty in unlawfully compelling him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and they violated the sanctity and the inviolability of one's own Self in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The police further compounded their unlawful actions by refusing to return Petitioner's firearms to Petitioner upon Petitioner’s release from the hospital the following day when he lawfully demanded the police to release his firearms to him. Petitioner was compelled to retain the services of an attorney to retrieve his firearms.  Yet the lower Federal Courts saw nothing wrong in any of this. Ostensibly relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case that they took completely out of context, the District Court and U.S. Circuit Court essentially relied on common law, and, applying it ad hoc, deprived an innocent man of his fundamental right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of both personhood and personal property. The danger of reliance on interest balancing is immediately seen in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that,“Although an individual has robust interests in preserving his bodily autonomy, the sanctity of his home, and his right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection, these interests will sometimes have to yield to the public's powerful interest ‘in ensuring that 'dangerous' mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”Isn't it nice of the Court to acknowledge the right of personal autonomy, the sanctity of home, and the right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection? These are fundamental rights that the Court felt the Government, in its wisdom, could violate when “in ensuring that ‘dangerous’ mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”But, was Petitioner mentally ill? Hospital staff found he wasn't mentally ill, and promptly released him. And it certainly wasn’t so obvious to all the police who came to Petitioner’s house, as they didn’t think so. The facts as recited by the Court itself refutes the accuracy of the Court’s own inference:“When the officers asked him about his mental health, he told them ‘that was none of their business’ but denied that he was suicidal. Officer Mastrati subsequently reported that the plaintiff ‘appeared normal’ during this encounter, and Officer Russell described the plaintiff's demeanor as calm and cooperative. This appraisal, though, was not unanimous: Sergeant Barth thought the plaintiff seemed somewhat ‘[a]gitated’ and ‘angry,’ and Kim noted that he became ‘very upset’ with her for involving the police.The ranking officer at the scene (Sergeant Barth) determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the plaintiff was imminently dangerous to himself and others. After expressing some uncertainty, the plaintiff agreed to be transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.” Caniglia vs. Strom, 953 F.3d 112 (lst Cir. 2020).One might make a strong argument that Petitioner’s surprised reaction at seeing the police showing up at his house was completely understandable and rational.Justice Thomas who drafted the main opinion, laid out the serious error of both the Government and the Courts at the outset of the opinion. Justice Thomas opines,“Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the ‘public highways’ are often called to discharge noncriminal ‘community caretaking functions,’ such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these ‘caretaking’ duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.”The horror of the Caniglia episode is that the Government deprived a man of his fundamental right to liberty, personal autonomy, personal property, the integrity of the body, and the integrity of Self, and, all of this without application made to the Court for a warrant that even the most draconian of a State's Red Law procedures required. When the police officers arrived at Petitioner's home, in response to Petitioner's wife's request, they should have stated to Petitioner's wife that, absent a warrant from the Court, they could not lawfully compel Petitioner to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; nor could they lawfully confiscate the Petitioner's firearms. Petitioner's wife had made clear she did not feel threatened by her husband, and there was nothing in Petitioner's behavior upon which the officers could reasonably infer that Petitioner constituted a threat either to himself or to his wife.The police should have informed Petitioner's wife that if she truly felt the need to dispossess her husband of his firearms she should petition the Court for an Order. That the police failed to adhere to the law, illegally compelling Petitioner to undergo an immediate psychiatric evaluation and then confiscating Petitioner's firearms anyway, when telling Petitioner that they would not do so, and in fact could not legally do so. The actions of the police and the acquiescence of the District Court of Rhode Island and of the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Government's actions, illustrate just how far this Nation has slid on the road to tyranny.This is not to suggest that “Red Flag” laws aren't to be seen as a dire threat to the Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. They are. But if, as in the Caniglia case, the State can deny a man his liberty and property, ignoring even the constraints of bad law, as “Red Flag” laws are, as Rhode Island’s Red Flag is, and if a heedless, feckless Judiciary gives the State the Court's imprimatur to establish that such actions are acceptable, even commendable, then our Nation has found itself in uncharted, perilous waters, unlike any our Nation has countenanced before.In Caniglia, the Government operated completely outside the law, invading and violating both a person’s sacred, inviolate “Self” and his personal property. This was awful. Yet, the Rhode Island Federal Courts, rather than calling out the Government for their lawless acts, demonstrated a profuse and odd proclivity to defend those lawless actions. If Government can get away with that, Government can get away with anything, for, at that juncture, neither the Constitution nor Statute means anything. Written laws are seen as nothing more than a set of guidelines at best, to be followed or not as the Government wishes; and, at worst they are simply empty vessels existing simply to give the populace a false sense of security from the specter of tyranny looming over it, even as that tyranny has long taken root and has acquired a firm hold on the Land, and long after the American citizenry has been demoralized, degraded, and subjugated.Since this is something the Progressives and Marxists want, what they are working toward, what they are attuned to, what they identify with, what they long for, they see the annihilation of a free Constitutional Republic and the debasement of a once-proud sovereign people as a good thing, a positive thing, as they never believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the human being anyway. All they believe in and are concerned with is the well-being of the COLLECTIVIST HIVE, and they believe a dominant and domineering, omnipresent, omnipotent, centralized Government, giving marching orders to the States and to the people is the best vehicle for ensuring the well-being of the HIVE, the HERD. And a BEEHIVE or a HERD OF ANIMALS is how these Progressives and Marxists perceive the American citizenry, and an overbearing,  Government is just the sort of mechanism for keeping an unruly herd of animals or a nameless, swarm of bees in check. But this is something that the U.S. Supreme Court—all nine Justices—could see manifesting in the actions of the Rhode Island police and in the reasoning and rulings of the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island and as those rulings were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The High Court must have seen the danger a renegade Government and a conniving or oblivious Judiciary pose to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and to a Sovereign People when Government operates completely outside the law to deprive an innocent American citizen of his personal property and worse when that Government and Judiciary deprive a man of the sanctity and inviolability of bodily integrity and Personal Selfhood.To see even the liberal wing of the Court aghast by the actions of both Government and the Rhode Island Judiciary must give one pause.But how long will the U.S. Supreme Court retain even a vestige of independence if the Progressive Left and Radical Marxists, that presently control two Branches of Government, take firm control of the Third Branch as well?____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CHURCHES “UNDER THE GUN”

“And God spake all these words, saying,I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”  ~from The Old Testament, Exodus and Deuteronomy, King James Version; source: www.Bartleby.com­­­­­­____________________________________________“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” First sentence from the Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776; source: archives.gov

THE DEFIANCE AND BRASHNESS OF STATE GOVERNMENT TYRANTS IS APPARENT FOR ALL TO SEE

America is first and foremost a Christian Nation. This isn’t hypothesis, or hyperbole, or manifestation of hysteria. It is fact. This fact is the backbone and linchpin of our Constitution. It is the foundation of our natural rights; rights bestowed on man by a loving, Divine Creator. It is self-evident true.In recent years, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have attacked this notion; and, with the intentional or reckless unleashing of a pandemic on our Nation and on other nations by the amoral, irreligious, autocratic, and diabolical, Communist regime of Xi Jinping of China, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have renewed their assault on the Christian Church. They have done so with unusual feral ferocity.Who are these would-be destroyers of our Constitution; these betrayers of our National heritage, of our natural rights and liberties; these sowers of ill will; these destructive, hateful forces who disingenuously, hypocritically, coldly, callously, calculatedly assert a need, an impulse to tear down the Christian framework of our Nation, ostensibly, as they say, or so they claim, to save it? We know them. They are all around us. They comprise a heterogenous, amorphous conglomeration of malcontents both here and abroad who seek to remake the world in their own image: Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists, and others. They all share the same belief system, the same value system: distrust of the common man; a strong, tenacious, insatiable desire to control and subjugate humanity; and a strong bias toward and a disturbing penchant for Atheism, Agnosticism, or Satanism, and concomitant amorality and immorality, albeit disguised as seemingly benign secularism, moral relativism, and nontheistic humanism.

A MODERN CIVIL WAR

America is in the midst of a Civil War. This war isn’t fought with guns or bombs, at least for the moment. But it’s war, nonetheless. We see this war waged in the attempt to control the mind, the thoughts of Americans. The despoilers of our Nation have sought to drive a wedge between Americans and their sacred rights and liberties. If successful, our Nation will cease to exist, for the sovereignty of the American people exists and thrives only in the unfettered exercise of their God-given rights and liberties. For only in the exercise of those rights and liberties may the power of Government be restrained and constrained.These would-be annihilators of our Nation use calamity to drive a wedge between the citizenry and their fundamental rights and liberties. They are adept at seducing many Americans to surrender their rights and liberties for security. Recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous, oft reiterated, prescient quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

THE PRESUMPTUOUS, CALCULATED, CONCERTED, INCESSANT, INSOLENT ASSAULT ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS

After the attack on the World Trade Center, the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans don’t require freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures because Government must protect Americans from terrorists; ergo, Americans came to lose their sovereignty through a slow, inexorable process toward creation of the Surveillance State, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.After some lunatics went on a shooting binge, in the last couple of decades the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans ought not exercise their unalienable God-given right to keep and bear arms because Government must promote public safety and ensure public order; ergo, we see the rapid evolution toward restricting ownership and possession of firearms, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.And now, with the Chinese Communist Coronavirus unleashed upon us, the assassins of our Bill of Rights have said Government must constrain the free exercise of religion, restrain the freedom of speech, preclude the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to curtail the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; ergo we see the rapid evolution toward controlling the thoughts and actions of the citizenry; the subjugation of the people, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred rights embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

STATE GOVERNMENTS USE FORCE TO ENFORCE CHURCH CLOSURES

Ironically, it isn’t the Federal Government, now, but the Governors of a few States who seek to curtail the free exercise of religion.With all the bluster of the Radical Left that calls President Trump an autocrat, the actions of Radical Left Governors make plain who the autocrats really are. Their actions are both unconstitutional and unconscionable.Radical Left New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer have closed churches claiming, as a rationale, the need to promote public health due to the Chinese Coronavirus.Unsurprisingly, a website that calls itself, the “Friendly Atheist,” says, that State Governors can do this:“ ‘Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives,’ said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.” ‘So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,’ he said. . . . So, yes, governors can and should shut down church gatherings in the same way they’re shutting down public schools and restaurants. Treat them fairly. Treat them equally. There’s nothing illegal going on no matter how many pastors whine about religious discrimination.”Let’s deconstruct a couple of these comments. First, the “Friendly Atheist” draws a false dilemma, claiming that either the Church remains closed or people will fall sick and die. That’s untrue. Churches are cognizant of the threat. Church officials have been implementing proper protocols to preclude the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus all along. Second, the remark of the legal expert, Ellen McCullen is vague and ambiguous. She asserts, “So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them.” What is she saying? There are two possibilities.McCullen may be saying that, so long as State Governors force every religion in a State to close its doors, not just Christian denominations, then Church closure orders are lawful. In the alternative, McCullen may be saying that, so long as closure restrictions apply to all political, social, educational and religious associations and organizations, and apply t0 all business establishments—literally to every conceivable entity throughout the State, apart, say, from hospitals, pharmacies, and food establishments—then Church closure orders are lawful. Now, if the former statement is what Ellen McCullen means, then Church closure actions are not “content-neutral,” and are, then, unconstitutional. They are clearly unlawful. If the latter statement is what she means, then Government ordered Church closure actions are still, likely, unconstitutional, and, so, still unlawful.Why? It comes down to what reasonably, rationally constitutes an “essential service” and what constitutes a “non-essential service”: terminology State Governments have themselves concocted to create winners and losers; to divide those whom they count as friends from those they perceive as enemies.No one would deny that severely ill people need the care of health care providers that, in many cases only hospitals can effectively provide. And no one can honestly deny that many people require prescription medicines to remain well. And no one can reasonably deny that everyone requires food sustenance to survive. So a case can be made for application of the essential versus non-essential dichotomy but only if applied in a rational, non-arbitrary manner. What about Churches? Does the Church provide an essential service? Well, houses of worship do fall under the category of essential services, as spiritual need is arguably just as essential to the well-being and survival of a person as are food, medicine, and medical care. Moreover, the free exercise of religion isn’t a mere privilege; nor is it a minor right. It is a fundamental, unalienable right. In fact, the right to worship the Divine Creator in a house of worship, and the right of self-defense, and the right to maintain one's personal autonomy are the most sacred of rights. Yet those State Governors deny a person the right to attend Church, even as they permit a person to visit an abortion clinic, a liquor store, or a cannabis shop. That is the height of arrogance, foolishness, capriciousness, and outright stupidity.

IN A FREE REPUBLIC CHURCHES MUST REMAIN OPEN

These State Governors who would dare close Churches are simply wrong. Churches must remain open.Curiously, it is the U.S. President, not the State Governors who recognize the importance of our sacred rights and liberties. As recently reported in the website, usnews.com, for one:“President Donald Trump on Friday said he has deemed churches and other houses of worship ‘essential’ and called on governors to allow them to reopen this weekend despite the threat of the coronavirus.”“ ‘Today I’m identifying houses of worship — churches, synagogues and mosques — as essential places that provide essential services,’ Trump said during a hastily arranged press conference Friday. He said if governors don't abide by his request, he will ‘override’ them, though it’s unclear what authority he has to do so.So, then: Who is the autocrat? Who is the tyrant? It isn’t Donald Trump. The real autocrats and tyrants are those State Governors who usurp the sovereignty of the American people by denying to the people their fundamental right to worship the Divine Creator: the one Being who gave man free will, and who bestowed on man fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights.There are those of us who adore and worship the Divine Creator; and there are those who don’t.But for those who would deny the Divine Creator, there is no limit to their capacity for evil. They don't wish to attend Church? Fine. But, to prevent others from doing so is not to be countenanced, and should be roundly condemned. These atheists dare to use a catastrophe as an excuse to destroy rights and liberties they never created yet have the audacity and the temerity to annul. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, one-time Chicago Mayor and White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration.* ______________________________________*Rahm’s Rule—the arrogant “first principle” of the deniers of the Divine Creator.____________________________________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.

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

HOLD YOUR TONGUE AND GIVE UP YOUR GUNS! THE MANTRA OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

PART TWO

THE RADICAL LEFT SPREADS HATRED AND VIOLENCE, NOT PEACE AND COMMUNITY AS THEY THRUST THEIR VALUE SYSTEM ON EVERYONE ELSE

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. . . . Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them. . . he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” ~  John Stuart Mill, Quotations from his work, “On Liberty”

RADICAL LEFTISTS SEEK TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND SILENCE ALL DEBATE

The Democratic Party’s Radical Left contingent and the Radical Left’s sympathizers in the Press and the polity, namely those who espouse the tenets of Collectivism, contend that they ground their policy choices on morality, asserting the point vociferously—believing, erroneously, that spouting vitriol serves better to convince the public than appealing calmly to reason.All the while, these Radical Leftists maintain that Conservatives—those espousing the principles of Individualism as manifested in our Constitution, upon which our free Constitutional Republic is grounded—are a reactionary force, out of touch with “Neo-modernism,” and that the Conservatives' policy positions are decidedly immoral.But, is that true? Which ideological perspective really fosters amity and which one fosters enmity? Contrary to their assertions, it is the ideology of the Radical Left and the Progressives that is decidedly immoral, not the ideology of Conservatives. And, it is the Radical Left and Progressives that foster enmity among the polity, and, through the device of "identity politics," which the Radical Left and Progressives concocted, they demonstrate a desire not to to bring the Nation together, but, rather, to divide it. They seek to create hatred and fear, hoping that, through the divisions they deliberately create and foster, they can eke out a victory for the Democratic Party in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. And, the Radical Left and Progressives have a very powerful ally in the Press. Since assuming the mantle of the U.S. Presidency, the Press has waged an all-out war against Donald Trump, and those who support him.Instead of reporting the news and informing the public on the important news events of the day, the mainstream media has engaged in a constant, massive disinformation and misinformation campaign in a naked and despicable attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency, attacking the very institution of the Presidency. The mainstream media is actively supporting the Democrats' attempts to transform our Nation into a system that is completely at odds with the tenets of Individualism upon which our Constitution and upon which our free Republic rests. The Radical Left and Progressives that have taken over the Democratic Party adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, upon which the Radical Leftist political, social, and economic systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are grounded. And the Radical Left and Progressives would have the public believe that these political, social, and economic systems--operating through massive Government enterprises, unwieldy, corrupt dictatorial regimes, that persevere only by force of arms, offering nothing for the populace but oppression and misery--are a positive force for good, when the opposite is true. And, these Radical Left systems, Marxism, Socialism, Communism are hardly new inventions. In fact, they are deeply flawed and decidedly and decisively unethical, outmoded political, social, and economic philosophical systems that have failed and have failed miserably in those Nations that have attempted utilization of them,* but which the Radical Left and Progressives, with the assistance of the Press, seek to resurrect from the dead. What they propose for our Country is not subject to criticism and not open to debate. And, that fact, too, is consistent with the Radical Left systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. In part, this is due to the weaknesses of the intellectual underpinnings of those systems. Close scrutiny opens up the weaknesses of the systems to the light of day, and that is not something the proponents of those systems want. And, in part the weaknesses of the Radical Left Collectivist systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are symptomatic of the psychological makeup and predilections of the proponents of them. As the Radical Left has little regard for people, perceiving them to be random bits of energy that need constant guidance and control, like so much cattle that must be corralled, lest they run rampant and amok, destroying the well-engineered, tightly controlled society the Radical Left envisions for them, the totalitarian State will falter, totter and fall. Thus, the populace cannot be left to their own devices in the society to be erected. That society demands uniformity in thought and conduct. No dissenting comments or criticisms are permitted. It is no wonder, then, that the Radical Left and Progressives in our Nation are pressing forward with their goal of admitting millions of illegal, poorly educated aliens into our midst, as they have, then, the kind of people, they want and the kind of population they need for the sort of society they desire, a society comprising a multitude of mindless serfs who willingly allow themselves to be led so long as the Government provides for their basic physical needs. Such is the Nation they will thrust on all Americans. And the last thing the Radical Left and their Progressive cohorts will abide by is an autonomous, independent-minded, critical thinking citizenry that happens to speak their mind and maintains an arsenal of firearms and ammunition, informing the Radical Left and Progressives who it is that is really in charge, and for whom this Nation truly exists. Not surprisingly, the founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution—both Federalists and Antifederalists—rejected the Collectivist ideology and the systems so grounded on that ideology, out-of-hand. as the Collectivist vision of society, top down rule, and strict control over the conduct and thoughts of the populace, was clearly not something they envisioned for our Nation, not something they wanted, and, in fact, it was something they absolutely deplored. Why, then, would anyone, after 200+ years of seeing the founders' vision come to fruition in the culmination of a highly successful powerful and free Nation that the founders of our Republic gave us, wish to reverse that course? Is it because these Radical Leftists and Progressives really believe our Nation is grounded on immorality, or so these Radical Left politicians say and would have the American citizenry believe, in order to make them amenable to the creation of a radically changed society, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism. It may be that some of these politicians do truly believe that our Nation is predicated on unethical, immoral tenets, notwithstanding the fact that most Americans have prospered in our Nation, and all Americans have certainly been given the opportunity to prosper in our Nation if they choose to take advantage of the opportunities the Nation has provided for its citizenry. But, if, nonetheless, these Radical Left and Progressive politicians believe our Nation does not deserve to continue to exist as a free Republic, regardless of its success as a free Republic, founded on the principles of fundamental rights and liberties of man, because, simply, to these politicians, and to their hangers-on, the Nation is perceived as immoral and because they perceive the Nation to be grounded on immorality, then these Radical Left and Progressive politicians have a very  odd notion of morality.The oddity of the Radical Left’s morality is reflected in their policy choices. Grounded on the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, the Leftist extremist and his cousin, the Progressive, do not look to the motives, the intentions of a person’s actions, when ascertaining whether an act is considered morally good or morally evil, but, rather they look to the consequences of one’s actions—and only to the consequences of one's actions.Thus, for the Radical Left and for Progressives it isn’t the person who is the subject of blame for harm he or she does to another person; not really. Rather, it is the result of a person’s action—the consequences, alone—that is deemed to be morally good or morally evil. Further, Leftists infer that it is the negative consequences that one’s harmful actions have upon society as a whole. rather than the impact of the negative consequences on another individual that is considered the seat of the immoral conduct. Thus, for the Leftist Extremist and Progressive one’s conduct, good or bad, is a function of the effect that a given behavior has on society as whole, irrespective of the impact of the conduct--namely the harm imposed on another or benefit derived--that is deemed important in a determination of what constitutes good, morally correct, conduct and what constitutes evil, immoral conduct. For more on this see the Arbalest Quarrel article, “Guns, Knives, and Occams Dangerous Razor,” posted on June 1, 2014, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on June 2, 2014, under the title, "Coffee Conversations with the Anti Side."

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART THREE

WHICH SIDE REALLY HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND: A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE OR THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIBERAL, A.K.A., RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE?

I. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

Consistent with the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, the value the Radical Left and Progressives place on the life, safety, welfare, and well-being of individuals is essentially irrelevant because the value of any individual human life, in the Radical Left’s ethical scheme, is subordinated to what is presumed to be of benefit to the society as a whole—that is to say, what is deemed most to benefit the safety, welfare and well-being of the Hive; of the Collective. Benefits accruing to individuals do not factor into their analysis of what makes for a sound ethical system. Concern for the individual is essentially irrelevant.A corollary to their ethical system that stresses consequences of actions rather than motives behind actions is that a person, being a component of society, is, ultimately, not responsible for his or her actions, because, as the Radical Leftist and Progressive concludes, a person is deemed to be a product of that society. So, then, the Radical Leftist and Progressive surmises that it is really society itself that is to blame for the harm that one does to others, and the human agent is basically blameless. Is it, then, any wonder that the Radical Left and Progressives seek to empty our prisons, letting even the most dangerous, sordid and loathsome elements of society out into the street to prey once again on the innocent? In the mind of the Radical Leftist and Progressive this is precisely what they want to do, and what they have asserted they will do if they take control of the reins of Government. So, to improve society, the Radical Left and Progressives ask: How can we maximize utility for society as a whole? And they include into the equation, for maximizing utility, the lowest common denominator in society: the illiterate and dangerous illegal alien; the career criminal; members of drug cartels and criminal gangs; the psychopathic killer; and the violent lunatic. The Radical Leftist and Progressive, then ask: What policy choices can we make to maximize public order in society? As proponents of Collectivism, the Radical Leftist and Progressive looks to Government to implement and maintain control over those policy choices. And, while looking the other way where the worst elements of society lie in wait to prey on the innocent, they look to Government to determine what is deemed to be appropriate conduct for everyone else, and they look to Government to curb what they deem to be the worst excesses of human behavior. But, what it is that is deemed to amount to the worst excesses of human behavior is not--contrary to what reason would dictate, and as a reasonable person would surmise--behavior involving physical harm to another, but, rather, behavior manifesting as undesirable political and social belief structures, which the Radical Left and Progressives, themselves, are certain they are in the best position to determine and to define.Understand, Radical Leftists and Progressives, as proponents of the social and political principles and tenets of Collectivism and as strong adherents of the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, look to a well-ordered and well engineered society as promoting ethical conduct among the populace. But the well-ordered, well-engineered society they conceive of is not one that permits dissenting voices, as that is perceived as threatening public order.Thus, the gravest threat to the well-0rdered and well-engineered society, for Radical Leftists and Progressives is one that fosters freedom of thought and conduct among the polity. What Radical Leftists and Progressives strive for, above all else, is uniformity in thought and conduct. But, what, then, do Radical Leftists and Progressives make of the criminal element and the criminally insane in their well-ordered and well-engineered society?The criminal element and the criminally insane are beyond the pale. That, of course, understood by everyone. But, the career criminal and the criminally insane are not considered an existential threat to the well-ordered and well-engineered society of the Radical Left and of Progressives.The conduct of this lowest common denominator of society does represent a threat to the innocent members of the polity to be sure. But Radical Leftists and Progressives do not concern themselves with the loss of life and and harm that comes to individuals, as long as the inner Hive, the greater society, the Collective remains intact. Behavioral conditioning can be used and would probably be used to keep the lowest common denominator in check. This idea is explored in the 1962 book, "A Clockwork Orange," by Anthony Burgess.But such behavioral conditioning has no impact on rational individuals who happen merely to adhere to a political and social philosophy--distinct from that of the Radical Leftist and Progressive who opposes and denigrates the political and social philosophy of the founders of our free Republic. The Radical leftist and Progressive does not and will not tolerate social and political philosophies that are at loggerheads with their own as we see today. Such people don't even wish to debate differences in philosophies.So, then, suppose a person holds to the ideas of the founders of our Republic who had a firm belief in the existence of  fundamental, natural rights that exist intrinsically in man, as bestowed upon man by the Divine Creator, an idea that operates as the great foundation of our free Republic. But, that idea constitutes a danger to the well-ordered, well-engineered society envisioned by the Radical Leftist and Progressive, and must be censored.If the Radical Leftists and Progressives take control of Government in 2020, they will be in the position of transforming this Nation into a Collectivist nightmare--a society inconceivable to the founders of a free Republic; a society grounded on principles inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Hence, if a society envisioned by the Radical Left and Progressives should come to fruition, then those individuals who hold to political, social, and ethical belief systems that are the inverse of those held by the Radical Left and Progressives, will be perceived as a direct and imminent threat to the atheistic ideals of Marxism, Socialism, Communism and to the societal structure grounded on one of those political, social, and economic systems. So, if the Dystopian vision of the Radical Left and Progressives is, in fact, realized, no belief system antithetical to their vision of a well-ordered, well-engineered society that is grounded on the principles of Marxism, Socialism, or Communism will be tolerated, and proponents of such other belief systems will be ostracized at best, and, at worst they will be banished from the Country or held indefinitely in detention centers or in asylums.

II. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATIVES

The Conservative, placing value of the life of the individual over that of an amorphous Collective or Society, or  “Hive,” holds individual as ultimate agents of therefore behavior and therefore holds the individual responsible for his or her actions.Such individuals who, then, adhere to the tenets and principles of Individualism, extol a normative view grounded on a deontological ethical system. In accordance with the postulates of this system, a human agent's conduct is determined to be good or evil on the basis of one's human motivation; intentions. A proponent of Deontology looks to a human agent's intentions in assessing whether conduct is good, bad, or neutral. This ethical system often proceeds from the idea that man, being created in the image of God, bears ultimate responsibility for his or her actions. This idea is an anathema to the Radical Leftist and Progressive as their belief systems do not posit the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect Being. In fact, their philosophy rules out the existence of a Divine Creator. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Radical Leftists and many Progressives support late-term, at will abortion. But, the point here is that the views of most Americans are altogether antithetical to the tenets and principles of Collectivism and are antithetical to the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism. The Conservative asks: How can the life, safety, and well-being of the individual American citizen be effectively secured? The Radical Left and Progressives, caring little for the well-being of individuals, and more for the ostensible well-being of society, do not profess concern for the individual at all and, so, dismiss the question posed by the Conservative, out-of-hand, as the question is meaningless, or even nonsensical to the Radical Leftist and Progressive.The political and social philosophy of the Conservative, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, as held by the framers of our Constitution, and, contrariwise, the political and social philosophy of Leftists, predicated on the tenets of Collectivism, are antithetical and, so, incapable of reconciliation. There exist two different visions for this Nation: one that seeks to preserve a Free Republic, along with the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual, consistent with the intention of the framers of our Constitution; and the other social and political philosophy that seeks nothing less than to wipe the slate clean, and, then, having stated over, working toward establishing a Marxist society, a Collective, to be injected into a transnational, supranational system of governance, based in Europe.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE TENETS OF COLLECTIVISM

THE ETHICAL SYSTEMS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF INDIVIDUALISTS AND COLLECTIVIST ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH EACH OTHER

THE ETHICAL SYSTEMS AND THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF THE INDIVIDUALISTS AND COLLECTIVISTS, RESTING AS THEY DO ON A WHOLLY DISTINCT SET OF POSTULATES, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE SYSTEMS AND CANNOT BE RECONCILED; THEREFORE NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. EACH SIDE EVINCES COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE VISIONS OF THE TWO SIDES ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER.

We see two different value systems of two distinct political and social philosophies, one reflecting the tenets of Individualism and the other reflecting the tenets of Collectivism. Each side frames the political, social, and ethical questions in mutually exclusive ways, as each side emphasizes different values, and, this in turn, is reflected in the policy choices each side makes, as that side attempts to resolve what it perceives as distinct political, social, and ethical problems and dilemmas. Given this indisputable fact, negotiation and compromise is impossible, as the vision each side embraces for this Country are absolutely at odds with each other.Hence, we see the different value systems of these two distinct political and social political philosophies reflected in the questions each side asks itself and, this, in turn, is reflected in the policy choices each side makes. Thus, we see each side taking completely different policy positions on every major issue: three of the salient, pressing ones, of late, being firearms, abortion, and immigration. But, why is that? Why are there such profound differences on social and political issues--such profound differences, in fact, that each side doesn't even ask the same questions, approaching the issues in such different veins that it is impossible for each side to even begin to understand the other side. It is as if each side is speaking a different language. And this being so, it stands to reason that resolution of political and social issues would reflect demonstrably distinct, antithetical policy choices that make reconciliation between the two sides impossible. It is for this reason that there can be no compromise, no negotiation between the two sides, as any attempt to do so, would be sterile, empty, as one side seeks to preserve the philosophical underpinnings upon which this Nation was created, the free Republic the founders placed their very lives on the line to create and to provide for future generations of Americans; and the other side seeks to rend and replace the Nation the founders created. The profound differences of the two sides being irreconcilable, and so profound, so resolute, and on existing on such a basic, elemental level, that the conditions for the possibility of an actual modern civil war unfolding, are very real.** The Radical Leftists and Progressives seek nothing less than to replace our free Republic with no less than a Marxist styled dictatorship, a regime that is visibly at odds with the Nation as it presently exists, and they intend to follow through with their plans. Those individuals who wish to preserve our Nation as a free Republic, as the founders intended , the political Conservative, will never permit or abide by the uprooting of the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as a free Republic, where the individual is autonomous and sovereign.Leftist extremists have shown their contemptuousness of and open hostility toward the U.S. President, Donald Trump. They hate him for having the audacity to attempting to preserve our Nation as a Free Republic. These same Marxist, Radical Leftists and Progressives have shown no less a contemptuous attitude and hostility toward the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution. The Radical Left and Progressives that have essentially taken control of the Democrats and of the Democratic Party, demonstrate open disrespect toward, and, in fact, deep loathing of and perverse, monstrous abhorrence toward the founders of our Nation, and have demonstrated their deep abiding contemptuousness of, and, in fact, open defiance toward our Nation's Constitution, and toward our Nation's fundamental, natural rights and liberties, toward our Nation's long, glorious history and culture, and toward our Nation's institutions, the entirety of it. The Radical Leftists disrespect of our Country and of its people, whom they bizarrely and erroneously divide into two disparate, armed camps of victims and overlords (victimizers), is not only extreme in the conception, but pathological in the use. In fact the very notion that this Nation, a Nation of free citizens, is comprised of two broad classes of people, the oppressed and their oppressors is outright ludicrous, but it does serve its ignoble purpose. The ruthless and reprehensible designers of disquiet and disruption in our Nation, the social engineers who desire to disrupt and corrupt the orderly operation of society, to weaken and confound the citizenry, have done so, that they more easily control it; so that they can remold it, reshape it, and insert it anew into the Marxist vision of Hell on Earth they have conceived: a world of vast surveillance and control over the mass of populations; a world where the mass of humanity is reduced to servitude and penury and where those who object, those who dissent, those who demand freedom and liberty are brutally crushed into submission. This cannot be reasonably denied, as there exists mounting evidence to the contrary: the rebellious, disaffected extremists have taken over the Democratic Party. The current Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, hardly a proponent of the Bill of Rights, has been principally silent. She has lost her grip of the House. Whether afraid to wrest control from the mutinous Radical Left or otherwise through an attempt to retain a modicum of power through obsequious acquiescence to it, Pelosi herself, has become subservient to the frenzied call for immediate transformation of the U.S. into a Marxist dictatorship. Those of the Left seek nothing less now than open revolt, audacious in the conception, frightening in scope; but hardly grandiose; simply disgusting, reprehensible, and absolutely insane. These Radical Leftists, who had sought to reshape society quietly, through the social policies of Barack Obama, and which were to continue through the regime of Hillary Clinton, were dismayed to see the election of Donald Trump and to witness his Administration throwing a wrench into their incremental path to a Marxist world State. And Seeing that their master plan for a quiet progression of the U.S. toward Marxism was failing, possibly could fail, the Internationalist Billionaire architects of a one World Government went to work. Their plans for a one world political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance would now have to be made plain, to be made obvious to the American people. And they set to work to destroy Trump's Presidency. They have attempted to do so audaciously, and they continue to do audaciously, attacking and ridiculing the man himself, as well as attacking the President's policies for returning our Nation to its historical roots. And what they desired to do incrementally, they now seek to do quickly, through one major push, one massive frontal assault on the Nation and its Constitution and its people. Whoever gains the nomination of the Democratic Party and whomever it is that might gain the U.S. Presidency, no longer matters. There are no political Moderates left in that Party who have the Will, the Backing, and the fortitude to wrest control from the dominant Radical Left. Whomever in the Democratic Party it is that retakes the White House, will be taking his or her marching orders from the Billionaire Internationalists, and through their minions in the Party. And, as these supranationalist, one-world Government organizers have lost patience with a slow, incremental transformation of this Nation into a Collectivist one-world State, expecting, anticipating this Nation's slow but inexorable, assured fall into unceremonious ruin, only to be rebuilt, but only to be rebuilt as a cog of a world super-state, they now seek a rapid advance. Should a "Democrat," any so-called Democrat, takes over the reins of the Executive Branch of Government, expect to see a rapid political, social, cultural, economic upheaval to occur, and as the new "President" will have the legitimacy of the Office of President, in which to mount the  upheaval of this Nation internally, it will be difficult to prevent the metamorphosis of this Nation into a Marxist Hell. And, what will all this mean for the American people?These Radical Leftists and Progressives desire to erase the very memory of our Nation as it is, and once was, and is ever to be. They seek to wipe the slate clean, to start over; to replace a free Republic and a free People with a thing that died long ago and that should have remained dead and buried long ago--the Marxist Collectivist Dystopian dream of a one world borderless political, social, economic, construct, ruled by an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful Government. This is the Collectivist nightmare of a world devoid of nations, devoid of free citizens, devoid of hope, dreams, and reason; a world containing serfs, drones, and slaves, all controlled by a small cadre of ruthless overseers, intent on containing, constricting dissent, and bending entire populations to their will, the goal of which is to provide uniformity in thought and conduct, along with confounding, oppressive stasis.____________________________________________**For a detailed account of the major political and social differences between Radical Leftists/Progressives, on the one hand, and Conservatives, on the other, the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the salient differences between the two sides, providing then the reason why compromise between the two is empirically impossible. One side ascribes to the basic tenets of Collectivism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Radical Leftists and Progressives is predicated. The other side ascribes to the basic tenets of Individualism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Conservatives is predicated, upon which our Nation was founded and upon which it presently exists. We invite interested readers to take a look at two Arbalest Quarrel articles on the subject, both of which were posted on AQ in October 2018: "In the Throes of the America's Modern Day Civil War," and "The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies."____________________________________________

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART FOUR

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT EXISTS TODAY COMPRISES FEWER TRUE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIBERALS AND MANY MORE ILLIBERAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RADICALS AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS

Let us postulate up front that the Democratic Party today reflects a much more radical social and political philosophy than in the past. It is much changed from the Party that existed even a few years ago, under the Obama Administration, extreme as the Obama Administration was.Although the mainstream media, which is in essentially in lockstep with the radical elements of the Democratic Party, manifests a continued predilection to use the expression 'liberal' to describe and represent the basic political and social orientation of the Democratic Party, nonetheless use of that expression to describe the prevalent outlook and orientation of the Democratic Party today is misnomer as the Democratic Party has, today, a clearly different orientation. The Party has been essentially if not completely radicalized, co-opted by the most radical elements in it, and these radical elements clearly present the Party and represent the Party's face to the Nation and to the world.The mainstream media, and, most notoriously, The New York Times, uses the term, 'liberal,' erroneously, and deceptively, and, therefore, to our mind, irresponsibly, to describe the Democratic Party as it is aware that the Party is a decidedly wildly Leftist extremist organization and, so, the term, 'liberal' is therefore wildly inaccurate.The mainstream media continues to use the expression, 'liberal,' instead of the clearly more accurate term, 'radical,' when mentioning Democratic Party politicians, and it does so to create the illusion that the Democratic Party is within the social and political mainstream fabric of the American polity when it knows very well that the Party is not within the political mainstream of the American public.Why, then, does the mainstream media deliberately use an erroneous term to describe the Democratic Party? It does so because the Press is most assuredly aware that the term, social and political, 'radical,' comes across as a pejorative to most Americans; understandably so, as Americans, for the most part, don't have a favorable view of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists--the very groups that, we know, are in league with the new Democratic Party and that are secretly supporting the Democratic Party. Several members of the Party have, indeed, unreservedly fashioned themselves as Marxists, Socialists, and, yes, Communists, too, even if very few of them use any one of those expressions to describe themselves, thus so. Their sympathies are clear enough through their statements and through their policy planks.

THE ILLIBERAL RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEW OF RELATIONSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS TO SOCIETY AND TO GOVERNMENT

It is impossible for the Political and Social Conservative, on the one hand, and the illiberal, Political and Social Radical Left and Progressive, on the other hand to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on any public policy issue because, on a very basic, almost subliminal level, the two sides happen to view a human being in a completely different light and happen to view the relationship of the human being to society and to Government in a completely different light.Both the modern-day Conservative and the founders of our Free Republic, placed their faith in the human being and were wary of Government. Contrariwise, the Radical Leftist and Progressive place their faith alone in the State qua Government, not the human being. The Radical Leftist and Progressive are wary of individuals when left to their own devices, and trust Government to curb the worst excesses of the individual, oblivious, then, to the fact that Government itself, composed of individuals, is itself subject to the worst excesses, and, with control over the military and of the police and intelligence apparatuses, as well as over the media, presents the worst of dangers. For Government cannot help but become intolerant, autocratic, and, wielding the tremendous power it does if that power itself is not curbed, will invariably exhibit the worst excesses. It will demand uniformity in thought and action among the polity. It will crush the individual into submission to the Will of the State; and in so doing, will erase the very notions of a individual autonomy and individual self-worth and of integrity of Self. So, it is that the framers of our Constitution limited the powers of Federal Government and took the further step of distributing such limited powers the Government had to three separate but equal Branches of Government as set forth in the first three Articles of the Constitution. And, so it is that we see in the assertions of the Radical Left and in their policy choices, a fervent desire to countermand all that the framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom devised and implemented, as these Radical Leftists desire to place strict and stringent control over each American citizen’s behavior, and, indeed, over the individual’s thought processes as well; duplicitously, telling the public that this is a good thing, that society is better served when, contrary to the concerns of the framers of our Constitution, Government should not be constrained; but should firmly control the conduct and thoughts of all Americans, dictate to each American what constitutes correct and proper thought and conduct. In so doing, the Radical Left believes, society will be better served.It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that the Radical Leftist and Progressive would seek to destroy the means by which and through which the individual may emphasize his or her individuality. The Radical Leftist and Progressive does not accept, indeed, cannot even understand that the American is expected and should be expected to take personal responsibility over his or her life, safety, health, and well-being, and be left alone, in peace. The Radical Left and the Progressives will have none of that. Thus, they seek to restrain and curb free speech, including the tacit right of freedom of association, codified in the First Amendment. They seek to deny to the individual the unalienable, immutable, natural right to protect him or herself with the best means of doing so, a firearm; more, they seek to deny to the individual the right to protect his or her life and liberty from the tyranny of Government, thus dismissing out-of-hand the idea that Government is best that Governs least; denigrating, obviating the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ever suspicious of the idea upon which our Nation was founded—that the individual must be left alone, they seek to keep tabs on the individual, to surveil the individual, creating dossiers on every American citizen from the moment of birth to the moment of death. This is, all of it, contrary to the dictates of the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. But, those who hold to the ideas of the illiberal Radical Left and Progressive, care not for the strictures of the Bill of Rights.NOTHING DISTINGUISHES THE TWO POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHIES—THAT OF THE RADICAL NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT AND THE CONSERVATIVE ON THE OTHER—MORE THAN ON THE ISSUE OF FIREARMSThe Radical New Progressive Left abhors guns as much from an aesthetic standpoint as from a political, social, and ethical one. Thus, they never fail to use a particularly tragic albeit rare instance of misuse of a firearm by the criminal and the occasional lunatic to denounce firearms ownership and possession generally, vociferously, and this is reflected in the question they ask and the manner in which they ask it: How can society protect itself from the scourge of guns? You will note that their professed concern is that of society, of the Collective, the Hive, not that of the individual, even if they perforce assert that their concern is to protect lives. Be advised, the question they pose is really merely rhetorical as their answer to the scourge of guns is implied in the question as framed, namely: remove as many guns, and as many kinds of guns, and from as many people, as possible, and in the shortest amount of time. But, will doing so, really serve to protect people? The Radical Left and Progressive doesn't really respond rationally to this query, because they accept, as a given, even if statistically untrue; and the assumption is untrue that more innocent lives will be spared once guns are removed from the citizenry. Although the idea is false, one may reasonably ponder whether, on its face, the idea that the public will be served by banning, say,  every semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, and handgun from even plausible? Since millions of average law-abiding, rational Americans do you use semiautomatic firearms for self-defense and since, statistically, in any given years, hundreds of thousands of people and, according to some studies, over one million people, have used firearms successfully for self-defense. See, e.g., See, Guns, Crime, And Safety: A Conference Sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School: Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, 44 J. Law & Econ. 659, 660-664 (1991) by John R. Lott, Jr., American Enterprise Institute and John E. Whitley, University of Adelaide. Who will protect the lives of the people when they they are denied the best means available for defending their life and the lives of family members? On the issue of gun violence, the Conservative, asks a different question entirely. It is this: How can the citizenry best protect itself from violent acts, generally? Framed in this way, the real issue, for the political and social Conservative, has less to do with guns and more to do with a desire to curb those elements in society that are the cause of violence, whether those elements cause violence by means of guns, knives, bombs, or any other implement, including the use of bare hands.Framing the question in the way that the Conservative does, three things become clear. First, it is manifestly clear that, for the political and social Conservative no less than for the framers of our Constitution, and consistent with the framers political and social philosophy, grounded on the tenets of Individualism, and not Collectivism, the critical concern is directed to maximizing the life, and safety, and well-being of the individual from both the violence of others and from the tyranny of Government. It is manifestly clear, second, that ultimate concern ought to be and must be for the life, health, safety, and well-being of the individual in society, since, for the Conservative, there is nothing beneficial to be perceived in maintaining order in society merely for the sake of the greater society, the Collective, the Hive. Rather, the central focus must be on ensuring the life, health, safety, and well-being of actual people, namely, for the hundreds of millions of innocent individual souls that comprise society. Third, it is manifestly clear that the best means of securing the life, safety, and well-being of the individual in society, and that also serves at the same time to prevent the onset of Governmental usurpation of the sovereignty of the American people—i.e., to prevent tyranny or, at least, to deter the onset tyranny—is by arming the citizen. This the founders new full well and they provided for it in codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the immediate answer to threats of violence from criminals and from the threat of lunatics hell-bent on creating violence, preying at will on the innocent members of the polity, is by seeing to it that every law-abiding, rational citizen who wishes to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and to deter the tyranny of Government is not prevented from doing so, as it is self-evident, true, both in the dim past and to the present day, that the individual will have the best chance of successfully thwarting the threat of aggression and violence if he has the best means of at hand of doing so, and that means arming the citizen with a firearm. Further the armed citizenry is the most effective means for thwarting the rise of totalitarianism in the Nation. For the Radical Left and Progressives, though, the very idea of arming the citizen is an anathema to them. They willingly accept, and many of them gladly accept,  the loss of innocent lives as long as the greater society, the Collective, the Hive, is secured; and societal order, as they see it, can only come about through the presence of a powerful Government, overseeing the Radical Left's vision of a well-ordered, well-engineered society. The armed citizen is, as they see it, a dire threat to the preservation of, and, as well, to the very existence of a well-ordered, well-engineered society. This means that any potential threat to the authority of Government must be checked. And, an armed citizenry is perceived as an ominous direct threat to the authority of Government. Of course, the Radical Leftist and Progressive knows well enough that, for what they have in mind, criminal misuse of firearms will continue, unabated, regardless of the insincere messaging the spew out to the public, directly or through their fellow traveler, the Press.But, it is passing curious strange that the Radical Progressive New Left draws attention to rare mass shootings but pays little, if any, attention to the more serious instances of constant shootings, commonplace in Cities like Chicago. Clearly, the Radical Progressive New Left perceive Chicago as a well-ordered society that clamps down on citizen possession of guns, even as rampant crime exists in that City, as the criminal element runs amok. It is obvious these Collectivists do not view crime and deaths by gun violence as a threat at all. Their sole objective is to deny to the average, law-abiding, rational citizen the means to best counter the threat of violence, whether by guns or by any other means, by precluding the law-abiding and innocent citizen the right to keep and bear arms.Thus the extremist Leftist elements have made clear that their disdain and abhorrence of guns is not predicated on a concern for alleviating violence, whether by guns or by any other means, contrary to what they happen to broadcast through the media, as their real fear is not mass shootings at all, or any other criminal act of violence for that matter. What it is they fear most, and what they refuse to countenance, is the continued existence of an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry constitutes the greatest threat, as they see it, to the emergence of an all-knowing, all-powerful Government, along with the emergence of a welfare-dependent citizenry existing in their socially-engineered Marxist-welfare State. It is no mistake, then, that the vast majority of firearms laws—federal, State, and local—that presently exist, and the many more the Radical Progressive New Left wants to enact, are directed to restricting the average, law-abiding citizen's exercise of their fundamental, immutable, unalienable right to keep and bear arms—more so than simply preventing the criminal and lunatic. For if they truly wished to prevent or reduce criminal use of firearms, they would argue for fervent enforcement of the laws that presently exist, and would ascertain that any new law they sought to create would zero in on the criminal and lunatic and not target millions of average, law-abiding, sane gun owners. If question about this, they would be compelled to admit it is so. Their justification is that criminals and lunatics will be brought under the umbrella of further restrictive gun laws and that any law-abiding American who wishes to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms should understand that forced gun restrictions on law-abiding guns owners is the best way to protect everyone. But, this is no more than a makeweight and arrogant presumption, and it is an erroneous presumption at that.One can, of course, debate the issue of whether the loss of individual safety and well-being is an acceptable price to pay for presumed public safety and well-being. The Conservative would be willing to engage in debate the issue in front of the Nation. The Radical Progressive Leftist would never be willing to do so, finding it easier to shout down naysayers, rather than engaging in calm, rational, intelligent debate. Be that as it may, what is lost in any argument about safety and security is the nature of the right at stake.The founders accepted, as self-evident true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural right existent in the individual American, as bestowed on the individual by the Divine Creator. It is not and never has been a mere privilege, and it is not to be seen as a privilege. But that is how the Collectivist sees it: something created by Government and, as such, the ostensible “right” to possess firearms is really nothing more than a privilege. And if Government creates the privilege, Government can bestow the privilege on some, as Government wishes, and can determine how that privilege is exercised. And Government as the creator of the privilege can just as easily rescind the privilege.Those who hold to the tenets of Collectivism and to the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism view gun ownership and possession only as a privilege, not as right at all, whether fundamental or not. And, in that failure to accept the right embodied in the Second Amendment and the rights embodied in the other Nine Amendments, comprising our Bill of Rights, as things bestowed onto man by the power and authority of Government, must acknowledge that rights, as with any man-made statute, are ephemeral, mutable, subject to modification or abrogation by Government. But, that idea makes a mockery of our Constitution, and, denies, out of hand the sanctity of it and the immutability of the rights and liberties set forth in it, as understood by the founders of our Nation as a free, Constitutional Republic. Thus, the Collectivist denies, out of hand, the very underpinnings of a free Republic and the relationship between the American citizen and the federal Government.But, for inclusion of our Bill of Rights into our Constitution, the notion of gun rights would not exist and the notion of free, unrestrained and unconstrained free speech and unconstrained freedom of association would not exist—not because the rights really don’t exist, they do, but because some would choose simply not to recognize the fact of natural, immutable, fundamental rights preexistent in man. Fortunately, the Antifederalists among the founders made a point of requiring that a certain set of critical natural, immutable, fundamental rights be codified in the Constitution if the States were to ratify it. The Federalists thought it unnecessary to do so since, for them, the existence of natural rights and liberties were self-evident true, understood by all without codification, and were concerned that making a point of listing a few natural rights might lead some people to deny the efficacy of others, a misconception, a misconception of the Federalists but one that the Antifederalists dealt with, anyway, through inclusion of the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments into the Bill of Rights.One thing is patently clear: The New Progressive Left Collectivists accept as axiomatic the idea that our Bill of Rights, as with every other part of the Constitution, is infinitely malleable, subject to constant modification, refinement, or outright abrogation. It isn’t and believing it to be so, doesn’t make it so. But they don’t care. It doesn’t matter to them. They have, as is unfortunately apparent, convinced a substantial portion of the polity of this Nation, through incessant irrational and illogical and noxious proselytizing and propagandizing, that the polity would indeed be better off if the Second Amendment were stricken from the Bill of Rights. It would still exist of course since the right exists intrinsically in man’s very being, and not in the written text. But, in the act of striking the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, or simply in ignoring it, the tyranny of Government would be noticeably at hand.

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART FIVE

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN THE U.S.

The Radical Left and Progressive movement seeks the creation of a well-ordered, well-engineered society, one grounded on the realization of the Marxist Utopian vision--a holistic society, one existing beyond the confines of the Nation, embracing the entire world; a New World Order, comprising at first all western nations, and ultimately all nations. In this vision, the very notions of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizen,’ are obsolete. Also obsolete, are the very  notions of national culture and history. But, this goal can only be achieved if the populace of all nations, including the populace of the United States, are willing, or if not willing then required, to relinquish such rights and liberties specific nation-states may happen to have. The Radical Left and the Progressives envision an omnipotent, omniscient transnational, supranational Governmental construct, and the populations of all Western nations will be required to submit to the dictates of this entity. But, although what they envision may work—indeed is working in the nations comprising the EU, notwithstanding the EU is facing substantial and harsh push-back—and as it has worked or is working in the Commonwealth nations comprising Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it is not something that can work and was never meant to work in the United States. For, unlike all other nations on Earth, the United States alone, has embodied in its Constitution—the blueprint of the Nation as a free Republic—a Bill of Rights. This is the critical Document the Federalists, among the framers of the Constitution, felt unnecessary, to incorporate into the completed Constitution, but a Document the prescient Antifederalists demanded, nonetheless, be incorporated into the Constitution if the States were to ratify the Constitution.Fortunately, the Antifederalists, among the framers, made a convincing case for incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Nation’s Constitution and it is for this reason alone, and no other, that our Nation, to this day, still exists as a free, Constitutional Republic. The existence of our Bill of Rights,understood to be a codification of natural law, that supersedes all man-made law and that exists intrinsically in man, preexisiting any and all societal and governmental constructs exists is perceived as no less than a slap in the face to Radicals and Progressives.But, for inclusion of our Bill of Rights into our Constitution, the notion of gun rights would not exist; the notion of free, unrestrained and unconstrained free speech and unconstrained freedom of association would not exist.Thus, the Radical Left and Progressives seek to destroy it all and are frustrated and enraged over their inability to do so even as they have apparently convinced a substantial portion of the polity of this Nation, through incessant irrational and illogical and noxious proselytizing and propagandizing, to forsake its God-given, fundamental and immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms and to forsake its other fundamental, unalienable, immutable, elemental, rights and liberties, upon which this Nation was founded and upon which this Nation cannot otherwise exist.____________________________________________*Even in the Scandinavian Countries, especially Sweden, that the Radical Left here refers to as an example of a social and economic system that works, Socialism is not all that it is cracked up to be as reported by the website, frontpage. Further, it must be pointed out that the Scandinavian Countries like Sweden are Countries with a small, homogenous population, unlike the populations of United States and Russia. In fact, it has become apparent that, with Angela Merkel’s influence, the EU has been flooded with millions of refugees, primarily from the Middle East. The political and social and cultural background of these people are extraordinarily rigid. They have no concept whatsoever of the philosophical principles of Ancient Greece and Rome, upon which the culture of Western Nations are grounded, and have shown no propensity to assimilate. In fact, these Middle Eastern refugees have demonstrated a perverse desire to force their own radical social and cultural theocratic value system onto their host Countries, rather than complying with the laws of their host Countries, and inculcating the traditions and culture of their host Countries andUnderstandably, the Scandinavians are not amused by what they have experienced with a flood of Middle Eastern refugess into their Country. Moreover, the apparent Socialism of Sweden—see Forbes article—that might have some efficacy in a small homogenous society like Sweden breaks down quickly when a heterogenous population is inserted, unceremoniously into the Nation, and is immediately looking for, and even demanding, “handouts.” Even the left-wing weblog, Courthouse News Service, that expresses concern over the rise of “Nationalists” in Sweden, admits, if only  grudgingly, that the welfare system of Sweden is crumbling in part, at least, because of the presence of so many unassimilable refugees.Now imagine the impact of millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., and the Radical Left’s argument for a massive increase in the welfare state even as the debt in this Country approaches $1,000,000,000,000! As the Economist Milton Friedman warned, as reported in the website, daily hatch, “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which a resident is promised certain minimum level of income or a minimum subsistence regardless of whether he works or not produces it or not. Well then it really is an impossibility.”You have to ask yourself, do Radical Leftists, like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who welcome an endless progression of illiterate, illegal aliens, and an expansive welfare State, know what this bodes for our Nation? For the U.S. Senator, he likely does know. Senator Sanders is intelligent. To realize his dream of a Socialist State in America, he wishes to destroy the Nation as a Free Republic, and rebuild it in his image of a magnanimous Socialist Utopia. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, unlike Sanders, is a moron, but simply abhors America and seeks, as well, to destroy it, in order to transform it into a massive welfare State. If they, both of them, have their wish, our Nation would indeed be destroyed. But, no Phoenix would arise from the ashes of that destruction, as they wrongly presume would happen. No! The Nation would be ruined forever; the remains to be subsumed, albeit it in a diminished state, into a new, transnational, supranational political, social, economic, cultural, financial and legal system of governance, likely headquartered in Brussels, which is the very heart and brain of the monstrosity known as the EU, and the the people of those nations and of our Nation, too, will be reduced to penury and servitude, and all subjects, of this new world order (no longer citizens of their Nations as Nations will no longer exist), will live under duress, and under the severe and stern hand of an all-seeing, all-powerful Government, watching one's every move, and controlling every thought. __________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

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

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

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

GUN GRABBERS DELIVER FALSE MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

PART ONE

OPPRESSIVE ANTIGUN MEASURES DO NOT PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY

"Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties." ~ Charles Krauthammer

Removal of guns from society won't promote public safety. It never has; never will. See, e.g., academic article, "The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (Number 71, November 2003), by Gary A. Mauser. And, if, perchance,  someone could prove, by argument, it did, it would never be worth the price of sacrificing our sacred rights and liberties. But, they can't prove that draconian gun control measures will ever make the individual, or that of society as whole, for that matter, any safer. Antigun politicians should know that. Some don't. Many probably do, but pretend otherwise. It fits the narrative transmitted to the public. The reasoning is flawed; the statistical evidence patchy at best. So antigun proponents squash debate, offering simplistic slogans in lieu of facts; in lieu of sound reasoning. They expect the public to accept the lies as gospel, self-evident truths. They shouldn’t expect this; but they do. Lying to the public is reprehensible. Their lies know no bounds. They have done it so often, lying has become reflexive. Many Americans fall into their trap. Many Americans want to believe the lies. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias kicks in to assist the gun grabbers' false messaging. That makes their nefarious work easy. 

