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

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FOUR

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

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

THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS EXPLOITED WEAKNESSES IN THE BRUEN DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS STATE GOVERNMENT “MAY ISSUE” HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL?

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

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

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

MULTISERIES

PART ELEVEN

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

Any State that would denigrate the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a throwback to monarchical tyranny—the very thing the founders of our Republic fought against. New York is one such State of the Union that operates as a throwback to monarchical tyranny.How did this animosity toward the Second Amendment come to pass in New York? Truth to tell, it had been so for a very long time.New York has fought against recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for over one hundred years. And the State is all the worse for it. Even as New York ostensibly extols concern for democracy and claims regard for the oppressed in society, it arguably harbors a scarcely disguised bias against the common man. New York’s Sullivan Act, the progenitor of the present oppressive and repressive Gun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), effective September 2, 2022, has a legacy of iniquity behind it:“An ethnic bias lurked behind this act. There had long been an association in New York of Italians and crime, and, starting in 1903, the police routinely denied Italians permits for the carrying of pistols. In 1905 the state legitimated this bias by outlawing the possession of firearms in any public place by the foreign born (New York State 1905). The police wanted more authority to prevent the carrying of concealed handguns. Even with the existing weak legislation, the police seized 10,567 handguns between 1907 and 1910, or seven a day. The assassination attempt against Mayor William J. Gaynor in 1910 riveted the city's attention and brought renewed calls for the regulation of handguns. . . .A new Democratic member of the state senate from New York City, Timothy D. Sullivan, immediately proposed legislation regulating the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms throughout the state. That ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, one of Tammany Hall's most prominent figures, would promote such legislation seems a sure indication of its popularity. The only hostile testimony came, not surprisingly, from gun manufacturers and sellers. The bill received broad support from the cultural and economic elite of New York, which saw it as a necessary part of the civilizing process. The Senate passed the Sullivan Act by a vote of 37 to 5 and the House by 123 to 7, and Governor John A. Dix signed it into law on May 29, 1911 (Weller 1962). The Sullivan Act reinforced older legislation on weapons other than firearms (slingshots and such) and limitations on the ownership and carrying of firearms by aliens and minors. The Sullivan Act instituted three additions to existing firearms acts: it added pistols to section 1897 of the criminal code, making it a felony to carry concealed weapons; required residents of cities to get a permit to carry concealable firearms—though failure to do so only constituted a misdemeanor; and required those who sold pistols to first examine a permit and to keep a record of the sale recording the purchaser and firearm. In an effort to contain the spread of the ‘$ 5 specials,’ the cost of these permits was fixed at $ 10. The bill also retained the prohibition of firearm possession by aliens (New York State 1911). Based on letters and editorials in the leading newspapers, the public reaction was overwhelmingly positive.” ~“Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview,” 28 Crime & Just. 137 (2001), by Michael A. Bellesiles, Professor of History, Emory University.As if the Sullivan Act, as originally drafted and enacted, wasn’t bad enough, through time it became worse. Just two years after Sullivan was enacted, the Legislature amended it “in 1913 to provide the proper-cause standard for the issuance of public carry licenses throughout New York.” ~“The Constitutional ‘Terra Incognita’ Of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 909 (2015), by Brian Enright, J.D. Candidate, University of Illinois College of Law.Until Bruen came down, ruling that New York’s “proper cause” requirement is unconstitutional, the inclusion of “proper cause” in New York’s gun law precluded issuance of a handgun carry license to a license applicant in the absence of a convincing showing of it. The expression, ‘proper cause,’ is not defined in the Sullivan Act itself. The Judiciary was left to fill in the gap. As explained by the Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel, “The text of the Sullivan Act simply requires that a person have ‘proper cause’ to possess a carry permit. In New York City, lawful self-defense is not a ‘proper cause’ unless a person has a ‘special need’ that is different from the rest of the community, a standard that was first upheld in a 1980 decision, Klenosky vs. N.Y.C. Police Department, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). Aff’d, 421 N.E.2d 503 (N.Y. 1981).” ~“Gun control and the second amendment: developments and controversies in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and Mcdonald v. Chicago: Article: The Great Gun Control War Of The Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today,” 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527 (October 2012), David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. The law remained on the books, uninterrupted, for one hundred and ten years after enactment.New York’s “proper cause” requirement became a “cause célèbre” of Anti-Second Amendment proponents who abhor the notion of civilian citizens carrying firearms in public, as the application of it has effectively precluded the vast majority of people who sought to carry a handgun for self-defense from doing so. The inanity and insanity of New York’s “proper cause” requirement reverberated and rippled up to the present time, culminating in the Bruen case. The New York Government’s arrogant insistence on it provoked the ire of Justice Thomas, et. al.  Yet, New Yorkers who cherish the unalienable, natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms, didn’t wait for a chance to defeat “proper cause” through the Bruen case. They saw an opening after the High Court came out with the McDonald decision in 2010—which followed its sister, the Heller case in 2008.  The insidiousness of the insertion of a “proper-cause” requirement in the Sullivan Act cannot be overstated. For over one hundred and ten years—New York did not recognize a right of armed self-defense outside an interior dwelling—i.e., outside one’s home, or place of business. To this day, the New York Government refuses to acknowledge or recognize a right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, notwithstanding that the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, deleted the “proper cause” requirement in response to the Bruen case decision, effective, shortly, on September 2, 2022.To understand what is transpiring here it is necessary to step back and take a close look at the New York case Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), forKachalsky is critical to understanding the modus operandi of New York Gun Law both Pre-Bruen, since 1912, when “proper cause” was added to the Sullivan Act, and defended in the and Post-Bruen, when the Hochul Government developed a workaround to maintain the import of “proper cause” sans the verbiage. Kachalsky, citing for support the earlier 1980 Kenosky case, referred to supra, dealt directly with the “proper cause” requirement, shooting down any suggestion that the State’s “proper cause” requirement is somehow unconstitutional.

