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.

BRUEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEEDED BUT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART FOUR

As we alluded to, in our earlier articles on Bruen, the High Court’s decision is meant to redirect the actions of those jurisdictions that have misread and misapplied Heller.As one reads the Bruen Majority Opinion, and the Concurring Opinions, it becomes clear that the salient purpose of the Court’s Majority is to redirect those jurisdictions toward a proper understanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as explained in Heller and McDonald. Bruen is intended to instill Courts with an appreciation of the proper standard of review to be used when reviewing Courts are called upon to test the constitutionality of government actions that impact the Second Amendment.Too many jurisdictions have, heretofore, intentionally, and stubbornly, or accidentally and carelessly, failed to heed the dictates of the two seminal Second Amendment holdings that impact all Second Amendment cases—Heller and McDonald. Henceforth, in the 21^st Century, this failure to heed Heller and McDonald is not acceptable. The Bruen decision as propounded is meant to correct serious irregularities in the judicial standard those Courts have heretofore employed— “intermediate scrutiny”/ “interest-balancing”—when reviewing the Constitutionality of Government actions impacting the Second Amendment.But truth to tell, this wasn’t the salient reason the High Court took up the case. And, notwithstanding that the conservative wing of the Court reviewed the case at all, this was not by wish of the liberal wing of the Court. It required the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, and his faithful colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well, if the case were to be reviewed at all. In that regard, Bruen is just like Heller. For Heller to be accepted for review, it required the cooperation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Their votes were necessary if the conservative wing—at the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—were to be able to hold, finally, what had always been plain: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is not connected to one’s service in a militia. The dependent clause provides a rationale for the right—a mechanism to forestall tyranny of Government from taking root—but it is not at all to be considered a limitation on the exercise of the right. That would make no sense, on logical grounds alone, for it would reduce the right to a nullity. But, just as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to get both onboard in Heller, so, similarly, Associate Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice and to Justice Kavanaugh to get them onboard in Bruen. Doing so ultimately made for a debilitated Bruen. And, as we explain in our continuing comprehensive exposition, Bruen is a markedly weak case. Bruen is much less than it could have been and much less than it should have been. That is to say, the entire handgun licensing structure of New York should have been struck down. But it wasn't. The Court could have done this in the New York City “gun transport case” if the Court had decided the case on the merits as both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wanted. That didn’t happen. Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court, didn’t want that to happen. And Justice Kavanaugh acquiesced to the wishes of the Chief Justice in that case. Similarly, in Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court might have struck down the handgun licensing structure of New York that had existed for over one hundred years as it is an affront to the natural law right of armed self-defense. But the liberal wing didn’t want that to happen, and Justice Roberts didn’t want to see that happen either. Yet that was the raison d’être why Bruen came before the Court. If but tacitly, Petitioners, nonetheless, sought to strike down the entirety of the handgun licensing regime in New York, as it is an abomination. It was, in its very design, intended to severely hobble those Americans who reside in New York, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. New York intended to inhibit exercise of those citizens who reside in New York of their God-Given natural law right of armed self-defense.Chief Justice Roberts didn’t want to see the handgun licensing structure of New York struck down, and he cajoled Justice Kavanaugh to join him in preventing a holding in Bruen that would see the Court doing just that: striking down the one hundred-and eleven-year-old Sullivan Act—the progenitor of the entire handgun licensing structure of New York—which has only grown more robust and egregious through time. And the liberal wing of the Court certainly didn’t want to see the handgun licensing regime of New York collapsing. For their goal is to see an end to the Second Amendment. The Sullivan Act is consistent with that goal.Bruen, unlike the New York City gun transport case that preceded it, was decided on the merits, but the ruling of the Court—there really was only one ruling—did not do much for Americans who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms unimpeded by Government. To the contrary, it made matters worse—much worse for present holders of New York City concealed handgun carry licenses. Thus, because Justices Thomas and Alito were prevented from striking at the core of New York’s handgun licensing regime, they spent most of their energies laying out the Heller standard for review. If one stops to think about that, the standard of review that Courts are supposed to apply and are supposed to adhere to was never a major issue in the case, and that it existed at all, was only as tangentially related to the key concern: the unconstitutionality of New York’s entire handgun licensing scheme. In other words, if New York Courts had applied the appropriate standard in reviewing Government actions impacting the Second Amendment, as the Courts should have been doing all along, on their own initiative, then Bruen would never have been necessary. The New York Courts would have themselves struck down the New York handgun licensing regime a long time ago, as blatantly unconstitutional, and Petitioners in the Bruen case, and many other American citizens residing in New York, would have, long ago, been able to exercise their right of armed self-defense without Government interfering with their inalienable right to do so. And that in and of itself would have taken care of the notorious crime wave impacting the City of New York, in particular. That New York Courts have failed to do so and that they, in fact, have embraced the unconstitutionality of New York Government harassment of those citizens who simply wish to exercise their right of armed self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so in Bruen, and that would make sense after methodically going through application of the Heller test. Yet, the High Court stopped short of doing that. The Court left the handgun licensing scheme intact. It is our belief that Associate Justices Thomas and Alito would have liked to have been done with it, for the last time, and would have done away with it, but for reluctance on the part of the Chief Justice himself, and, on the part of Justice Kavanaugh as well, apart from the liberal wing of the High Court.  For far too long, all too many Federal and State Courts have mangled Heller and McDonald, wrongly reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right”—a point Justice Thomas made in his comment to the 2015 Friedman case that the Court failed to grant certiorari on, and that he pointed to again in Bruen. Justice Thomas emphasized that the States cannot reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right.” But many State Governments have done just that. And the State and Federal Courts in those jurisdictions had routinely held such Government actions as Constitutional when they were not.More inclined to adopt Dissenting Justice Breyer’s argument and reasoning and that of other liberal wing Justices in Heller and McDonald, rather than the sound judicial reasoning and rulings of the Majority, the lower Courts were legally bound to follow, those Courts had slowly eroded Heller and McDonald. Through time this resulted in the production of a substantial body of case law that has the invidious and insidious effect of striking down Heller and McDonald majority opinion rulings and reasoning. Thus, the lower federal and state Courts replace Majority Opinion Conservative wing rulings, respectful of the Second Amendment, with liberal wing musings, disrespectful of and abhorrent of the Second Amendment, as is plain from a perusal of liberal wing dissenting opinions—a serious injustice, establishing erroneous precedents across the appellate Court landscape. The United States Supreme Court did have many opportunities for more than a decade to redress the Constitutional irregularities of State and municipal Governments. Plenty of cases came to the High Court requesting review, but the liberal wing of the High Court did not want that. Those Justices that detested the Heller and McDonald holdings would have much preferred the de facto, or even de jure, erasing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And they would have been well on their way to the attainment of that goal if Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland had acquired a seat on the High Court. The liberal wing Justices were and are always of one mind on matters impacting the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t want to strengthen, or reinforce, or extend the rulings of Heller and McDonald as a review of those cases would have done if Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy were onboard with that. At the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have done just that But, without the support of Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Kennedy, that wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy most certainly were not prepared to do anything that might strengthen or extend the Heller and McDonald case rulings. It tells a person much about the jurisprudential makeup of the Chief Justice and about Justice Kennedy.So, Heller and McDonald languished. And, the death of Justice Scalia, and Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to seats on the High Court, wouldn’t change the equation. The excruciating painful disembowelment of the two seminal Second Amendment cases was inexorable and inevitable. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were powerless to do anything about it unless they had the votes to prevent this. But, without Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy—and thereafter, Roberts and Kavanaugh—on their side, they didn’t have the votes. This meant that many Americans, in the interim, were systematically denied the right guaranteed to them in the Second Amendment.That all changed with the Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who, it is safe to say, supports a robust Second Amendment, consistent with the framers’ intent. With Barrett onboard, Roberts and Kavanaugh would have to lend their support to the Conservative wing, or they would be found out for the imposters they were and are. But they could not be caught operating as devoted companions of the liberal wing of the Court who seek to make mincemeat of the Bill of Rights. That would never do, especially for the Chief Justice to be in the minority on any decision, and certainly not on one impacting a fundamental right of the American people. Now that the Court did at least somewhat strengthen Heller and McDonald, with the Bruen decision, has this rectified the situation for Americans? Have States begun their slow reassessment of the Second Amendment? Have they begun to treat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a “first-class right” and not a “second-class right”? Perhaps so. Time will tell. Some jurisdictions in fact appear inclined to do so. But, in New York—from where Bruen sprung—not so. Definitely not so! And we will explore why that is in the next several articles on Bruen._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR HOCHUL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE BRUEN DECISION — “IT’S LIKE DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN,” IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF YOGI BERRA