Antigun zealots reduce discussion to two simple, basic declarations, one the corollary of the other: arms expansion endangers the public; arms reduction promotes public safety. Americans hear the message often. Through vehement exhortation and constant repetition the gun grabbers imprint their message on the public psyche. Their comrades in the media provide the vehicle to disseminate this mental garbage.Antigun zealots in Congress, in State Legislatures, in Hollywood, in radical Leftist groups, and in the media grab attention and headlines. They proselytize. They pontificate. They deliver their polemic to the public pompously, with rhetorical flourish, smug complacency, and abandon. Their sermon deceives and confuses; inflames and angers. It doesn’t inform and educate. It is a ploy; simple political artifice, devoid of import and substance. But that's all right for them. Accomplishing their goal is important: destruction of the Second Amendment.The clarion call for mass arms reduction demands submission to governmental authority. Antigun proponents impel the public to rebel against their own best interests; to abandon a sacred right. They promise societal tranquility and serenity, if Americans but heed their call.The suggestion is both monstrous and absurd, but it appeals to many. It resounds with enchantment and charm for some. But, for those not seduced, the gun grabbers employ a different tactic. They chastise and condemn; they scorn and ridicule. They crush dissent. A sacred right for them is an object of scorn, emblematic of a “gun culture.”Can you recall when this Nation had a serious, reasoned debate on the issue of Second Amendment gun rights versus gun control? Indeed, can you recall when we had a serious, reasoned debate on any issue impacting American's fundamental rights and liberties; on any issue involving our Nation's security; on any matter involving the Nation's core values? Remember Governor Andrew Cuomo's rancorous, insulting message to Americans? Back in 2014 the New York Post reported:“'Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,'” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show. Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.'"Governor Cuomo hasn't changed, mellowing with time, and age, becoming more compassionate, more reasonable, more respectful of our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties, more appreciative and supportive of the sanctity of human life and of the autonomy of the individual American citizen. He's gotten worse--much worse; and that is reflected now in New York's new reprehensible abortion law, that Cuomo has championed, along with New York's new antigun measures that he continues to push for.

ANTIGUN MEASURES TARGET AVERAGE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN; NOT THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL

Millions of law-abiding, rational Americans cherish the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. And millions of these Americans choose to exercise that right. These citizens don’t cause gun violence. If they did, Americans would see carnage on a scale beyond that unleashed by psychopaths, terrorists, drug cartel members, and garden-variety criminals, living among us. Antigun politicians should deal with these violent elements. They don’t.Hundreds of antigun federal and State Statutes, and many more local codes, rules, regulations, and procedures have done little to curb gun violence. That isn't surprising. After all, such measures target millions of average, law-abiding, rational Americans, who don’t commit gun violence.  Antigun measures do significantly less to target the fringe element of society, that does commit gun violence. The idea that fewer firearms in the hands of everyone will reduce gun violence is erroneous. It is mere pretense and subterfuge. But antigun proponents make the argument, anyway. For many people, the argument has an aura of plausibility, as so many wrong theories do. Consider instances of violent crime in the EU, and in Mexico and Central American Countries. The citizenry of these Nations has suffered, notwithstanding strict regulation of firearms.Still the gun grabbers bellow. They do so incessantly, disingenuously, albeit with seeming conviction and unrestrained animus toward those Americans who disagree with them; who dare to assert otherwise; who dare to suggest that perhaps--just maybe--the gun grabbers have it wrong. No matter. The narrative continues, unabated. And, no matter how many restrictive gun measures exist, it is never enough. The gun grabbers won't be satisfied until the unalienable right embodied in the Second Amendment ceases to exist.Antigun politicians call for ever more restrictive gun legislation. They direct antigun legislation to the law-abiding, rational American citizen. They maintain the pretense that once no law-abiding, rational American citizen has access to firearms, every law-abiding, rational American will be the better for it; will be safe and secure. But the gun grabbers don’t desire to control misuse of firearms by irrational sociopathic, criminal, and similar types in society; not really.  Otherwise, legislators would separate the dangerous among us; from us. They don’t. "Feel-good" politicians release these deviant, incorrigible types into society, instead of keeping them from society--in prisons and mental institutions where they belong. That sensible action would protect millions of law-abiding, sane members of society, reducing gun violence dramatically.But, antigun politicians don’t concern themselves with dangerous elements in society. Not really. These elements live among us. They prey upon us. But their violent crimes do serve a purpose. They serve as the impetus for imposing ever more oppressive, repressive gun measures on the rest of us. The gun grabbers trust that oppressive and repressive gun laws will induce such stress in average law-abiding gun owners, that they will capitulate; that they will forsake their firearms.It is the mass of citizenry that antigun politicians seek to control; even if they state it is the criminal, the sociopath, the lunatic they seek to constrain and restrain. The extent and nature of antigun legislation bears this out. Deviant types wouldn’t conform to firearms’ measures anyway. They never do.The gun grabbers direct their attention and efforts to the law-abiding citizen. And, the reason they do so  is clear. They seek to control the citizenry because they are distrustful of it.This distrust in the Nation's citizenry, in whom ultimate authority and power resides, consistent with the will of the founders of a free Republic, the founders of an indestructible Constitution, is endemic among those who espouse a collectivist agenda, reflected in totalitarian societies that have forever espoused strong Government control over the actions, and even thoughts, of the citizenry. Societies structured on the precepts of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism exemplify this. Despite the subtle differences in economic and political ideology of these various totalitarian systems, they are all grounded on the notion of Collectivism—consisting of a set of precepts, completely at odds with those that define Individualism. It was through application of the latter set of precepts, those grounded on Individualism, not the former, those grounded on Collectivism, that our founders drafted a Constitution upon which our Nation was founded and on which a great Nation has long stood. The new radical Left in this Country, slowly taking control of the Democratic Party, seeks to turn on its head all that our founders have accomplished. We cannot permit these Leftists to succeed in their aims._______________________________________________________

PART TWO

COLLECTIVISM VERSUS INDIVIDUALISM: TWO DOCTRINES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER.

The Arbalest Quarrel discusses at length, on our weblog, the principles grounding two incompatible philosophical systems. See, “The Modern Civil War: Collectivism vs. Individualism,” posted in October 2018. The framers of the U.S. Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, structured a Nation on the principles of Individualism, not those of Collectivism. The Radical Left, brazenly attempting to take over our Country, as it is gaining control over the Democratic Party, seeks to exercise absolute control over public discussion and discourse--presumptuously, sanctimoniously, presuming to be the voice of both sanity and morality. The mainstream media follows suit, indoctrinating the public in the new social, economic, political, and legal order, predicated on the principles of Collectivism. Collectivism and Individualism are at odds with each other, wholly incompatible. And, in the words and actions of the Collectivists, we see a Nation they seek to create--one divested of its laws, customs, traditions, history, and Judeo-Christian ethic--a Nation, in fact, that is divested of its very identity and soul. These Collectivists seek to subsume our Nation into a supranational organization of Western States. The differences between Collectivism and Individualism are stark.Let us be clear. Democratic Party candidates entering the race for U.S. President espouse a political, economic, social, financial, and legal system grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, not Individualism. The Nation they conceive cannot be squared with the U.S. Constitution as it exists. And, no one should be surprised that these Collectivists would call, shrilly and audaciously, for several changes to be made to it. Contenders, recently announcing their candidacy, namely, Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker unabashedly declare radical Socialist positions. Each tries to outdo the other. Beto O’Rourke the Radical Left Democratic Party candidate is also pondering a run. These politicians espouse political, social, economic, and financial positions far to the left of Joseph Biden; and even to the left of Bernie Sanders—difficult as it is too believe. Not surprisingly, these people show no reluctance in both misconstruing and attacking our Constitution.Among the radical views expressed by these contenders, vying for the Democratic Party crown, we see: Constraints on the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association; Constraints on Freedom of Religion; Abrogation of the Second Amendment; an End to Habeas Corpus; an End to Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; Abrogation of the Electoral College; Vast Expansion of the House of Representatives, promising outsize representation of California, in Congress; Continued Politicization of our Bureaucratic Institutions; Radical Expansion of the Federal Government; Absolute Federal Control over Public Education; Porous Geographical Borders, permitting free flow of non-citizens both into and out of our Country; the granting of voting rights to non-citizens, and career felons; a curious tolerance for crimes committed by illegal aliens, including drug cartels, against our Nation's citizens; and, through it all, the desire to close all debate on their radical agenda.Where would this all lead? The citizenry would inevitably witness the dismantling of our Nation State; renouncement of the U.S Constitution. Arguably, we would see the integration of our Nation into a pan-North, Central, and Southern American Confederation, eventually connected politically, socially, economically, and legally to the EU.Socialist precepts, beliefs, and desires have run amok in our Nation. Any vestige of a Nation as conceived by our founders may very well draw to a close if Democrats take control of the U.S. Presidency in 2020. The Democratic Party is no longer--if it ever truly was--the Party of Moderate political and social thought and discourse.The Democratic Party leadership takes its cue now from new radical members. The Leftist agenda is seeing a dangerous re-emergence and resurgence in America—not seen since the early Twentieth Century. The Socialist and Communist belief system, grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, is naturally accepted among the poorly educated illegal aliens among us, as they are familiar with it, and have most to gain from it. They are steeped in it. And, their ranks grow every year.More disturbingly, we see this strange belief system of Collectivism, adopted by a younger generation of Americans. This may be due to radical, doctrinaire changes to our Nation’s public education system. The political, social, economic, financial, and legal fabric of our Nation is at risk. It is all being questioned, criticized, reevaluated. Nowhere is that more in evidence than in the matter of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country. Will our Nation survive, in the form our Founders structured it, as a free Republic? The question of the future of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country is central to that question. How the gun issue dynamic shapes up in 2019 and beyond, into the 2020 Presidential Primary Season, will likely impact the ultimate question facing our Nation:Is our Bill of Rights to be perceived as codification of natural law, sacrosanct and inviolate, as understood by our Founders, who believed in the principles underlying Individualism, or is it to be perceived as nothing more than a compendium of man-made law, as accepted by the proponents of Collectivism--which we see in other Nations, whose populations conceive their laws as ever malleable, subject to reworking or repeal, not unlike those of our own man-made Congressional Statutes?This question goes to the heart of what it means to be an American citizen. And, because this question, tacit though it be, nonetheless underscores what is at stake in the coming U.S, Presidential election, as our Nation stands at a crossroads, a critical juncture in our Nation's history, it is not exaggeration to assert that the American citizenry is facing a monumental crisis in 2020. There have only existed a few others.Our forefathers fought George III and the might of the British empire. That was our first mighty struggle. We prevailed.The founders of our Republic then debated the form our Nation should take. That was our second mighty struggle. The founders came to agreement with ratification of the United States Constitution, and, so, succeeded in their effort.We then faced major wars and depressions, and the might of the Soviet Union. These calamitous events combined, constituted, together, our third major struggle. We overcame them all, our Nation and its Constitution surviving, intact.We are now facing internal conflict as radical elements in our society, organized and supported by foreign internationalist groups and individuals, seek to undermine our Constitution, our people, our Republic, and our fundamental rights and liberties—and doing so callously, insidiously, seditiously—deliberately creating dissension among us, dividing each of us, one from the other, to accomplish their monstrous aims.The dangers we face as a Nation today are caused less from a disruption and explosion from outside, and more from implosion within. It is the work of a massive Fifth Column, actively at work, in our Country. It is marked by its insinuation into and control over the Democratic Party machinery. But it operates at many other levels of our Government as well. And it operates in our communities; and in the various sectors of business, finance, and media; and even within the legal profession. Nothing is left untouched. This fourth major battle has been waging for the last thirty years. And this new danger is unique for the diabolical approach it employs to destroy our Nation. The ruptures in our Nation, seeded by the machinations of this Fifth Column are now bearing poisonous fruit.But, the Fifth Column struggle for dominance over our Nation and its Countrymen isn’t over. But what we see is dire. We will know soon enough, whether the disruptors of our Nation, these purveyors of lies, succeed. The outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election will do much to decide whether our Nation survives in the manner our founders have bequeathed it to us or falls under the weight of those who seed dissension and discord from within.If a Democratic Party candidate should gain control of the U.S. Presidency, and the Fifth Column that controls it continues to extend its tentacles into, around, and through every organ of our Nation, slowly squeezing the life out of our Nation--we will, indeed, have lost, and those who have fought and died to create a Great, unique Nation and those who have since fought and died to preserve it, will have done so in vain. For, nothing will remain of our Nation but an empty shell. All vestige of what we once were as a great Nation and a great People will be lost forever.__________________________________________

PART THREE

THE RESHAPING OF AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FIREARMS

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes. . . . One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. . . . We need to do this every day of the week, every school, at every level, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” ~ A young Eric Holder, speaking to the Woman’s National Democratic Club in 1995, as televised on CSPAN in 1995—fourteen years before President Barack Obama appointed him as Attorney General, in Obama’s Administration.” Among the critical rights codified in the Bill of Rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only truly tenable check against tyranny in our Nation. That, of course, explains the ferocity of the Collectivist attack on the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. For, after all, it isn't tyranny that concerns them. In fact, the unchecked, unchallenged growth of Government is the clearest manifestation of tyranny; it is something they have designed and are working to accomplish--the enslavement of the American people, much as the populations of the EU are becoming enslaved. Our Nation, though, is not so easily susceptible to tyranny, unlike the Nations comprising the EU, as our Constitution provides for several "failsafe" mechanisms that serve to preclude, forestall or, at least, to deter the onset of tyranny. And that makes the effort of the Collectivists, both here and abroad, who seek to "soften up" our Nation, and ultimately to destroy it—that it may be subsumed eventually into a massive transnationalist union, which is the Collectivist dream of a new world order, comprising the remains of what had once been distinct, independent, sovereign nation states—so extraordinarily difficult. The last of the "failsafe" mechanisms that the framers of our free Republic built into our Constitution to preserve its existence and to preserve the existence of a free, autonomous citizenry in whom ultimate authority resides, and was meant to reside, is also the most effective failsafe mechanism: the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.For proponents of Collectivism, the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms--and the emphatic assertion that this sacred right shall not be infringed--creates a serious problem for the Collectivists in this Nation--those Collectivists like Eric Holder and Barack Obama. And it creates, as well, a problem for the Collectivist overseers--those both here and abroad--who support and who have orchestrated the Collectivist agenda and who are working to implement the items in it. Much more so than even the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech--which, too, not surprisingly, is also under attack today--the Collectivists cannot and will not abide the Second Amendment to our Nation's Bill of Rights. Tyranny cannot take root and prevail--indeed it cannot even exist--in the presence of an armed, capable, determined citizenry, poised to resist tyranny. Thus it is that those who seek to destroy us--the Collectivists both here and abroad--those intent on to breaking the back of our free Republic and on breaking the will of the American citizenry, no longer even pretend to support the Second Amendment. We see this as they call for more gun control laws--gun control laws they refer to, disingenuously, as "sensible."These Collectivists, who vehemently denounce our Second Amendment, have long considered it an anathema. Of late, these ruthless creatures who have sought to impose ever more restrictive gun laws upon us no longer even keep up the pretense of supporting the Second Amendment, as they once had done so when prefacing their remarks slyly, duplicitously, with the phrase--"but of course we support the Second Amendment"--when really they didn't. The Collectivists who have always seen the Second Amendment as intolerable, are now making overt claims of their abhorrence of it. They now assert it to be inconsistent with modern Western civilization; archaic; a relic of a bygone age--bizarre remarks to say the least, and remarks all the more disturbing when they emanate from a jurist.Firearms in the hands of millions of citizens are perceived as senseless to those who espouse the ideology of Collectivism. But then Collectivism demands absolute obedience to subservience to Government and reliance on Government. A person isn't prepared to be obsequious to Government if that person insists on being armed. That fact informs Government that a person isn't prepared to place his or her trust in Government. But, some people are prepared to do just that. And, for them, firearms are considered unnecessary. In return for forsaking one's firearms, Government promises to fulfill one's basic needs and wants and even happiness. But, for others, that price, is much too high. For, the mere act necessitates that one place blind trust in Government. That is something one should never do, and we, for our part, never will. And, we have history to resort to as proof in support of our reluctance to do so. Government's promises are designed merely to soothe and placate the public, who are urged to view the false promises as true and proper and desirable.For the ignorant, for the shallow, for the gullible, and for the weak among us, who readily "buy into" these false promises--and who believe in, who are compelled to feel the need to believe in mere words--that seems to be enough. Like children, such people wish to believe. It is easy to deceive those for whom faith in false prophets comes easy. Those who seek comfort in Government to coddle, protect, and nourish them, the Collectivists' promises are tranquil pipedreams. And for these sorry souls, "the big tall wish"--this seeming pleasant pipedream--is enough. But they will  learn too late what they have lost--and what they will have lost is everything of consequence. They will learn too late, much too late, that happiness--true happiness--can be achieved only if the individual remains "individual”--true to him or herself. Happiness is not something that Government is capable of bestowing on the individual, notwithstanding the Radical Left’s suggestion to the contrary._________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE MYTH OF THE BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT AND OF SOCIETAL PERFECTION THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL IMPOSED AND SANCTIONED ORDER

Ultimately, each individual must depend on him or herself for sustenance and for providing for one's needs, wants, and desires, and happiness. That is as it should be. This requires less Government control over the citizenry--as little control as possible--not more control over the citizenry. Government, whatever its configuration is not benign, and it is not benevolent and reliance upon it to create a utopia for its denizens is a cruel hoax, even as the Collectivists tell us otherwise. A recent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal bears out the hollow, empty pipedreams that Collectivists shower on the masses, like so much fairy dust--sparkling gold that inevitably turns to gray soot and ashes in the  sharp, clear, rationality of the morning.Barton Swaim, who writes political book reviews for the Wall Street Journal aptly points out the shallowness and emptiness of the Collectivists' drives, aspirations and goals. Published in the Wall Street Journal on February 11, 2019, Swaim's article, sarcastically titled, "All You Need is a Congress, And A Dream," writes of the bizarre aims of the Democratic Party Collectivists--new members of the Party and old--whose goals, if implemented, would fracture, irreparably, our free Republic and its free People. It is worthwhile quoting Swaim's article at length. He says:"The [Democratic Party's] Green New Deal is an expression of dreams, but that doesn't make it pointless or merely comical. Take it seriously, not literally. Much of it reads like a leftist manifesto from half a century ago--I thought of the Port Huron Statement, issued by the founders of Students for a Democratic Society [invariably referred to, at the time, by the initials "SDS"] in 1962, which crammed scores of hopelessly vague and muddled objectives in a single document for the purpose of movement cohesion [that is to say, for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the American citizenry or for the benefit of the Nation] not 'the economy itself is of such social importance that is major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation' and so on. . . . The imperturbable Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn't offended by the word, 'dream.' I don't consider that to be a dismissive term,' she said. 'I think it's a great term.' It's certainly an apt one, and makes sense of the resolution's weirdly vatic language. Mr. Marky, sounding a little like the prophet Isaiah, said: 'We will save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation.'The word 'dream' almost always has a happy connotation in American politics. To dream is to desire worthy and noble ends. Sometimes the ends really are worthy and noble. . . . But, mostly they are not. Communism was always a dream, always a future state toward which its adherents had to struggle. I recall the haunting line of the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott: 'The conjunction of dreaming and ruling generates tyranny.'American progressives are fond of the word 'democracy' but it is not democracy they want, because democracy is messy. What they want--and it is Mr. Trump's strange genius to make them say it--is the noumenal perfection of a dream."The dream of the “perfect” society is difficult enough to conceptualize, and impossible to realize. To begin, how do we define this word, ‘perfection,’ as applied to a social, political, economic, and legal construct? Carrying out such a scheme would be empirically, if not logically, impossible--one fraught with considerable difficulty and peril from the get-go, even if theoretically possible.Assuming arguendo, that a workable definition could rationally be developed, how would one go about implementing the creation of this seemingly 'perfect society?' And, once implemented, how might this ‘perfect society’ be maintained? One is  reminded of the futility of the enterprise, as one reads Voltaire’s satire, "Candide."Yet that doesn't stop the Collectivists in this Country from daring to thrust their notion of the 'perfect society' on the rest of us. Indeed, the thing they envision is grounded on a precept, taken as axiomatic, that very few in our Country would agree with. It is that a strong, centralized Government, unfettered by rights and liberties of its citizenry, imposing edicts on the rest of us, is the way forward toward creating this 'perfect society'. These Collectivists accept as self-evident that a strong, central Government of unfettered power is the appropriate vehicle through which the 'perfect society' might one day be realized. But, the idea is less ambitious than it is foolhardy, and presumptuous, and pretentious, and dangerous. Consider: what does the Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society, entail? It entails no less than the dissolution of our Constitution; the dismantling of our free Republic; and the debasement, defilement, and subjugation of the American people. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect societydemands that the American citizenry forsake their fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and--adding insult to injury--therein proclaim that the American citizenry would be all the better for having done so. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society presumes that some people--namely and particularly, the Trillionaire Rothschild clan, residing safely in their lofty, sequestered, protected abodes, removed from and safely tucked away from the hoi polloi, who toil away in the lower realms of the world, along with the Billionaire Globalist Technocrats, through whom the radical Left elements in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy receive their marching orders--be permitted to rule with dictatorial power and abandon over the rest of us, bound not by legal constraint or by ethical maxim, or by convention, or by compunction of custom, or by simple common decency as they, after all, know what is in our best interests. Oh, but how imperfect this perfect world they envision and how imperfect this seeming perfect world they would make and thrust on all Americans.The founders of our Republic would likely take a very dim view of this, the Collectivists' most perfect of all perfect worlds and of this, the Collectivists' vision: that of a  meticulously crafted and implemented, presumptively and pretentiously presented, pompously ordained, perfect well-ordered society that the few "Elite Elect" in the world ordain for rest of us, the Condemned and Damned, to toil in, underfoot, for their benefit, on their behalf. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN INHERENT DANGER TO A FREE PEOPLE, REQUIRING OUR CONSTITUTION’S BILL OF RIGHTS TO DETER THE THREAT POSED TO OUR LIBERTY

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WERE WELL AWARE THAT, EVEN AS THEY RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR A "FEDERAL" GOVERNMENT, THEY SAW THE INHERENT DANGER IN ITS CREATION--AS IT WOULD INVARIABLY AMOUNT TO A DANGEROUS DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.

The founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution, dismissed out-of-hand the idea that Government, through unfettered power and authority, is capable of serving the best interests of the citizenry. The members of the new radical Left in our Nation, would—if given a free hand—destroy the very underpinnings of our Nation, and consider themselves none the worse for having done so. But, then, this should come as no surprise to anyone, as the Radical Left clearly demonstrates its utter contempt for the founders' vision of a Free Republic and of the founders' understanding of the sanctity of the individual. The members of this new Radical Left have exhibited their absolute disdain for and disregard of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people--those natural rights and liberties cemented in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They perceive the Constitution, not as containing the inviolate principles they are constrained to work within, but, rather, as an inconvenient impediment they feel smugly confident they can and should be permitted to work around or skate happily beyond or through.Through a strong central Government, the Nation would be in the best possible position to thwart dangers posed to the Nation from forces outside the territorial boundaries of the Nation. But, by the same token, a strong, central Government, would also pose the greatest, gravest threat to the freedom and autonomy of the Nation's citizenry. The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, knew all this, of course. They weren't naïve.The founders knew full well of the inherent danger existent in a strong, central Government--especially one with unfettered power. The founders knew full well what would occur if Governmental power were allowed to grow unrestricted, unhampered, unchecked. To prevent this or, at least, to forestall, the danger to a free people, through unfettered, unrestrained growth of Government, the founders created a Government of limited power. Further, to preclude accumulation of power in Government, the founders of our free Republic, devised three co-equal Branches of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial. And the founders divided the powers that Government would wield, among those three co-equal Branches. But would this be enough? The founders of our Nation, of our free Republic, pondered this, and many of them--those referred to as the antifederalists--were unsatisfied; were vexed and wary. They concluded, and rightfully so as it has come to pass, that even a Government of limited power--power distributed among three co-equal Branches--might yet not prevent a push by those in Government, the servants of the people, to seek ever more power, to seek power well beyond that power permitted in the Constitution the founders envisioned.Since ultimate power would remain, must remain, in the American people themselves--a point axiomatic for both the Federalists and Antifederalists, an argument ensued among them as to the manner of ensuring that ultimate power would always remain in the American citizenry. For the Federalists, it was necessary and sufficient for to articulate clearly and categorically those specific and limited powers Government shall have. The Antifederalists were not convinced that this would be enough to maintain supremacy of authority and power in the American people themselves. To guarantee that ultimate power would forever reside in and remain in the American people, thereby preventing Government encroachment on the preserve of the American citizenry, the Antifederalists demanded that a Bill of Rights  be incorporated into the very structure of the Constitution.  Those among the founders, belonging to the Federalist camp, did not, for their part, feel it incumbent upon them, much less mandatory, to incorporate a Bill of Rights into the fabric of the Constitution. For the Federalists, it was enough for the Constitution to consist of the core Articles. Since Government as conceived and structured, by both Federalists and Antifederalists alike, would have limited power, the Federalists felt that inclusion of a document codifying the rights and liberties of the American people into the Constitution, would simply be redundant. Further, a few among the Federalists, thought that a Bill of Rights, consisting in salient part of enumerated rights, would work against itself, endangering a free people, as its existence might imply that delineation of specific rights and liberties would operate as a limitation on the American people and detract from the principle of ultimate authority residing in the American people.The Federalists reasoned that, if a Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Constitution, this would mean that the American people would have only those rights and liberties specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and no others. Even worse, some Federalists speculated that incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, would operate in a matter wholly inconsistent with the principle that ultimate power and authority must reside in the people, not in Government. Thus, some Federalists inferred that inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the final product would be tantamount to saying that ultimate authority did not, would not, and could not reside in the American people, but must, then, reside, by default, in the Federal Government, notwithstanding that the Articles would speak of a Government with limited powers. Thus the Federalists were much convinced that inclusion of a Bill of Rights would actually operate to the detriment of the American people, nullifying ultimate authority residing in the American people, contrary to the deep set desires and wishes and understanding of all the founders.The Antifederalists, though, insisted a Bill of Rights be included in the final product as this alone would ensure that ultimate power and authority would invariably--for all time, as it should and must--reside in and remain with the American people themselves, and not in and with Government. Otherwise the new and free Republic would be a travesty, no better than that of Great Britain, ruled by a Monarch. After all did not the founders, and other Americans, fight a bloody war to throw off the yoke of just such a totalitarian Government--apart from those Colonists, the Tories, who had thrown their lot with George III? So it was that the Antifederalists, among the founders of a free Republic, vehemently disagreed with the Federalists. The Antifederalists felt that it could only be through inclusion of a Bill of Rights that ultimate power and authority would remain with the American people. And they were adamant. Perhaps they foresaw that, whatever reservations the Federalists had in incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, the dangers posed by the federal Government to the citizenry would be greater and graver by far were a Bill of Rights omitted from the Constitution. We, now with clear hindsight, realize the Antifederalists with their prescient foresight, were  correct in their observations, and that the Federalists were wrong. Much worse would we, Americans, be today, had the founders forsaken inclusion of a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. And we, the founders descendants, realizing that a Bill of Rights was needed, would attempt too late to rectify the matter. Better we are by far, as we see those despicable groups among us, the Collectivists, who complain bitterly over the existence of our Bill of Rights--who dare call for  constraints on the First Amendment and on the Fourth Amendment, and on the Fifth Amendment; and who call for de facto or de jure repeal of the Second Amendment. Let those who ascribe to the precepts of Collectivism be, as they are, in the more difficult and, in fact, in the untenable position to dare attempt destruction of an indestructible document than for us, who, like the founders before us--ascribe to the philosophical precepts of Individualism, but who would be in the most difficult position of all, proclaiming the need for adoption of a Bill of Rights had the Federalists held sway over the Antifederalists--and ratification of our Constitution proceeded without inclusion of our sacred Bill of Rights. ______________________________________________________

PART SIX

NO RELIEF FROM LIES, INCESSANT LIES, AND DAMNABLE LIES!

Antigun proponents proselytize relentlessly, mercilessly, zealously, and sanctimoniously to the masses. A compliant, complicit mainstream “Press” reports every incident of gun violence. And, it does so deliberately, duplicitously, insidiously--exaggerating, magnifying incidents of gun violence in society. The unethical reports become a fictional, grating, narrative: Confiscate firearms from everyone and the problem of criminal and sociopathic misuse of firearms will take care of itself, we are told. No, it won’t. This tactic would simply leave millions of law-abiding Americans defenseless. But some believe the lie.Antigun politicians cajole the public to view gun violence as more prevalent than it is. Since they see firearms in the hands of millions of citizens as senseless, antigun politicians wage a ceaseless, inexorable assault on law-abiding gun owners. They try to instill in the average American a feeling of revulsion and abhorrence of guns.They see the ownership and possession of firearms as uncivilized. They deem firearms aesthetically unpleasant. They find firearms morally objectionable. They perceive the teaching of our youth to enjoy and appreciate the proper use of and respect for firearms to be wrongheaded at best, and altogether unconscionable, at worst. The youth of our Nation are expected to share the raw hatred and fear toward  firearms that the antigun zealots, themselves, have toward them. Young boys that grew up playing "Soldier" and "Cops and Robbers," and "Cowboys and Indians" in the 1950s, are no longer permitted to do so. What once was actively encouraged or, at least accepted, is no longer tolerated. Those children who do play these childhood games--as part of  acclimation to manhood--are chastised for doing so.The radical Left, insinuating itself throughout Government, Business, the media, and even in our institution of law, consider the innocuous games of our youth, dangerous, aberrant behavior that will no longer be tolerated and condoned, much less acquiesced, let alone encouraged. Allowing children to play such games is considered wrongheaded, socially deviant. Antigun zealots and other radical Leftists  believe that the very existence of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms undermines social cohesion; undercuts the societal collective, and undermines their ability to control the polity. This bespeaks the “hive mentality” they seek to seed, cultivate, in nourish in all Americans--to create a docile and obedient and frightened community, beaten down, and remolded to accept bondage and penury. Yet, they find "reeducating" the adult population difficult--too many adults resist their efforts. So they refocus their efforts on our children. Children are ostracized, today, in our public schools, when they happen to demonstrate a predilection for firearms and who eventually are able to understand, truly understand, and appreciate the critical importance of our Bill of Rights and, especially, the critical importance of the Second Amendment in at least deterring if not preventing the onset of tyranny. Gun ownership and possession is the sine qua non of individuality and autonomy.The new programs for educating our youth--apart from the education of the children of the "elite" who will dominate and rule over the rest of us--do not breed self-assurance and self-confidence, as the curricula are not designed to do that. Instead children are instilled with anxiety and self-doubt, and this is by design. They learn nothing about our core values, traditions, and history. They know nothing about our form of Government and the trials and effort and sacrifice that went into the creation of our Nation, founded and preserved on a unique, sacred, Constitution. Rather, children are instilled with guilt over perceived wrongs of our ancestors and told to behave and toe the line. The youth of our Nation, educated to be docile slaves in a new international world order, will then be easier to control. And the massive waves of ignorant, uneducated, ill-informed illegal aliens--admitted with open arms into our Country by those elements, both here at home and abroad, who see in these millions of hapless individuals a useful tool to undermine our Nation--are intended to supplant Americans.These alien migrants are, after all, nothing but a glob of docile, obedient "worker ants." They know nothing of the importance of personal autonomy and individuality; and they couldn't care less about  the structure of a Constitutional Republic, ruled by law, not by men, even if they could understand and appreciate our Constitution, our history, our traditions, our core values and beliefs. Indeed, The New York Times, in an article titled, "Backlogs Prolong Wait To Become U.S. Citizens," published on February 21, 2019, says--in fact, complains--that "the steep application fee, and the civics and English tests have historically deterred many from naturalizing." Really, now! The fact that people who seek to become citizens of the Greatest Nation on Earth have to pay a steep application fee, and learn to speak English and gather an understanding of our Nation's history, and traditions, our fundamental, sacred rights and liberties and our form of Government is asking to much of them? Did millions of Western and Eastern Europeans quibble and complain about costs, and the demands of learning English and learning about our Constitutional Republic when they emigrated to our Country in the early Twentieth Century? Were these people heard to complain about remitting exorbitant amounts of money just to arrive here by ship, and who had to learn English, and who had to learn about our Constitution, and about our Nation's history, and about our core values. Not at all! They were proud to become citizens, and they realized the importance of inculcating our values and language as they assimilated. Now, we have the MSM making excuses for them, as it is we, Americans who should accept people who have no desire to learn our language, or to learn about our Nation's rich cultural past, and who feel no need to accept the principles under which we live--it is we who must kowtow to them! Many of these people are looking for handouts, and handouts will, of course, be given to them so long as they behave. Thus, the Billionaire Globalist "elites," through their minions, the Radical Left--in Congress, in the media, in business, and even in the Courts--envision a different, bizarre America, one that is hollowed out--one that even precludes the trappings of a once proud, sovereign, independent Nation. Yes, the strength of the military and of the police and intelligence apparatus will continue to exist but will be coopted for use by the rulers of a new transnational system of social, political, cultural, economic, and legal governance, as we are occurring even now. It stands to reason that assimilation is unnecessary if our Nation is doomed to fall anyway as our Nation becomes a mere cog in the grand scheme of the new international world order. It is all false messaging. And most Americans do not fall for it.Most citizens recognize the fallacy of the new messaging and are well aware of the agenda of this Radical Left. The Radical Left desires to create confusion and uncertainty in the public and seeks to instill, in our children, that same confusion and uncertainty. The aims of the Radical Left is insidious. But, it has access to money; lots of it. And the Radical Left is well organized. The ruthless internationalists, who seek to destroy our Nation, orchestrate the radical Left's every move; provide the Radical Left with its talking points; create the Left's agenda, and tick off the items on the agenda, once accomplished. It is all a well-planned, orchestrated subterfuge. It is all a carefully calculated, ruthless scheme to take the Nation from the American people, without the American people even knowing it is happening. _____________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

WILL FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION GO THE WAY OF BUGGIES AND CORSETS AND THE CATHODE RAY TUBE?

Antigun zealots and other Leftist extremists, and radical Leftist Groups, along with the Billionaire Internationalist Class of Overseers who fund them, consider the holding and exhibiting of positive thoughts toward firearms to be outworn and outdated; altogether unfashionable; aberrational; even primeval.And, as they seek to control the thoughts and actions, and word and deed, of average Americans, we see, at once, these antigun zealots, and other Leftists of all stripes, and the billionaire Globalists exhibiting a marked reluctance toward castigating the criminal, sociopathic element in our society for their conduct, in whom reprehensible, aberrational behavior truly resides. This is all according to plan.As for this criminal element of society, antigun zealots, and other Leftists, tell us that society is itself to blame for the aberrant behavior of criminals and of the criminally insane. It is all nonsense. But, the incessant repetitious drone has a nascent effect on some. Thus, the cry goes out to "liberate" the criminal and the lunatic from the institutional setting, even as law-abiding citizens are placed more at risk for their life, safety and well-being in the implementation of such policy. It is they--average law-abiding, rational Americans--who, strangely, find themselves shackled, psychologically for daring to harbor impure thoughts toward gun ownership and possession; all the more so in the event they dare to exercise their Second Amendment right. If they could, antigun zealots, and others of the radical Left, would lock up millions of law-abiding gun owners, to reeducate them. Alas, they cannot, at least for the moment. Once they come into power, who knows?American gun owners extoll the virtues of individual responsibility, autonomy, self-reliance and self-resilience. These virtues are reflected in the desire to keep and bear arms, as is their unalienable right. But these virtues are inconsistent with Government control over the commonalty. Bizarrely, we see attempts to control thought by controlling use of language. Nothing is sacred. Leftists seek to revise how Americans view their fundamental rights and liberties. Indeed, everything—our history, traditions, core values—now demands revisiting for these Collectivists.The existence of enumerated, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, intrinsic in each American citizen, guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, presents a formidable problem, a true conundrum for those who ascribe to Collectivism--the harbingers of a one world government. They cannot control a citizenry that has access to guns. That is the insistent, irrefutable truth, and it poses a difficult, significant if not  insurmountable hurdle for them.The Bill of Rights mandates freedom from Governmental restraint. Guns in the hands of the American citizenry guarantees freedom from Governmental restraint. The radical Left can have none of it. But, then, how do Antigun zealots go about separating the American people from their firearms?From a legislative standpoint, Antigun politicians must use a different tack against those of us who exalt the fundamental rights and liberties cherished by the founders of our Free Republic. Antigun politicians cannot change the attitudes of those Americans steeped in an understanding of and deep abiding love and adoration for our unique Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They have tried. They argue, dubiously, that some gun owners see the value of “gun control” and “gun licensing” measures and schemes. But, is that true? And, if it is true, does that mean we all must follow suit? Does that mean “gun owners” who have capitulated are right, and the rest of us are wrong? No!Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who visualize a Government of limited authority. Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who understand that ultimate authority resides in the people, not in Government; that Government growth must be contained and constrained; that the tendency toward accumulation of Governmental power should be resisted; attenuated; that fundamental rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights, must be preserved and strengthened, at all costs, not weakened, restricted, ignored, or abrogated.Most Americans understand that natural rights—such as the right of Free Speech and Association, the right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—exist intrinsically in the American citizen; that a loving, all powerful, and omniscient, and benevolent Creator bestowed these rights on us; in us. No man, nor Government entity created these natural rights. So no man, nor any Government can deny the American citizen of these fundamental, unalienable, enumerated rights. For those of us who ascribe to the precepts of Individualism, these sacred, fundamental rights and liberties are not mere statutes. They represent the highest form of moral law—codifications etched in stone in our Constitution; never to be amended, repealed, ignored, or abrogated.Again, since Government did not bequeath these natural, primary rights to man, Government cannot lawfully take those rights from man. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this. See, for example, our article, posted April 2017,  titled, “Does The Second Amendment Codify Natural Law, Preexistent In The Individual, Or Is The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms A Man-Made Construct?”  Leftist politicians and those in the polity who espouse an alien ideology understand, if only reluctantly, they cannot erase centuries of traditional American values and teaching. They cannot lawfully abrogate the Bill of Rights. So, they use the force of Government, unethically, even illegally, to thrust their will on those who stubbornly hold to their natural rights and liberties, and who refuse to yield to a new belief system—one requiring the forsaking of such rights and liberties._______________________________________________________

PART EIGHT

AN INCREMENTAL ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the enumerated fundamental, unalienable rights, Leftist politicians know, the one etched in the Second Amendment is most difficult to dislodge. But these politicians are tenacious. This assertion isn’t meant to be a compliment; merely an observation.Strong drives coupled with an equally strong will lead one to act. Actions may be positive or perverse. Here, perverse. Leftists abhor the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, more so than any other elemental right set forth in the Bill of Rights, because, more so than any other sacred,  elemental right, the Second Amendment constitutes the greatest threat to their accumulation of power and their ability to maintain power over the American people. It is impossible for these Leftists, these Collectivists, to implement a new system of governance in our Nation—a system of social, political, and legal governance, altogether contrary to and inconsistent with that designed by the founders of our free Republic. But, these Leftists won’t stop their nefarious, diabolical attempts to impose more and more stringent constraints on the average law-abiding American who, uninhibitedly, dares to exercise the fundamental, unalienable, primordial, enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

THE THREE ANTIGUN PLANKS

Although gun laws enacted by Congress, State Legislatures, and subordinate bodies of the States, are numerous and complex, the strategy undergirding them is simple. That strategy has three primary planks. Each Governmental measure falls into one or more planks, and Leftist, antigun politicians and those echoing their sentiments in mainstream media organizations, in antigun groups, and in other radical Leftist organizations often pursue all three planks simultaneously. These three planks are as follows:One, continually expand the domain of banned firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Two, continually expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own or possess firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Three, among those who do not fall within a statutory federal or State disability, and who, then, may continue, at least for the moment, to own and possess firearms, ammunition, firearms' components and complementary firearms' paraphernalia, make the exercise so onerous, so pernicious, so expensive, that few of these individuals will wish to continue to do so.

THE ONSET OF “RED FLAG” LAWS AND GUN LAW BANS

For 2019, the Arbalest Quarrel will be dealing especially with two of the three planks.Pertaining to the first plank, we will see, in 2019, a flurry of activity in both the Democratic Party controlled House of Congress, and in Democratic Party State Legislatures to ban semiautomatic weapons and so-called large capacity magazines; and we will see attempts to ban ammunition and components of firearms.Pertaining to the second plank, we will see efforts to expand the domain of individuals compelled to surrender their firearms. Our next article will look at so-called “Red Flag” laws and bills. These are a new phenomenon. We will explicate the nature of these laws and will zero in on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s success in resurrecting New York’s “Red Flag” measure--several of which were presented in both the New York Senate and in the Assembly, and all of which failed in 2018. However, with Democrats firmly in control of Albany's Legislature, and with Cuomo's clout, several of these measures passed both the Senate and Assembly, as the antigun group, "New Yorkers Against Gun Violence" proclaimed, with boisterous approval, on the group's website, NYAGV. Note: In New York, the "Red Flag" measures are referred to as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" ("ERPO"). A flurry of other draconian antigun bills have been introduced in and are floating about in both the New York State Assembly and in the State’s Senate. Since Democrats control both Houses in Albany, the State Capital, Cuomo is not sitting back with one success. He is continuing to exert strong pressure on the State Legislature to pass further antigun bills. Keep in mind: Governor Cuomo does not perceive these “Red Flag” laws and other proposed antigun legislation coming down the pipe, as measures distinct from the New York Safe Act, which the State Government passed and which Governor Cuomo signed into law in 2013. Rather, he sees New York's new antigun measures as extensions of the New York Safe Act, enacted in 2013. As Cuomo says, as reported in the weblog, State of Politics, an obvious mouthpiece for Cuomo and a propaganda organ of Cuomo's radical Left Government: "I think the red flag bill adds improvements to the Safe Act." In that same blog post, Governor Cuomo asserts, disingenuously and flippantly, "We have proven that gun safety laws are needed and I think we have also proven that gun safety laws exist without the fear of the slippery slope. . . . Well, they're trying to take away your guns. No one is trying to take away the guns from people who are mentally healthy."No slippery slope, here? Really? And, who, among U.S. citizens residing in New York, is judged to be "mentally healthy." And, is that expression to be construed as a medical or legal term of art?Through it all, there may be a silver lining for those of us who cherish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One should remember that, while the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and Democratic Party controlled Legislatures in some States, continue efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, the Conservative-wing on the United States Supreme Court will, it is our fervent hope and belief, continue to review antigun laws that impermissibly impinge on and infringe the Second Amendment, and, acting as a powerful counter-force against antigun efforts carried out in Congress, and in State Legislatures around the Country, and in the media, strike down unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations, codes, and procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court has done remarkably well with the issuance of favorable rulings in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases. While reluctant to take up any Second Amendment case since then, until very recently, the fact that the high Court has now voted, finally, to hear a straightforward Second Amendment case, in the decade since Heller and McDonald, this may very well augur a good sign for things to come, apropos of preservation of our sacred Bill of Rights.In that regard, the Arbalest Quarrel has written on New York City’s firearm transport case that the high Court has accepted for review. See our article, posted recently, titled, “U.S Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”We will keep tabs on the New York transport case, analyzing, in depth, the arguments of Petitioners, New York residents and gun owners, as well as arguments brought by the Respondent, City of New York, contra Petitioners. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and for you too.We must let Republicans in Congress and in State Government know, and we must let the President know, too, that, notwithstanding the importance of controlling illegal immigration—which has gotten much media attention in the last several weeks—preserving and strengthening the Second Amendment is as critical to the safeguarding of a Free Republic, and the safeguarding of our Nation’s Constitution, and the safeguarding of our Country’s core values, history, and traditions, as is stemming the flow of illegal migrants, refugees, terrorists, criminal gang members, drug cartel members, sex traffickers, contraband, and other assorted flotsam, jetsam, and riffraff  into our Country.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECLASSIFICATION AND RELEASE OF THE NUNEZ MEMO PRESAGE FOR THE NATION?

PART EIGHT

As anyone who keeps abreast of the news knows, the “Nunez Memo,” prepared by Congressional Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by order of the Committee’s Chairman, Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), documenting DOJ/FBI abuse of the FISA Court is now out. President Trump declassified it, as is his Presidential prerogative, and authorized its release to American public. The Memo illustrates clear wrongdoing of the DOJ and FBI in the way Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI obtained a warrant to conduct secret surveillance of an American citizen, Carter Page, a one-time bit player in Donald Trump’s campaign. Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI likely violated Carter Page’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and likely violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well. And, they certainly violated several Federal Statutes. To his credit, President Trump did not redact the names of those DOJ and FBI Officials.Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media wasted no time excoriating both the release of the Memo and the contents of it. More memos from Congressman Devin Nunez, will be forthcoming. This isn’t something that Congressional Democrats and those whom they protect within the Deep State and Shadow Government want. They aren’t pleased with the light that is beginning to shine on them all, and they have orchestrated plans to deal with it, now that the Nunez Memo is in the public domain. One tactic involves preparation of a Memo supposedly rebutting the Nunez Memo. That “Schiff” Memo has been drafted and voted upon by the entire the House Intelligence Committee. The Committee has voted to release the Memo. As with the Nunez Memo, the Schiff Memo will be submitted for President Trump’s review and action.Congressional Democrats along with reporters and editors of mainstream newspapers, prominently and particularly, The New York Times, and news commentators and news anchors in mainstream cable news networks—like ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC—berated Congressional Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee for releasing the Memo, claiming it constitutes a threat to our National Security, and, in the same breath asserting, incongruously and inconsistently, that the Memo failed to live up to its hype. So, which is it? Does release of the “Nunez Memo” constitute a danger to the security of our Nation, or is it nothing more than a tempest in a teapot?Through deliberate mixed messaging Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media “screw with” the American psyche, to confound, disorient the American public so that the public doesn’t know what to believe concerning the Nunez Memo. Hence, Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media offer to the American public two primary, but inconsistent accounts. Yet, they are wrong on both scores.The Nunez Memo is critically important. It is hardly “hype.” President Trump’s declassification of the Memo and release of the Memo to the American public alerts Americans to the presence of rogue elements in the highest ranks of the DOJ and FBI who have betrayed their Nation. That is information Americans have a right to know and need to know. So, release of the Memo neither threatens the security of our Nation, nor is it hype. Indeed, far from amounting to a threat to the security of our Nation, the Memo’s release serves to safeguard it.The Nunez Memo serves as the most important information of serious criminal abuse in the Federal Government to come to the attention of the American electorate in the last several decades. It is an earth-shattering exposé of FISA Court abuse by the DOJ and FBI. Granted, the language of the Memo is dry and pedantic, but Republicans on the House Committee of Intelligence aren’t writing a novel. No colorful verbiage exists in the Memo because the Memo’s authors do not wish to entertain Americans, but, rather, to educate and inform them. And, they did that.The Memo exposes the dangers of secrecy in a free Republic, where high-ranking Federal Government bureaucrats operating in the spheres of intelligence, police, and law, wielding immense power, render decisions and take action on those decisions, based on their own personal philosophical and political beliefs, whims, and predilections, caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions tread on the rights and liberties of the citizenry as laid out in the Bill of Rights, and caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions extend well beyond the parameters set by Federal Statute. Indeed, it is abundantly clear, from a perusal of the Nunez Memo, that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI act in extravagant defiance of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute.What can the American citizenry do to correct this abuse in high Government Office? Very little it seems. The American citizenry has no recourse, except for the oversight that Congress provides. It is curious, then, that Congressional Democrats would object to Congressional Republicans’ bringing to light Federal Government abuses. But, Congressional Democrats do object to release of the Memo. Among their other purported concerns, they claim that the Memo would cause the American citizenry to lose faith in the DOJ and FBI. But, then, that is the point. The public should be concerned.One must ask: Does it serve Americans’ best interests to doubt the integrity of the DOJ and FBI when sufficient cause exists to doubt that integrity? Or does it serve Americans’ best interests to live under the illusion that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI operate within the bounds and constraints of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute, when, in fact, they do not, and have betrayed the American citizenry’s trust?Apparently, Congressional Democrats, such as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Eric Swalwell (D-CA), members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believe it better for Americans to live under illusion. Congressional Republicans clearly do not, and it is fortunate that Americans have individuals such as Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), Chairman of that Committee, who, along with other Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence realize their responsibility to inform the American citizenry of serious abuses in the DOJ and FBI when serious criminal abuses come to light. Americans obviously cannot rely on Congressional Democrats, nor can they rely on the mainstream media Press, to keep Americans informed of betrayal of the public trust by high ranking Officials in the most powerful and secretive police, intelligence, and legal institutions of this Country.The public should keep in mind that, if the Democrats gain control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, Representative Schiff will gain the chairmanship of the powerful House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is a man who, recently, in his continuing diatribe against release of the Nunez Memo, seemingly inexplicably brought up, as an aside, that Russians now support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms? From what bizarre realm of horror and fantasy did Representative Schiff pull that idea? And what was the point of it: that Russians, according to Schiff, suddenly have reverence for our sacred Second Amendment, so we should not; or, perhaps, that Russians hope that Americans around the Country will suddenly go on a massive shooting spree, killing each other?This man, Adam Schiff, is a menace to all that is holy. What he is doing in Government has nothing to do with protecting this Nation and its people and upholding the U.S. Constitution. It has everything to do with tearing down this Nation under the guise of protecting it; destroying the rights and liberties of its people under the cloak of strengthening them; subverting the Constitution behind the mask of preserving it. He seeks, through his position as Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee, just below Representative Nunez, Chairman of the Committee, to undermine the will of the American electorate through his constant, pertinacious, presumptuous, indefensible, intolerable and singularly bizarre attacks on the Chief Executive of this Nation, President Trump.President Trump, to his credit—unlike Representative Schiff and his fellow Congressional Democrats—holds the American citizenry in high regard. Through declassification of the Nunez Memo and its subsequent release to the American citizenry, President Trump has opened a window to the machinations of  high-ranking Officials of the Deep State and Shadow Government, operating beyond the bounds of law. The American public bears witness to the contempt by which those who should be serving the public, have rebelled against it, and seek to oppress it.We continue with articles, bringing to light the game plan of those who have engineered a silent, insidious coup d’etat of the Government of the United States. The betrayers of the Nation haven’t yet lost. The American public is just now beginning to gain a glimmer of insight of the power wielded by insidious forces within the bowels of the Federal Government. Americans must remain vigilant.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE COURTS, NO LESS THAN CONGRESS, IS WHERE ONE WILL FIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT EITHER SAFEGUARDED AND STRENGTHENED OR ENDANGERED AND WEAKENED.

REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF ALL THREE-BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BOTH THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION STATE, AND THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS.