KACHALSKY

In Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Plaintiff Petitioner Kachalsky, a citizen who resides in Westchester County, and several other individuals similarly situated, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Respondent Cacace, the Police Licensing officer for denying Plaintiffs’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. The Plaintiffs specifically challenged the constitutionality of “proper cause,” the vehicle through which the handgun licensing authority denied issuance of an unrestricted handgun carry license to the Plaintiffs.The District Court explained the facts as follows:“In May 2008, Plaintiff Kachalsky applied for a full-carry permit to be able to carry a concealed handgun while in public. In his application, Kachalsky asserted that he believed he satisfied Section 400.00(2)(f)'s ‘proper cause’ requirement because he was a U.S. citizen and therefore entitled to ‘the right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment, [stating] ‘we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others,’ and he was ‘a law-abiding citizen’ who had neither ‘been convicted of a crime’ nor ‘assaulted or threatened to assault another person.’ Upon reviewing Kachalsky's application and completing a corresponding investigation, the Department of Public Safety recommended that the permit be denied. The application, investigation file, and recommendation were forwarded to Defendant Cacace, who, acting as licensing officer, reviewed those materials and issued a decision and order, dated October 8, 2008, denying Kachalsky's application. Cacace observed that Kachalsky failed to state ‘any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public,’ and that ‘based upon all the facts and circumstances of this application, it is my opinion that proper cause does not exist for the issuance of an unrestricted 'full carry' pistol license.’” [references to pleadings redacted]In finding for the Police Licensing Officer, against Plaintiffs, the Court said, “To establish proper cause to obtain a license without any restrictions—the full-carry license that Plaintiffs seek in this case—an applicant must; demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ There is a substantial body of law instructing licensing officials on the application of this standard. Unlike a license for target shooting or hunting, ‘[a] generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property does not constitute ‘proper cause.’”  Good moral character plus a simple desire to carry a weapon is not enough. Nor is living or being employed in a ‘high crime area.’” [citations omitted].The reader should note the District Court in Kachalsky opined that a showing of “good moral character,” while necessary to obtain a carry license in New York, isn’t sufficient to warrant issuance of a carry license. This is a salient point. And AQ will come back to this when we discuss “good moral character” in depth. Suffice it to say, at this time, having struck out “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), the Hochul Government has bolstered the “good moral character,” requirement, essentially refabricating and reframing it to do double-duty, operating like the old “proper cause” requirement to drastically cut the number of individuals who, although under no Federal law disability to own an possess firearms, would still be denied exercise of their fundamental right.Governor Hochul and Albany have altered “good moral character” to make it a challenging obstacle to overcome. The “good moral character” remains as vague as ever, but the Hochul Government has mandated that new applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, and renewals as well, must include information that casts a bright light on one’s personal political, social, and religious beliefs. With this information, the licensing official can ostensibly deduce psychological aspects of one's character as well as his ideological and socio-philosophical leanings. To ask for such information is unconscionable and unconstitutional. An applicant is thus faced with a dilemma, a veritable, proverbial Hobson choice.Most everyone today has some sort of social media account and has commented on websites or has created a website of one’s own. The information conveyed on these sites can likely touch upon personal sensitive financial and medical