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART TWO

“I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.” ~ Closing paragraph of Part One of Justice Alito’s Concurring Opinion in BruenThere are two key components of Bruen. One involves the test that Federal, and State Courts must employ when they are called upon to review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second involves the matter of “proper cause”/ “may issue” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and that was the central topic of concern at oral argument in Bruen. And Bruen impacts other jurisdictions around the Country that have similar handgun licensing structures. As we all know, the High Court in Bruen struck down the foundation of the New York's concealed handgun carry license regime—the salient constituent of which is the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license component. Few people in New York "are privileged" to hold such valued and rare licenses, as those that have them can rely on handguns for self-defense in the public sphere, i.e., outside the home as well as inside it—a right denied to most all New York residents.First things first. We deal with the test that reviewing Courts must use when reviewing Governmental actions impacting 2A. The U.S. Supreme Court did articulate in Heller the test to be utilized by the Federal and State Courts when reviewing Governmental actions impacting the Second Amendment, but all too many Courts demonstrated a barely disguised antipathy toward it, or otherwise exhibited a tired apathy apropos of it. In either case such jurisdictions resorted to their own case precedent.The appropriate test to be employed—the Heller test—involves a two-step process.The first step is easy or should be easy if a reviewing Court doesn’t make what is a simple matter difficult.A reviewing Court first ascertains whether the Governmental action conflicts with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. This means simply that the Court looks to see if the Governmental action affects the Second Amendment at all. If the Governmental action impacts on the individual right to keep and bear arms, then, the first part of the test is met. The Government action is presumed unconstitutional and the burden to prove that the action is constitutional rests on the Government, not on the individual asserting the right to be exercised—the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Thus, in the second part of the test, the Government must prove that the action is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm’s regulation. If the Government fails to establish historical precedent, then the regulation must be struck down.Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said this:“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”Pay close attention to the phrase, “we reiterate” as utilized by Justice Thomas in the main Majority Opinion and as also utilized by Justice Alito in his Concurring Opinion. In colloquial parlance, the word, ‘reiterate’ means ‘to say something again or several times, typically for emphasis or clarity, and often alluding to a feeling of weariness for having to do so.’ Such is the reason for the term’s appearance in Bruen and such is the profound frustration apparent in the Majority Opinion. By using the word, ‘reiterate,’ in Bruen, the High Court expressed its disdain with the lower Courts for continually failing to heed Heller. This may be due to antipathy, even spite toward the Heller decision. Or it may be due to ignorance, apathy or sloppiness, or philosophical leanings, or stubborn adherence to lower Court precedence. That it happens at all is a dreadful thing—thus the need for Bruen—and, still, we see the Federal Government and State Governments and State and Federal Courts contending with Heller and with McDonald, and intending now to contend with Bruen, as well. How many cases must the U.S. Supreme Court hear before Government gets the message: that the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is a natural law right: fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute?Heller laid out the test and the Majority Opinion stated that fact explicitly. —The point being that the High Court wasn’t positing a new standard of review of Second Amendment cases in Bruen, but it was merely confirming the test as promulgated in Heller that all too many lower Courts had heretofore failed to apply. And in that failure, the lower Courts were jeopardizing the sanctity of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.Justice Thomas, writing for the Court Majority, was telling those lower Federal and State Courts that had heretofore applied a ‘means-test analysis’ in Second Amendment cases—a test also referred to as an ‘interest-balancing approach’ or ‘interest-balancing inquiry,’ or, in Court vernacular, an ‘intermediate scrutiny test’ in testing the Constitutionality of a Governmental action—that those Courts had gotten it all wrong! Those lower Courts were giving their imprimatur to Governmental actions that all was well and good when nothing was well and good with those actions as they infringed the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The Courts should have struck those actions down. They didn’t. And in affirming the constitutional correctness of unconstitutional acts those Courts compounded their sin against the people and against the Divine Creator. For the Divine Creator had bestowed on man and in man the right of self-defense. And the general sacred right of self-defense subsumes armed self-defense, which is but a species of the Divine Right of personal survival of body, mind, and spirit against those people or Government that would dare to destroy or subjugate body, mind, or spirit to another’s will or to the will of the State over the Self.There are several examples of this failure to heed Heller, but the starkest example is Friedman vs. Highland Park, 784 F. 3d, 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert denied, 577 U.S. 1039 (2015). The Friedman case is particularly noteworthy, especially today, because the Court had the opportunity to deal head-on with the issue whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. Had the Court taken that case up, it would have ruled that “assault weapons” do fall within Second Amendment protection, and that would have saved the American people a lot of aggravation and heartache that is at present heaped on them by a treacherous and obstructionist Biden Administration, a treacherous, obstinate Democrat Party-controlled Congress, an obstreperous, perfidious legacy Press, and a painfully passive, acquiescent, obsequious, worthless Republican Party.Of course, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is a fiction. That’s all it ever was. It isn’t a military term of art, and never was a military term of art; and it isn’t and wasn't ever used in the arms industry as such either.Propagandists devised the term for politicians and a seditious Press for its effect on gullible members of the American public who allow the Government and the Press to do their thinking for them—seducing them through emotive words and images to sacrifice their God-Given Rights for nothing but an illusion of or false hope of security if they would but place their faith in the State to protect them, but from what is never made clear. What is clear is that the State wishes to protect itself from the armed citizenry, as it is the end goal of the State to oppress the citizenry, not provide for the citizenry's succor, much less its salvation. For salvation can only come from the Divine Creator anyway, not from the State—a false god, a fake, cardboard god.Propagandists originally meant to ascribe the expression, 'assault weapon,' to some but not all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. But, of late, especially with the latest Texas school shooting incident—with the Biden Administration, riding a wave of public anxiety and anger over public school shootings—the Administration has chosen to exasperate public anxiety rather than allay it, seeking to ban all semiautomatic weapons or placing them under the purview of the NFA and that means under the heavy hand of the ATF. And this is as we at AQ had predicted long ago.But this would all be a non-issue if the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on “assault weapons” in the years following the Heller decision. The Court certainly had the chance to do so in the Friedman case. And, God knows, Justice Thomas for one wanted to deal with this matter, but obviously could not get support from the liberal wing of the Court or from the Chief Justice, John Roberts, or from Justice Kennedy both of whom had no stomach for establishing clearly and categorically the salient reason for the Second Amendment: which is that Government was created to serve the American people, not the other way around.An armed citizenry signals to Government that the people are Sovereign over Government and over their Nation, and that firearms provide the means by which Government must bow to the will and sovereignty of the people, whether Government reluctantly agrees to do so or not.It is a curious thing that the supporters of tyranny constantly complain about the firepower of modern semiautomatic weaponry, emphasizing in a hysterical way that such weapons are designed for the military—the standing army of the Federal Government. To be sure, that weaponry of the American citizen is supposed to be military weaponry, designed for just such a cataclysm: to prevent an unrestrained Government and its standing army, and its militarized police, and its vast intelligence apparatus that seeks to bend the citizenry to its will. The right of the people, and the duty of the people, and the ability of the people to resist Government oppression and subjugation is only feasible where the citizenry is armed, and armed to the hilt, and armed with military weapons. In fact, it is not just the semiautomatic weapons that Americans have a fundamental right to possess then; it is the selective fire weapons and fully automatic personnel weapons that Americans have a God-Given right to wield. Of course, a tyrannical Government would attempt to prevent the citizenry from having access to just that sort of weaponry by which the people might succeed in resisting tyranny. The NFA should be repealed; no question about that. Instead, the Harris-Biden Administration wants to extend its purview over semiautomatic weaponry and, of course, eventually over all weapons. A dire confrontation between the citizenry and the Government is inevitable if the Executive and Legislative Branches do not soon come to their senses and acknowledge that those that serve in those Branches of Government owe their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution as written, and to the American people they have a duty to serve. It is not the American people that must bow down or defer to these Government servants, much less deify them. It is they, the smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous servants of Government that need to be put in their place, and that place may well be the chopping block.______________________________________

THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” TEST CASE: WILL NEW YORK REVERT TO “INTEREST-BALANCING” AFTER BRUEN TO SAFEGUARD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME?

