WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

MULTIPART ESSAY 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-SIX

QUOTATION FROM NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

“This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.” From a Buffalo News editorial, reposted on Governor Hochul’s Official Website, on May 24, 2022, reflecting where the Governor’s sympathies, rest, apropos of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note: this editorial appeared one month prior to publication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)and conceivably in anticipation of it: Hochul’s opening salvo directed against the High Court, taunting the Court and ridiculing, in insulting language, those Americans who support the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

NEW YORK: THE STANDARD-BEARER FOR THOSE FORCES INTENT ON DESTROYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

To say the Bruen rulings directed primarily to New York’s Handgun Law were not to Hochul’s liking, nor to the liking of her friends in the State Legislature in Albany, is an understatement.Hochul was apoplectic with rage—or perhaps not. And, if not, she must, at least, appear so: feigning all sorts of righteous indignation during her Press conferences or when distributing her official Press Releases.Hochul had expected an adverse decision from the High Court, surely, and was undoubtedly prepared for it, but she had to set the stage for what would come after, the imposition of a new set of highly restrictive handgun licensing measures, building on all that came before.Those amendments were already written—the Legislature must have drafted the amendments well in advance of the publication of the Bruen decision, given the breadth of detail in them and the scale of them—well before the Bruen rulings came down. They only needed to be finalized.To that end, Hochul’s temper tantrum directed to the Court upon publication of Bruen was obviously meant to pave the way for legislation designed to cohere with related contemporaneous Anti-Second Amendment legislation, apart from, but complementing, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) and operating seamlessly with it.The Press Release, dated June 6, 2022, on the Governor’s website, sports the headline: “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers.” The “Ten-Bill Package” includes:“Legislation S.9458/A.10503 Bars Purchase of Semiautomatic Rifles by Anyone Under Age 21 by Requiring a LicenseLegislation S.9407-B/A.10497 Prohibits Purchase of Body Armor with Exception of Those in Specified ProfessionsLegislation S.9113-A./A.10502 Expands List of People Who Can File Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Requires Law Enforcement to File ERPOs Under Specified Set of CircumstancesPackage Also Strengthens Crime Reporting; Closes ‘Other Gun’ Loophole; Requires Microstamping of New Semiautomatic Pistols; Eliminates Grandfathering of High-Capacity Feeding Devices; Requires Social Media Companies to Improve Response to and Reporting of Hateful Content.”Approximately one month later, on July 1, 2022, scarcely one week after the publication of the Bruen decision, i.e., on June 23, 2022, and again, on the Governor’s official website, and, under the bold, brash, impertinent headline, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision,” Hochul lays out a series of amendments to the Handgun Law itself, ostensibly responding to the Bruen rulings:“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting.”Again, given the depth and breadth of these amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, this new package of amendments, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” MUST HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION OF THE COURT’S OPINION IN BRUEN.At most, the Hochul Administration and Albany had merely to tidy up some of the provisions in the CCIA—perhaps striking the words, ‘PROPER CAUSE,’ from the Handgun Law if the High Court were to demand that much from Kathy Hochul’s Government—which Governor Hochul and Albany did. And that assumes, of course, that Hochul didn’t receive an advance copy of the decision from leakers at the Court. Hochul was probably kept apprised about what to expect from Bruen (probably from the same people on the Court that illegally released a draft of the Dobbs decision).On the matter of “PROPER CAUSE,” the Court ruled that, since the words were tied inextricably to the requirement that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must demonstrate “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry, apart from and above basic self-defense, when in the public domain, the New York Handgun Law, apropos of concealed carry, was inherently illegal and unconstitutional.This was a mere annoyance. The Hochul Government could dispense with it and concoct ways around it, making the Handgun Law no less severe than before Bruen. Kathy Hochul didn’t try to hide that from the Press or from the Court.After all, Hochul used the phrase in one of her Press Releases, “LANDMARK LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE TO STRENGTHEN GUN LAWS.” See supra. And she rationalized that message of defiance directed at the Court, by adding that her Government had designed these amendments “TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS.”Did Hochul presume the High Court did not wish to protect New Yorkers? The phrase is not only troubling but also insulting. Yet it plays into a running narrative that MORE GUNS ON THE STREET EQUALS MORE CRIME ON THE STREETS—A platitude held by Progressives, but false.How many average, responsible, rational, law-abiding gun owners have turned to crime, and further, how much of this presumed bad seed committed a crime with a gun? Hardly or nary a one, notwithstanding there are millions of Americans who lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense. See the article on Gun Facts.By striking ‘PROPER CAUSE’ from New York’s Handgun Law, and then repurposing the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement along with a host of other ludicrous Anti-Second Amendment laws, the Government could and has accomplished much the same thing: DISCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING, CONFOUNDING APPLICANTS WHO SEEK A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE.The Hochul Government had scripted its entire response to Bruen. It would be ready to play out with the official publication of the case. And, on the very day, it was published and through successive days and weeks, Hochul would never miss a beat. She would constantly harangue and berate both the rulings of the Court and, unforgivably, the Justices themselves.The Hochul Government would make the High Court out to be the Antagonist in a play, and the State, with the Government, as Protagonist Hero.Hochul would present herself as the Defender of New York residents, desiring only to protect and serve the residents of New York against an uncaring U.S. Supreme Court.How incredibly presumptuous of Hochul and those behind the scenes, in her Administration, and in Albany, working on her behalf to make the High Court into an Evildoer and “Fall Guy.”Once the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went to work, wasting no time in publicly slamming both the Court and its decision.But would the public buy it? Could the public be so easily manipulated? Some obviously would, most, from her perspective, hopefully. Hochul knew that, in her messaging, she was addressing not merely New York, but the Country at large, and the Biden Administration, and many in Congress too, her compatriots.But to say her words and conduct toward the Court are disrespectful and that her response to the Bruen rulings amounts to evasion, not compliance, is to trivialize the seriousness of the actions of this Governor.Necessary as it was to set the groundwork for defiance of the High Court, Hochul was playing a dangerous game. She could not do this unless she felt she could rely on powerful interests both seen and unseen that would have her back on this.For, the Governor’s actions border on contempt of Court, and all the worse was it that she would