information. On these websites, one's hopes, wishes, prayers, fears, and reveries may be laid bare. Government and employers, gaining access to this rich body of data, have used it to deny employment, or to fire a person from employment. And the Federal Government is soaking up petabytes of information on individuals. One can only wonder at the amount of data that the NSA is compiling on everyone and everything and storing in its colossal information holding tanks in Bluffdale, Utah. See, e.g., Fox News article and article in The Guardian. Most all records are electronically digitalized and available on the world wide web. If an applicant provides this information to a Government handgun licensing official, such information may become part of a Government public record. This information will certainly become the basis to deny a person a concealed handgun carry license if, for example, the licensing officer happens to disagree with one’s political, social, or religious viewpoints and leanings. And the information will likely be forwarded to police authorities throughout the State and to the Federal authorities as well, including, DOJ, DHS, and the FBI, organizations that have a very dim view of individuals who are deemed “social and political conservatives.” This is not a theoretical concern or “conspiratorial musing.” It is real, as recent events confirm.Especially concerning and disconcerting is that such private information will make its way to the DOJ/FBI and CIA, where an individual can be scrutinized and marked for special treatment. Our Federal Government's Departments, Bureaus, and Agencies are slowly and inexorably taking on the characteristics of horrific secret police and intelligence gathering organizations reminiscent of the Third Reich's Gestapo/Kripo police organizations and of the secretive Sicherheitsdienst-SD (Security Service of the SS); and of the secret police of the interior ministry of the Stalin Government, the NKVD. One is reminded of Senator Chuck Schumer's remark, as reported in The Federalist, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It is an idiotic assertion to be sure, but more so because Schumer comes across as a fawning jackass for the intelligence community; boasting of its power; conveying to the public his admiration of it,  rather than acknowledging that it has gotten out of hand and needs to be controlled. In that regard, isn't Congress supposed to monitor and control the police and intelligence apparatuses of the Nation? After all, Congress created these things. It has ultimate oversight authority over them. Yet, rather than keeping these things on a tight leash, Schumer would allow these creatures to run amok, or worse, admits that Congress can't do a damn thing to control them. And, instead of attempting to do so, he would rather stand stupified, in utter awe of them.And then there is the illustrious Attorney General.The DOJ/FBI, through statements and actions of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has made plain that those Americans who happen to have a “conservative” political and social mindset are construed as exhibiting deviant thought and behavior. So the DOJ/FBI treats such American citizens as “Domestic Terrorists,” or certainly as potential “Domestic Terrorists”—and a “Domestic Terrorist”  or one who is deemed by the “woke police” to have the wrong psychological attributes, i.e., one who doesn't accept the new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and who isn't a proponent of the rules-based neoliberal international order isn't the sort of person that a handgun licensing authority would deign to issue an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license too, anyway. In fact, why should any proper thinking civilized human being want a gun anyway? Aren't those people who cherish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and who desire to exercise that right a throwback to a time long since past and best laid to rest? Wouldn't that be nice, or so the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists would have Americans believe? And, if they can seduce enough Americans, perhaps then, they can dispense with the muddy problem, and one fraught with considerable peril, of attempting to remove hundreds of millions of firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition from over one hundred million Americans. 