The mandate of a Republican controlled Congress, and of a Republican President and of a federal court system--comprising jurists who recognize the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution over foreign laws and over the decisions of foreign tribunals and who recognize and appreciate the critical importance of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in the Bill of Rights--is this: to maintain our roots as a unique People; to make certain that our Country continues to exist as a free Republic and as an independent, sovereign Nation, beholden to no other Nation or to any group of Nations; and to keep sacred the supremacy of our Constitution and our system of laws, grounded in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights--a Bill of Rights that has no parallel in any other Nation on this Earth. To succeed in this mandate it is imperative that: one, Congress retain a Conservative Republican majority; two, that Donald Trump remain as U.S. President through two terms in Office; and, three, that the U.S. Supreme Court hold a conservative-wing majority and that the lower federal Courts seat a majority of  jurists who recognize and appreciate the supremacy of our Constitution and of our laws and of our sacred rights and liberties, and who render opinions with that principle omnipresent.Obviously, those malevolent forces that seek to undermine the sovereignty of this Nation, that seek to subvert the will of the American People, that seek to undercut and subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws and our fundamental rights and liberties, are working for the precise opposite. They seek to gain Democratic Party majorities in both Houses of Congress in the midterm elections, and, if they can accomplish that, they will undoubtedly pursue efforts to impeach Trump, using the tenuous, ludicrous, tax-payer funded Mueller investigation, chasing after ghosts, as a springboard to destroy the Trump Presidency. These individuals and groups, bankrolled by a shadowy, secretive, ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite”, hope, as well, to create a liberal wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. To do that, they must win back the White House.Those who seek to destroy the sovereignty of this Nation and to undermine the true import and purport of the Bill of Rights are rankled by two specific events that they cannot, and, obviously, will not abide: one, the failure to usher Hillary Rodham Clinton into the Office of U.S. President, which they thought was an assured bet; and, two, the failure to seat Merrick Garland—the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and President Barack Obama’s nominee—on the U.S. Supreme Court. These critical and monumental failures of the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite” who bankroll and control the Deep State of the federal Government—the forces that would dare crush this Nation and the American people into submission—have suffered an extraordinary setback in their plans for world domination. To reset the clock in accordance with their global strategy, they have been forced to show their hand. The negative forces that manipulate and control the Government of this Nation and that manipulate and control the Governments of those Nations that comprise the EU have emerged from the shadows and have forced their toadies in this Country to surface from the depths of the Deep State of the federal Government, to undermine, at every turn, the efforts of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Not content to undermine and undercut the President's policy objectives, which they attack at every turn through the well-orchestrated media circus they control, they attack the man himself, disrespectfully, caustically, and reprehensibly; and, in so doing, they demonstrate as well their disrespect for this Nation, and  for this Nation’s core values, and for this Nation’s system of laws, and for the people of this Nation who elected Donald Trump, who was then inaugurated the 45^th President of the United States, on January 20, 2017, succeeding Barack Obama.The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President has thrown a wrench into the well-oiled and greased machine of the Deep State of the federal Government of the United States. This singularly important event has thrown the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist elites, headed by the international Rothschild clan, into a state of consternation, of befuddlement, of rage and turmoil, of chaos. Their well-laid plans for world domination sees the United States as an important cog in an expansive industrial and financial machine comprising the New World Order, for no other Western Nation has as impressive a military and as impressive an intelligence apparatus, and as adept technological capabilities as those of the United States. As the forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission have suffered a severe and costly set-back, they intend to set matters aright. The American people bear witness to the raw extent of the power and reach of these forces: one, the naked audacity of their actions; two, the evident contempt in which they hold the American people; three, the bald self-assurance and aplomb by which they plan and orchestrate a campaign of deliberate deception—through the mainstream media—a campaign of disinformation and misinformation through which they hope and trust they can manipulate the American people into accepting a bizarre worldview--one inimical to the needs and desires and well-being of the American people; four, the obscene loathing they express toward our Bill of Rights; five, the demonstrative malevolence they have shown toward the U.S. President and toward his Administration; and, six, the abject hatred they display toward this Nation’s Constitution, toward this Nation’s unique history, toward this Nation’s core values, toward this Nation’s system of laws and morals. And through the levers of media and of the Deep-State of Government that they control, they give mere lip-service and lip-homage to those very things Americans hold most dear.The Arbalest Quarrel has done its part. We have worked to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and have worked, as well, to defeat the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. But our work has not ended. It has, perforce, just begun.We must continue to support President Trump from the forces that, having failed to prevent his electoral success, seek, now, to place obstacles in his path, making it difficult for him to implement the policies he has promised—policies that are at loggerheads with those hostile internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financial and industrial forces that seek global domination which, in accordance with their plans for world domination, requires the crushing of Western Nation States, including the crushing of our Nation State, the crushing of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation state; and, with that, the subordination of our laws to that of international laws and treaties and the subordination of our Courts to that of foreign Courts and foreign Tribunals; and the undermining of the sacred rights and liberties of the American citizenry. These extremely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless and cunning globalist forces seek eventually to topple Donald Trump and his administration. They seek also to take back control of the two Houses of Congress. We must therefore work to maintain House and Senate Republican Majorities.Further, we must work toward and anticipation of the confirmation of at least one additional, and, hopefully, two or, better yet, three conservative-wing Justices to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. With the passing of the eminent and brilliant jurist and true American patriot, Justice Antonin Scalia, we have lost a mighty champion of liberty in the vein of the founders of this Nation, the framers of our Constitution. We hope and trust and pray that, before the end of this year, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy and/or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and/or Justice Stephen Breyer will retire. That will pave the way for President Trump to nominate at least one and conceivably two, and optimally three more American jurists, to sit on the high Court who, as with Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, hold jurisprudential values and who would apply the same methodology to deciding cases as do Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia had set the course. With strong and true conservative-wing Justices on the high Court, who hold a clear majority, we will see the Court agreeing to hear critical Second Amendment cases and, thereupon, rendering decisions that, with the Court’s untarnished and supreme judicial imprimatur, makes clear the import of the natural, fundamental rights and liberties of American citizens as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers’ intended.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL LOOKS BACK ON WORK COMPLETED IN 2017 AND THEN FORWARD TO OUR TASKS FOR 2018

WHAT WERE SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2017?

Let us step back for a moment and look at just a few of the tasks we completed in 2017, and remark briefly on tasks we have set for ourselves in 2018. Much of our work, consistent with the primary purpose of the Arbalest Quarrel involved detailed, comprehensive analyses of critical federal and State Court cases impacting the Second Amendment. One of those cases is Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. Soto is an active case. The Soto case arises from the deadly attack that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when a deranged young adult, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School, fatally shooting twenty children and six adults, before turning a handgun on and killing himself. According to the allegations of the Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (CM), Adam Lanza murdered these school children and school staff with a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle. Defendant Bushmaster prevailed in the lower Superior Court (trial Court), and we analyzed the Superior Court decision in depth. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, bypassing the State Court of Appeals, and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear argument. We will be analyzing the Briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and will also analyze selected amicus (friend of Court) Briefs in that case. Over 50 amicus briefs were filed in that case. We also provided comprehensive analyses in an “assault weapons” case, (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), which we had hoped would be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court—the high Court failing to have granted certiorari in an earlier disastrous “assault weapons” case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015). Alas, the high Court failed to garner four votes, allowing the case to be heard in the high Court. Had the high Court agreed to hear the case, Americans would see a definitive ruling on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection. Obviously, the liberal wing of the Court and at least two "apparent" conservative wing Justices, likely, Anthony Kennedy and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, did not want to resolve this case, and, so, to date, resolution of “assault weapons” as protected firearms within the core of the Second Amendment remains in abeyance, with liberal Circuit Court of Appeal Judges ruling that semiautomatic "assault weapons" do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment and, so, are not protected.In addition, we looked at two Congressional bills that, if enacted, strengthen the Second Amendment. We looked at national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, pending in Congress, H.R. 38, and looked at Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”) which has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, on September 6, 2017 where it presently sits. We also did our part to sidetrack Obama’s attempt to sit Judge Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court. When we feel it critical that our representatives in Congress be notified of specific and extraordinary dangers presented to our Nation, we have not hesitated to contact them. When, after the passing of the exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, we have seen that President Barack Obama wasted little time in nominating a person to serve as a new ninth member of the high Court who would, given the opportunity, assist the liberal-wing Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—in unwinding case law that Justice Scalia helped to shape in his many illustrious years on the Bench. That person who President Barack Obama had hoped to see confirmed is Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Arbalest Quarrel took strong exception to the possibility of seeing Judge Garland sitting on the high Court. We sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, requesting the Senator to refrain from allowing a confirmation hearing to proceed. Had a confirmation proceeding been held, that would have resulted in Judge Merrick Garland sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice. Of that, we have no doubt, as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch has articulated that point. According to the liberal political commentary website, "New Republic," Senator Hatch said that there was "no question" that Judge Merrick Garland would be confirmed were a confirmation hearing held. The Arbalest Quarrel explained the singular danger Judge Merrick Garland posed to the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if Merrick Garland sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In our letter we took exception to pronouncements of several academicians who had also written a letter to Senator Grassley. Those academicians argued that nothing in the record of Judge Garland’s service as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals suggests that an inference can be drawn concerning Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment. We disagreed with the pronouncements of those academicians. We pointed to specific examples in the judicial record that establish beyond doubt that Judge Merrick Garland holds great and abiding antipathy toward the Second Amendment; and that Judge Garland’s antipathy toward the Second Amendment is very much in evidence in the judicial record, contrary to the pronouncements of those academicians who promote the Judge’s ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our concern was not directed to Judge Garland’s ability as a jurist. We have no doubt that Judge Garland has a bright and, conceivably, brilliant legal mind. But, when that brilliance is coupled with a philosophy at loggerheads with the philosophy of another brilliant Justice, Antonin Scalia, then we know that preservation of the natural, substantive fundamental rights of the American citizenry—particularly the right of the people to keep and bear arms—are in jeopardy. In a series of in depth articles, we have written extensively about Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy. We pointed out that Judge Garland’s judicial approach is clearly antithetical to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that Justice Scalia’s illustrious work would be undone were Judge Garland to sit on the high Court. In our letter to Senator Grassley, we provided a link to the Arbalest Quarrel website and encouraged the Senator to peruse our analytical articles on Judge Garland, as the letter only touched upon the matters of concern.

THE MISSION OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL 

The mission of the Arbalest Quarrel is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Bill of Rights, and, principally, to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Arbalest Quarrel has written dozens of articles on newsworthy and noteworthy events, impacting the Second Amendment. Many of our articles appear in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Most of the articles we prepare are comprehensive, extremely detailed, highly analytical expositions on Second Amendment issues. Many of our articles are written as part of lengthy, continuing series. Given the exigencies of time and of new and pressing newsworthy matters, we are often compelled to sidestep continuous work on a series, returning to a series later. Since threats to the Second Amendment are constant and continuous, much of the work that we may have left uncompleted in previous weeks or months is and remains pertinent. Some work that we do, involving analysis of active legal cases, such as the Soto case, cannot, of course, be completed until further action is taken by a Court and, in that event, we must await action before continuing discussion. In other cases, such as Kolbe, where we have commenced work, as part of a series, a higher Court, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari, which means that the ruling or rulings of the second highest Court, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, remains the law in that judicial Circuit. But, as those cases involve an open-ended and critically important issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will, at some point be compelled to tackle, our analysis of lower U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions are still relevant and, so, hold more than historical value in terms of their impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Kolbe, for example, deals directly with the issue whether semiautomatic weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment. As antigun groups intend to deny American citizens the right to legally own and possess “assault weapons,” and, as they seek, eventually, to ban civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic weapons, it is incumbent upon us and important to consider the legal arguments they present. Thus, at some point in time when the U.S. Supreme Court does deal with the issue as to the extent of or whether semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment or whether semiautomatic weapons, as a broad category of firearms, fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment--and the high Court will, at some moment in time have to consider the issue--we will have addressed, in depth, all or virtually all of the salient arguments that litigants happen to make. As we look back at the work over the years, we note our article, titled “The Arsenal of Destruction.” Concerning antigun groups efforts to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what we mentioned in that article is as true then as it is today. We said: Here is what we deemed then, as now, to be the salient methodologies antigun groups use to undercut the Second Amendment. There are probably more; undoubtedly, the antigun groups are busy concocting others even as we publish this list:

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

• REWRITING/RECONFIGURING/RECONSTITUTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNDERCUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAUSE: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

• MILITARIZATION/FEDERALIZATION OF CIVILIAN POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

• USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS

• SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

• ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS BY CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS TO WEAKEN OR OVERRIDE STATE LAWS WHERE SUCH STATE LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO EXTEND SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO THEIR CITIZENS

• CREATING CONFUSION OVER THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ AND CREATING CONFUSION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

• EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

• OVERRIDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PACTS, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND CONVENTIONS

• FALLACIOUS REASONING OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND ANTIGUN GROUP DECEPTION AS TO THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL: DE JURE OR DE FACTO REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

• ATTACK ON GUN RIGHTS’ ADVOCATES’ MORAL BELIEFS AND ETHICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS

• BATFE ADOPTION OF ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR GUN DEALERS AND BATFE INTRUSION/ENCROACHMENT ON TRADITIONAL U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LAW MAKING AUTHORITY

• MISAPPLICATION/MISAPPROPRIATION OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW AND LEGAL DOCTRINE TO UNFAIRLY TARGET GUN MANUFACTURERS

• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT OF TRADE: COERCING LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO REFRAIN FROM GIVING LOANS TO GUN DEALERS

• MANIPULATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND OF THE U.S. CONGRESS BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS THROUGH THE BANKROLLING OF POLITICIANS—WHO ACQUIESCE TO THEIR WISHES, AND WHO ARE WILLING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT—AND THROUGH THE NAKED, SHAMELESS EXPLOITATION OF ATTACK ADS, TARGETING THE DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THOSE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO KOWTOW TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA OF THE RUTHLESS MULTI-MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS.

• GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN

• DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES THROUGH THE CREATION OF, ESTABLISHMENT OF AND INEXORABLE EXPANSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL, NEOLIBERAL INSPIRED WORLD ORDER DEDICATED TO AND WORKING TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, AND THE ERADICATION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY

We intended to do an article on each of these 21 strategies within the series. We didn’t complete the series, but we did write on several of these strategies and some of the strategies were touched upon in other articles. For example, our most recent article on the NY Times new “gag order” policy preventing its employees from exercising their freedom of free speech on their own time in vehicles other than the New York Times newspaper, actually is a response to two strategies we delineated on in “The Arsenal of Destruction":ONE: GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN; and,TWO: USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS.Our principal mission and raison d’etre—as mentioned, supra—is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the preservation of, protection of, and strengthening of the Second Amendment all go hand-in-hand. There exist forces both inside and outside this Country that would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Of course, they realize that repealing, de jure, any one of the Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights is virtually impossible. As natural rights, there is no mechanism for repealing these rights and liberties anyway, since no man created them. The Framers of the Constitution merely codified the rights that exist intrinsically in each American citizen. That doesn’t mean that a sacred right cannot be ignored or de facto repealed which effectively reduces the right to a nullity even as the words remain intact. Thus, if the words remain, but the intent behind the words is absent, hollowed out, the right, in essence, ceases to exist. We have seen this before. The fundamental right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been hollowed out, as Government agencies like the CIA and NSA download and keep digital records on everyone and everything. This is patently illegal, but Federal Government agencies do it anyway. The fundamental right of free speech is beginning to be hollowed out, too, as censorship, in the guise of “political correctness” is taking its toll on free speech. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms was dying a slow death until the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in two seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)), made clear what that right entails. The high Court made poignantly and categorically clear that this right—a right that must be recognized by both federal Government and by the States—is an individual right, a right, then, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Still, those Legislators and Jurists who seek to disembowel the Second Amendment have either ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or have actively tinkered with it, working around the edges of the Heller and McDonald holdings to slowly weaken the Second Amendment. But, to weaken the right is tantamount to destroying it; for the rights codified must be understood in the context the framers of the Constitution intended, as absolute imperatives. This doesn’t mean restrictions ought not be enacted that operate as deprivations on some individuals but, this deprivation is justified only if the threat posed by the one threatens the lives of millions of others, or where the threat posed by an individual undermines the sovereignty of this Nation.Consider the Second Amendment. Federal law bars persons adjudged mentally incompetent from owning and possessing firearms. Thus, the absolute right to own and possess firearms infringes the right of a person adjudged mentally incompetent but this is necessary to protect the lives of millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans. Federal law also prohibits illegal aliens from owning and possessing firearms. And, in so doing, we protect the sanctity of the notion of a Nation State comprising a unique citizenry. Antigun groups, though, don’t perceive the Bill of Rights as a set of natural rights, existing intrinsically in the individual, endowed by the Creator to the individual. They see the Bill of Rights in the same vein as do internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites,” as mere man-made creations-- statutes enacted and repealed at the will and the whim of the of the rulers that draft and enact them. As they see nothing positive in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they see nothing that mandates the preservation and strengthening of that right. So, those who attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not consider restrictions on the exercise of that right from the standpoint of the restriction's negative impact on the majority of rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who wish to exercise their right, but, rather, see restrictions on the exercise of that fundamental right from the utilitarian consequentialist position. Consistent with utilitarian consequentialism, it is firearms in the hands of law-abiding rational, individual, not the occasional criminal or lunatic, that is perceived as posing the real danger, the real threat. And, what is that threat? It is a threat perceived as directed against society— against an amorphous collective “hive”—a threat perceived, eventually, as one directed against the entirety of the “free” world, a free world constituted as a "New World Order." It is not the criminal or lunatic possessing a firearm that concerns those that hold to the utilitarian consequentialist theory of morality that poses the greater threat to the well-being of society. In a constant flurry of new draconian firearms bills introduced in Congress, we see, in the draft language of these bills, that it is really the average law-abiding individual--the rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen--against whom restrictive gun measures are really targeted and leveled. These restrictive gun bills are drafted and enacted in clear defiance of the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.Our mission, our raison d’être, is to call out those disreputable groups and to call out those legislators and to call out those Hollywood film stars and moguls and to call out those mainstream news commentators and journalists and "comedians" and to call out those inordinately wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, extremely secretive, and absolutely ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist forces that mean—all of them—to destroy our Nation State and that mean to destroy our Bill of Rights, and that mean to do so all the while claiming their efforts have a rational, ethical basis. But their actions belie their assertions. Their actions belie their true intent. These individuals, these groups, these cold-hearted ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elites” that control the levers of finance and industry, that control major media organizations, that operate within and control the Deep State of Government within our own Nation mean to destroy the sovereignty and independence of this Nation and they mean to upend and to destroy the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution.These individuals distort truth; they sow seeds of discord; they confuse and confound the ill-informed masses by challenging the Nation's core values and by interposing false substitutes for those core values. They rail against and dare to rewrite our Nation's history. They attack our Judeo-Christian ethic and our Christian heritage and traditions. They mean to destroy our Nation and our sacred Bill of Rights to pave the way for an antireligious, morally bankrupt trans-global corporate New World Order conglomerate—an amorphous, muddled indistinguishable conglomeration of once proud and unique independent Nation States—a union of populations comprising the entirety of the “free” world, which these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financiers and captains of industry plan to rule. We are beginning to see what this portends for the U.S. as they consolidate their power in the EU, with the assistance of their technocrats, their puppets.In their concerted effort to destroy the structure of and the very notion of the sanctity and sovereignty of Nation States, and of the sanctity and sovereignty of our Nation State in particular, we see insidious and perverse attempts by these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites”—through the mainstream media whom they control and through members of Congress whom they have bought—to play with language—to suggest that the notion, the idea of ‘American,’ of what the word ‘American’ means is simply a matter of personal belief. Why is such a ridiculous notion fostered? It is fostered for a reason. For, if what it means to be an ‘American,’ or, for that matter, what it means to be a Frenchman, or German, or Italian, or Canadian, for example, comes down to personal opinion and belief, then, the bonds between a person and that person’s Country is tenuous, amorphous, fragile, elusive, even illusive, and, ultimately, unimportant. This has serious ramifications for Nation States and repercussions for the people residing in a Nation State. Thus, if a person is to be deemed an American, for example, who simply and essentially believes him or herself to be an American, then, on that basis, alone, may presumptuously presume a right to live in this Country, to emigrate to this Country and to be endowed with all the rights and liberties that the United States Constitution provides.This open-ended concept of what it means to be an ‘American’ is deliberately and unconscionably fostered by those who seek an end to the very notion of a Nation State; who seek to portray people not as citizens of this or that Country but, literally, as “citizens of the world”—who may freely move about as they wish. This “open borders” philosophy is anathema to the concept of the primacy and sovereignty of Nation States which demands that independent, sovereign Nation States have a right and duty and responsibility to maintain and control their borders, and, in so doing, forestall emigration of undesirables to this Country. To allow essentially anyone and everyone to emigrate to this Country, is to denigrate and ultimately destroy the very foundation of the sovereignty and independence of a Nation State. A Nation State’s core ethical and religious and social values are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s historical roots are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s jurisprudential values and core economic principles are in danger of erosion.When educators, along with news organizations and legislators in the United States proclaim that illegal aliens are Americans, the Arbalest Quarrel has stepped in to set the record straight. Co-Founder and President of Arbalest Group, LLC., Stephen L. D’Andrilli wrote a reply to an article written by the Vice President of the United Federation of Teachers that appeared in the Union’s publication. The Arbalest Quarrel's response was published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Stephen has penned other cogent responses to the UFT that we, as strong supporters of America’s Bill of Rights, have taken exception with.

THE WORK AHEAD FOR THE ARBALEST QUARREL IN 2018

In 2018 we will continue to analyze federal and State gun laws; federal and State gun bills; and federal and State Court cases. We anticipate seeing one and perhaps two openings on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is imperative that President Trump have the opportunity to nominate one or more individuals to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.It is in the Courts, no less than in Congress that our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will be preserved, strengthened, and expanded. We will otherwise see our Bill of Rights debilitated, weakened, and restricted.The House and, more importantly, the U.S. Senate must remain firmly in the hands of Republicans and, more especially, in the hands of those who espouse a conservative philosophy, reflective of the views and philosophy and sensibilities of the Founders of our Nation, the Framers of our Constitution, the Creators of our Free Republic—not those Centrists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who hold to a decidedly globalist philosophy, who demonstrate globalist sympathies, and whose support of our Bill of Rights is lukewarm at best.The Democrats intend to take control of both Houses of Congress and they intend to weaken our Bill of Rights and to weaken especially the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. They intend, in league with their internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, to weaken, debase and eventually curtail our natural, fundamental rights and liberties. For they mean to draw us insidiously into the arms of a New World Order. They intend to do this through the vehicle of international pacts and treaties and through mainstream news organizations that condition the American public to accept open borders and to accept an amorphous notion of what it means to be a citizen; and by conditioning the American public to accept the legitimacy of foreign courts to hear cases impacting our fundamental rights; and to condition the American public to accept the supremacy of international law over that of our Constitution, and over our system of laws, and over our jurisprudence; and to condition the public to accept historical revisionism, to accept bizarre, alien notions of morality and gender identity; and to condition the public to accept the dismantling of a Nation that is grounded in Christianity and in notions of self-reliance and initiative, individual responsibility. All these things are on the table, as Democrats and many Centrist Republicans seek to weaken the foundation of a Nation as designed and understood by the Founders of it.