vent with unrestrained, unconscionable fury against the Highest Court of the Land; railing against a Court exercising its own proper, legitimate Article III authority under the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the meaning of the Bill of Rights which was and is within the Court’s prerogative, alone, not that of Congress, nor that of the President, nor that of the Executive or Legislative components of State Governments.Hochul didn’t care, and she didn’t mince words. She called the Court’s rulings not only “reckless” but “reprehensible.” See the article in Spectrum Local News.The word, ‘RECKLESS’ means ‘THOUGHTLESS.’The word, ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ means ‘DISGRACEFUL.’In other words, Kathy Hochul tells the Court that it is worthy of her contempt toward it and she would not abide by the Court’s rulings. At most, she would give lip service to it. And that is what both she and Albany did.Upon the conclusion of the oral argument, on November 3, 2021, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the New York State Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, wasted no time in concocting a scheme to waylay the rulings that they knew were coming down the pike. And as a precursor to that she stated in no uncertain terms, in her Press Briefings—clearly directed to the Court—what she intended to do, castigating the Court for daring to involve itself in New York law.The amendments to the State’s Handgun Law (referred to, as a package, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA)), are the visible manifestation of the disdain she displayed toward the Court, in her Press Releases.On July 1, 2022, about one month after signing the CCIA into law, Governor Hochul, in a provocative move proclaimed the New York Government would not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, and in fact would defy the Court, continuing the process laid down by her predecessors of eradicating exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York.The Headline of her Press Release, posted on the Governor’s official website, on that date, set forth in bold San Serif typeface, proclaimed:“Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision.”Hochul’s defiance and contemptuous attitude toward the High Court could not have been on more audacious display. The CCIA exemplifies her brashness and brazenness.These are the highlights of the CCIA that appear on her website that she has reiterated during the period of time since the publication of the case as challenges to the CCIA were filed immediately.“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting”Anticipating the Hochul Government might attempt to turn broad swaths of the State, especially, Manhattan Island, into a massive Gun-Free zone, and to forestall that, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, opined:“Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places. far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. . . . Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.” [Case Documentation omitted]What did Hochul do? She and Albany concocted an elaborate nightmare of new requirements for those individuals applying for a concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA.And, notwithstanding, the High Court’s warning to the Hochul Government, the Governor, and Albany proceeded to transform much of New York into a massive “SENSITIVE PLACE” Jurisdiction anyway—in direct defiance of the High Court’s warning.Manhattan Island, which Justice Thomas specifically warned the Government about, would become a huge “SENSITIVE PLACE” restricted zone anyway.The Government had spent substantial time on this, transforming the State into a confusing patchwork quilt of SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.Most curiously, the very words, SENSITIVE PLACE,’ never before appeared in the Handgun Law prior to Bruen. That would change.Here the New York Government was deliberately using that phrase to antagonize the Court, making the ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ prohibition a major fixture of the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT.”Were Kathy Hochul and Albany taunting the Court by choosing to utilize the very terminology the Court had expressed concern over but had not ruled explicitly against using?Prior to the effective date of September 1, 2022, the date when the CCIA took effect, there was no mention of ‘Sensitive Place’ in Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)), which reads:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”Once the CCIA took effect, the expression, ‘Sensitive Place’ suddenly appears and, for those new holders of “Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses,” and for those renewing their licenses, Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)) presently sets, forth:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”And where are these“Sensitive Place” restricted areas? A new provision of the New York Penal Code, Penal Code, 265.01-e, recites them.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e(2) provides,“2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;(c) any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship;(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos, provided that for the purposes of this section a “public park” shall not include (i) any privately held land within a public park not dedicated to public use or (ii) the forest preserve as defined in subdivision six of section 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law;(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; provided that for the purposes of this section, nothing shall prohibit the activity permitted under subdivisions seven-c, seven-d, and seven-e of section 265.20 of this article where such activity occurs at a summer camp in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations;(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;(o) any establishment holding an active license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;(q) any location being used as a polling place;(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.Police officers and other designated categories are exempted.”Failure to abide by the ‘Sensitive Place’ Restriction requirement is a Class E Felony, as specified under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-d (1)”“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent.”But Note: Subsequent to Plaintiff Appellants’ Motion for a Stay pending Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, granted the Motion in Part. In a short opinion, the Court stated, in pertinent part, in Antonyuk vs. Hochul , 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 36240 (2nd Cir, December 7, 2022): “Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors . . . we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. . . . To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is granted.”Governor Kathy Hochul’s displeasure with the Bruen decision and anger toward the Court Majority was expected, was never a secret, and, so, isn’t at all surprising.  Yet, her hostility toward the Court, amounting to a rabid denunciation of the rulings and of the Justices themselves, is of another order of magnitude, and cannot be condoned, and ought not to be tolerated.The New York Government has detested the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms for well over a century (actually for substantially longer (see author’s comments supra and infra)).Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Majority Opinion in Bruen, made the point, tacitly, at the outset of the Court’s argument, when discussing the State’s long-standing efforts to constrain, through overzealous regulation, the carrying of handguns.“New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to ‘have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license . . . issued to him by a police magistrate.’ 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129-130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242-243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). 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.”