THE CATCH-22 OF HANDGUN LICENSING IN NEW YORK

The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government sees guns as troublesome and gun owners as inherently troubled individuals, and New York's Gun Law, as conceived, and implemented conveys that idea. Succinctly stated it is this: “You can have a concealed handgun carry license if you don't want one because you are sane to not want one, and all you have to do to obtain one is to file an application to get one, and then you can carry a handgun. But, then, if you do file an application for a handgun carry license that must mean to us that you do want one, which is apparent through your filing an application to obtain one. But, then, you must be insane and must therefore be denied one because the State cannot abide a person carrying a handgun who is insane.”

_________________

“There Was Only One Catch And That Was Catch-22, Which Specified That A Concern For One's Safety In The Face Of Dangers That Were Real And Immediate Was The Process Of A Rational Mind. Orr Was Crazy And Could Be Grounded. All He Had To Do Was Ask; And As Soon As He Did, He Would No Longer Be Crazy And Would Have To Fly More Missions. Orr Would Be Crazy To Fly More Missions And Sane If He Didn't, But If He Was Sane He Had To Fly Them. If He Flew Them He Was Crazy And Didn't Have To; But If He Didn't Want To He Was Sane And Had To. Yossarian Was Moved Very Deeply By The Absolute Simplicity Of This Clause Of Catch-22 And Let Out A Respectful Whistle.‘That's Some Catch, That Catch-22,’ He Observed.‘It's The Best There Is,’ Doc Daneeka Agreed.” ~From the novel, “Catch 22,” by Joseph Heller, first published in 1961

_________________

Of course, a person ostensibly willingly divulging a wealth of personal information to a police licensing officer, which, under the Governor's newly reconfigured, convoluted, consecrated  “good moral character” requirement, one must do, makes the work of police investigation of compiling dossiers on everyone in New York, substantially less time-consuming and expensive. The applicant does the “dirty work” for the police. He or she is forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with little chance at best, anyway, of receiving the coveted prize: an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license by which one might be able to adequately defend life and limb in the concrete jungle that New York has degenerated to.There is no upside to any of this for the average citizen, and there is certainly no upside in the release of vast stores of personal data, highlighting one's personal thoughts, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies to the State Government.In the end, the applicant is left in a worse situation than before the filing. He or she is denied a concealed handgun carry license, and the State Government has a veritable cornucopia of personal data on a person as there is nothing in the amendments to the Sullivan Act that require a licensing officer to destroy the information obtained after the officer denies the application. The Government holds onto that information, and can, thereafter, use it to keep tabs on the individual and for extrajudicial, nefarious purposes that a person can only guess at. And, if the applicant refuses to divulge such information, what then? The handgun licensing authority will immediately refuse issuance of a concealed handgun carry license on the ground of failure of the applicant to comply with Sullivan Act requirements that the applicant divulge personal social media information and any other data the officer, in his discretion, demands so that the officer can properly assess one's personal, psychological makeup.Hence, the applicant is placed in an impossible situation—the proverbial Hobson Choice—i.e. no tenable choice at all. After September 2, 2022, when the amendments to the Sullivan Act take effect, the Hochul Government will start to use “good moral character” like the “proper cause” requirement before it, a veritable brick wall. The new requirement will operate much like and as well as the old requirement: to deny to the vast majority of individuals seeking a valid unrestricted New York State concealed handgun carry license the ability to lawfully carry a handgun in the State.This is in keeping with New York Government tradition that does not recognize armed self-defense outside the home or place of business, as a fundamental natural law right. Nothing changes. And it is consistent with New York Governor Hochul's Press Release, released on the day the U.S. Supreme Court officially released the Bruen decision. New York would go through the pretense of complying with the High Court's rulings, but, in practice, the amendments to the Sullivan Act are designed to make it difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license, and, in fact, the amendments make it more difficult, not less so, for the average citizen to obtain one. And, for those individuals who presently have a valid New York City or State concealed handgun carry license, the amendments place renewals of existing licenses on an equal footing with first-time applicants. A pro forma exercise for renewal applicants is a thing of the past. The application process for a concealed handgun carry license begins anew for everyone. And that raises another issue: the operational rules, implementing the amendments to the Gun Law have yet to be finalized. In fact, one might ask if the Government bureaucrats have even drafted them yet. That is a big if! So, where does that leave current handgun licensees in the interim, whose licenses for renewal are imminent?The simple fact is this: The New York Government will defeat any attempt by those who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right of armed self-defense outside the home. At the very least, the changes to New York’s Sullivan Act will create as many obstacles as it can get away with to frustrate those applicants who seek to carry a handgun outside the home or place of business. Thus, in New York, the Bruen decision will do little to assuage difficulty in obtaining a concealed handgun carry license.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE STRUCK DOWN NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME

How do Governor Hochul and the Legislature in Albany get away with this? They are able to do so because the main mechanism of defeating the Second Amendment remains unscathed. New York, like several other jurisdictions around the Country is a handgun licensing jurisdiction. The average civilian citizen cannot lawfully possess a handgun anywhere in New York unless one secures a valid license from the appropriate licensing authority in New York. That is the source of the present problem in New York.The High Court did not go far enough. The Court did not strike down, as unconstitutional, the licensing of handguns. Handgun licensing regimes are inherently incompatible with the Second Amendment guarantee. No other fundamental right requires the acquisition of a license before an American may lawfully exercise a natural law right. One doesn't need a license to exercise his right of free speech or to practice religion or to associate with those people or groups one wishes to associate with. It would be bizarre to require a Government issued license before one might lawfully do so. Similarly, to acknowledge a right of the people to keep and bear arms and at one and the same time to recognize the licensing of handguns as a privilege and a condition precedent to the exercise of the basic, unalienable right is inconsistent with the very nature of natural law, God-given rights. These rights exist intrinsically in the person. They are not priviliges bestowed on one by the grace of the State. They are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and eternal. That the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that licensing of handguns or any firearm a condition precedent to exercise of a fundamental natural law right is a major flaw of the Bruen case, as it was a major flaw of Heller and McDonald before it. None of these seminal Second Amendment cases dealt head-on with this. And jurisdictions like New York will continue to use licensing of handguns and other firearms as a difficult obstacle to overcome or, for most people, an impenetrable barrier, preventing one from exercising the basic, natural law right of armed self-defense.  Licensing of handguns, operating as a condition precedent to the exercise of a fundamental, unalienable, natural law right, is legally indefensible. And the practice is irreconcilable with basic principles of elementary logic. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must have been aware of this fatal flaw in the Bruen decision. One must wonder: Did Justices Thomas and Alito concede the constitutionality of handgun licensing to obtain Roberts’ vote and that of Kavanaugh? Was that the price Justices Thomas and Alito had to pay to obtain the acquiescence of Roberts and Kavanaugh? If so, that brings disturbingly to mind the price the three Associate Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—had to pay to get Roberts and Kennedy on board, in the Heller case. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had to openly acknowledge the right of State Governments to continue to impinge upon the core of the Second Amendment. But doing so guaranteed continued Court action as Governments would always find ways to frustrate the citizen’s exercise of armed self-defense, and citizens, for their part, would find it necessary to continue to file lawsuits against unconscionable, unconstitutional Government action—an expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and physically and psychologically tiring, exhausting ordeal. And a favorable outcome for the would-be gun owners can never be assured.Of course, State Governments know all this, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany certainly know this. Letters have already been sent to Government officials around the Country, contesting the “good moral character” requirement. For, these jurisdictions are using “good moral character” as they had heretofore utilized  “proper cause,” as an effective means to deny a person a coveted handgun carry license. And lawsuits are being prepared. And, once again, ever again, Americans face the same frustrations, when it comes to the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Litigation is to be avoided if possible. There is a better way; more effective; substantially less time-consuming; and certainly more cost-effective. In New York, voters have a chance this November to overturn the present oppressive and repressive handgun licensing regime and  their oppressive, unresponsive Government. They can accomplish this by electing, as the new Governor of New York, Lee Zeldin. Unlike the present Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, Lee Zeldin is a true and fervent advocate of one’s right of armed self-defense. And he is also something that Kathy Hochul is not. He is a law and order Candidate for New York Governor. Lee Zeldin would also take definite steps—rather than rely on the same tiresome words and the same lame excuses to rationalize an inability or, worse, a clear lack of will—to come to grips with the intractable, horrific crime problem plaguing and engulfing New York, especially the City of New York.Many New Yorkers understand this. Will political independents and a sufficient number of Democrats take a leap of faith and vote for people who have their best interests at heart this November? Will they forbear from voting for people who say they care about the well-being of New York and of the residents in it, but, through their actions, make clear they do not?Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and Democrat Party Legislators in Albany do not represent the interests of New Yorkers. They represent the interests of a small group of billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” and Neo-Marxist cultists. And the aims of these people are not the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, as becomes more evident with each passing day, its destruction.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