PART THREE

As explained by the Seventh Circuit in Friedman, “The City of Highland Park has an ordinance (§136.005 of the City Code) that prohibits possession of assault weapons or large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” See AQ article published May 1, 2018, for further explication of Government failure to recognize the Constitutionality of civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons, derogatorily and erroneously referred to as “assault weapons.” The High Court in Heller ordered Courts not to utilize interest-balancing when reviewing the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment. That was explicit. The Seventh Circuit used that test anyway and found the ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment. That was hardly surprising. Whenever a reviewing Court uses interest-balancing to test the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment, the Court invariably finds an unconstitutional act to not violate the Constitution. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court dispensed with interest-balancing. When a Court uses that test, it gives the illusion that the Court is truly balancing the interests between the State action and the individual right. But the individual right always loses to the State action. That is inevitable. To add insult to injury, the Seventh Circuit was using the very test that Justice Breyer championed in Heller, and which he referred to again, in Bruen. But Breyer was writing a dissenting opinion in Heller, and he stuck with it in Bruen. A dissenting opinion isn't the Court's holding. But many jurisdictions wanted the dissenting opinion to operate as a holding in Second Amendment cases. And so, they pretend the dissenting opinion in Heller was the majority ruling opinion. It is incredible. Such rulings of lower Courts utilizing a test that the majority in Heller did not countenance and explicitly and emphatically refuted, would rely on that test, interest-balancing, anyway.In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit decided to go with the dissent’s reasoning rather than with the law as propounded by the Majority in Heller. Justice Thomas was justifiably furious. And he took the Seventh Circuit to task, and, by extension, tacitly chastised those members of the High Court who did not want to hear the case. Given its importance to the reasoning and ruling in Bruen we cite at length the comment of Justice Thomas in the Friedman case which the High Court refused to grant hearing on. Justice Thomas said, in substantial and pertinent part—with the late, eminent Justice Scalia joining him, “Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. . . .The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states,  which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits.  The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’  Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’  Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. . . .’ There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right [citations omitted; passim].”

THE HELLER TEST

Justice Thomas spent considerable time in Bruen outlining the Heller test so that there would be no doubt as to the standard of review lower Federal and State Courts must employ when a Government action impinges upon the Second Amendment. He said:“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. . . .”“In Heller, we began with a ‘textual analysis’ focused on the ‘normal and ordinary’ meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’—‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation that does not depend on service in the militia. From there, we assessed whether our initial conclusion was ‘confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. . . .’ We looked to history because ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.’ The Amendment ‘was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found ‘no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.’ We then canvassed the historical record and found yet further confirmation. That history included the ‘analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment’ and ‘how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century,” . . . . When the principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources was illegitimate ‘post enactment legislative history’. . . . We clarified that ‘examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification’ was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. . . .’”This boils down to the following:First, look at the plain meaning of the Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The militia clause sets forth simply a rationale for it—to inhibit the incursion of Tyranny in Government—which therefore emphasizes the need for the American people—as individuals—to keep Tyranny in check through the best means available: force of arms. In fact, this is the only way to keep Tyranny in check. And we see this now. Tyranny now exists in Government. Sadly, there’s no question about it.It is more than mere wish that drives Anti-Second Amendment usurpers to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms. It is abject fear, even panic, which motivates them to openly defy the transparent and categorical meaning of the Second Amendment.Among many Americans who had placed their faith in Government but who hadn't succumbed to Government's new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—upon which the Destroyers of our Nation, and of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people insidiously cloaked their aims to dismantle the Republic so that they may thrust the remains into the “NWO” a.k.a. “Neoliberal World Order” a.k.a. “International World Order,” a.k.a. the “Open Society,”—the truth is becoming known. Even the most obtuse of American sees that the Federal Government and that the Soros-funded State and local Governments are moving this Nation perilously close to destruction and oblivion. And it is much too late for these ruthless creatures that seek the demise of a free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people over Nation and Government to disguise that fact.The Bruen decision establishes the stakes for the American people. It is a zero-sum game. There is no compromise. There can be no compromise with a Tyrant. Americans have a fundamental God-Given unalienable right of armed self-defense against predatory beast, predatory man-beast, and predatory Government, i.e., tyranny. Heller and McDonald made this Truth plain. The Federal Government and many States refused to listen. So, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the right of armed self-defense. Will the Federal Government and the States listen? Judging by what we see from the actions of New York, the State Government intends to do war with Americans. Far from complying with Bruen, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany have no intention of complying with Bruen, any more than New York did with Heller and McDonald. In fact, Bruen makes gun ownership in New York worse, much worse, especially for those that wish to secure an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.The New York Government has told the U.S. Supreme Court plainly "to go to Hell," and they mean the same for those citizens who reside in New York who wish to exercise their God-Given right of armed self-defense. The danger to the security of a free State is currently very much in doubt. That is why we are spending considerable time on Bruen and will continue to do so in the next several installments, leading up to the critical Midterm Elections in November._________________________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

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. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. . . . There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS’ RELENTLESS ASSAULT ON LONG-GUNS

PART FOUR

MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH THE ACTIVE ASSISTANCE OF ANTIGUN AND OTHER RADICAL GROUPS PURSUE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENHANCING SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS TARGET SEMIAUTOMATIC LONG-GUNS FOR ELIMINATION THROUGH SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN: THE PROXIES FOR ANTIGUN GROUPS.

Make no mistake: the relentless assault on semiautomatic long-guns that antigun activists call “assault weapons” is itself an assault on civilian ownership of all semiautomatic weapons, not merely some of them. This relentless assault on so-called “assault weapons” is an attack on the natural and sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.American citizens should not believe for a moment that antigun activists and their cohorts in State legislators and in Congress, and those who echo their sentiments in Hollywood and in the mainstream media, and the billionaire benefactors behind the scenes who fund the effort to destroy our sacred rights and liberties do not—all of them— seek to end civilian gun ownership in this Country. They say they merely support “common-sense” gun laws and “sensible” constraints on gun ownership. But their principal goal is confiscation and eventual elimination of all firearms in the hands of civilians.Through enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934, civilian access to selective-fire and fully automatic firearms has been effectively eliminated. Since that time antigun activists have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to ban semiautomatic guns defined as ‘assault weapons.’ But, the distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic long guns construed as ‘assault weapons,’ that antigun activists and legislators feel American civilians should not be permitted to own and possess, is fuzzy. Each State has its own legal standards.Against the backdrop of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, many jurisdictions are enacting or are attempting to enact increasingly more onerous firearms laws. The distinction between semiautomatic weapons defined as banned ‘assault weapons’ and those that aren’t is becoming increasingly tenuous. Antigun activists and antigun legislators strive to cast ever more semiautomatic handguns and long guns into the ‘assault weapon’ banned category.

ANTIGUN ACTIVISTS SEEK TO END CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP OF ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES, NOT MERELY SOME OF THEM.