THE SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NEW YORK SNOWBALLED THROUGH TIME.

The systematic erosion of a fundamental, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and unalienable right—the most basic of all RIGHTS and NEEDS, that of “SELF PRESERVATION”—commenced, in New York, as a result of a reluctance by the New York Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the State, notwithstanding the State did eventually ratify both the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights component to it, which included a prohibition on the Federal Government to infringe that right.The nascent threat to the civilian citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in New York itself, had always existed, in fact, PRECEDED Ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which would suggest a schizophrenia on the part of the New York Government, concerning its actions toward exercise of the Right.

NEW YORK RATIFIED THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT ORIGINALLY REJECTED A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ITSELF; AND IT CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDED ADDING A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO MIRROR THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ONCE THE STATE DECIDED ON INCORPORATING A BILL OF RIGHTS INTO A LATER VERSION OF ITS STATE CONSTITUTION

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK WOULD EVENTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IT DID SO ONLY STATUTORILY, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY

Consider:New York is one of only a handful of States that currently does not have a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in its State Constitution. And it never did.“. . . The states without rights to bear arms enshrined in their state constitutions are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Citizens of these states must rely on the federal Constitution and statutory regulation of arms. See, e.g., N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4 (McKinney 2012) (‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.’).”“Symposium: ‘Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago’: Article: ‘The (New) New Judicial Federalism: State Constitutions and the Protection of the Individual Right to Bear Arms,’ 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1449, October 2012, Michael B. de Leeuw*See also, “Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States’ Prohibitions On Taser With The District Of Columbia v. Heller,’ 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159 (2010) By Ron F. Wright.“Ratified in 1909, New York’s right-to-bear arms provision differs from the latter provisions in that it is a statutory rather than constitutional grant. While its language is similar to the Second Amendment, contemporaneous sources carry strong undertones of keeping and bearing arms for strictly militia purposes. Looking first to New York’s treatment of the phrase ‘the people’ in its Civil Rights Law, we note that other than its right-to-bear arms provision the phrase refers to a right only one other time: the individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, in the other appearances where the phrase ‘the people’ appears not a single instance refers to an actual right, express or implied.”In fact, in the original iteration of the State Constitution, New York did not incorporate a Bill of Rights. Later renditions did include a State Bill of Rights, but originally, involved procedural matters rather than substantive rights. The Bill of Rights of New York’s Constitution evolved sporadically over time.But New York always intended to whittle away at the natural law right to armed self-defense. Half-heartedly, or grudgingly at best, it eventually placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its Civil Rights Statutory scheme.NY CLS Civ R § 4 (Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms), says,“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” [underlining added]Note, the substitution of the words, ‘SHALL NOT’ as they appear in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, with the word, ‘CANNOT,’ in Section 4 of the Civil Right Law of New York.The word, ‘CANNOT,’ means ‘TO BE UNABLE TO DO OTHERWISE THAN.’ It isn’t a legal term of art. The words, ‘SHALL NOT’ however have a specific meaning in law: “THE ELEMENT OR ACTION IS PROHIBITED.” Is this change of major significance? Surely, the alteration of the language of the Right, in the Consolidated Laws of New York wasn’t an inadvertent oversight but made with intention.The New York Legislature made sure that “CANNOT BE INFRINGED” does not mean the Legislature has no authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On the contrary, the suggestion is that no person or entity but the New York Government itself can infringe the right for the Government here establishes that it has created the right, i.e., statutorily. The Right, then, is neither something the people of New York create nor that of a Divine Being.Use of a nonlegal word establishes and avoids any foreseeable problem that might arise from a citizen contesting Government infringement of a Right that “CANNOT” be infringed. At least that is the obvious rationale for the change in construction.Providing only statutory recognition of a right to bear arms, the State could not easily be constrained from hobbling the exercise of the right. And both New York State and the State and Federal Courts were complicit in supporting each outrageous Government action, through regulation, of the “RIGHT” THAT “CANNOT BE INFRINGED.”New York's Executive Branch and Legislative Branch constantly invented ways to erode the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and, in so doing, to sever the people’s connection with their fundamental right—ultimately creating a permanent estrangement.Overzealous regulation coupled with a lengthy, industrious campaign of psychological conditioning, affected the mind. “Gun Possession” became identified with and equated with “Gun Violence.” Many New Yorkers didn’t mind this. In fact, they fanatically embraced the viral memes planted in their minds.The latest developments in psychological conditioning and in technology that allows for rapid dissemination of information, affecting millions of people simultaneously, made this possible.Instead of dealing with crime and criminals, the Government would instead go after average Americans, creating a nightmare for those citizens who were not taken in by the contortions and distortions of the New York Government and who insisted on exercising their natural law right to self-defense that the Government was loathed to recognize or allow.What eventually emerged in New York was an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming, and confounding licensing regime that New Yorkers would be required to navigate through. The questions no one in Government dared to consider and that a Press, sympathizing with the Government, would never ask are these:“Why should it be so difficult for me to exercise a fundamental, unalienable right?”“Why should I be compelled to navigate my way through a mass of confusing firearms regulations, and then once failing to gain State permission to defend my life with the most effective means available, I am thrown to the winds and compelled to navigate through a cesspool of criminals and lunatics that dot the landscape of New York?“Why is it the New York Government constrains my right to defend myself against depraved criminals and lunatics, and, at the same time, refuses to use my tax dollars to protect me against those elements that incessantly threaten the life, safety, and well-being of millions of average, rational, law-abiding, responsible citizens like me?”