RADICAL LEFTISTS SEEK TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND SILENCE ALL DEBATE

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

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

PART THREE

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

I. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

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

II. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

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

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART ONE

“Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." ~Chuang Tse: XXIII, translated by the American writer, Ursula K. Le Guin; epigraph to Chapter 3 of her 1971 Sci Fi novella, “The Lathe of Heaven”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES WILL CRUSH AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION IF THE NATION CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE  THEY SPOUT, FOR IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE; AND HAVING NO WISDOM TO IMPART, THEY HAVE NOTHING OF NOTE TO SHARE

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

Never in our history, since the birth of the Nation itself, has our Nation faced a direct threat to its survival as it is facing today. This isn’t hyperbole. This is fact. Even in the face of the ravages of the American Civil War, and the calamity of the Second World War, and the threat posed to our Nation by Russia during its existence as the once powerful Soviet Union, during the Cold War era, has this Nation come closer to Armageddon. This fact is plain as day, on constant display, having commenced on the very day the Presidency of Donald Trump began—on noon EST on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.Jealous and powerful elements both here and abroad have mobilized and joined forces to bring Trump down and have failed miserably. They are apoplectic over their consistent failures, and have been raging ever since.Immensely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, abjectly ruthless, sinister, secretive forces, residing both here and abroad, have operated in concert to attack Trump’s Presidency and by extension to attack millions of Americans who voted for him in the General Election of 2016.These rapacious forces are ever devising and orchestrating, machinating and scheming. And they do so through the amalgam of: a duplicitous and compliant Press; treacherous and hypocritical politicians; recalcitrant and poisonous Federal Government bureaucrats; pestilential sympathizers in the entertainment business; virulent and violent and bellicose Radical Left activists; injurious or lackadaisical jurists; a pernicious academia; rapacious technology chieftains; and a host of hangers-on and fellow travelers and Anti-American sympathizers among the polity, have—all of them—failed to bring destruction both to the man and the Nation. They have failed to topple Trump and to destroy his Administration; and they have failed to destroy the will of the American people; and, to date, they have failed, utterly, to convince Americans to relinquish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; albeit, not for want of trying; and they are still doggedly trying.The only thing these perfidious, treacherous, malevolent, abhorrent forces have succeeded in doing is to draw unwanted attention to their goal of sucking the lifeblood out of this Nation, in a naked attempt to bring the Nation to heel; into the fold of the EU; and eventually, inexorably, unerringly into the grip of a new trans-global, supranational political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; a new socialist world order ruled by a small cadre of sinister ministers, its heart resting in the interstices and bowels of Brussels.With 2020 hindsight the envious, fuming forces that had connived, threatened, and cajoled, albeit all for naught, to bring their stooge, the duplicitous, hypocritical, arrogant, and loathsome Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the seat of power in Washington, D.C., have licked their wounds and are intent on redressing their previous failure; to force the United States back on track toward realization of the goal of a one world socialist Government. And, if these ruthless forces succeed in placing their lackey, their factotum in the Oval Office, in 2020, everything this Nation has gained through the sacrifices of American patriots, from the American Revolution to the present day, will have been in vain. For, Americans will lose everything that has defined them and that has defined the Nation for over two hundred hears, commencing with loss of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the most sacred fundamental, immutable right of all.