In a recent March 2, 2018 article, titled, “With AR-15s, Mass Shooter Attack with the Killing Power of Many U.S. Troops,” posted in the National Section of the paper edition of The New York Times newspaper, and published digitally, on February 28, 2018, under the title, "With AR-15-s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops," Times’ reporters wrote a lengthy article on semiautomatic long guns that was uncharacteristically discerning. In hundreds of earlier articles, NY Times reporters, Op-Ed columnists and NY Times contributors--and those writing for other mainstream newspapers--carelessly, and clumsily, refer to the semiautomatic long gun, modeled on the original Armalite AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, as an ‘assault weapon.’ The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ was invented by antigun proponents as a political device to pursue a gun confiscation agenda, attacking an entire category of firearms in common use among the law-abiding American citizens that comprise the civilian population. But the expression, 'assault weapon,' isn't a technically accurate one; and it is not to be confused with the expression, ‘assault rifle,’ which is a technically precise military term of art.Often, in the same newspaper articles, writers will use ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ interchangeably, likely not knowing the difference, and not caring if they did know as the distinction isn’t crucial to the running narrative, which is that both categories of firearms are, as antigun proponents perceive them, "weapons of war"--which is another political phrase, and one also tinged with emotion. "Weapons of war," so the narrative goes, have no place in “civilized” Countries.But, the March 2, NY Times article is decidedly different from previous antigun articles. The reporters here appear intent on demonstrating that semiautomatic long guns, modeled on the progenitor, Armalite AR-15, presently marketed to the civilian population, truly are military weapons and, so, must be banned. In that article, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ doesn’t even appear.The article is presented as a seeming technical exposition on “AR-15” rifles. The Times reporters, who wrote the article, compare the civilian “AR-15” rifle to various military models. They assert:“The main functional difference between the military’s M16 and M4 rifles and a civilian AR-15 is the ‘burst’ mode on the many military models. . . . But in actual American combat these technical differences are less significant than they seem. For decades the American military has trained its conventional troops to fire their M4s and M16s in the semiautomatic mode—one bullet per trigger pull—instead of on ‘burst’ or automatic in almost all shooting situations. The weapons are more accurate this way and thus more lethal.” Consider these remarks for a moment. The NY Times reporters are using quasi technical exposition here in an attempt to make the case that no appreciable difference exists between “AR-15” rifles and their military counterparts. The reporters argue, tacitly, that  the politically charged expression, ‘assault weapon,’ and the military expression, ‘assault rifle,’ do accurately refer to the same kind of rifle, after all. But, do they? The NY Times reporters remark that many troops are issued military rifles without selective-fire capability at all. They do this in an obvious attempt to dispel the criticism constantly and accurately leveled against mainstream news reporters which is that some semiautomatic rifles marketed to the civilian population may exhibit superficial, cosmetic similarities to military rifles, but these rifles are functionally different from military rifles. Yet, in the recent NY Times article, the reporters categorically state that AR-15 semiautomatic rifles are functionally equivalent to military M4 and M16 assault rifles. But are they? The reporters assert:“The NRA and other pro-gun groups highlight the fully automatic feature in military M4s and M16s. But the American military, after a long experience with fully automatic M16s reaching back to Vietnam, decided by the 1980s to issue M16s and later M4s to most conventional troops without the fully automatic function,* and to train them to fire in a more controlled fashion. What all this means is that the Parkland gunman, in practical terms, had the same rifle firepower as an American grunt using a standard infantry rifle in the standard way.”It is abundantly clear that the Times’ reporters—clearly speaking for antigun proponents generally—are targeting all semiautomatic weapons for elimination, not merely some of them. They attempt to get across the idea that since any semiautomatic weapon is capable of rapid, controlled fire, all semiautomatic weapons represent a threat to public safety and must be eliminated—long guns and handguns.

THE STATE OF THE LAW ON SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES MODELED ON THE ORIGINAL ARMALITE (“AR-15”) SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE

The federal ban on “AR-15” rifles expired in 1994 when the 10-year sunset provision kicked in. But many States have enacted their own laws, banning these rifles. Two cases on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment went up to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. One of them, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930 (4th Cir. 2017), en banc, cert. den., 138 S. Ct. 469, 199 L. Ed. 2d 374, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 7002, 86 U.S.L.W. 3264, was denied a hearing and review by the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment. An earlier case involving the issue, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015), cert. den., 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, was denied but over a vigorous dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, with the late Justice Antonin Scalia joining Thomas in the dissent.Justice Thomas stated in pertinent part:“The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767-768, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-915; Heller, supra, at 628-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 679-680.The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’ Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’ Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.’ Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing."The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. . . . There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."Despite the opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, antigun proponents, including those occupying the lower appellate and district courts, evidently don’t give a damn either for high Court precedent or for our sacred, natural right, codified in the Second Amendment.And, this brings us to critical Second Amendment Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932, which the Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about and will continue to do so. See, e.g., the AQ article, Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.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.The Soto Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant, Bushmaster (Remington), manufacturer of the weapon, specifically, a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle, which, as alleged, the killer, Adam Lanza, used to commit the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School—along with the firearms’ distributor and dealer who served as the intermediaries through which the weapons were sold to the killer’s mother, and ultimately fell into the hands of the killer, Adam Lanza—bears legal, not merely moral, responsibility for the deaths of children and adults that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and that, this is due to the fact of Defendant Bushmaster’s marketing of its AR-15 rifle to the entirety of the civilian population in this Country, and the manner in which the Defendant manufacturer, Bushmaster marketed its AR-15 model semiautomatic rifle to the entirety of the civilian population in this Country.The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (the ‘PLCAA’), Pub. L. No. 109-92, 119 Stat. 2095. 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-03 (2005). The PLCAA provides immunity to firearms manufacturers and dealers from any lawsuit, pending or otherwise, fitting the Act's definition of a ‘qualified civil liability action.’ 15 U.S.C. §§ 7902-03, and the trial Court found for the Defendants’ on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, and the State high Court agreed to hear the case.Soon, the State Supreme Court of Connecticut will decide whether to affirm the trial Court’s decision dismissing Plaintiffs suit or remand the Soto case to the Superior Court of Connecticut. The State Supreme Court should affirm the trial Court and not remand the case. In fact, the State Supreme Court shouldn’t have agreed to hear the case in the first place since the PLCAA makes clear that plaintiffs in the Sandy Hook Elementary School cannot overcome Defendants’ qualified immunity. If, though, the case is remanded to the trial Court and if the trial Court reverses its previous stance, that can have dire consequences for manufacturers of semiautomatic rifles modeled on the Armalite AR-15. We shall wait and see. The Wall Street Journal, in an article, titled, “Key Gun Case Awaits Ruling in Connecticut,” published on March 17, 2018, discussing the Soto case, and posted online under the title, "The Court Case Making Gun Manufacturers Anxious," hints that the Connecticut Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling.The question is whether the Connecticut Supreme Court will be swayed by political considerations in light of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting incident. It shouldn’t, but, as the matter of semiautomatic long guns is now front and center in the public’s psyche due to massive negative coverage by the mainstream media, and, as we know that liberal Courts that have a dim view concerning the Second Amendment, it is anyone’s guess how the Connecticut Supreme Court will proceed. We must wait and see.This much, we do know, despite the opinion of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, antigun proponents, including lower Appellate and District Court antigun judges, don’t give a damn either for high Court precedent or for our sacred, natural right, codified in the Second Amendment. Lest there be any doubt about this, consider the words of the antigun New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, who made the following remark in an NY Times OP-Ed, posted, on February 16, 2018, titled: "To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment."“We need to repeal the Second Amendment because most gun-control legislation is ineffective when most Americans have a guaranteed constitutional right to purchase deadly weaponry in nearly unlimited quantities.” Hey, Bret—Any firearm is potentially deadly. The question is whether the person wielding it is responsible. And, Bret, how much ammunition is too much? Our guess is that for you, Bret, and for other like-minded sanctimonious antigun activists, even one round is too much.____________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel contacted an expert on small arms weaponry. The Times' reporters' assertion is absolutely false. "Assault rifles" marketed to the military have two main configurations. One configuration has a three-way selector for the following three modes: safe, semiauto, and full auto. The second configuration has a four-way selector for four modes: safe, semiauto, full auto, and burst. Consider, if a military configuration were limited to semiauto mode only, there would be no reason for any rifle to have anything other than the "AR-15" designation as semiautomatic rifles issued to military troops would in fact be identical to the semiautomatic rifles presently marketed to the civilian population. It is true that Army troops and Marines are trained to use semiautomatic fire or burst fire in many instances in order to conserve ammunition and for accuracy. But, for extraction and when charging an enemy position head-0n, full auto is tactically necessary: hence, the need for a selector switch on military models, to serve varying combat needs. The NY Times reporters deviously mix pertinent facts with critical omissions, including an out-and-out lie. Deceptive "fake news" reporting is, unfortunately, to be expected from the mainstream Press as the Press promotes an agenda, and we see deceptiveness in abundance in this "news" article. The mainstream Press is in the business of propagandizing, of psychologically conditioning the American public to perceive the world in a false light. The Press is no longer in the business of informing and enlightening the public, if it ever were in the business of presenting factually accurate news accounts._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 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.