“By what inductive or deductive reasoning does the New York Government and Kathy Hochul presume to reduce the highest denominator of society with the lowest, refusing to allow me to defend myself against predators, arguing that, on the matter of firearms, I can no more be trusted to responsibly keep and bear them than would the common criminal, the psychopathic murderous gang member, or the raving drug-addled lunatic?With the enactment of the Sullivan Act in 1911—a law that introduced handgun licensing to the State—the New York Government would, through the years and decades, enact more laws, aimed at frustrating those Americans residing or working in New York who merely wish to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as is their natural law right to do so?The Sullivan Act of 1911 would serve as the New York Government’s answer, exemplifying their disdain for the average citizen. And the Government did not stop with the enactment of that. Introducing handgun licensing to New York was merely a precursor to and an inkling of what was yet to be.The Sullivan Act of 1911 served, then, merely as a stepping stone in a lengthy inexorable process, whittling away at the citizens’ exercise of their unalienable right to armed self-defense.Whether by conscious intent or by unconscious conditioned reflex, the State had effectively placed a New Yorker on a medieval torture rack, tormenting those individuals who insisted on—dared to—exercise the right that the New York Government did not wish for New Yorkers to exercise.Once on that rack, the State slowly tightened the screws, enacting more constraints on a person’s exercise of the right, through time, frustrating those New Yorkers who demanded that Government not interpose itself between the right of the people to keep and bear arms as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, not Government, and the exercise of that right that the founders of a free Constitutional Republic recognized and insisted on.And the process of whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense gained speed over time, frustrating the desire of anyone who simply wished to exercise his basic right of self-preservation with the most effective means available: A handgun.Hochul’s predecessor, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had added extensive amendments to the Handgun Law and to related New York Statutes, affecting all firearms and possession of them. through the enactment of the New York Safe Act of 2013.Cuomo rammed that through the State Senate in the dead of night, and, once it had passed the Senate, he immediately signed it into law, on January 15, 2013.Hochul’s“Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 doesn’t ease the dire impact of the Safe Act on those who seek to keep and bear arms. One might rationally expect that the CCIA would ease the exercise of the fundamental right, consistent with Bruen. Rather, the CCIA builds upon the earlier Act and is part and parcel of several other Anti-Second Amendment laws that Hochul signed into law on or about the same date she signed the CCIA into law.Bruen changed nothing. NY Safe and the CCIA continue a process that began not with the passage of the Sullivan Act of 1911, but over a hundred years earlier—in fact earlier yet—much earlier.In fact, New York’s antipathy toward the natural law right to armed self-defense always existed, going back prior to the founding of the Republic itself, through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on July , 1788.“The first New York Constitution was adopted by the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York on April 20, 1777,” 15 months before ratification of the U.S. Constitution that New York, among other States that existed at the time, agreed to. See Historical Society of the New York Courts and content infra.What began as a concern and annoyance over the exercise ofthe right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, evolved, over the centuries, into distress and disgust, and anxiety over the citizens’ keeping and bearing of arms.That distress, disquiet, and disgust grew into trepidation and panic, coupled with a rabid abhorrence over the notion a person should possess firearms at all.Today, Governor Hochul proclaims her anger over the Bruen decision. Worse, she articulates a visible contempt for the Court.But, how much of that anger is grounded on true and firm belief and how much is mere political rhetoric, playing to a “woke” audience?A decade ago, Hochul, ever the consummate politician, evinced a different position toward the Second Amendment. See the article in Bearing Arms. What caused a transformation in her thought—a complete 180-degree turn?It matters not. If Hochul is duplicitous and is behaving theatrically, her present words and actions must be taken at face value, not minimized. No one should attempt to explain them away as mere emoting as if to suggest her words are not to be taken seriously. They are TO BE TAKEN MOST SERIOUSLY.Hochul’s words, both their insolent tone and the detrimental impact on those who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense at home or in public, cannot be assigned simply to fabrication or theatrics. The intent behind those words, seen in the legislation enacted, which Hochul has signed into law—a flurry of new restrictive Anti-Second Amendment legislation—has real-world impact and dire consequences for New Yorkers.Regardless of what Hochul the politician really believes the fact remains that New Yorkers, especially the politically progressive denizens of New York City, and Hochul’s wealthy, Neoliberal Globalist benefactors, have long held to a New York tradition antithetical to and wholly destructive of the Second Amendment right. And Hochul, the politician, through her present words and actions, mirrors the predilection of her base, millions of New Yorkers, most of whom reside in NYC.Attuned to her supporters’ beliefs, she rails incessantly against “guns,” “gun owners,” and that thing the Anti-Second Amendment wordsmiths had recently concocted to push their narrative against the right to armed self-defense on the public: “Gun Violence.”Long-standing New York tradition contra recognition of the basic right to armed self-defense overpowers any thought of compliance and obeisance to the dictates of “shall not be infringed,” much less acquiescence and adherence to High Court rulings on the matter.As noted, supra, several years before New York ratified the U.S. Constitution, on July 26, 1788, and, later, when New York ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, on March 27, 1790, the Revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of New York (see New York Archives) prepared the groundwork for a State Constitution:“In August 1776, the revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York appointed a committee to draft a state constitution and a bill of rights. Despite this command, the constitution eventually produced did not contain a separate bill of rights. Robert Yates, a member of the drafting committee, later explained that advocates of a bill of rights thought in terms of an instrument by which ‘the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed,’ modeled after the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The committee, however, took the view that the American Revolution placed the people ‘in a state of nature’ such that the new fundamental instrument the people themselves created, the constitution ‘would operate as a bill of rights.’ This view was not uncommon in revolutionary America. John Jay, for instance, a principal drafter of the 1777 federal constitution, used the same argument when objecting to the adoption of a federal bill of rights in 1788.  The constitution adopted by the New York Convention in April 1777, did contain certain clauses guaranteeing basic rights, such as might be found in a bill of rights: all power derived from the people, right to counsel in criminal trials, freedom of religion and abolition of religious establishments, and trial by jury and prohibition of attainder (to take effect after the war). In addition, on the motion of Gilbert Livingston (later a radical antifederalist), the Convention added to the constitution a clause guaranteeing due process. In the face of Loyalist threats to the existence of the new government, the Convention refrained, however, from adding to the constitution any further assertions of fundamental rights that would hinder efforts to suppress counter-revolutionary activity.” “New York’s Statutory Bill of Rights: A Constitutional Coelacanth,” 19 Touro L. Rev. 363, 366-367 Winter / Spring, 2003, by  Robert Emery. “The New York legislature adopted the original version of the statutory bill of rights, ‘an Act concerning the rights of the citizens of this State,’ in January 1787.” Id. at 368. There was no mention of a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first rendition of the New York Constitution, nor would there be any future version of the State Constitution. There certainly was no serious consideration for that.“New York has adopted four constitutions (1777, 1821, 1846, and 1894) and held eight constitutional conventions (1801, 1821, 1846, 1867, 1894, 1915, 1938, and 1967). The Constitution of 1894, revised in 1938 and amended over 200 times, remains in place today. As provided in this document, the state legislature can propose a constitutional convention at any time, subject to approval by the electorate.  However, the state constitution also mandates that the question of whether to hold a convention be submitted to the electorate every twenty years.” In a climate openly hostile to the very thought of relaxation of New York’s Gun Law—having placed more and more restrictions on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense through 112 years of the Sullivan Act—it stands to reason the Hochul Government wouldn’t be dissuaded from continuing its concerted, single-minded march toward achieving the goal of Dissolution of the right to armed self-defense in New York or, if not able to that, grudgingly, at least, getting damned close to attaining it.Notwithstanding the State had recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the National level, having ratified the Nation’sBill of Rights in 1790, it felt no compunction to do so at the State level, believing, apparently, that, whatever negative impact the Second Amendment on the Federal Government, its application would pose no hardship on the States and would not limit the State’s ability to do away with the entirety of it if it wished. Was the State Government being disingenuous? Was it holding disparate, inconsistent beliefs that defy rational explanation? Who can say what the State Government's motivations were at the time?Prior to the McDonald decision, and for those theorists who mistakenly held to a “collective rights-only” notion of the Second Amendment, (and many still do), the early New York Government felt it need not worry about the Second Amendment. The State would have its Police Powers and could deny all residents of the State and those who work there the keeping and bearing of arms. And, for a time, it would seem the State could get away with its perfunctory dismissal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.And, even with the McDonald decision in 2010 (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)), New York would continue to evince schizophrenia toward the Second Amendment, as would a few other jurisdictions around the Country. They would all pretend that, whatever McDonald happened to say about a State’s obligation to adhere to and respect the citizenry's exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, those States could regulate the exercise of the right to an effective nullity. That is what such State Governments presumed to think and that is how they acted.State licensing is the vehicle that drives the impetus for State arrogance toward the natural law right to armed self-defense.Prior to Bruen, Federal and State Courts in New York held an incongruous position, when rubber-stamping what is clearly illegal New York Government action.These Courts acknowledged that, while a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, that person must still obtain a valid State handgun license to exercise his fundamental right.The New York Courts had heretofore preposterously argued that, since having a license to exercise one’s Second Amendment right is, one, a condition precedent to the exercise of one’s fundamental right, and that, two, since the issuance of a handgun license is a prerogative of the State, a completely discretionary act and that, further, since the acquisition of a State issued handgun license is a privilege, not a right, be that right fundamental or not, the State can lawfully deny a person exercise of his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. New York Courts’ ruling considered this reasoning as valid and sound law, “black letter law” in New York, and, as expected, especially for those who sought to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, the acquisition of those coveted licenses to exercise a fundamental right was very few in number. Such was true before Bruen. And now, after? Will there be many more issuances of concealed handgun carry licenses? And of those that are issued, will they truly work as intended by Bruen, to enable the licensee to truly exercise armed self-defense? This all remains to be seen.The Hochul Government did not assert—it felt it wouldn’t have to—that 225 years of refusal to countenance a citizen’s natural law right to armed self-defense as it saw fit was argument enough to continue to constrain the exercise of the right and to require much from those individuals who had the fortitude to demand what they should not have had to demand: an exercise of their unrestrained right to armed self-defense. Long-standing State tradition would circumvent any argument about the purported supremacy of the natural law right to armed self-defense over the State's authority to deny a citizen's exercise of that right.New York’s negative attitude toward the Second Amendment, coupled with a firm belief, taken as self-evident true for well over two hundred years—that New York Government police regulatory authority supersedes an American citizen’s exercise of his fundamental, illimitable, immutable, eternal natural law rights and would always remain so and hold sway over a U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule or hold otherwise, is soon to be tested. It must be tested.