IN CLOSING, WE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING POINTS AND CAUTIONARY IMPERATIVES FOR OUR READERS:

If the American people are to maintain their unique roots, we must work, first and foremost to keep sacred the Bill of Rights, and that means we must understand the import and purport of the Bill of Rights as the drafters intended, and we must insist that rights and liberties be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We must argue for the continued primacy of this Country as a sovereign, independent Nation State and we must insist that the federal Government’s first order of business, as servants of the American people, is to see to the needs of and well-being of, and security and safety of the American people. And, who are the American people? They are the citizens of this Country and those citizens, the American people, do not include anyone who resides here illegally, whatever that person's motive or circumstance for being here. And, no individual who resides elsewhere has a right to emigrate to this Country simply because that person seeks to live here, for good or for ill; and no one who has entered this Country illegally, whether consciously or through no fault of their own, can demand, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, the right to remain here. For law is not ad hoc. If Congress deigns to allow illegal aliens to remain here, then Congress must refrain from granting such individuals, citizenship. For, to grant citizenship to those who have consciously or not ignored our law, or who claim an exception to law that does not presently exist in law will serve only to destroy our system of laws. To change law or to ignore law on a whim sets a poor precedent and such action, in the seeming moral sense of it, will destroy this Country from within.We must hold to our core values. We must not be seduced into accepting notions of moral and legal relativism and we must not fall prey to historical revisionism. These notions are poisonous, pernicious, debilitating. We are a People with one common language, English. No Nation has remained a separate and distinct Nation State that has inculcated, internalized a notion of bilingualism or multilingualism or that has abided bilingualism or multilingualism.No one, whether inside or outside Government, shall indoctrinate the American people. Each American citizen has a right to free expression and to freely express his or her mind. That an individual may wish to express an idea or to possess a physical item that another individual may personally dislike, or even abhor, so what of it? The founders of our free Republic and the framers of our Constitution did not undertake to institute or to insinuate into the natural and fundamental rights and liberties of the American people a notion of “political correctness.” Such a notion is of modern invention and vintage, designed to serve an ulterior purpose. Indeed, had the founders of our Republic thought of such an absurd concept at all they would undoubtedly have held political correctness to be decidedly politically incorrect. Nothing is more devastating or destructive to the citizenry of this Nation or, for that matter, to the citizenry of any nation state, than the sins of hypocrisy and sanctimony. Unfortunately, both are in abundance in this Nation. We can for that thank the arrogance of mainstream media and of those with power and money and influence, both here and abroad, who wish to dictate a mode of thought the rest of us are obliged to adhere to. The American people should be particularly wary of those legislators and those presumptuous “elites” who bandy about such expressions as “rule of law,” and “living Constitution,” and “open borders,” and “citizen of the world” and “job creator,” and “commonsense gun laws,” and “social Darwinism, and “identity politics,” and “political correctness.” These expressions, and there are others, have become trite and dangerous clichés, shorthand simplistic sloganeering, that are either misunderstood and therefore misused, or are otherwise given to suggest or convey something overtly positive, even exemplary, when, in fact, their utilization is meant to harm the American citizen, meant to harm you! Always be mindful of seemingly noble sounding and high-minded verbiage thrown out to the masses for consumption like so much popcorn and roasted peanuts and cotton candy. Be observant, be cautious, think critically before throwing your lot in with everyone else simply because everyone else is “doing it” or “believing it.” You are no longer in high school. There is no longer any need for you to belong to this or that “clique,” in order to "fit in."The framers of the Constitution glorified the right of the individual to be individual and to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions. Our sacred rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights are a testament to that fact. That is our birthright. The right of free speech; freedom of association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These are not mere platitudes. These are a few of the most important natural rights, codified in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute and unconditional, and they are slowly being eroded. Americans should consider, critically, how the words of a news commentator, or of a Hollywood star, or of a mega-sports star, or of a legislator, or of a financier, or of a government bureaucrat, or of a highly paid comic on nighttime  television meant to cajole or persuade Americans would impinge on or infringe those rights and liberties before you throw your lot in with them. For you may be hoodwinked into giving up everything of real consequence._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON NICS REPORTING AND FIREARM ACCCESSORY REGULATION

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CONGRESS: TO REPAIR AND IMPROVE NICS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OR TO TURN NICS INTO A MASSIVE FIREARMS REGISTRATION SCHEME?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774—1776On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided over by Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-IA, held a three-hour Hearing on firearms, titled, “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” The full Committee attended. That included the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, and virulent opponent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.  CSPAN televised the Hearing.Two panels convened. The first one included senior officials of the ATF, FBI, the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the Inspector General of Department of Defense. The second panel convened included, inter alia, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting tragedy, Heather Gooze, who was the first to speak; two Second Amendment legal experts, David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook; and the Montgomery County Chief of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association President, J. Thomas Manger.The two mass shooting incidents—one occurring during the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017 and the second occurring at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, roughly one month later, on November 5, 2017—served, evidently, as the impetus for and the backdrop for this Hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused its questioning of the first panel on: one, the mechanics of criminal and mental health reporting requirements, two, the sharing of data or lack of sharing of data between State and federal police agencies, and, three, the failure of Governmental agencies, both federal and State, to maintain accurate, reliable, and complete databases on those individuals who are not permitted to possess firearms. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused questioning of the second panel on firearms—semiautomatic rifles—that the killers, Stephen Paddock and Devin Patrick Kelley allegedly utilized to murder innocent people.The purpose of this article is not to delve into the interstices and intricacies of the Senate Hearing but to inform the American public of the fact of it and the specific concerns addressed during it that cast in high relief the dangers posed to preserving the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment.Antigun proponents, through their Congressional representatives—Senate Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democratic Party member, Dianne Feinstein, and her principal cohorts, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others—wish to move the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other criminal and mental health databases into an efficient and massive and broad digital firearms registration scheme, embracing more and more individuals and incentivizing the military and the States to add comprehensive criminal and mental health data into NICS and other databases. Through this Hearing, and through recent comments of antigun proponents in news broadcasts, we see renewed efforts by antigun proponents, stoked by the recent mass shooting incidents—to weaken the Second Amendment beyond past efforts. Emboldened, we see efforts afoot by antigun proponents to transform NICS and other federal and State databases into a comprehensive digital firearms’ registration scheme, wrapping it into a more restrictive, draconian criminal and mental health background check scheme.If successful, these efforts by the antigun movement would infringe not only the basic, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, but would also infringe the fundamental right embodied in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, and infringe, too, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And, the antigun movement does not stop there. Not content to ban some semiautomatic firearms—that Federal Statute (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)) at one time, defined certain semiautomatic firearms as ‘assault weapons,’ until the AWB expired in 2004, and which several States, with their own assault weapon ban statutes, in full force, presently prohibit—the antigun movement now seeks to ban all semiautomatic firearms.There are efforts afoot to enact federal law not unlike the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Under the NFA, the ATF heavily regulates civilian ownership and possession of from possessing fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns and selective fire assault rifles. And, the civilian population is prohibited altogether from owning newly manufactured fully automatic weapons.So, even as the House in recent days passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), a bill that strengthens the Second Amendment, which now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration, we see--in stark contrast and contradistinction to pro-Second Amendment efforts to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms--efforts by antigun Legislators mobilizing and gearing up to dispossess American citizens of semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic firearms, not merely those bizarrely categorized as ‘assault weapons.’ Antigun proponents evidently feel that they can hoodwink the American public, given the recent mass shooting incidents—which they use to their advantage—as they work unceasingly toward their ultimate goal to dispossess all Americans, eventually, of their firearms.During the questioning of the first panel, senior Officials of the Federal Government admitted that the NICS system was incomplete and faulty. The reason for this is that the military, especially, but also the States, have been remiss in entering data pertaining to individuals convicted of crimes that preclude these individuals from possessing firearms. Senator Ted Cruz, in his opening remarks, also made the pertinent point that individuals who falsify information to obtain a firearm have violated federal law, but that these crimes are rarely prosecuted and, so, all too often go unpunished.Falsifying information to obtain a firearm when an individual is not permitted to possess a firearm is a serious crime. 18 USCS § 922(a)(6), titled, “Unlawful acts” sets forth clearly, categorically, and unequivocally that: “it shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.” Senator Cruz was making the point, albeit tacitly, that laws that have no legal consequences do not amount to laws at all. Enforcement of federal firearms laws is lackadaisical at best, a point often made by NRA and a point perfunctorily ignored by antigun proponents whose real goal, after all, is to go after the millions of law-abiding gun owners, even as they profess to express concern over those individuals, alone, who are absolutely prohibited by law “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.” See United States Code, 18 USCS § 922(g) and 18 USCS § 922(n), titled, “Unlawful Acts,” as set forth in Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” of Part I, “Crimes,” of Chapter 44, “Firearms.”During the hearing, Legislators on the Judiciary Committee uniformly expressed concern over faulty federal NICS record-keeping and they requested, from the panel of senior Government officials, an explanation for the failure of these Government Offcials to keep the criminal databases up-to-date. But, it is one thing to repair the NICS record-keeping system; it is quite another to contemplate dumping ever more people into it, essentially, eventually, encapsulating minutia of mental health details of every American, along with details of every infraction committed by every American during every period of his or her life—every spat between husband wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, and an accounting of every instance, every bout of depression or anxiety an American citizen at one time or another may have had. Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee—alluded to expanding NICS and other criminal and mental health databases into a comprehensive and permanent digital—as opposed to merely manual—database of every firearm’s transaction and tying that to and in tandem with a universal background check schema.Clearly, the aim of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee is, then, more ambitious and grandiose than merely repairing a faulty NICS system. We are headed toward a universal registration system if antigun proponents have their way. Every firearm owner becomes suspect. Hence, every American, who owns a firearm must be carefully screened, and those licensed and therefore “privileged” to own and possess a firearm, will be carefully and continuously observed for signs of anti-social behavior, predicated on subjective standards of assessment. The implication of a universal criminal and mental health background check system tied into a permanent NICS databases are dire from the standpoint of Constitutional privacy concerns.Then, there are the firearms themselves. During the questioning of the second panel, it became clear that it wasn’t Stephen Paddock or Devin Patrick Kelley who were being castigated for the horror they caused. Rather, it was the semiautomatic weapons that were the target of and the focus of the Senators' ire--those Democratic Party members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.One speaker on the second panel, who was the first to speak, was a young woman named Heather Gooze. She detailed her personal experiences during the Las Vegas shooting episode and resulting carnage. This survivor’s anguished account of holding and attempting to aid and comfort a dying stranger, who had been shot by Paddock, was poignant, graphic, heart-rending, heartfelt, and deepfelt, as it was meant to be—but, for all that, it was also irrelevant. The fault for the tragedy in Las Vegas was not laid at the feet of the maniac, Stephen Paddock, the sole cause of the carnage—assuming there were no others that abetted Paddock. No! The fault for the crime is laid on inanimate objects—the weapons Paddock used in the commission of his heinous acts. But, if civilian access to an entire category of weapons, semiautomatic rifles, in common use by millions of law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans, is to be curtailed, then, those who would ban civilian possession of semiautomatic weapons  must propound sound legal and logical arguments in support of their case. Arguments amounting to emotional rhetoric, however endearing and heartfelt and honest they may be, are not rational substitutes for sound reasoning.What was on display during the Hearing, was unabashed grief and anger. That is what we heard from the young woman, Heather Gooze: a plaintive and soulful, if tacit, cry for a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons, and that is what the Senators on the Judiciary Committee got from her. This appeal to sympathy for one's cause, derived from heartfelt pain, is representative of a common fallacy. It's one an undergraduate college student learns about in a course on informal and formal symbolic logic. The Latin expression for this informal fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from pity or sympathy or misery, or compassion). The fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam is committed when pity, or sympathy, or compassion, or misery is appealed to for the sake of getting someone to accept a conclusion predicated on emotion, alone, sidestepping the salient issue.Appealing to pity, compassion, or sympathy, or misery avoids dealing with the pertinent legal questions. The pertinent legal question here is this: do semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection? Antigun proponents use the argument from pity incessantly to sidestep this legal issue—the real issue—because they do not wish to hit the issue head-on. Appealing to sympathy or pity, or misery, or anger operates as a convenient substitute for cogent and sound legal and logical reasoning. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has, at least twice, decided not to take up the issue whether semiautomatic weapons do fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, as appellants in the cases failed to garner four votes necessary to secure high Court review. See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed.2d 483 (2015); and, recently, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. Md., 2016), cert. denied, 2017 LEXIS 7002. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both these cases.The legal and logical weaknesses of the antigun proponent’s position, apropos of semiautomatic weapons, would be all too apparent were they to try to evince an argument. The public is hit with emotional rhetoric and pious sentiments, instead. Such emotional outrage has clout, even as it is devoid of substance. Heather Gooze used it to good effect during the Hearing. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was as much a plea for action from the public as it was a plea for action from the Senate. No doubt, that was the reason she was invited to speak before the Committee at this public Hearing.Antigun proponents invariably take the argumentum ad misericordiam out of their sack of tricks whenever a tragedy involving the misuse of firearms occurs. They know that tragic events tug at the heartstrings of anyone who has a modicum of compassion in his or her heart, which are the majority of us—and which do not include psychopaths, who have no inkling of and therefore have absolutely no understanding of the concept of compassion. And, these individuals, who lack a modicum of compassion include, as well, common criminals who might understand the concept but simply don’t care since a consideration of compassion during the commission of a crime interferes with their personal selfish ends.Appealing to sympathy as an argument to dispossess millions of law-abiding firearms owners of their firearms operates as a useful makeweight, a convenient scapegoat, for antigun proponents, allowing antigun proponents to avoid factoring in the complex legal, logical, historical, cultural, and ethical ramifications of taking firearms away from millions of sane, rational, honest Americans. Essentially the antigun proponent’s argument, in various forms and permutations, boils down to this:“semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ are weapons of war and have no legitimate use in civilian hands other than to commit murder and to do so on a large scale. And, manufacturers market these weapons to the entire civilian population which includes, then, mentally ill individuals and criminals who should not have them. These weapons have incredible firepower and no legitimate civilian use. Just look at what happens when a poor, deluded person gets hold of this ‘weapon of war.’ Just look at the harm he calls. Anyone who has a heart at all should see that semiautomatic assault weapons will only cause bad things to happen and will cause good people to do bad things. If you don’t want to see an innocent child, a vulnerable woman, a weak old man harmed—and what caring, compassionate human being does—then you will agree with us that there is no place for these ‘weapons of war’ in a civilized society, and you will write or call your Congressman or Senator, asking your Legislator to enact legislation that permanently bans these awful weapons of war, to ban them for the good of society so that no other person will ever suffer the needless tragedy that these weapons of war cause.” Well, if there is a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from civilians, this isn’t it. Apart from appealing solely to one’s emotions, the argument embraces false assumptions, hyperbole, and irrelevant considerations. And, if you think our illustration of the fallacy of argumentum misericordiam amounts itself to a fallacy—the straw man fallacy, as some, who challenge our position, may claim—it does not. The remarks, concerning semiautomatic weapons as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war,’ “weapons that have no legitimate civilian use,” and the notion that firearms manufacturers market these “weapons of war” to criminals and to the mentally ill are not suppositions the Arbalest Quarrel has invented to illustrate an argumentum misericordiam, for the purpose simply to knock down a straw man. No! These remarks are not our invention at all. These remarks, purporting to be arguments against civilian possession of firearms, are utilized constantly, incessantly by antigun proponents. And, more to the point, these remarks, as set forth in our example, comprise, in part, allegations taken from an actual formal legal pleading—namely and specifically the First Amended Complaint of the Soto Plaintiffs, in Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this case and continues to write articles about it. See, for example, our in-depth article, titled, “Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.” We also wish to point out that a detailed account of one’s personal experiences, as related to the reader or listener—those of Heather Gooze, during the Senate Hearing—amount to a series of declarations that have no appreciable epistemic value. In other words, her account of the tragedy in Las Vegas, that occurred during the Harvest Music Festival, is not the sort of thing that one can reasonably challenge, or that need be challenged, or is expected by anyone to be challenged, as false.The Arbalest Quarrel accepts the account of Heather Gooze, as related at the Senate Hearing, as true, and does not quarrel with it. There is no reason to. There is no reason to consider her personal account as false. We say this because the remarks of Heather Gooze have no concrete epistemic value on the salient issue whether semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. Her remarks or declarations of events as she experienced them at the Harvest Music Festival do not serve as a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from the millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens who own and possess them, notwithstanding that the Democratic Party Senators on the Judiciary Committee happen to believe the account of Heather Gooze to be relevant to the issue whether semiautomatic weapons are the sorts of firearms that properly belong in the hands of the average, rational and responsible American citizen. The remarks of Heather Gooze simply attest, at best, to a matter that everyone can agree with: that criminals, psychopaths, Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics—the flotsam and jetsam of society—should not have access to any firearm. One might by the same token argue that the worst elements of society should not have access to anything that can feasibly be used to cause great harm to others and to many individuals at one time. Consider for example: a knife, an automobile or truck, or chainsaw. What we are getting at here is that common criminals, and members of drug cartels and criminal gangs, and psychopaths, and Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics and maniacs and riffraff who pose a danger to others, as these individual do, should be removed from our society. It is not the firearm that should be removed from American society.That common criminals, terrorists, psychotics, or psychopaths may happen to get their hands on a semiautomatic rifle or on any other firearm to harm others does not serve as a sound legal or logical reason for banning semiautomatic weapons en masse from millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, make no mistake, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee do seek to ban and do work feverishly to ban all semiautomatic weapons, just as fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons have been essentially banned from civilian possession, since 1934, with passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein would accomplish this feat through enactment of a very devious bit of legislation, which was referred to during the Senate Hearing.Roughly two months ago, on October 4, 2017, Senator Feinstein introduced the following bill in the U.S. Senate:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act".POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIREARM ACCESSORIES. Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-   in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following:   "(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.   This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."; and   in section 924(a)(2), by striking ", or (o)" and inserting "(o), or (v)". Attorneys David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, sitting on the second panel, and testifying at the Senate Hearing—were acutely aware of this Senate bill. David Kopel pointed out that the language of Feinstein’s bill, the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act," makes very clear that any change at all to any semiautomatic weapon—lightening the trigger pull, for example, or even cleaning a firearm—can effectively serve to increase the rate of fire of the weapon. Thus, any semiautomatic rifle can, were Feinstein’s bill enacted, serve as the basis to ban outright all semiautomatic rifles. When faced with David Kopel’s critical, astute remarks, Senator Feinstein demurred, seemed agitated and, evidently, perplexed, asserting, disingenuously, that the bill was drafted by capable attorneys, suggesting, perhaps, or, then again, perhaps not, that her bill only targets certain types of accessories or components for semiautomatic weapons, such as the “bump-fire device” (“bump stock”) that are specifically mentioned, and not, ipso facto, all semiautomatic weapons. But, that doesn't seem to be the case; and, if that is not the case, then this would suggest that the drafters of Feinstein’s bill either know very little about the operation of semiautomatic rifles or know the operation of semiautomatic weapons all too well. If the former supposition is true, then the bill has unintended consequences: positive consequences for antigun proponents; negative consequences for everyone else. This means that all semiautomatic rifles can and eventually would be banned. This is consistent with the plain meaning of the bill. If the latter supposition is true, then, given the plain meaning of the bill, the bill is a subterfuge. This would mean that those who drafted Feinstein's bill intended, all along, not merely to suggest that only some accessories for semiautomatic rifles would be banned, but that, in fact, all semiautomatic weapons would be banned, as this is what antigun proponents want and have wanted all along and this is what the bill says: no semiautomatic weapons in the hands of American citizens qua civilians. Either way, Senator Feinstein would derive from her bill, if enacted, exactly what she had long sought—a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’—meaning, of course, that all semiautomatic weapons would be banned because all semiautomatic weapons are, ipso facto, ‘assault weapons,’ as Senator Feinstein sees it.Never underestimate the deviousness of antigun proponents and never trust them when they assert that they do not seek to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. These antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and their billionaire benefactors, and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media and in Hollywood, will not rest easy until each and every average American citizen qua civilian—apart from the so-called “elites” in society, like Senator Feinstein, herself—is prohibited, by law, from owning and possessing any kind of firearm._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: A REAFFIRMATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT SHOULD, AS THE TITLE OF THE ACT ASSERTS AND AS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, DO NOTHING MORE NOR LESS THAN RETURN, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT SLIPPING FROM THEM: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

WHAT MISBEGOTTEN CONGRESS AND MANY OVERZEALOUS STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE WROUGHT MUST BE CORRECTED

THREE SCENARIOS THAT REQUIRE CONSTANT VIGILANCE ON THE PART OF AMERICANS:

ONE: SOMETIMES LEGISLATIVE ACTS HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF ONE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OR RESULTING IN AN ABRIDGMENT OF OR AN ATTENUATION OF THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, IF NOT IN AN OUTRIGHT LOSS OF ONE'S RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

TWO: AT OTHER TIMES LEGISLATORS ENACT LAWS THAT, ALTHOUGH DIRECTED TO ACCOMPLISHING ONE GOAL, NOT DESIGNED TO IMPACT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, NONETHELESS, WHEN IMPLEMENTED, HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

AND, THREE: AT TIMES--AS IS MOST OFTEN THE CASE--LEGISLATORS OPERATE WITH ABANDON, DRAFTING AND ENACTING LAWS THAT ARE DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO CURTAILING AMERICANS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

When State Legislatures and Congress propose legislation—legislation that may touch upon fundamental, natural rights codified in the Bill of Rights—there exists a possibility that the proposed legislation will negatively impact the citizen's exercise of a fundamental right, protected by the Bill of Rights. The danger of an abridgment of or attenuation of a citizen’s rights and liberties may occur through accident or through invidious design. Either way, a danger to the rights and liberties of American citizens is ever present in any legislative action. Americans must, therefore, be ever vigilant of that possibility to preclude elected officials and bureaucrats from undermining Americans' rights and liberties.If an abridgement of a citizen’s rights and liberties occurs through accident, as a result of careless drafting of legislation, this tells us that State legislators and U.S. Congressmen must be conscientious in drafting legislation to avoid unintended negative consequences and must be mindful of bureaucratic overreach that operates to curtail a citizen’s rights and liberties—bureaucratic overreach that operates beyond the extreme of legislation--beyond the parameters of seeming enabling legislation that, on the surface, may suggest, in the rules bureaucrats promulgate to effectuate Legislative intent, that bureaucrats have carte blanche to promulgate rules abridging constitutionally protected rights and liberties, when, in fact, they do not have such authorization and when, in fact, it was never Congressional intention or a State Legislature's intention to cede to federal and State bureaucrats such authority to override Constitutionally protected rights and liberties.If, however, State legislation or Congressional legislation directed to accomplishing one objective, has anticipated indirect and negative impact on a fundamental right, what does that tell us? It tells us that legislators are operating deviously—clearly out of normative bounds of duty and decency, machinating behind the back of voters, and in clear violation of their oath of Office. In that event, those legislators who manipulate legislative powers to destroy the Bill of Rights must be called out for their actions and that means impeachment.Most often, though, those individuals drafting federal or State laws do so with clear cold, calculated deliberation, with a categorical objective in mind, one that cannot be mistaken for something else or for something less, namely, the goal of creating law that has, at its salient purpose, impinging fundamental rights and liberties and, in fact, infringing fundamental rights, specifically. Legislation is expressly drafted with that goal in mind. In these circumstances, legislators do not attempt to hide their intentions. In such circumstances, legislators act with cheerful abandon and with a very heavy hand, demonstrating little concern over whether they have overstepped acceptable legal and moral bounds when impinging on or infringing, altogether, a fundamental right—if we presume, from the get-go, that there are such things as acceptable legal and moral boundaries in the matter of curtailing an American’s exercise of his or her fundamental rights and liberties But, to be sure, there exist none! Still a rationale—really an excuse—for such legislation is provided, trumpeted by legislators' willing accomplices in the mainstream media. The American public must not allow such legislators to remain in Office.In the last case presented here, the excuse, posing as a legitimate rationale, that is invariably given, is that federal or State legislation restricting the American citizen's exercise of this or that fundamental right and liberty serves or promotes a compelling State interest. That is the test the United States Supreme Court has devised to ascertain the constitutionality of a State or federal statute when the very core of a natural, fundamental right is impinged on or infringed outright.In practice, courts of competent jurisdiction that share the sentiments of government, as expressed in a State or federal regulation, will often, although, fortunately, not invariably, find the offending regulation constitutionally permissible even if, on logical and legal grounds, it isn’t.Government, whether State or federal, must, nonetheless, articulate its compelling interest to restrict the people’s exercise of a fundamental right when a plaintiff, that has standing to sue, directly challenges the constitutionality of a State or federal statute or local governmental regulation or ordinance.Rarely do we see Congress or State Legislatures enacting legislation impacting natural, fundamental rights that serve to strengthen the right as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Congressman Chris Collins; bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, is one example of legislation the intent of which is to strengthen rather than to weaken a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, when all is said and done, such legislation should be unnecessary anyway; for, a fundamental right—namely any right codified in the Bill of Rights—has no parameters and legislation should never be enacted to create parameters unless, if done so very, very circumspectly. For, example, illegal aliens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, for they are not understood to be "the people" to whom the right of the people to keep and bear arms attaches. So, a law that precludes illegal aliens from possessing firearms is not really establishing a parameter around the Second Amendment anyway, as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment by the framers of our Constitution, did not have illegal aliens in mind. As Congress, has authority, under Article I, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution to enact laws governing naturalization. An illegal alien--for which the term, 'undocumented,' is nothing more than an euphemism and a poor and inexact term to be applied to such a person--is by definition an individual who is not of this Country as he or she is merely in this Country, and should not have been in this Country at all.Parameters are set by legislators in statute or by Courts, when interpreting statute. But, as is clear from the language of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, there are no true parameters. The rights expressed therein are absolute--as applied to citizens of the United States. It is a legal shibboleth, nothing more than a platitude, really, running as a constant thread through all State and federal legislation and through local rules, regulations, codes and ordinances. It is a platitude asserted by jurists and politicians alike—repeated with regularity, wearily and eerily, and as no more than an afterthought—as no more than cliché—a thing that has become a strange jurisprudential adage. It is that State and federal governmental regulations and local governmental rules and regulations, and codes and ordinances, that routinely and negatively impact basic rights might pass constitutional muster anyway since no right is absolute—including, and especially, those rights and liberties, clearly articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, as handed down to us by the framers of our Constitution—the founders of our free Republic. Hence, the rationale, we see, is really nothing more than a paltry excuse, a mirage, a meager attempt to legitimize the undermining of fundamental rights of the People. This has led to a monstrous curtailing of the rights of the people of this Country. It has occurred incrementally, quietly, insidiously, seductively. And, many Americans have, unfortunately, grown accustomed to accepting out of whole cloth the illusion that they really don’t need to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that they don’t really need to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, as that right is codified in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the  U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding that these two rights were deemed sufficiently important to the founders of our Nation that they set them down, expressly, in our Constitution. And now we are beginning to see that the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, too, are under assault. And we, Americans, are led to believe that this is, somehow, in some undefined way, in the natural order of things to see our fundamental rights and liberties curtailed and that we should no longer have any real expectation that we have any fundamental rights or liberties except to the extent that Government deigns to grant such rights and liberties to us, explaining, thereby, the extent to which such rights and liberties are granted, for a time, to this one or that one among us. This is to suggest that fundamental rights and liberties are to be perceived as fads, trivialities, things easily and infinitely malleable, to be kneaded like clay, or sloughed off like old clothes--things to be transformed or deleted, according to the norms of the time—as “new norms” are thrust on us by those who arrogantly, yet erroneously, claim the moral high ground and who claim a tacit right to decide what is best for the rest of us.Another platitude we constantly hear is that we are a Nation that is ruled by laws and not by men. We live under the profound illusion that there exists a natural order existent in this platitude, forgetting or failing even to consider that it is men, after all, that make the laws that govern our actions and that govern our very lives, and that it is men that make the laws that denigrate our Constitutional rights and liberties, claiming, all the while, as they do so, as they forever inform us--artfully, deceitfully--that destruction of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the freedom of speech and destruction of the right of the people peaceably to assemble under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, are necessary--that destruction of these rights and liberties are, indeed, for the common good and that they are for the good of society, for the good of the collective, for the good of the hive. We are seduced into believing or otherwise cajoled into accepting that destructions of our fundamental rights and liberties, destructions set down in federal or State statute, and destructions set down in local rules, and codes, and regulations, and ordinances are yet, somehow, all created and implemented for our own good, for the good of the Nation or for the good of the community, or for the good of the people. We are told that these laws and codes and rules and regulations and ordinances that undercut our sacred rights and liberties are, nonetheless, to be taken as just and moral things. We are to accept these changes, and we are told that we should applaud these changes, as things consistent with the norms and standards of the time and of a "civilized society." We are told to accept the notion that our Bill of Rights is, no more than any man-made law, something mutable, and like all things mutable, contingent, not meant to last. But, that is the myth thrust on us, to make us pliant little lambs.

OUR BILL OF RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE DESTROYED, NOT REALLY, NOT EVER--TRY AS SOME MAY TO DO SO.

What these scoundrels—these makers of “laws” that rule us, suffocate us—don’t tell us is that the laws they create are designed to supersede the Constitution, thereby denigrating the most important Truth of all—the singular, quintessential Truth which tells us that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet, the fact of the matter is that no Statute, Rule, Regulation, Code, or Ordinance stands superior to the U.S. Constitution. No man-made law carries sway over our natural rights and liberties as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. To say that we are a Nation ruled by laws and not by men is, thus, a horrible lie—a monstrous lie because it carries--as many effective lies do--a kernel of truth—namely that we are ruled by laws, but they are all arbitrary laws--laws that come and go, like the light of a firefly at night. But it is the light of the Ten Amendments that comprise our sacred Bill of Rights that shines forever and can never be dimmed or snuffed out. Those Laws--the Ten Amendments that comprise our Bill of Rights--are Sacred Principles, Sacred , Sacrosanct, and Inviolate Truths. These Truths embodied in our Bill of Rights cannot be muted, or undercut, or diluted, or deleted, or destroyed. To attempt to destroy our sacred Ten Amendments is to destroy this Nation and, yet, these Ten Amendments cannot ever truly be destroyed. They can never be destroyed because they live in us. They are intrinsic to our very being as Americans.We are a Nation that, ultimately, is ruled not by men, not by contingent, transient laws of men, and not by the edicts of men, but solely by the American People, as the Nation is in us as we are the embodiment of the Nation. The Nation is: We the People; and the sword and shield of the American People resides not in our laws--those contingent, transient things that come and go with the flow and ebb of time--but solely in the primordial, immutable, natural rights codified in the first Ten Amendments of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, a document seamlessly sewn into the fabric of the United States Constitution.