JUSTICE THOMAS SPEAKS OUT IN THE VOISINE CASE

UNITED STATES vs. VOISINE

PART 1

This is the first of a three part series article.Anyone who keeps abreast of the U. S. Supreme Court knows that Justice Clarence Thomas broke a ten-year silence when he posed questions to counsel during oral argument on February 29, 2016 in the case United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015). The other seven Justices retained an austere demeanor. But they must surely have been surprised at Justice Thomas’ uncharacteristic lack of reticence. The Press, for its part, was noticeably, and understandably, thunderstruck.One may speculate why Justice Thomas chose to take part in the questioning of counsel in this case, at this time. Not improbably, Justice Thomas did so, in part, out of deep respect for the memory of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia would have had much to say in Voisine as the case touches on two landmark Second Amendment cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.” In the subsequent McDonald case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” Together, the two cases strengthen the Second Amendment more so than any previous holding of the high Court. The two cases constrain local, State and federal governments from whittling away at Americans’ fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in their individual capacity.Justice Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion in Heller, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the Opinion for the Majority in McDonald, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Not surprisingly, the liberal wing of the Court, comprising Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer dissented, and they did so strenuously.Now, contrary to common belief, the U.S. Supreme Court, does not have to accept and, indeed, does not accept every case that happens to come before it. No one can appeal an adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. Indeed, the Supreme Court grants A Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in only a few cases in any given term. And, in the Court’s information sheet, presented to those who seek to have their case heard, the Court says clearly, even bluntly, that “review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion.”Generally, the high Court will agree to hear a case where there is disagreement and conflict among the various federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. This often takes years to develop. Even so, many cases that the high Court does agree to hear often involve arcane legal issues, very narrow in scope, that are difficult for the non-lawyer to grasp, and, so, quite understandably, difficult for anyone but a lawyer to appreciate. The Voisine case may, at first glance, appear to be just such a case. It isn’t.To be sure there is a complex, arcane issue here, but there is also a straight-forward Second Amendment issue as well. The Second Amendment issue would have been given no consideration at all but for Justice Thomas’ interjection. Be thankful that Justice Thomas spoke up during oral argument in the Voisine case. This is not theatrics as presented by the mainstream media. Justice Thomas' questions and remarks were precise, well-honed, to the point and surely took the U.S. Government off guard.In the Opinion to be handed down in the coming months it is unlikely that the Court will not give the Second Amendment issue at least some consideration and will do so precisely because of, one, Justice Thomas’ questions to counsel for Respondent, U.S. Government, two, counsel's responses to the Court, and, three, Justice Thomas' comments. If no other Justice mentions the Second Amendment in the Majority's Opinion, or in a concurring or dissenting Opinion, Justice Thomas most certainly will.Now, a salient issue in Voisine does involve the meaning to be given a word phrase in one particular section of a lengthy federal Statute. Nonetheless, as we heretofore explained, the Voisine case is the first Supreme Court case to be heard by the high Court that does impact the Second Amendment. In fact, Petitioners did timely and properly raise a Second Amendment claim in their Briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. And that claim was preserved; and that issue was ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court when it granted Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. Moreover, while the Second Amendment issue was set forth with particularity as a salient issue in Petitioners’ Brief, the Second Amendment claim was not set forth as an issue in the Government’s own Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners. And the Government, in its Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners, addressed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim only perfunctorily, giving little thought to it, seemingly in deference to and happily therefor to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's treatment of it, for the First Circuit dismissed Petitioners' Second Amendment claim outright.In fact during oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment was only mentioned twice and that occurred toward the end of oral argument when Justice Thomas brought the issue up. Justice Thomas did so, in part, as we said earlier, because Justice Scalia certainly would have done so had he lived. And, Justice Scalia would have done so for a very good reason, quite apart from and notwithstanding the otherwise cursory treatment of the Second Amendment issue by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court. For Voisine is the first case to come before the Supreme Court that implicates the Second Amendment, however obliquely or tangentially, or seemingly cursorily since the high Court decided the McDonald case in 2010, over one-half decade ago.Although the other Justices took great pains to avoid entertaining the Second Amendment issue in Voisine – preferring to address, alone, the meaning attached to a few words in one federal Statute – Justice Thomas would not let the matter rest, much to the satisfaction of Petitioners, who clearly sought to have their Second Amendment issue heard, and much to the chagrin of Respondent, the United States Government, that sought to keep the Second Amendment issue moot.Moreover, by querying Government’s counsel on Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim, Justice Thomas may have been initiating a not so subtle payback to other Justices for a snubbing that both he and Justice Scalia suffered at the hands of those other Justices. For, both Justices Scalia and Thomas were more than a trifle perturbed that the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). The Seventh Circuit in Friedman clearly manifested its contempt for the high Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Justices Scalia and Thomas clearly wanted, and had expected, the high Court to grant certiorari in Friedman and, by failing to do so, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their righteous indignation by drafting a dissenting Opinion in Friedman.Very rarely do Justices explain their reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari in a case. Even more rarely will one find a dissenting opinion written by a Justice, expressing disfavor for the failure of the majority of Justices to grant the writ in a case.Surely, had the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Friedman, Justices Scalia and Thomas would have taken the Seventh Circuit to task for patently ignoring the Heller and McDonald holdings. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses the Friedman case at length in the article, titled, “A Court Of Law That Rejects U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Undermines The Rule Of Law And Undercuts The U.S. Constitution,” posted on December 14, 2015. For our discussion of Friedman and its importance to the Heller and McDonald cases, readers are encouraged to read our article.In spirit Justice Scalia was certainly in attendance during oral argument in Voisine. Since the Supreme Court would not entertain the Friedman case which was a direct and audacious attack by a United States Circuit Court of Appeals on the clear and cogent holdings in Heller and McDonald, Justice Thomas, on behalf of Justice Scalia, clearly intended to raise and, so, did raise Petitioner’s Second Amendment issue in Voisine – a case that the U.S. Supreme Court did decide to entertain.From the get-go it had been clear that no other Justice would weigh in on the Second Amendment implications of Voisine, and take the Government to task. Justice Thomas made certain that Justice Scalia’s disdain for a federal Government that cares not one whit for the sanctity of the Second Amendment would dare not go unchallenged.Americans who understand and can appreciate the importance of our Bill of Rights as the foundation of a free Republic and who can, in particular, understand and appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment as a critical check on the accumulation of power by the Federal Government, and by improvident State governments as well, will do well to ponder the Nation's incredible loss. Justice Scalia, together with Justice Thomas, made adamantly clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to a person’s participation in a militia. The Heller decision rankles several Justices on the Supreme Court and many Globalists, both in this Country and outside it, as well, who are working quietly but incessantly and inexorably in the shadows, intent on undercutting America’s Bill of Rights, generally, and undermining America’s Second Amendment, particularly.We know, without doubt, that President Obama – or her royal Majesty, Queen Hillary Rodham Clinton – seek to nominate to the highest Court of the Land, a person who would chomp at the bit to reverse Heller and McDonald on the ground that, for them, the cases are discordant. They are discordant to these judges and to powerful, ruthless individuals because they happen to strengthen rather than weaken America’s Bill of Rights.In Part 2 of this Article, we will deal in depth, with the legal issues in Voisine and you will come to understand, one, why the high Court, apart from Justice Thomas, does not wish to deal with the impact that a negative decision in Voisine would have on the Second Amendment and, two, how it is that a specific question posed by Justice Thomas to counsel for the U.S. Government elicited from counsel a most remarkable, illuminating, and, in fact, frightening comment. You will come to see why a negative holding in Voisine does have negative implications for our Second Amendment.So it is that the mainstream media would much rather keep the dire implications of Voisine in the shadows. We, on the other hand, intend to bring those implications out, for all to see, into the light of day. In so doing, we trust we will help keep the memory of Justice Scalia alive, and in keeping Justice Scalia’s memory alive, preserve, as well, the holdings in Heller and McDonald that bespeak Justice Scalia’s devotion to the import of the Second Amendment. Ever mindful, then, are we of those who are hell-bent in destroying it.[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.