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, together, apparently do not operate, in the mind of the New York Government, as a formidable force, powerful enough to overcome the New York Government’s belief in its own legal and moral invincibility. New York continues to go its own way.How many U.S. Supreme Court decisions must, then, come down the pike before jurisdictions like New York accept the Article III authority of the Third Branch of Government—the authority of the High Court to say what the Law Is? But is it just New York that is rebelling against the authority of the High Court?Clearly, there are dangerous, ominous stirrings afoot, suggesting the actions of shadowy, ruthless forces both here and abroad that have set wheels in motion to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry. It all bespeaks tyranny at the highest levels of Federal and many State Governments. What we are doing here is looking at the manifestation of those wheels set in motion, as pertaining to the incremental, continuous, devastating erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the blatant misuse of authority by Federal and State Governments to control the life, safety, well-being, and personal autonomy of the American citizen.One need only reflect carefully and honestly on the manner in which Governments are shredding the Bill of Rights slowly, methodically, and inexorably to understand the mortal danger facing our free Constitutional RepublicLooking at the New York Government’s actions despicable actions toward the U.S. Supreme Court is explanation enough that something more is afoot than imbecilic behavior by Governor Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany.The New York Government would not have dared to contend against the High Court unless they knew that powerful interests and forces stood behind them to protect them. The New York Government's insolent maneuverings are not emanating solely from the Government. The masterminds of the treachery against our Nation stand well above Government agent toadies. They are merely the faces the public sees; that the public is permitted to see. All we can do here is try to convey to our kind readers the legal, logical, and Constitutional weaknesses of New York’s actions. And we must remain content with accomplishing that. It is more than enough work for us, a small voice supporting our Constitution as the founders of our Republic intended.With this groundwork laid as an explanation for New York’s recalcitrance in obeying a direct High Court ruling, we will, in the next few articles of this series draw our attention to the deceitfulness at work through the operation of the “Good Moral Character” provision of the CCIA the Hochul Government has repurposed to operate like the past “Proper Cause” Requirement, to frustrate the applicant. The New York Government continues on the path it had first set for itself centuries ago, at the dawn of New York's statehood. Hochul and her Government intend to restrict the issuance of New York concealed handgun carry licenses, now, as then, and to constrain the use of those licenses for those individuals who happen to be among the few to acquire them.________________________________________*A decade after this article came out, Iowa amended its Constitution to include “a right to bear arms.” In a news article posted November 8, 2022, The Des Moine Iowa Register reported that,“Iowa voters have adopted an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to add the right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ adding language that goes beyond the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, according to unofficial results.Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny’ language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature. . . .The language of the amendment states: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.’The amendment described the right to keep and bear arms as ‘a fundamental individual right,’ requiring any restrictions on gun rights to survive ‘strict scrutiny.’Strict scrutiny is the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear. It requires any restrictions on gun rights to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”Two weeks after Iowans voted to amend their Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Bruen, and the Court published its decision seven months later. Much of the Majority Opinion clarified the test that Courts must follow in deciding whether State Government action conforms with or offends the core of the Second Amendment when a Government action is challenged.But twelve years before Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down means-test scrutiny, in favor of a historical test. Although the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the Majority, in Heller, had specifically mentioned defects in the lowest standard of means-test scrutiny, “Rational Basis,” it was clear from the decision that the Court had scrapped the entirety of means-test analysis in Second Amendment cases, including, then, “Intermediate” and “Strict” Scrutiny, in favor of historical analysis. The vast majority of Courts failed to get the message or otherwise chose to ignore it. Although many Courts, prior to Bruen may have utilized a historical analysis, in analyzing the constitutionality of State action impinging on the Second Amendment right, they went impermissibly further, unable or unwilling to disavow means-test scrutiny altogether. But nothing in Heller suggests the High Court retained so much as an iota of means-test scrutiny. Moreover, the Majority in Bruen explicitly states that the Court wasn’t creating a new methodology. Bruen merely clarifies what Heller asserts. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”This brings us back to Iowa’s amendment to its State Constitution. Since the Amendment refers explicitly to the use of “strict scrutiny,” the Amendment is unconstitutional. The irony is that supporters of the Amendment sought not only to cast in stone the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms for Iowans but to preclude the State Legislature and the State Federal and Appellate Courts from employing any test that might henceforth weaken the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense. The supporters of the Iowan Amendment thought that strict scrutiny in Second Amendment cases would prevent unconstitutional State action from infringing the core of the right. The U.S. Supreme Court had no such illusion, as a Strict Scrutiny means-test methodology suffers from the same defect as all means-test (weight analysis) methodology. There exists a tendency of Courts to find, almost invariably, in favor of a Government’s action, denying a challenge of unconstitutional infringement. This is one reason, and probably the salient one, why the Court struck down means-test scrutiny altogether, in Heller.Can the Iowa Legislature amend the verbiage of the Constitutional amendment to cohere with Heller and Bruen? Probably not since that would involve statutory reconstruction of a Constitutional amendment, which in the action would defeat, even if the intention were honest, the force and efficacy of the State Constitution, either subordinating the State Constitution to State Statute or placing the State’s Constitution on the same footing as State Statute. Neither possibility is acceptable.It appears Iowans will have to undertake another round of voting, first to repeal the unconstitutional amendment, and second to vote on a redraft of the amendment first voted on, that omits the “strict scrutiny” language.The Des Moines Register article, supra, also refers to four other States that have employed the language of strict scrutiny in their own constitutions:“Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny, language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature.”If true, those States as well must amend their constitutions to cohere to the rulings and reasoning of Heller (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) and Bruen, (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)).___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT FALLS, THE NATION FALLS, AND NEW YORK IS DOING ITS PART TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS

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

MULTI SERIES

PART NINETEEN

SUBPART ONE OF PART NINETEEN

A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF RUINATION

As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21^st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.One Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S Supreme Court, at least, recognizes the danger, and has prevented the Country from falling over the precipice.After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along, if one would only look.All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21^st Century. They include:District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

• The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
• The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
• The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land. But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other States.Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—machinate constantly to destroy the right to armed self-defense.These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry.The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.These ruthless elements have declared——

• The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
• The American people must be subjugated; and
• Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

• One devoid of defined geographical borders,
• One absent national governments; and
• One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.

Will the U.S. fall victim to totalitarianism as have the nations of the EU and British Commonwealth; as have India and China; and as have most all countries in the Middle East? Let us hope not.The U.S. need not fall victim.The U.S. has something all other nations lack: a true Bill of Rights.Our Bill of Rights consists of a set of natural laws: fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal.Within this Country’s Bill of Rights rests a Cardinal Truth. And, of this Truth——

• The Founders were aware of it.
• The Republic they founded is grounded on it.
• The strength and power of our Country and the staying power of our Constitution is a testament to it.

All Americans should imprint this Truth on their collective memory:“What isn’t created by man cannot lawfully be taken from man by other men, nor by any temporal artifice of man: Government, for the sanctity, inviolability of man’s Selfhood, his Soul, and his Spirit do not belong to the Government; they cannot be bestowed on man by Government; and they cannot be severed from man by Government.Government is a dangerous enterprise.Our Federal Government is no longer reliable. It has gone rogue. It has forgotten the people whose interests it was created to serve. It serves special interests that fill campaign coffers and it serves wealthy, powerful foreign agencies of whom the public has no inkling.

• With this Federal Government, the American people have got “a tiger by the tail.” It is difficult to hold onto, but one daren’t let it go, lest it bite the people. Best to destroy it if we can no longer hold onto it.
• That “Tiger,” our Federal Government, is a creation of the American people and exists only to serve the people—the true and sole sovereign over the Federal Government.
• The presence of an armed citizenry serves as both evidence of its sovereignty over the Government, and the mechanism by which it may lawfully constrain it contain it, or curtail it if the Government loses its way and turns against the people.
• The Right to Armed Self-Defense is Natural Law, a God-given right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator.
• Government cannot lawfully modify Natural Law, Ignore it, Rescind it, or formally Repeal it.
• Since armed self-defense is a Natural Law Right, the U.S. Supreme Court—in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—didn’t make new law. The rulings of the three seminal High Court cases simply make explicit what is tacit in the language of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have failed to recognize, or otherwise have failed to acknowledge and accept, the strictures of the Second Amendment.That necessitated the intervention of the High Court. In one Second Amendment case after another—from Heller to McDonald, and then to Bruen—the Court has ordered States to uphold the strictures of the Second Amendment. Yet, many refuse to do so.Indeed, many jurisdictions reject Heller, McDonald, and Bruen outright. But no jurisdiction does so more emphatically, and contemptuously, and openly, than New York. We turn to a look at the status of recent litigation in New York.__________________________________