WHAT, THEN, SHOULD WE, AMERICANS, UNDERSTAND, FROM PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT BILLS, SUCH AS CONGRESSMAN COLLINS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act must be viewed not as extending the right of the People to keep and bear arms—as those who oppose it would undoubtedly assert and thereupon argue that the bill should not be enacted into law--but should simply be understood as a reaffirmation of that fundamental, natural, primordial, preexistent, immutable Right as it exists, unconstrained: Pure, Infinite, all-Powerful, Supreme. As such, the Second Amendment remains, second to none, as the best guarantor of our freedom and our best hedge against tyranny.As a reaffirmation of the import of our sacred Second Amendment, Chris Collins' Second Amendment Guarantee Act can be improved. We explain how to do so, commencing with our next post._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

HILLARY CLINTON: A FLAWED CHARACTER FOR THOSE WHO SEE THE U.S. AS FLAWED

Individuals are unique and that is to be applauded; but unethical and criminal conduct is never unique, and when such conduct occurs, it is to be brought to light and roundly condemned.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” ~ William Penn“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ~ John Adams (Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798)Hillary Clinton is likely a criminal—not merely a misdemeanant, but, rather, the worst sort of criminal—a felon. Her supporters don’t want to acknowledge it. They certainly don’t want to talk about it. But they must accept the truth of it even as they choose to ignore the searing reality behind it; the transparently clear evidence for it.Moreover, even though Hillary Clinton, to date, has not been indicted on felony criminal charges, this does not mean that Hillary Clinton did not commit one or more felonies as Secretary of State. The failure of the F.B.I. to recommend an indictment to the Attorney General and the failure of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to proceed with an indictment regardless of the F.B.I.’s recommendation, does not entail that Hillary Clinton didn’t commit a crime. This point is contrary to the mainstream media’s take on the matter and it is the very point that supporters of Clinton hang their hat on, postulating that, “after all Hillary Clinton is not a criminal precisely because the Department of Justice failed to bring charges against her.” Hogwash! Probable cause dictates a finding that Hillary Clinton committed several felonies, and the lack of indictment does not obviate the truth of that assertion one iota. At times prosecutors will not charge an individual with a crime for a multitude of reasons, notwithstanding that probable cause exists that an individual did in fact commit a crime. Sometimes evidence of a crime is clear and indisputable, but, the evidence may be tainted. If so, that evidence of a crime will not be admissible in a Court of law, rendering the possibility of a conviction unlikely or moot.Perhaps prosecutors go after “bigger fish to fry” and will agree not to charge an individual with a crime if that individual is willing to “turn State’s evidence” and agree to testify against another in return for leniency or freedom from prosecution. Prosecutorial discretion permits prosecutors to charge a person with all the crimes that appear in a police report or just one or a few of them. Or prosecutors can charge a person with a crime less severe or even more severe than what appears in a police arrest report. Sometimes prosecutors will bend to political pressure to bring charges against an individual when, in their best judgment, they would rather not do so.Contrariwise, as we see here, the Justice Department may decide not to bring charges against a person who, by all reasonable accounts—if we are a Nation of laws and a Nation governed by the rule of law and not by men—should have been indicted on multiple felony criminal charges and on multiple counts within any one felony.Perhaps, Hillary Rodham Clinton, like the major banks, is too big to prosecute. Perhaps, as is increasingly evident, Hillary Clinton is protected by shadowy, sinister, wholly evil, extraordinarily wealthy, and extremely powerful interests both here and abroad, who want their “puppet” in the highest Office of the Land. These secretive, powerful interests want a creature in high Office that has done and will continue to do all that they ask of it and that will be able to deliver ever more sizable returns as President of the United States. So, if the F.B.I., and the entirety of the Justice Department, of which the F.B.I. is a critical component, has not been corrupted, it definitely has been compromised. For probable cause of Clinton’s crimes is clear and irrefutable.Substantive and substantial evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information” because substantive and substantial evidence exists that she mishandled, either intentionally or through gross negligence, classified Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State.Substantive and substantial evidence also supports a finding that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is titled, “Statements or Entries Generally,” because substantive evidence exists that she lied to the F.B.I., during the Bureau’s criminal investigation. Substantive and substantial evidence supports a finding, third, that Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 201, titled, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses," because substantive and substantial evidence exists that, while serving as Secretary of State, both she and her husband utilized the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation as an illegal conduit through which wealthy donors— including individuals, foreign governments, NGOs, and multinational corporations—paid the Clintons handsomely for personal favorable treatment at the expense of the American people and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of our Nation’s laws. The offering of bribes to public officials and the taking of bribes by public officials is a serious federal offense.The penalty for conviction on any one of the aforementioned laws includes incarceration in federal prison—incarceration for several years.It is unlikely that a person who is convicted of a felony can obtain employment with the federal Government—whether as a low-level civil servant, or one who holds super-grade under the General Schedule of the U.S. Government service. The F.B.I., for example, will not hire a person who has been convicted of a felony. One can only wonder whether the F.B.I. would seriously consider hiring Hillary Rodham Clinton for any position in the Bureau if she were to seek employment with the Bureau. Would all her sins be forgiven? Not hardly!Of Course, the Director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, had made a recommendation to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, not to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Loretta Lynch, not surprisingly, accepted that recommendation. But, one would be hard-pressed to believe that James Comey would permit Hillary Rodham Clinton to work for the F.B.I. as an agent of the F.B.I. or, for that matter, as a clerk-typist within the F.B.I., based on what he had learned about her—a tidbit, no doubt, of what the public has learned about Clinton’s misconduct—and what he shared with the American public in his unprecedented statement to the American public, on July 5, 2016, the day following and marking our day of independence from tyranny. James Comey made abundantly clear to the American people that Clinton’s mishandling of Government information falls into the category of “extremely careless.”Would James Comey permit the hiring of such a person to handle F.B.I. information? And, if Hillary Clinton was extremely careless in handling classified information coming across her desk as Secretary of State, is it not likely she would be just as careless in her handling of classified federal Government information that comes across her desk as “U.S. President” Hillary Clinton?U.S. President Barack Obama, for his part, doesn’t seem to mind. He obviously doesn’t care whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled Government information in her capacity as Secretary of State, for he was off campaigning with her the very day James Comey delivered his statement to the American people, —a statement clearly damning Clinton even as Comey refused, for some unexplained and inexplicable reason, to recommend indictment, assuming that he, otherwise, wasn't compelled to recommend, to the Attorney General, no indictment on felony charges against Clinton.And, what is one to make of Obama’s assertions against Donald Trump. The President casts aspersions on Donald Trump, whom the F.B.I. has never investigated for federal crimes amounting to serious felonies and whom the F.B.I. never had to investigate for federal crimes amounting to felonies. Yet Obama tells the American people that Hillary Rodham Clinton is admirably suited to run this Country. Obama says this, oddly enough, even as Director Comey certainly must now—especially now—have serious doubts about Clinton’s ability to lead this Country—serious doubts based on the fact that the F.B.I. had a rational basis to undertake its criminal investigation of Clinton for possible violations of federal law in the first place—very serious violations of federal law—violations of specific federal law amounting to felonies. The sound conclusion to be drawn is this: probable cause exists that Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. This is not mere speculation. This is predicated on the findings of the Bureau as illuminated for the American people through the Director’s candid July 5, 2016 statement to the American people.So, whether Director Comey recommended an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton or not, that is beside the point because there is nothing in the Director’s July 5, 2016 statement to the American people that vindicates Clinton. He certainly didn’t say that Clinton did not commit a crime. To the contrary, the Director’s statement makes clear that the F.B.I. believes—contrary to the conclusions drawn by some mainstream media publications that Clinton did not violate Federal law—that she did in fact commit a crime—that the evidence supports a finding that Clinton did in fact commit more than one federal crime and that the evidence supports a finding that she committed federal crimes over an extended period of time—several instances of misconduct of each crime over an extended period of time.James B. Comey, then, did not give Hillary Rodham Clinton "a free pass" or “a clean bill of health,” when he failed to recommend an indictment against her on charges of violating federal law. Indeed, Comey’s arguments for not recommending indictment are so lame, when juxtaposed with the clear, cogent, and comprehensive litany of wrongdoing by Clinton that one comes away suspecting that Comey expects—indeed wants—the public to see through the obvious weaknesses of his arguments in support of not recommending an indictment of Clinton on federal criminal charges.First, Comey says, in his statement to the American public that, "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." That is all well and good, but for the fact that the F.B.I. wouldn't be prosecuting Hillary Clinton; the Criminal Division of the Justice Department would be handling the prosecution of Clinton and it is for the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, not for the F.B.I., to determine whether to proceed with the prosecution. So it is the Criminal Division's call whether or not, ultimately, to prosecute Clinton. There is certainly sufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation of the F.B.I. to the Attorney General. James Comey interjected a matter into his decision to recommend an indictment or not that isn't his to make. As Comey said, in that very same statement to American public, "in our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect." The F.B.I. collected substantive and substantial evidence of crimes. So, if the prosecutors within the Criminal Division of the Justice Department make the decision whether charges are appropriate, why would Comey attempt to preclude the prosecutors in the Justice Department from making that decision to prosecute? Of course, the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, could have indicted Hillary Clinton, regardless of the decision of the F.B.I. She said, though, that she would abide by the recommendation of the F.B.I., which is not what she said originally. The Attorney General is supposed to exercise independent judgment. Did she know what Comey's decision would be prior to Comey's statement to the public? Sure she knew. She must have known, just as Obama must have known, as he was flying off with Hillary Clinton, campaigning with her the very day Comey was delivering his unprecedented statement to the American public on July 5, 2016. The Director said that no one knew beforehand what he would be saying in his statement--that he had not coordinated his remarks with any one in the Justice Department or with any other part of government. That may be true. We can take that at face value. But, then, that is not to say, that Comey didn't inform the President and the Attorney General what his decision would be. They knew. They must have known, for if they didn't know, the Attorney General would not have expressed confidence in asserting that she would abide by the F.B.I. Director's decision, whatever that decision might be, and the U.S. President, for his part, would not have been encouraged to campaign with Hillary Clinton before he knew, with absolute certainty, what Comey's decision would be. For, how would it look for the President and for the Nation for Obama to be seen campaigning with Hillary Clinton on the very day that the F.B.I. Director asserts that he, the Director of the F.B.I., will be recommending indictment of Hillary Clinton on multiple federal felony charges?Second, Comey, asserts, "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." That assertion suggests that the only time a prosecutor will bring a case is when there is specific case precedent for it. That is false. Precedent is always a great thing to have. It makes a conviction virtually certain. But, it is very rare  for a prosecutor to find two cases that have essentially identical facts. Rather, a prosecutor looks to see whether a given set of facts comply with the elements of a crime as set forth in statute. If they do, that is a sufficient basis to seriously consider bringing charges against an individual. But, again, whether the Criminal Division of the Justice Department chooses to prosecute or not, that is a decision for the Criminal Division, together with the Attorney General, to make. That is not a matter for the F.B.I. to decide because, again, the F.B.I. would not be prosecuting the case. The Criminal Division of the Justice Department has responsibility for that.Third, Comey stresses the lack of finding intentional or willful misconduct by Hillary Clinton in the mishandling of classified Government information as a ground for not recommending indictment. That assertion doesn't follow from the litany of damning evidence he presents to the public in his statement. But, be that as it may, the Statute, U.S.C. § 793, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information”  doesn't require that intentional or willful misconduct be present as part of the crime, "gross negligence" is sufficient--a lesser standard. Comey's failure to even mention "gross negligence"--curiously, he does say, in his statement, that, Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified government information, which is essentially the same thing as "gross negligence"--illustrates sloppiness in Comey's remarks against recommending indictment of Clinton on federal criminal charges, and that sloppiness stands in stark and marked contrast to the cogency, the clarity, the precision in his detailing of Clinton's misconduct in that very same statement. One can only suspect that the Director of the F.B.I. intended for the American public--and certainly for attorneys--to see through the charade, to recognize that the F.B.I. has been compromised but that he feels, just the same, the need--perhaps for his own legacy--to let the public know that he had no choice in the matter--that the F.B.I., as with the entirety of the Executive Branch, does not serve the public--that something sinister and profane--even evil--has taken over our Government.Regardless, Comey’s statement to the American people, in its totality, makes very clear what he thinks of Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. The portrait the Director of the F.B.I. has painted of Hillary Clinton, for the American People's purview, is not a flattering one.So, another logical inference to draw from Comey’s July 5, 2016 statement to the American people is that the Director believes Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State is morally reprehensible, and that Clinton is morally unfit to hold any position of responsibility in Government—least of all the position of President of the United States.Yet, Barack Obama continues to sing his praises of Clinton and at one and the same time casts aspersions on Trump. There is to be seen a marked inconsistency between what the public is to gather from Comey’s statement to the American people about Clinton’s conduct and what the President, Barack Obama, would have the American people believe about Clinton. Given that inconsistency, a rational person can and should dismiss, out-of-hand, Obama’s negative statements against Trump, as those statements are facially nonsensical in light of Obama’s support for a person who could not obtain employment with the F.B.I. had Clinton desired to do so because she is likely a criminal and she is certainly a security risk.In fact, Hillary Clinton would have a devil of a time securing a job with any federal agency given, one, the fact of a lengthy, intensive, and comprehensive investigation into her actions as a Cabinet Level Official of the federal Government; two, given the F.B.I.’s damning report against her and; and, three, given the fact that she is a security risk.Of course, Barack Obama has a vested interest in Hillary Clinton, for he is interested in seeing the continuation of his legacy. James Comey, though, has no vested interest in a Clinton candidacy and he certainly has no desire to support a likely criminal for President of the United States.The continuation of Obama’s legacy is something Hillary Clinton intends to promote. That legacy is something Donald Trump has no intention of promoting. None of this seems to trouble Obama, for he continues to sing his praises of Clinton and consistently maintains she is fit to serve as U.S. President. But, then, the American public should not really be surprised; nor should the public put stock in what Barack Obama has to say about Clinton. After all, Obama has, through Executive Order, made it easier for convicted felons to gain employment with the Federal Government.See, for example, the New York Post article, titled, "Obama makes it easier for felons to become government workers." That should tell the American public all it needs to know of the true worth of Obama’s remarks concerning who is and who isn’t capable of serving as President of the United States.But, it isn’t Obama that the American people need long concern themselves with. He has done his damage to this Country. One would think the American people, who voted for him, would have learned from their mistakes. For, one tacit assumption can be drawn from his remarks, as he supports Clinton and attacks Trump.A vote for Clinton is a vote for the extension of the Administrations of both Obama and Bill Clinton. Beyond the obviousness of that assertion, it should trouble any American to elect to the highest Office in the Land, a person who likely would not—indeed, probably could not—be hired at the lowest General Schedule pay Grade of the Federal Government were she to apply for a job with the Federal Government; for, a person who applies for a job with the Federal Government must undergo an F.B.I. investigation.It beggars belief that any federal agency or department would hire a person whom the F.B.I. had investigated for serious violations of federal law, regardless of the outcome of those investigation, notwithstanding Obama’s Executive Order, making it easier for criminals to secure employment in the federal Government. It is by the mere fact that the F.B.I., armed with substantive and substantial evidence of Hillary Clinton’s criminal wrongdoing, and it is by predicate acts that gave the Bureau jurisdiction to investigate Hillary Clinton at all, that Americans should think long and hard before supporting Hillary Clinton for U.S. President.Did the F.B.I. investigate Clinton for any other crimes? Is there a legitimate basis for concluding that Clinton broke any other federal laws? Did Hillary Clinton likely commit the most serious crime that any American citizen can be charged with? That is the topic of discussion in Part 2 of this article and in succeeding articles._________________________________________

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: A QUESTION OF TREASON

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

ALL ELSE MAY BE FORGIVEN: THE CRIME OF TREASON CANNOT! AND THE SIN OF TREACHERY TO GOD AND COUNTRY MUST NOT!THE INFERNO CANTO XXXIICIRCLE NINE: COCYTUS ROUND TWO: ANTENORAThe Treacherous to CountryAt the bottom of the well Dante finds himself on a huge frozen lake. This is COCYTUS, the NINTH CIRCLE, the fourth and last great water of Hell, and here, fixed in the ice, each according to his guilt are punished sinners guilty of TREACHERY AGAINST THOSE TO WHOM THEY WERE BOUND BY SPECIAL TIES.The ice is divided into four concentric rings marked only by the different positions of the damned within the ice. This is Dante’s symbolic equivalent of the final guilt. The treacheries of these souls were denials of love (which is God) and of all human warmth. Only the remorseless dead center of the ice will serve to express their natures. As they denied God’s love, so are they furthest removed from the light and warmth of His Sun. As they denied all human ties, so are they bound only by the unyielding ice. ~Ciardi, John; Alighieri, Dante; MacAllister, Archibald. The Inferno (Signet Classics) Penguin Publishing Group

DOES HILLARY CLINTON’S MISCONDUCT EXTEND TO TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as President of the United States. In fact Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to serve as a federal Government official in any capacity of responsibility. These two straightforward assertions are not suppositions. They are valid and logical inferences drawn from several incontrovertible facts.One, concrete evidence supports a finding Hillary Rodham Clinton had, during her tenure as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position in the Obama Administration, either intentionally or through gross negligence, mishandled classified Government information. Doing so constitutes a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Two, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton had knowingly obstructed justice by lying to federal officers engaged in the legitimate criminal investigation of Clinton’s conduct. This is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Three, concrete evidence supports a finding that Hillary Clinton engaged in an ongoing practice of corruption, having used the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation as a conduit for the selling of favors through the Department of State—a high level component of the Executive Branch of Government—to wealthy, prominent, and powerful individuals, and to multinational corporations, and to non-governmental organizations (“NGO’s”), and to foreign governments, some clearly unfriendly to the U.S. and to U.S., interests in exchange for hard cold cash. Bribery is a serious breach of federal law, amounting to a felony if convicted.Conviction on any one of the above mentioned crimes is sufficient to send a person to federal prison for several years.The mere possibility that a person has engaged in any one or more of the above crimes raises serious doubt about that person’s ability to serve this Country, and about that person’s character, namely and specifically, that person’s honesty, integrity, sincerity, sense of values, and willingness to sacrifice his or her personal needs and desires and wishes to the more sacred needs of duty to Country, duty to our Country’s Constitution and to its system of laws, and duty to our citizenry; and that duty of service does not extend to the citizenry of other Countries, contrary to what the present U.S. President, Barack Obama, says and what Hillary Clinton also ascribes to.But, let us consider whether Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her seeming service to the American people as Secretary of State, transgressed in any other way. Let us consider whether Hillary Clinton committed a crime so serious, so ignoble, and so heinous, that every other crime pales in comparison and significance. Let us consider whether evidence supports a finding that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s wrongful conduct, as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, amounts to a crime directed against the very Sovereignty of this Nation, against this Nation’s Constitution, and against the citizens of the United States.Let us in fact ask this question: apart from likely committing serious felonies during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration that have been detailed, did Hillary Clinton likely commit the most heinous crime of all—a crime so horrific that no one, from either political Party, will talk openly about it; that no one in either political Party will even speculate about? Did Hillary Clinton commit treason against this Nation? Is there a basis, in either the U.S. Constitution or federal Statute, or both, to indict Hillary Clinton on one or multiple counts of treason? And, may we not consider, concomitantly, that, apart from considering whether Hillary Rodham Clinton committed the crime of Treason, under our Constitution and under Federal Law, did she not also break God’s law, and commit the cardinal sin of treachery to Country?Now, to be sure, the Arbalest Quarrel is not the first party to consider the issue of treason in relation to Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Some commentators and some websites have heretofore broached the subject of treason in connection with Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. Indeed, some commentators and some websites have even asserted, categorically, that Hillary Clinton did commit treason. But—and this is an important but—it is one thing to call a person a “traitor,” as rhetorical hyperbole, and this is more often the case than not. It is quite another to apply the term, ‘traitor,’ to a person from a legal standpoint, with all the consequences that such assertion constitutes. And, it is from the legal perspective—and not from the matter-of-fact, colloquial, rhetorical, man-in-the-street standpoint and perspective—that we look at treason here, that we consider the legal grounds, if any, for legitimately, realistically, and appropriately positing a charge of treason on Hillary Rodham Clinton.In undertaking this investigation into the merits of bringing a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton, we must always bear in mind that the worst citizens among us, along with the best, do have and should have, that protection afforded all citizens of the United States, under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says clearly, cogently, succinctly:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." The Sixth Amendment guarantee holds true for me; it holds true for you; and it holds true for Hillary Rodham Clinton. It holds true for all citizens of the United States.The American citizen’s natural right to defend him or herself against a criminal charge levied against that citizen is a right no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as codified in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of an American citizen to speak his or her mind openly and freely, as codified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, uninhibited by and irrespective of the current penchant for “political and social correctness” as thrust on us all because of the personal peculiar sensitivity of a few; and no less to be honored and safeguarded than the natural right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms, as codified under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Also, when looking at the possibility that an American citizen’s conduct amounts to a crime—whether considered relatively minor in scope such as an inoffensive infraction, or one codified in our law that is so horrific that we consider it, as well, a mortal sin—a crime against nature and against God’s strictures—we must consider one’s conduct from the standpoint of federal and State statute and from the standpoint of individual State Constitutions and from the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution.Our criminal codes, whether enacted by State Legislatures or by the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Constitution, and the Constitutions of the various States establish, one, the fact that certain conduct amounts to a punishable offense; two, the specific elements necessary to establish a prima facie case for the existence of a punishable offense; and, three, the penalties for conviction on that offense. In other words, our system of laws pertaining to criminal behavior requires the codification in the U.S. Constitution or the in the Constitutions of the States or in federal or State statute saying that particular behavior is criminal.So, under the U.S. Constitution and under State Constitutions, and under our federal and State system of criminal law, it is not sufficient a particular species of behavior be deemed reprehensible in order to exact a penalty for the commission of it. That is to say, if a person’s conduct isn’t statutorily prohibited, then that person’s conduct does not rise to the level of a crime, upon which a person can be charged and tried in a court of competent jurisdiction, and, if found guilty, assessed a penalty once the prohibited conduct, for which the person has been formally charged and tried, has been finally, and firmly, established and adjudicated.We point this out in exacting detail here for a reason. We do this because the discussion of treason, from a legal and philosophical perspective is not so easy to understand and to fathom as some might think.The subject of treason, seemingly simple to understand in a straightforward colloquial sense, is actually quite opaque, difficult to comprehend and to apply in the legal sense. And, it is the legal sense of “treason” you must come to know, that you must become familiar with, that you must be receptive to and come to appreciate that is important here, even if the subject matter is abstruse.That can’t be helped. Indeed our founders struggled with the very notion and concept of ‘treason’ and we’ll explain why and how in upcoming articles.So, the rhetorical use of the term, ‘treason,’ as applied, by some, to Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State, does nothing to help us to effectively defeat Hillary Clinton on that ground. So saying, doesn’t make it so. Simply calling Hillary Clinton a traitor does not, in the mere assertion, serve to persuade anyone who is predisposed to see Clinton as someone suitable to lead this Country that she isn’t.Rather, to call Clinton a “traitor” in the absence of a good legal ground for so saying simply informs those who support Clinton in her quest for the U.S. Presidency, that those who call Clinton a traitor are wrong-headed. Better then not to use the term, ‘treason,’ or ‘traitor’ in reference to Hillary Clinton at all. For, one simply displays his or her own ineptitude. So, we must be cautious. And, at worst, so saying opens one up to a defamation action. So, we must be circumspect and careful.In the next few articles, The Arbalest Quarrel shall discuss treason, from a legal, historical, and philosophical perspective. If there is a legal basis for charging Hillary Rodham Clinton with the crime of treason, we will present the grounds for doing so. In the articles that follow we will explore the legal basis, if any, for doing just that.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FIRST AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK . . . IN CHICAGO WHERE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TRAMPLED ON!