A COURT OF LAW THAT REJECTS U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW AND UNDERCUTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IN HELLER AND MCDONALD AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BOWS TO THE WILL OF GOVERNMENT IN FRIEDMAN CASE

State governments and local governments that enact or establish antigun laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). State and local governments are not allowed to take the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court lightly; and they are certainly not permitted to ignore the rulings of the High Court in the Heller and McDonald cases out-of-hand. This is not an option. It may therefore come as a shock to some people and an unpleasant surprise to many that State and local governments often do just that. Many State and local governments, not only ignore, but openly defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Worse, some federal and State courts, when called upon in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs -- individuals and groups -- to review plaintiffs' challenges to governmental actions, directly and negatively impacting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, often give legitimacy to unconstitutional laws enacted by State legislatures and to unconstitutional ordinances, rules, and regulations adopted by local governments, rather than striking them down as an unconstitutional restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right. Antigun proponents zealots, unsurprisingly and unremarkably, don’t see -- never see -- a problem with this. Indeed, Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” for one -- the antigun political group that Bloomberg created upon leaving office as Mayor of New York City, after serving as its Mayor for twelve years -- is ecstatic over an April, 2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). Just read the report by the left-wing news commentary site, “AlterNet,” on this. The article, which was posted on December 12, 2015, is titled, “Aggressive Pushback at Evil NRA Is Working; Lives Will Be Saved as a Result.”While the antigun crowd sees reason to applaud any attack on Americans’ Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, even, and especially, those negative decisions, impacting the Second Amendment, handed down by courts of law -- the institution of last resort, called upon to defend Americans' rights and liberties -- an institution that reasonably would be expected to preserve and defend, assiduously, the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans -- no American, regardless of personal sentiment, or ethical view or political persuasion, should be pleased when the Second Amendment is in fact denigrated. No one should be pleased when the Second Amendment is attacked and denigrated because an attack on the sanctity of any one Amendment of our sacred Bill of Rights is, in essence, an attack on the sanctity of all of them. Political rhetoric should not be given equal weight with – much less lord over -- our system of laws, and political rhetoric should not be used as a wedge to divide the public on matters directly impacting our fundamental rights and liberties, guaranteed to all Americans in our Bill of Rights.Steven Rosenfeld, the author of the aforesaid “Alternet” article obviously disagrees. He argues that curtailment of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, politically motivated, is politically warranted, even if not legally warranted, consistent with antigun rhetoric, spawned in the political world. And, Rosenfeld laments that our Second Amendment right is “bogged-down” in the legal world. So it is that Steven Rosenfeld waxes poetic and exclaims, exuberantly, how wonderful it is when the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is denigrated,  and when unconscionable, abhorrent and unconstitutional laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations of States and Cities, that negatively impact our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are allowed to flourish -- with the assistance of and, indeed, blessing of those courts of law that write decisions, giving credence to and that sanctify those State and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and that advance no compelling governmental purpose; and that, in fact, are specifically designed to undermine and defeat Americans’ fundamental rights.Courts that give credence to and that, in effect, sanctify such restrictive and oppressive and unconstitutional "edicts" of government are to be singled out for condemnation. In lieu of rendering decisions that defend and preserve Americans' fundamental rights, such courts of law are to be seen as operating subordinate to, subservient to and merely as an extension of government, rather than as a component of a legitimate, independent institution in its own right, whose singular purpose is as overseer of government and protector of our laws and of our fundamental rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution.  Case in point: the aforesaid Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), decided in April of 2015.In the Friedman case the Plaintiff Appellants, including an individual, Ari Friedman, and a group, the Illinois State Rifle Association, brought suit against Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, in the State of Illinois. Highland Park had passed an ordinance, prohibiting the possession of “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines,” namely ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds. The ordinance defines an ‘assault weapon’ as any semiautomatic gun that can accept a ‘large capacity magazine’ and has at least one of five banned features, including, inter alia, a pistol grip without stock; a folding, telescoping stock; a grip for the non-trigger hand; or a barrel shroud. Moreover, the ordinance prohibits the ownership and possession of some firearms by name, such as AR-15s and AK47s.Plaintiff Appellant Friedman lawfully owned a banned rifle and several large capacity magazines, before the ban took effect. The prohibited firearm and magazines are not "grandfathered in" by the ordinance. In that respect, the Highland Park ordinance goes well beyond the highly restrictive and oppressive New York Safe Act, insofar as and particularly as those residents of New York who lawfully owned and possessed firearms defined as 'assault weapons' prior to the effective date of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, are permitted to retain their weapons so long as they are timely registered in accordance with New York law. In Illinois, though, under the unconscionable City of Highland Park ordinance, Plaintiff Appellant Friedman was forced to surrender his banned weapon and banned ammunition magazines to the government. And had he failed to do so, he would be criminally prosecuted for possessing the very items that were perfectly legal for him to own prior to implementation of the ordinance. Friedman, as a law-abiding citizen dutifully, albeit certainly not happily, surrendered his "assault weapon" in order to avoid certain prosecution, and he wants to own these weapons back.To have any chance of regaining possession of his weapons -- his personal property -- Friedman had no recourse but to file an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the oppressive ordinance and hoping that the federal court would strike down the restrictive gun ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of a fundamental right. Friedman, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, that joined him in the lawsuit, argued that the City of Highland Park ordinance was inconsistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed to all Americans, as an individual right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent, too, with Supreme Court holdings in Heller and McDonald. The District Court, nonetheless, found in favor of the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, and Plaintiffs thereupon appealed the adverse decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Heller, at the outset of its Opinion, acknowledged that “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.” The Seventh Circuit also pointed to the holding of the high Court in the subsequent McDonald case, decided in 2010, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” McDonald essentially took the holding of Heller -- which applies to unconstitutional actions of the federal Government impacting the Second Amendment, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment -- to  unconstitutional actions of State and local governments, impacting the Second Amendment under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Given the clear, cogent, unambiguous, and comprehensive import of these two holdings in Heller and McDonald, the salient issue before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was certainly easy to promulgate and should have been: whether the Highland Park ordinance, that proscribes certain weapons, operates as an unconstitutional constraint on a person’s right to keep and bear arms and, if not, then, whether the ordinance is the least restrictive means available to the City for advancing a compelling governmental purpose. Had the legal issue been set forth in this way, in accordance with the actual holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, utilizing the appropriate standard of review, namely the stringent strict scrutiny standard, to test the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance, the Seventh Circuit Court would have struck down the ordinance as an impermissible constraint on an Americans’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases. For, under the strict scrutiny test there is no logical, coherent reason for the City of Highland Park to adopt an ordinance, negatively impinging upon and infringing a fundamental right that mandates a wholesale ban on an entire category of firearms, firearms that had been, prior to adoption of the ordinance, perfectly legal for law-abiding residents of the City to own and possess -- namely and specifically firearms that the City arbitrarily defines as impermissible “assault weapons" and on ammunition magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds. And, the government proffered no empirically and legally sound reason for the ban. Yet, the Seventh Circuit refused to apply the strict scrutiny test to the Highland Park ordinance even though, the City ordinance, on its face, impinged upon and infringed a fundamental right, and, indeed, the ordinance was specifically designed to do so.*In its decision the Seventh Circuit also dismissed, inexplicably, the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, giving nothing but lip-service to them, through the mere act of reciting the holdings in the Court’s opinion, but failing, utterly, in adhering to them. In fact, not only did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals fail to apply – as it should have done – a strict scrutiny standard of review to an ordinance impacting a fundamental right, the Court really failed to apply any standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. Instead, notwithstanding the clear import and purport of the High Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald and, notwithstanding that the Seventh Court of Appeals had before it, for its review, an ordinance directly, and emphatically, and categorically impacting a fundamental right, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Seventh Circuit upheld the City of Highland Park ordinance. In permitting an unconstitutional local ordinance to stand, rather than striking it down, the Court of Appeals relied not on actual holdings of the high Court in Heller and McDonald, but on dicta in those cases, arguing that, because the high Court did not – according to the Seventh Circuit’s faulty reasoning – define the scope of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the Seventh Circuit was free to read into Heller and McDonald essentially whatever it wanted to.Curiously, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied a “political” rationale to its decision, foregoing, altogether, application of the appropriate legal standard of review, and this becomes evident in the issue that the Court framed for itself and thereupon sought to resolve, namely: “whether the ordinance leaves residents of Highland Park ample means to exercise the ‘inherent right of self-defense’ that the Second Amendment protects.” The legal issue, that the Court framed for itself in this odd way, totally ignores the fact that many of Highland Park residents desire to hold onto an entire category of weapons and magazines that were and are perfectly legal to own and possess under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings in Heller and McDonald, where the U.S. Supreme Court made absolutely clear that government laws and ordinances that ban, wholesale, entire categories of weapons, are patently illegal.By constructing the legal issue in the way that it did, the Seventh Circuit not only took away the freedom of the people to own and possess firearms that they previously had lawful access to but deliberately and defiantly refused to consider the constitutionality of the City ordinance at all in light of the Second Amendment and in light of the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. In the issue that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals devised for itself, the Court insinuated politics into the issue, and in the resolution of the issue that the Seventh Circuit constructed for itself, the Court begged in the question the very answer it sought.The Seventh Circuit surmised that, because the City of Highland Park did not prohibit all weapons, the City could prohibit some of them – including an entire category of weapons that had been perfectly lawful to own and possess prior to adoption of the City ordinance – and that the City could, in fact, prohibit, perfunctorily, without cause, those weapons and weapons' paraphernalia, such as – what the City deemed to be – high capacity ammunition magazines, as it wished. In the issue that the Court devised for itself to resolve, the Seventh Circuit didn't even need to listen to and consider the absurd arguments that the City put forth ostensibly in support of its wholesale gun ban. The Court included the rationale of the City government in its Opinion, to give seeming weight to its decision. But it was all empty "effect," for the Court had ipso facto decided that, so long as the City of Highland Park left its residents with the means to own and possess at least one kind of firearm -- whatever firearm the City deigned to allow its law-abiding citizens to possess -- say an antique Blunderbuss -- virtually all other firearms could lawfully be, and eventually would be, banned. In fact the Court's reasoning leaves the door open for just that result: eventual adoption of yet further gun bans.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's decision is grounded not only on faulty legal reasoning, but on faulty logical  reasoning -- reasoning truly at odds with the principles of sound logic and reasoning that is, at once, at odds with the holding in Heller. The Heller holding entails, by logical implication, that bans on entire categories of weapons are impermissible absent a clear and compelling reason for government to do so and this means that a government is not permitted to ban entire categories of weapons unless the court of review satisfies itself that a particular governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation is the least restrictive means available for advancing a compelling governmental interest.Moreover, The Heller holding that constrains the federal government from enacting laws that constitutionally impinge upon and infringe the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States and local governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in accordance with the holding in McDonald. Thus, neither the federal Government, nor State and local governments, are permitted to infringe the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms absent extremely stringent scrutiny of the laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by a reviewing court of competent jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit failed, utterly, in performing its legal duties. Let's take a closer look at the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Friedman to see more precisely where faults in the Court's legal and logical reasoning rest.The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Friedman is faulty, first, because the holdings of Heller and McDonald make abundantly clear that choice of weapons – those that have been available to Americans in the past – should continue to be available to Americans in the present, and into the future, absent a compelling reason set forth by government, to the satisfaction of the reviewing court, that establishes a lawful need to preclude ownership and possession of those weapons. In that regard, it is not for government to decide which firearms to permit Americans to continue to own and possess and which ones must be surrendered, based on mere personal predilections of government. That the City of Highland Park would do so – that it would dare to do so – amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property and serves at once to denigrate the import and purport of the holdings in Heller and McDonald because the ordinance amounts to a ban on an entire category of firearms and ammunition magazines absent any showing by the City of Highland Park that the City has in fact a compelling reason to do adopt such bans and absent any showing on the part of the City that the language of the ordinance as adopted is the least restrictive means available to the City  to advance a compelling local governmental interest -- which is to say that the compelling governmental interest is so critical that the government is justified in infringing a fundamental right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is the strict scrutiny test.