WHAT CAN ALL OF US DO TO KEEP THE RADICAL LEFT ANTIGUN MOB FROM INFRINGING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, IMMUTABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Tell your Congressional Delegation, and your State and local Legislators that you expect them to honor their sworn oath and commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as this requires them to take action to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and that means protecting the natural right of self-defense. It also means that such firearms that are in common use including semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, as well as revolvers, should be available to the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen. How can we best to achieve this goal? We can achieve this goal by meeting the threat to our most sacred, sacrosanct right by meeting those who would destroy our Nation’s Birthright head-on. Tell your Congressional Delegation to recommit to passing National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation.The most effective way to attack antigun Radical Leftists seeking to weaken the Second Amendment that it may wither on the vine, is not—as all too many Republicans have been seen doing—by capitulating to the Radical Left on the issue of gun ownership and gun possession; nor is it by sheepishly agreeing with and groveling to Radical Left antigun politicians in the Democratic Party and to Grassroots antigun activists. Doing so won’t serve to preserve our sacred right, but, rather, will compromise our sacred, unalienable right. No! We must not capitulate and we must convince Republicans in Congress not to capitulate to the antigun mob. They must never capitulate.

WE CANNOT SECURE OUR NATION BY RELINQUISHING OUR FIREARMS BUT WE SHALL SURELY LOSE OUR NATION FOR HAVING DONE SO

Americans cannot preserve the Second Amendment by negotiating with those intent on destroying it. And the Radical Left, along with the inordinately wealthy Globalist elites, who lust for world domination, have no intention of preserving the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in any form. Consider: no American can any longer easily and readily obtain a machine gun, submachine gun, selective fire assault rifle, short barrel shotguns and rifles, since they are all stringently regulated by the Federal Government. Even though these rifles, shotguns, and other firearms are personnel weapons, they are no longer readily available to the public, as the availability of these weapons went out the door with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), over eighty years. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has repeatedly stated, the assault on “assault weapons” is an attack on all semiautomatic weapons, as the Radical Left antigun mob is aggressively mounting a campaign to ban all of them, not just some of them. Recently, the Radical Left “Mother Jones” made this very point. The title of the article, written by the Blogger, Kevin Drum, says it all: “We Need to Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms.”At least the guy is being honest, and not pretending to convey the impression that most Radical Left antigun proponents attempt to convey to the public, namely, that they wish to ban only some semiautomatic weapons, not all of them, just “weapons of war,” qua “assault weapons.” Were the antigun mob to get their way, an effective ban on some semiautomatic weapons would lead eventually and invariably to a ban on all semiautomatic weapons. And, from there, the Radical Left antigun mob would move for a ban on revolvers, single action and double action; and, on and on, to a ban on single shot firearms and black powder muzzle loaders. The Radical Left intends to confiscate all firearms, thus essentially negating lawful exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The best way to defend the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms is by clashing with the Radical Left elements in Congress and in the populace who seek to destroy it—bringing the fight directly, unabashedly, unreservedly, and forcefully to them.Keep uppermost in mind: the goal of the Radical Left is the same as the goal of transnationalist Globalist Elites. For, they both seek to undermine the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State—to transform the Nation into a Socialist haven for millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of our Nation’s history or any appreciation for our Nation’s Constitution, or of the nature of natural rights upon which our free Republic is grounded. The Radical Left and the transnationalists Global elite have no desire to educate illegal aliens, or even legal immigrants, for that matter, that they may readily assimilate; for, to do so, would defeat the aim of the Radical Left and the transnationalist Global elites, as they are in agreement on what they both seek to accomplish. They seek to effectuate a massive political, social, cultural, and economic transformation of our Country and, thereby, to bring the United States into the fold of the European Union. This was already underway during the Obama era, and it was to continue under Hillary Clinton, had she been “crowned” President.Fortunately, the Clinton Presidency bid failed. But, undaunted, the rapacious forces, that have sought ever to destroy this Nation, fervently desire to get back on track and to get back on track quickly, if need be, no later than 2020. They could not do so to date, try as they did, orchestrating a complex strategy directed to impeaching President Trump and removing him from Office. That didn’t happen. And it isn’t going to happen. But, there is no guarantee that these anti-American forces won’t succeed in sitting a Democratic Party stooge in the White House in 2020, and they are plugging away to do just that. But, in the interim, with their plan of undermining the sovereignty of our Nation—if not sooner, then later—they know they must weaken the Bill of Rights. And to do so, they know they must commence with de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. We see this occurring with the latest call for new curbs on semiautomatic weapons that the Radical Left subsumes under the false vernacular of ‘assault weapon.’ We see it in the Radical Left’s call for universal background checks, whatever that means. And, we see it in the call for application of so-called “Red Flag” laws, throughout the Nation.As the Arbalest Quarrel has previously stated, antigun groups have undertaken three salient tactics in their aggressive assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and these tactics are always taken out of the closet whenever a mass shooting occurs, as such a tragic event operates as a useful pretext for through which the Radical Left antigun zealots assail the Second Amendment again and again.Their tactics include, first, expanding the domain of banned firearms. Americans see this in the ferocious, noxious, incessant attack on semiautomatic firearms, aka, assault weapons.Their tactics include, second, expanding the domain of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess any firearm. Americans see this in the attempt to impose draconian, unconstitutional “Red Flag” laws on thousands of average, law-abiding American citizens. Red Flags operate by turning this Country into a Nation of spies, Shoo-flies. Doing so is the hallmark of the Totalitarian State, where people spy on others and pry into the affairs of others.And, their tactics include, third, making it increasingly difficult for Americans to exercise the right to keep and bear arms—increasingly difficult for those Americans who don’t otherwise fall within a statutory prohibition preventing them from owning and possessing firearms or fall victim to oppressive Red Flag laws.This third tactic involves making gun ownership and possession an administratively demanding, daunting, onerous, expensive, and psychologically depressing experience and proposition for gun owners, as gun owners will never know when something they do or something they say might tend to negatively impact continued exercise of their Second Amendment right. Radical Left antigun elements in our Nation, along with their transnationalist benefactors, know that one major stumbling block to defeating the Second Amendment and, in fact, one major stumbling block in compromising any of the other Nine Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise our Bill of Rights, is to effectuate a change in the way in which Americans view their Bill of Rights, to change their mindset. What does that mean? Just this: The founders of our Free Republic perceived the Bill of Rights to comprise laws intrinsic to man. That is to say, the founders perceived the rights, codified in the Bill of Rights, to precede the creation of the Nation. They perceived the rights as an indelible part of the psyche of man. And, what does that mean? It means that the first Ten Amendments comprise rights and liberties bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. This is what the founders meant by referring to the rights as fundamental, unalienable, and immutable. Since such rights are not created by man, no man can lawfully or morally rescind those rights. This proposition entails that Government, as a man-made construct, cannot lawfully or morally rescind the rights embodied the Bill of Rights, either.For the Radical Left and their transnationalist benefactors, these ideas, that serve both as the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, and the cornerstone of individual autonomy, are an anathema. That is why they feel obliged to ignore, modify, abrogate or utterly erase any Right set forth in the Bill of Rights, when circumstance, as they see it, dictates, or mere fancy happens to affect them. For both the Radical Left and for their transnationalist benefactors, no rights and liberties exist that are not perceived as man-made, bestowed on man by other men or by Government; and, so, they perceive nothing in rights and liberties and laws that isn’t subject to refinement or outright abrogation. This is a very dangerous viewpoint; one that is at loggerheads with the very preservation of our Nation as a free Republic; and one that is at loggerheads with the idea of the dignity and autonomy of man.We will explore these ideas in depth in the next several articles, utilizing the assertions and policy statements of two Radical Left “Potentates,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and U.S. Senator (D-CA), Kamala Harris, as examples of the logically unsound underpinnings of the Collectivist ideology that the Radical Left embraces.We will demonstrate, through an analysis of their assertions and policy statements, the true danger the Radical Left poses to our Nation, to its Constitution and to its people. By extension we will show how the assertions and policy positions of the Radical Left are incoherent and nonsensical, and that, on logical grounds, alone, do not provide an intellectually satisfactory and morally and legally sustainable basis for transformation of this Nation in the way and manner they seek.The Socialist Utopian dream that both the Radical Left and the Globalist “elites” envision, as bringing public order and comfort to its inhabitants, is doomed to failure. Indeed what it is they truly seek to accomplish is more likely a cold calculated ruse in which to bind this Nation to other Western Nations, in a reprehensible attempt to effectuate a one world Socialist union of once independent nation-states. In that effort, if they succeed, we will witness the dire realization of a Radical Left Socialist Dystopian nightmare; a nightmare that will bring misery, remorse, and profound unease to us all.__________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.