U.S. Under Attack: Chicago, Trump, Outrage . . . And the Trampling of Our Constitution

The American public must ask and a serious investigation to find answers must ensue: did the disruption in an auditorium in the City of Chicago, at a rally for the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, that occurred Friday evening, March 12, 2016, just happen or did it happen because someone or some group intended for a riot to happen?In other words, was the disruption in Chicago that led to cancellation of a rally for the leading Republican candidate for U.S. President, on the eve of the most important Super Tuesday 2016 primary elections, a happenstance – a mere spontaneous outpouring of anger and rage expressed by certain unhappy segments of the population toward the leading Republican candidate, as the mainstream media is playing this, or was the disruption something more – a staged event in and of itself – carefully orchestrated and choreographed by certain powerful and ruthless interests that are willing to do and, apparently, are capable of doing whatever it takes to destroy the momentum of a popular political candidate for the highest Office in the Land?At the moment the public can only speculate as to the root cause for the disruption. One thing is certain, though. Our Bill of Rights is under attack and has been under incessant assault for many years. Our Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has, for many years, slowly and systematically suffered erosion through Congressional enactments and State action. If the leading Democratic Party contender for the Office of U.S. President gets the nod and ultimately secures the Oval Office, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will likely cease to exist except as a short footnote in the history texts. And, what shall become of other fundamental rights and liberties of the People?The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Since the early years of the twenty-first century, that fundamental right has been quietly and systematically eroded by federal Government intelligence and police apparatuses – all in the name of promoting “safety” for the collective, for the masses, generally. But, one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful reading of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undermine an individual citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – the sacred right to be left alone and the sacred right clearly setting forth that an individual’s personal effects are to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as entailed by and codified under the Fourth Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety; and one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful perusal of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undercut the fundamental right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms – the inviolable right of the individual to take responsibility for one’s personal security, as entailed by and codified in the Second Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety.Yet the federal Government – especially in recent years – incessantly, unashamedly, and unapologetically invades the sanctity of both these natural and fundamental rights – all under the mask, the guise, of ensuring public safety. But, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the United States Constitution, either explicitly or impliedly, that authorizes the federal Government, under any set of actual events or, as we are more likely to see, under any set of contrived circumstances, to denigrate the fundamental, natural rights and liberties of the people – the rights and liberties that are clearly, cogently, and unambiguously set down in the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.And, what of the First Amendment guarantee? The First Amendment as set forth in the Bill of Rights says, in meaningful part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”For many years the American people have been asleep. They have been fed pabulum by the mainstream media as the rug has been pulled out from under them. But, as law-abiding Americans, hard-working citizens, have seen their wages stagnating, their jobs shipped overseas or given over to foreigners here – whether those foreigners are in this Country legally, having secured temporary visas, or are in this Country illegally, having simply walked across unsecured borders – Americans have begun to wake up. The Americans are now placing their support behind candidates who have not been paid off by wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests to do the bidding of their sponsors.All bets are off now. Those powerful, ruthless interests that have been slowly, quietly, insidiously taking over our institutions, rewriting our history, forcing an alien morality and an alien culture down our throats are now aghast that the American public is no longer falling into lockstep behind the newly minted puppets or, in one case, a dusted off old puppet. The American public is no longer listening to the vapid, insipid, soothing, carefully rehearsed melodies that the song writers have composed for their ears, as sung to the public by their string pullers in sweet-sounding three part harmony.There is, in this U.S. Presidential election cycle, one candidate from each major political Party who dares to speak his mind rather than parrot the views of paid sponsors. That fact bothers the ruthless interests that have slowly taken over this Country. It has made them uneasy. It is even making them frantic. These ruthless interests are devising ways – legal, quasi-legal, and even illegal – to silence those candidates they have not been able to buy and whom they can never control.The University administration officials in Chicago must certainly have known that elements would be attending the political rally on Friday who were not interested in hearing what one particular candidate from one particular political Party had to say. They were only interested in creating a disturbance, to silence a voice, and these University officials must take responsibility for the disturbance that did occur and that occurred quite spectacularly on their turf. And, they did, indeed, silence a voice, if but for a moment and only for a moment.In a City that has in place some of the most stringent gun control measures anywhere in the Country – in a City that requires its citizenry to place full stock in the police to protect it – University officials did not take sufficient advantage of police utilization to protect those individuals who sought simply to attend a political rally to hear what one candidate for high political Office has to say. University administration officials should have seen to it that the right of free speech and right of the people to peaceably assemble – rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – was assured. Instead those officials chose to send the First Amendment down the toilet just as the City of Chicago had, years ago, sent the Second Amendment down the toilet.Had there been an adequate police contingent at the auditorium on that Friday night, the police would certainly have been able to vet those individuals who sought attendance at the event, permitting entry only to those who honestly and sincerely wished to hear what one candidate for President of the United States had to say, and turning away those who sought to prevent the candidate from exercising his guaranteed freedom of speech and voicing his beliefs, his views, his policies and in his typical blunt, candid manner. And, in their desire to prevent an American citizen from exercising his right of free speech, those individuals who attended the political rally for the purpose of disrupting it showed their defiance of and contempt for the First Amendment, and, for some of those individuals, their obvious ignorance of the import and purport of the First Amendment.Make no mistake, the American people bore witness to a savage beating that took place the other night in Chicago, a beating abetted by both a complacent University administration and a treacherous news media. But, it wasn’t an individual who was harmed. It was the sanctity of the First Amendment itself that was savagely assaulted Friday night. Yet, that fact was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media either during the disturbance, nor at any time thereafter. Instead the mainstream media, at the behest of those interests that control it, have placed blame squarely and bizarrely on the candidate who was compelled to cancel the event and who was thereby silenced! The First Amendment freedom of speech died that night and without a whisper of its death.The mainstream media – the press – mentions the First Amendment in passing but never takes the First Amendment to heart. The press has lost its focus and direction, its purpose. It sensationalizes rather than enlightens. It seeks merely to sell a product, a commodity, rather than to inform and educate the American public.The mainstream media further denigrates the freedom of speech, guaranteed under the First Amendment, by demanding that the candidate apologize for the disturbance. Really? To whom and for what ought the candidate apologize?The First Amendment provides for and guarantees the right of every American to speak his or her mind, even if the ideas expressed are unpalatable, even repugnant to some individuals. Certainly, the public has a right to hear from a candidate, who seeks the highest Office in the Land, that candidate’s views on those topics and matters impacting all Americans. And each American may choose to hear, or not, what that candidate has to say. But no candidate should be silenced on the ground that some people do not like what the candidate has to say.There are mechanisms for peaceful protest. But, no person is permitted, in our Democracy, under our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, to shut out the voice of another person with whom one happens to take exception. To understand  Americans’ First Amendment guarantees is to appreciate the benefit it serves in a Democratic society and free Republic. For those few among us who do not appreciate the First Amendment, they should view it as the obligatory cost of living in a Democratic society and free Republic; and, if they are not content with that, such individuals ought to leave the Country.Of late we see our institution of higher education – an institution that should welcome diverse expression of thought – becoming decidedly intolerant, inhospitable to any view that is deemed inconsistent with a particular bland norm. That intolerance, that pretentious, impertinent, pious regard for the irrefutability of one’s own set of beliefs and values is now spilling over and into the political arena. Certainly, the American public has the right under the First Amendment to hear, unfiltered and unmediated, the thoughts of those individuals who seek to secure the highest Office of the Land.No candidate for public Office should be ostracized and denigrated simply because some individuals think that person’s views extend beyond the pale. No candidate should ever be silenced. The American public has the right to hear all viewpoints, to hear all sides of a debate. The First Amendment dies when the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, is shattered because some people don’t like the message recited and personally abhor the manner of recitation. Odd it is that the press – our press – that should be the first to recognize and defend the freedom of speech – becomes, instead, the voice of oppression that would gag free speech. Is the press – colloquially and affectionately referred to, in times past, as the “fourth estate” – not now, less an independent and necessary institution of a democratic society and free Republic, and more reminiscent of and, in fact, reduced merely to a tool of government – a tool of oppression that one witnesses in despotic nations?How is it, then, that we see our First Amendment guarantees crumbling before us? The public must understand: the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee does not guard against offending one. It was not designed to do so. It was never designed to do so. An adult should not be so easily offended anyway. And the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the freedom of speech clause has such parameters carefully woven around it, to protect the sensibilities of peculiarly sensitive souls. The American public ought to be made of sterner stuff.The mainstream media, instead of supporting a candidate’s right to speak freely, in accordance with the First Amendment guarantee, has the temerity to denigrate America’s fundamental First Amendment right of free speech. And, what does the mainstream media – the press – suggest a candidate for the highest Office in the land ought acquiesce to? Just this: timidity, banality, sophistry, careful modulation in thought and speech lest this or that sensitive or ignorant soul be offended. Nonsense!The American people are not supposed to think too deeply lest they begin to see what roils beneath the surface; lest they see through the vapidity of the puppet masters’ “talking heads;” lest they come to recognize the cupidity and ruthlessness of the creatures who seek to destroy the sanctity of the individual; lest they become aware that their Constitution is becoming no more than a curious relic of a by-gone age; lest they come to realize the loss of a free Republic, through the loss of the Bill of Rights; and lest they come face-to-face with the very real possibility of annihilation of a once great sovereign Nation State.[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. 

FBI vs. APPLE: Surrender Privacy for Security?

The Fourth Amendment Deserves No Less Respect And Protection From Government Encroachment On A Sacred Right And Liberty Than Does The Second Amendment

The U.S. Constitution Constrains, And Was Meant To Constrain, Power Grabs By The Federal Government

A sovereign nation cannot long prevail among other sovereign nations without a central government. This is axiomatic. The founders of our Republic certainly knew this. But the founders of our Republic also knew that a nation’s central government is invariably at odds with individual liberty. A natural tension exists between government on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the citizenry, on the other. The Constitution the founders drafted for the American people is indicative of and serves, at once, as recognition of the conundrum our founders faced: that a strong central government is incompatible with individual liberty. A strong central government would eventually destroy individual liberty by amassing power unto itself at the expense of individual liberty unless a nation’s constitution places express curbs on such accumulation of power and unless the citizenry of a nation remains ever vigilant that those curbs are stringently adhered to.The founders of our Nation dealt with the conundrum by creating a Constitution that embraces three fail safe devices. The founders hoped and trusted that these three fail safe devices would operate as an effective counterforce against the destructive impulses of government to acquire ever more power for itself and, in so doing, reduce, or end altogether, the exercise of individual rights and liberties. The three fail safe devices are: one, a three branch system of government; two, clear delineation of and demarcation of the powers each branch is permitted, lawfully, to hold and wield; and three, a Bill of Rights. The three branch system of government precludes outright concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial functions in any one person or group of people. Each branch serves to check the power of the other two branches. This is what is meant by the phrase “checks and balances.” The “Separation of Powers” doctrine is also a feature of our three branch system of Government. The “Separation of Powers” means that each branch of our central – federal – Government has its own distinct function with no overlap or, at worst, with very minimal overlap.The delineation of powers each branch wields prohibits both the amassing of additional powers by that branch of Government and the encroachment of one branch of Government on the purview of the other. Each branch of Government has, then, through the exercise of a specific function, a limited set of powers. If the Constitution does not prescribe a specific power for that branch of Government, such power cannot be lawfully exercised by that branch.Lastly, the Bill of Rights secures for the people not only specific enumerated rights and liberties but reserves to the people unenumerated rights as well. The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, the Tenth Amendment provides that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The powers of our central – federal – Government are, then, limited, since the Constitution sets forth the powers each branch of Government may wield, consistent with the primary function of each branch. The powers residing in the States and in the people, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended. Moreover, the rights and liberties of the people are unbounded as they include both specific, especial enumerated rights and liberties and unenumerated rights and liberties. Importantly, the rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights do not stem from the federal Government. They are neither a privilege bestowed by Government onto the people; nor are they a license issued by Government to the people. The rights and liberties are considered by the founders of our Republic to be preexistent in the people. The rights and liberties of the American people are neither created by government nor fashioned by the founders. The Bill of Rights simply codifies natural rights and liberties that are part of humanity that our federal Government – unlike the central governments of most other nations – are required, under our Constitution to respect.Our Bill of Rights is, in essence, a codification of and assertion of the fundamental rights and liberties preexistent in the people. That fact is clear from the context of the U.S. Constitution. Since the federal Government is not the source of those rights and liberties, the federal Government cannot lawfully circumvent those rights and liberties. If the Government were to do so, the Nation, as a free Republic, as our founders intended, would cease to exist. If anything at all remained of our Nation, it would be but ornamental coverings, trappings. The Nation – our Nation – would be merely a dried husk, an empty shell.

OUR FOREFATHERS' FEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  MIGHT ONE DAY ENCROACH UPON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS WELL-FOUNDED

The American people are aware, today, as the founders of our Republic had long ago feared that the Nation’s federal Government’s true and natural impulse – and that of many State Governments, as well, and often at the behest of the federal Government – is to encroach on the rights and liberties of the people. We see this as the federal Government slowly but insistently encroaches on and infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We are seeing State and local governments also encroaching on and infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The infringement of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, is, at once, noticed by the people. For, the American people either have access to firearms or they do not. They either exercise complete control over their firearms or they do not. The right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, as with all rights and liberties, is intangible, but the expression of the right – possession and ownership of the firearm – is not. A firearm is a tangible, physical object. The loss of one’s firearms to government is immediately and emphatically felt by the gun owner.The loss of other rights, however, such as the loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be immediately and emphatically felt because both the right and, in many instances, the expression of that right are both intangible. Yes, the seizure of one’s papers, or smart phone, or personal computer amounts to the capture of physical items. But, the content is what the government is really after and content is intangible. If government can “lift” that content without even obtaining the physical hardware, unlawful invasion of the privacy right in that content is lost. Loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be recognized but it does exist and it is no less critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic than is the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”All of our rights and liberties, as codified in our Bill of Rights, are critical to our survival as a free Republic!

GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is under attack by the federal Government – most noticeably and ominously since enactment of the Patriot Act. Recently, the FBI demanded that Apple Computer, Inc., -- maker of the iPhone -- unlock the encrypted data held in the iPhone of one, Syed Rizwam Farook.You may recall that Farook, an American citizen and Islamic jihadist, together with his wife, a foreign born, non-American Islamic jihadist, went on a murderous rampage, murdering 14 American citizens and injuring another 22 in San Bernardino, California. This occurred late last year. The Government has finally acknowledged that this incident amounts to an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.The FBI has obtained Farook’s iPhone but, the content is encrypted. The FBI has said that, despite several attempts, it has been unable to unlock the phone to obtain access to the content. The FBI has therefore enlisted the aid of Apple to assist the FBI in its efforts but complains that Apple has been uncooperative. In a lawsuit filed against Apple the Government contends, as reported in mainstream newspapers, that Apple refuses to assist the FBI in unlocking the content of the iPhone. The implication is that, through its failure to comply with the FBI’s order, Apple Computer is deliberately preventing the federal Government from performing a basic function on behalf of the American people, as expressed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . provide for the common defence . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Is this simply an instance of a major computer company inappropriately and inexplicably refusing to assist the federal Government in the Government’s efforts to provide for the common defence of the Nation as the mainstream media, on behalf of the FBI, asserts, or is there more to this?The federal Government, through its docile and compliant servant, the mainstream media, has certainly sought to create the impression that Apple Computer’s actions are unlawful and even unpatriotic because Apple is thwarting the Government’s legitimate attempt to fight terrorism on behalf of the American people. But Apple Computer takes strong exception to the charge. In an open letter posted on the internet, Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, sought to exemplify and clarify the issues, saying in principal part:“For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”Tim Cook, on behalf of the Company, claims that the Company has cooperated with the FBI in the past and desires to continue to do so. But, according to Tim Cook, the FBI is demanding of Apple something much more ambitious than the FBI would wish for the American public to know – and something clearly dangerous to preservation of individual rights and liberty. According to Tim Cook, the FBI is ordering Apple not merely to assist it in unlocking the contents of one iPhone – that of the dead Islamic terrorist – but to develop a new operating system that, once designed and installed in all iPhones would allow the FBI to gain access to encrypted data from every iPhone the Company produces. If Tim Cook’s account of the matter is true, then the Government is demanding that Apple create – in common parlance – a backdoor key. This key would enable the federal Government to peruse, at will, the content of every iPhone that Apple manufactures. Encryption, then, can be easily defeated. If encryption can be easily defeated, then the very import of encryption ceases to exist and no iPhone is secure.Millions of people, both in this Country and worldwide, use iPhones for work and business. Apple’s customers rely on Apple to provide them with security that is impenetrable to anyone other than the owner of the phone. Apparently, Apple has been very successful on that score. But, if the FBI is requiring Apple Computer to compromise the security of every iPhone it makes – although superficially claiming interest in obtaining data from only one iPhone – then the FBI’s ambitions are far-reaching and truly ominous. The FBI is treading uncomfortably on the Fourth Amendment.To say the FBI can be trusted to use a backdoor key sparingly, wisely and consistent with our system of laws and with the U.S. Constitution, strains credulity and is naïve in the extreme, especially in light of the FBI’s past mistakes. Moreover, as Apple has pointed out, and as computer engineers from other firms concur, the creation of an iOS that bypasses security invites hacking by criminal gangs and foreign governments.It is difficult enough today for the average person and businessperson to protect his or her computer devices from the myriad viruses, worms, spybots, ransomware, and other assorted malware that daily infect computers. This has become a disturbing fact of life. Customers who spend hard-earned money on a particular smart phone, tablet, PC, and on other computer devices depend on the reputation and integrity of the manufacturer to provide the customer with a reliable device and a secure device. That the FBI would require – as Apple Computer contends – a computer device maker to compromise the integrity of all of its iPhones, not only encroaches on the Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy interest but is also harmful to Apple’s business.The FBI has, apparently, nothing to say, about protection of the public’s Fourth Amendment privacy right, but has much to say about the idea that Apple Computer’s real interest in this matter extends merely to business concerns and maintaining its Market share. The mainstream media, on behalf of the Government, has pressed the FBI’s accusation, in lengthy news reports and commentary, pointedly attacking Apple, arguing that Apple’s reluctance to give the FBI what it wants – a backdoor key – is predicated on shallow business concerns. Even so, protection of free market capitalism is not to be construed as an improper, if unstated, motive of Apple; for our economic system, predicated on free market capitalism, is a bulwark of our free Republic. Moreover, even if – as the FBI asserts, and, as the mainstream media echoes on its behalf, and, as the public may reasonably infer and concede – Apple Computer is more interested in preserving its market share, that it fails to assert, than in protecting, as it overtly states, the iPhone user’s privacy and security – consistent with “the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” – the fact that the Fourth Amendment is implicated at all is enough to warrant the American public’s grave concern in what the FBI demands of Apple. Thus, Apple’s underlying business motive in the case at bar is at most a tangential issue here, designed to divert the public’s attention away from the federal Government’s penultimate goal of creating “the surveillance society” as a conjunct of America’s “Police State.” If, in fact, as Tim Cook says, the FBI is demanding a backdoor key to unlock encrypted content on every apple iPhone, then the federal Government is in the process of undertaking a frontal assault on Americans’ Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” because the sanctity of and security of sensitive personal and business data would be placed in jeopardy if Apple Computer is ultimately compelled to create a backdoor key for the FBI. Apple’s iPhones would be open to continuous unlawful federal government surveillance and to breaches by foreign governments and criminal organizations as well. Of that, there can be no doubt. One’s ability to confidently and securely protect his or her private communications and sensitive data from prying government eyes and from the nefarious actions of criminal organizations would inevitably be severely weakened.Of course, the federal Government has been attempting for some time now to compel all computer companies to provide the government with backdoor keys to enable Government to unlock, as it wishes, encrypted content held in every American’s computer devices.So, we must ask: is the federal Government, disingenuously, insidiously, even arrogantly, using the Farook episode to garner public support for further unlawful Government intrusion into the private lives of Americans, under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation, but contrary to the precept of the Fourth Amendment? If so, this is not something new. The public has seen this before. For the same technique has been used by antigun groups as well when seeking to garner public support for legislation to weaken the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Then, as now, the mainstream media willingly trumpets the call of those forces that seek to upend the Bill of Rights. The antigun groups jump on one horrific incident of gun violence, perpetrated by one or a few lunatics, or criminals, or Islamic jihadists and, through that one, particular incident, coax the public to support measures that further weaken and eventually curtail the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of course curtailment of a fundamental right and basic liberty is presented to the public, not as a loss but as a benefit, namely that, for the good of society – the collective, the masses – an American must surrender his or her firearms. If you do not buy into that – and know sane, rational American should – you should not buy into the argument proffered by the FBI that, for the good of society, you must allow Government to pry into your sensitive private data – into your personal and business life – and trust that the Government will use good judgment and refrain from doing so except when necessary “to provide for the common defence” of the Nation.

NOTHING LESS THAN THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE AT STAKE

Americans should never for one moment doubt that Government will, if the public is not continually astute and vigilant, undermine the rights and liberties of the American people. The federal Government is continually pressing the public to relinquish its rights and liberties for such security the federal Government says it can and will provide Americans in the alternative. Americans have seen before where this has gone and they know where this is headed. Nothing good can come of it.The federal Government wishes to know what Americans are thinking. It wishes to control Americans’ thoughts and will do so by gaining entry to their secrets in derogation of the Fourth Amendment, just as it seeks to control Americans’ speech, in derogation of the First Amendment, and as it intends to control Americans’ access to firearms, in derogation of the Second Amendment. All of this is done under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation. But, the Nation suffers all the same as Government power increases commensurately with a decrease in the rights and liberties of the American people. What is occurring today in America is demonstrative of the founders’ greatest fear: that Government would turn on the people. As the doctrine of the separation of powers collapses, as the parameters of Government exercise of power extends, and as the rights and liberties of the American people continues to erode, the continued existence of our Nation as a free Republic begins to crumble.Congressional Republicans and Democrats who play along with the carefully orchestrated charade and pretense of providing for the common defence of the Nation are not doing Americans a service. They should be protecting Americans rights and liberties. They are not. Instead, they are actively, insidiously, at work destroying those very rights and liberties, in defiance of and contemptuous of the oath of Office they have taken. They are a disgrace to this Nation and to its People.The web blog, Salon, had an interesting point to make about Governmental lust for power, desire for control over the citizenry, and its attack on the Fourth Amendment, when it stated the other day:“Security officials keep the public focus on the limits of surveillance rather than on its excesses; at the very same time, the frequent exposure of new surveillance capacities perversely functions to normalize those excesses. If widespread surveillance is ordinary, it cannot be shocking. Instead, the anomaly becomes whatever surveillance capability lies just beyond law enforcement’s capability or authorization.”If Americans are to place their faith in something of value, that faith should rest first and foremost in the Bill of Rights. Americans’ faith will be ill-spent if that faith is placed solely in institutions of Government; in the empty words of politicians; in the propaganda spouted through the mainstream media on behalf of Government and on behalf of groups bent on destroying the Bill of Rights; in the operations of Government intelligence agencies and federal police forces who claim to provide for the common defence of the Nation, at the expense of the rights and liberties of the American people. Government, after all, does not have a vested interest in preserving Americans’ rights and liberties. It never does. The primary interest of our federal Government – indeed, of all central governments is acquisition of power for itself. If the Bill of Rights is to remain tenable, if it is to exist as something more than a mere but empty expression of the sanctity of the individual, the public must be cognizant of the natural tension that exists between a strong central government and the rights and liberties of the citizenry. If the citizenry willingly accedes to the loss of their rights and liberties, what truly remains of the Nation? Security proffered by Government? But security – real security – of the Nation – for our Nation – truly rests in the rights and liberties of the people as codified and sanctified for the people by the founders of the Nation in our Bill of Rights. CONCLUSIONIf you are harboring any second thoughts about the sanctity of and importance of your Fourth Amendment privacy rights, or about the critical importance of the Bill of Rights to our Nation’s survival as a free Republic, generally, consider where the greater threat to your rights and liberties reside: Islamic terrorists threatening our shores or a central, federal Government that hungrily amasses for itself ever more power, ostensibly for our benefit if we would be ever so kind to allow the Bill of Rights to fall by the wayside?We invite reader comment on this article.[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.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

On December 19, 2015, on Saturday night, the week before Christmas, when vast numbers of Americans are out and about, the Democratic Party held its last “debate” of the year, hosted by ABC News. If you missed it, you weren’t alone. The Democratic Party bigwigs obviously don’t want Americans to see it – hence, the reason for holding it on a weekend night, and the New York Times didn’t even bother to report on it. Take a look at the Sunday, December 20, 2015, print edition of the NY Times; you will find nothing about it.The “debate,” which took place in what appeared to be a small lecture hall at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, was filled with a handful of the Party faithful. Hillary Clinton, grinning, as always, but not smiling, looked as if she would rather be somewhere else. She did her best, as always, to avoid answering pointed questions. Her responses invariably carried the message: if I am elected your President, you can rely on me! Two of the salient issues covered during this debate concerned the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremism, and, one of the Democratic Party’s favorite subject: gun control.So, where does Clinton stand on threats to the Nation posed by Islamic extremists and on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in their own defense? Since Clinton has a lock on the Democratic Party, her responses to last night’s debate, give some clue of what a Clinton Presidency would look like.The ABC news moderator, David Muir, established the setting for the first set of questions, directed to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley. They concerned the San Bernardino incident. As Muir pointed out, that incident, is deemed to be an act of terrorism, as acknowledged by Obama, who had said, dubiously, just before Thanksgiving, that there was no credible intelligence, indicating a plot on America. Muir pointed out that the couple who had committed the act of terrorism on U.S. soil had assembled an arsenal, were not on law enforcement’s radar, were completely undetected by intelligence and yet, for all that, just before Christmas, Obama is again telling the American people that no credible terrorist threat exists against America. That remark is inconsistent with the reality of the fact of an Islamic terrorist attack on our land. Therefore Obama’s remarks are altogether inexplicable.Muir asked Clinton to respond to how confident Americans should be, in spite of, or, perhaps, precisely, because of Obama’s remarks, that there aren’t other such couples in the U.S. who are as yet going undetected, and how Clinton would go about finding them. Clinton responded as she usually does, by evading the question and interjecting empty feel-good pronouncements. She said that her job is to keep America safe and to keep the families of America safe and that she has a plan to go after the Islamic State. That, of course, is all well and good. But, what would she actually do to keep Americans safe in this Country? She said only that she would work with Muslims in this Country who would be “our early warning system” and that she would rely on them to learn what they are doing about dealing with the radicalization of Muslims.Clinton intimated that technology companies must work with government. What she meant by that, as she clarified her remarks, later in the debate, is that technology companies must be willing to give up their encryption keys to government. This of course weakens our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and opens Americans’ computers to hackers both here in this Country and abroad.Martha Raddatz, the second ABC news moderator, pointed out to Clinton that, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, Clinton has emphasized gun control but that in recent ABC poll most Americans now feel that arming themselves, rather than stricter gun laws is the best defense against acts of terrorism. Raddatz pointedly asked Clinton, “are they wrong?” Clinton responded, with her wry smile, that you have to look at the role that terrorism plays at home and abroad, “and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us.” Clinton then went off on a tangent talking about the need to build a coalition at home and abroad to take on the "Islamic State."Raddatz then brought Clinton back to the question at hand, asking Clinton, “can we stick to the question about gun control? Clinton responded: “Guns in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. Arming more people . . . I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Applause from the peanut gallery. “I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations, and, yes, coalitions, within our own Country. The first line of defense against radicalization, according to Clinton, is in the American Muslim community. People we should be welcoming and working with.” Clinton then goes into a diatribe against the Republican Party generally and Donald Trump in particular. Clinton begs the question when she says that the Republicans are sending the wrong message that there is a clash of civilizations. Perhaps, there is just that: a clash of civilizations. Certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic State, there is a clash of civilizations. And, we would do well to consider the problem posed by Islamic State as just that serious. Clinton ends her response, with this: “guns have to be looked at as their own problem, but we also have to look at how we are going to deal with radicalization here in the United States.”Guns, in the minds of both Clinton and Obama are seen as a broader problem that encapsulates terrorism. Thus, Clinton speaks of the San Bernardino attack on innocent Americans, not as an act of Islamic terrorism but, rather, as a gun issue. The killers are described as “shooters,” not “terrorists.” Thus, Clinton places emphasis on the weapon used in the attack, rather than emphasizing the reason for the attack. She therefore places Americans in danger of further attack by Islamic radicals, for she absolutely refuses to consider that more armed Americans would best forestall such attacks.  And, there you have it. Clinton says, not only that guns serve no purpose as tenable means of self-defense, but that they present their own “problem.” And, as for Islamist radicalization, her answer to lone-wolf acts of terrorism is that Americans should simply rely on the Muslim community, who harbor them, to turn them in to the authorities.What can Americans expect from a Clinton Presidency? Just this: one, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; two, erosion of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists and to spread the gospel of “political correctness;” and, three, destruction of the Second Amendment because ownership and possession of firearms in this Country is to be perceived not as a fundamental right but simply as a problem.We have a question for each of the candidates from either party: “If you were given carte blanc, to rewrite any one or more Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, would you desire to do so? And, if so, how would each of the Amendments, that happen to remain, if any, read? We would especially like to see Clinton’s honest response to that[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.