*The Seventh Circuit did not consider strict scrutiny criteria at all when rendering its decision, and it should have done so. It simply allowed the City of Highland Park to assert an ad hoc assortment and array of non-empirical declarations of the usual sort developed by and utilized by antigun proponents to further a personal social and political agenda: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to force our unique Constitution toe the line with those of other Western nations -- nations whose history and culture are markedly different from our own.The Supreme Court, in Heller, made abundantly clear that the District of Columbia could not ban an entire category of firearms. In Heller, the District of Columbia attempted, unlawfully, to ban all handguns from the hands of the District of Columbia populace. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as unconscionably broad and an unconstitutional infringement of the Second amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Similarly, and by logical implication, then, the City of Highland Park could not constitutionally mandate a wholesale ban on so-called “assault weapons” and on magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Certainly the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals could not allow the Highland Park ordinance to stand without first applying strict scrutiny to the City’s infringement of a fundamental right. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard of review, relying on political considerations to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted. The Court  failed to apply the appropriate standard of review – or any recognized legal standard of review, for that matter. This amounts to prejudicial error, subjecting its decision to remand for further consideration, requiring application of the appropriate standard of review. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted.Second, in affirming the decision of the lower, District Court, the Seventh Circuit made the dubious assertion that, “the best way to evaluate the relation between assault weapons, crime, and self-defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions.” But, there is nothing in the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases that are ambiguous, and there is nothing in those decisions that suggest that a court of review can or should consider political matters when rendering a legal decision, impacting a fundamental right. Certainly, the Seventh Circuit did not point to any ambiguities in the Justices’ text, and there is nothing in the Supreme Court holdings that so much as intimate that political considerations are merited when testing the constitutionality of a governmental law, ordinance, rule or regulation. The Seventh Circuit simply made a bald and bold pronouncement.The best way for a court of review – in fact the only lawful way for a court of review – to review a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges on and infringes a fundamental right is for that court of review to demand that the government that enacts or adopts such a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, sets forth, in the first instance and to the complete satisfaction of the reviewing court, the government's legal argument, supporting the government's  contention that a given law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is, in that government's contention is constitutional. The government necessarily has a heavy legal burden to carry for a court of law must assume that any such law, ordinance, rule, or regulation that negatively impacts a fundamental right is unconstitutional. A court of law, reviewing such governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation, negatively impacting an American's fundamental right, has no discretion in the matter. The reviewing court must apply the strict scrutiny standard to test whether the governmental action can stand or be struck down. Moreover, and importantly, judicial deference to the political process is not a legally tenable basis or mechanism through which to test whether a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that is clearly directed to and impacts a fundamental right is permitted to stand. The matter before the court is a purely legal one, and it is one that goes directly to the constitutionality of the law or ordinance. Political concerns are of no moment, or consequence in the reviewing court’s determination.The issue of the constitutionality of a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right is solely and precisely and absolutely a legal issue, not a political one. Deference to political concerns has no place, where, as here, in the Friedman case, an ordinance directly impacts a fundamental right, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in opining that there is one.Furthermore, and it bears repeating, where fundamental rights are at stake, government is under a heavy burden to justify any restriction on an American’s exercise of a fundamental right. That means, once again, that a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation  is presumed, from the get-go, to be unconstitutional, when a court of review begins its analysis of the impact of a law or ordinance on a fundamental right, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that a given law or ordinance is in fact constitutional. If a court of review finds that the government has failed to meet its burden, which is to say, that the court of review finds that the law or ordinance is, prima facie, unconstitutional, then that court of review must strike down the offending statute or ordinance. It has no choice in the matter, regardless of what it may otherwise wish to do. But suppose the court of review finds that the government has met its burden of proof and that the court finds the offending statute or ordinance to be facially constitutional. That doesn’t end the matter under the standard of strict scrutiny. That doesn't mean that the governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is permitted to stand. For, even if the government, in the first instance, is able to carry the heavy burden of proof and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that the law or ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, the matter doesn’t end there. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. The court of review must then decide whether a given law or ordinance that is ostensibly constitutional is, for all that, still, in the government’s adoption of that statute or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, the least restrictive means available to the government by which to advance a compelling governmental purpose. If so and only if the court  of review finds to its satisfaction that an oppressive law or ordinance that impacts a fundamental right is the least restrictive means available to that government to enable it to advance a compelling governmental purpose, can the court of review then and only then allow the oppressive law or ordinance to stand. Otherwise the court must strike down the offending law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation. In that judicial review of a State law or local governmental ordinance, rule, or regulation impacting a fundamental right, no deference is to be given to the political process. When a court of competent jurisdiction is called upon to review the constitutionality of laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations that impact fundamental rights, consideration of political issues, social issues and the political process are wholly inappropriate. Governmental laws and ordinances and rules and regulations impacting fundamental rights are most serious. An analysis of them involves the application of law, not politics, and courts of review are called upon to make a legal assessment  of them. Matters impacting fundamental rights are never to be left to the wishes or to the wants or to the will of government. And, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is absolutely wrong to assert that they can be and, for that matter, ought to be, left to government. And, by failing to apply the legal standard of strict scrutiny to an ordinance that directly impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right, the Seventh Circuit reduced itself to a servile vessel of government, giving deference to government action, where it should never have done so.Third, in its deferential, even obsequious regard for government, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals added that, “the central role of representative democracy is no less part of the Constitution than is the Second Amendment: when there is no definitive constitutional rule, matters are left to the legislative process.” This is patently false. The matter before the Seventh Circuit has nothing to do here with public policy any more than it has to do with the political process. The matter before the Court in the Friedman case has everything to do with the City government’s creation of  and adoption of an ordinance directly and negatively impacting a fundamental right. And, a definitive constitutional rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, does exist, contrary to the Seventh Circuit's assertion that there is none. The Seventh Circuit simply decided to ignore the Supreme Court’s clear and categorical and cogent holding. The Seventh Circuit’s argument in the Friedman case is not a direct and perceptive and critical review of a governmental ordinance, directly impinging upon and infringing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, but an unconscionable digression from its duty to review, critically, the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. The Seventh Circuit altogether ignores its duty, a that duty rests squarely on testing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance in light of the holdings in Heller and McDonald.Fourth, the Seventh Circuit said, “another constitutional principle is relevant: The Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are cherished as elements of liberty, rather than eliminated in search for national uniformity.” Even so, where, as here, the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake, the assertion of such a principle in this instance amounts to nothing more than rhetorical flourish, not sound legal reasoning. The Court’s assertion is not sound and has absolutely no relevance here because, once again, where a fundamental right is at stake, the application of that right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – applies “across the board,” that is to say, nationally – and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases make this point poignant, clear, categorical, and unequivocal. “Local differences” are absolutely beside the point where fundamental rights, as set forth in our Bill of Rights, are at stake.The Seventh Circuit simply and erroneously sets up a peripheral straw man issue and ignores the salient one which goes to the very heart of the import of the Second Amendment: whether the City of Highland Park Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and, were it not so, then, whether that ordinance is, nonetheless, the least restrictive means available to the City of Highland Park for advancing a compelling governmental interest. By failing to consider the impact of the City of Highland Park ordinance on the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Seventh Circuit improperly reduced a serious constitutional issue before it to one of mere public policy, political process, and local political and social concerns. Such analysis by a court of review might be adequate to address some minimal social concern or political matter, but not one that goes to the heart of our rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution, namely and specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.In his lengthy dissent, Judge Manion asserted, in his opening remarks, that “by prohibiting a class of weapons commonly used throughout the country, Highland Park’s ordinance infringes upon the rights of its citizens to keep weapons in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and their property. Both the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” The dissenting Judge also noted that Plaintiff Appellant Friedman did, in fact, lawfully keep in his home, for self-defense, the weapons and ammunition magazines that the ordinance now bans, and that Friedman was compelled to surrender them to the authorities or face a misdemeanor conviction that is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of between $500.00 and $1,000.00. The City of Highland Park ordinance thus forces a law-abiding citizen either to forsake his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms or to become a misdemeanant, end up in jail, pay a fine, and probably never again be able to own or possess any firearm.Once the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, finding for the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, against Plaintiff Appellants, Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Appellants petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan all were in attendance to consider the writ of certiorari. A majority of Justices denied the writ. Justices Thomas and Scalia were so incensed at the refusal to grant the petition for writ that Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, admonished their brethren in a dissent.In his opening remarks, Justice Thomas wrote, “‘[O]ur central holding in’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was ‘that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.’ And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec­ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.” It is abundantly clear that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has failed in its duty to carefully review a governmental ordinance that, on its face, amounts to a deliberate, audacious, callous, caustic, and defiant attack, not only on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but on clear and unambiguous holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald that directly apply to the Friedman case and inform the Court how to review an ordinance that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. By failing to consider the import and purport of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its holding in Friedman improperly and defiantly ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.The Seventh Circuit has capitulated to local government; ignored the directives of the U.S. Supreme Court; failed to apply the appropriate legal standard when testing the constitutionality of a law or ordinance, infringing a fundamental right; reduced a serious constitutional issue to a mere administrative one; saw fit to prostate itself before a mere local government, raising that government to the level of potentate; made itself, wittingly or not, into a subservient ally of antigun groups; and allowed its status as an independent trier of law and fact to play a subordinate role to political forces. In ceding its own, critical judicial role, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated a callous disregard of its duties and joined with government in undermining the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is most unfortunate that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices paid no heed to the remonstrations of Justices Thomas and Scalia. In denying the Friedman Appellants' petition for writ of certiorari, the majority of Justices allowed a clearly unsound and deeply offensive ruling of the Seventh Circuit to stand, unchallenged.The adverse and legally and logically unsound decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman, coupled with the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Appellants' petition for writ sets a bad precedent. Had the Justices, instead, granted the petition and determined to review the decision of the Seventh Circuit, then, thereafter, federal, State, and local governments and, too, federal and State courts would be placed on notice that the holdings of Heller and McDonald are not to be taken lightly. What has transpired in the Friedman case will only embolden antigun groups and their allies in government and in courts friendly to their political objectives to take further steps and ever more daring and outrageous steps to undercut the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Erosion of our remaining rights and liberties, as set forth in our Bill of Rights will, as well, follow suit.Indeed, when one takes the time to pause and consider what has, of late, been occurring in our Nation, one becomes immediately aware that the destruction of our Bill of Rights -- most prominently, our First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, along with our sacred Second Amendment -- is already well underway.____________________________________

*UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION:

Reviewing this post, we must clarify the points made in our analysis of strict scrutiny as a standard of review in Second Amendment cases. In our jurisprudence, where fundamental rights are at stake, such as exercise of one's Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, governments must apply the least restrictive means to accomplish their goals. And, Courts will use strict scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of laws, impacting fundamental rights, when a challenge is made as to the constitutionality of them.The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller did not, though, articulate a specific standard of review a court must use when assessing the constitutionality of a law when a constitutional challenge to a law impacting the Second Amendment is raised, apart from stating that the most liberal standard of judicial review, rational basis as a means test, is altogether inappropriate for means testing. It is not clear that the Highland Park Court used any standard of review but merely and essentially rubber stamped government edit. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied any standard of review, in Friedman vs. Highland Park, then, tacitly, the Court applied "rational basis," the lowest most deferential standard of review. But, The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller pointedly remarked that rational basis was never the correct standard of review in Second Amendment cases and can never be appropriately applied in any Second Amendment case.That the  high Court did not apply a standard of review in Heller though was probably due to the fact that the Court found the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns to be facially, per se, invalid. The law was designed to destroy the core value of the Second Amendment and therefore had to be struck down as a blatant example of a law that was unconstitutional. So, the high Court found it unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny.For those laws, infringing the Second Amendment right that do not, on their face, appear to be invalid, then, arguably, consistent with Heller, heightened scrutiny of such law must be invoked and applied by a court of review.Strict scrutiny, as a means test, is, traditionally, the most durable and most stringent standard of heightened security a court or judicial review can apply, when deciding the constitutionality of a law. Yet, some Courts--those obviously antithetical to the Second Amendment-- have, through the failure of the Heller Court to articulate a definitive standard of review, tended to apply an intermediate scrutiny test or, as in the Friedman vs. Highland Park case, a rational basis, if a standard of review was applied by a Court at all, if only tacitly. Again, rational basis is not an appropriate standard for means testing a law infringing upon the Second Amendment in any circumstance. Curiously, rational basis is used by New York Courts and is used by those Courts with regularity to justify the NY Safe Act and to justify any other restrictive gun law that the New York State Legislature and other governmental bodies in New York implement. Under strict scrutiny or even under intermediate scrutiny, it is unlikely that New York's draconian gun laws would stand. New York Courts know this, and that may explain why they rigidly adhere to application of an incorrect, liberal standard of review at all.[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.