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART A

NEW YORK’S GUN LAW: STATUS OF THE ANTONYUK CASE GOING FORWARD*

The New York Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-led Legislature in Albany, have declared outright war on the precepts of Individuality upon which the U.S. Constitution rests.Hochul’s Government crafted a comprehensive set of amendments to New York’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act.These amendments specifically and negatively affect N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). That’s the concealed handgun carry license section of the State’s Sullivan Act.The amendments are referred to collectively as the “CCIA.” Hochul signed the amendments into law on July 1, 2022. This was scarcely a week after the High Court published the Bruen decision, on June 23, 2022.A flurry of lawsuits followed. Plaintiff gun owners filed the first one, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I), on July 11.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed that case without prejudice on August 23.The Court ruled one of the Plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and its affiliates, lacked standing to sue.Ivan Antonyuk, the captioned Plaintiff individual of Antonyuk I, refiled his lawsuit against Defendant Kevin Bruen, Superintendent of State Police, on September 20. Five additional Party Plaintiffs, all individuals, joined him in the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs added eight additional Defendants. Governor Kathy Hochul was one of those Defendants. The Defendants were all State, County, or City Government Officials. All of them were sued in their official capacities. The New York Courts refer to this second case as Antonyuk II. The case was formally recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Hochul. On September 22, the Plaintiffs filed their Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and on September 28, they added a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI”).The Oral Hearing was held on September 29.On October 6, the U.S. District Court issued its order, granting the TRO in part, and denying it in part.One month later, on November 7, the District Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, granting it in part, and denying it in part.The Court also dismissed out Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, ruling that, “Plaintiffs have not alleged or shown how Defendant Hochul could be properly found to have the specific legal duty to enforce the CCIA.”In addition, Steven Nigrelli was named the new Superintendent of the State Police, replacing Kevin Bruen, as Party Defendant.With both Hochul and Bruen out of the picture, the case, Antonyuk II, was recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli. With the granting of the Preliminary Injunction, the TRO was mooted, and the Parties jointly agreed to dismiss the TRO.On November 8, 2022, the New York Gubernatorial race was held. On that same date, the Government appealed, to the Second Circuit, the District Court’s granting of the PI in Antonyuk II.On November 15, 2022, the Second Circuit issued a terse stay of the PI, pending its ruling on the Government’s Motion requesting relief from the District Court’s granting of the PI.The Second Circuit November 15 Order reads:“Defendants-Appellants, seek a stay pending appeal, and an emergency interim stay, of the Preliminary Injunction issued by the District Court on November 7, 2022.It is hereby ordered that a temporary stay is granted, pending the panel’s consideration of the motion.”The Second Circuit obliged the Government, overturning the U.S. District Court’s grant of the PI stay.This means Hochul’s Government can enforce the CCIA during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.Time is therefore on the side of the Government.Hochul Government now has what it wants—the ability to enforce the CCIA against New York’s Gun Law during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.Plaintiffs and all other holders of valid concealed handgun carry licenses as well as those who wish to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license must now contend with the CCIA.Present holders of a valid New York concealed handgun carry license like the Plaintiffs in Antonyuk II, are particularly negatively affected by this Order.Plaintiffs understandably were not happy about the Second Circuit’s November 15 Order, lifting the stay of the CCIA imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.So, four days after the issuance of the Second Circuit’s November 15 Order, the Plaintiffs, on November 19,  filed their response to the Government’s stay of the PI pending the Circuit Court’s review of it.The Plaintiffs took the Government to task, stating,“In their Motion, Appellants generally malign the district court’s preliminary injunction, but fail to note that the CCIA is no ordinary law–breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality. The district court was correct to enjoin enforcement of many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, and this Court should (i) decline Appellants’ invitation to be the first circuit court to bless a statute specifically enacted to defy Bruen, (ii) vacate its improvidently granted administrative stay, and (iii) deny Appellants’ Motion.”Whether to enforce the operation of the CCIA during litigation or stay its enforcement turns on a four-factor test created by the Second Circuit. The Plaintiffs addressed the four-factor test in their Opposition to the Government’s Motion, stating— “The relevant factors to be considered are ‘[i] the applicant’s strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, [ii] irreparable injury to the applicant in the absence of a stay, [iii] substantial injury to the nonmoving party if a stay is issued, and [iv] the public interest.’ A stay ‘is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result;’ rather ‘it is an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Finally, where (as here) an applicant is ‘totally lacking’ a strong showing of likelihood of success, ‘the aggregate assessment of the factors bearing on issuance of a stay pending appeal cannot possibly support a stay.’ Appellants fail all four factors. . . . The district court’s order will cause no harm to Appellants, as many of the CCIA’s provisions – which have been in effect barely over two months – are entirely novel in New York law, as well as lacking any historical analogue. . . . The sky did not fall prior to the CCIA’s enactment, and the sky is not falling now. Rather, the PI merely returns the state of the law to what it was just over two months ago.”Responding to the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the stay of enforcement of the CCIA, the Second Circuit issued an amended Order on December 7, 2022.The new Order reads:“Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors, see In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007), we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted.  Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby Ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is Granted and the district court's Nove1nber 7 order is Stayed pending the resolution of this appeal. To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is Granted.”What this new Order means is this:The Second Circuit allows the Government to enforce the amendments to the State’s Gun Law during its review of the Preliminary Injunction, subject to a minor exception.The Second Circuit said the stay does not affect the “Sensitive Location” prohibitions to airports, places of worship, and private buses.This is hardly a concession to the Plaintiffs.Airports fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the State.No civilian may carry a firearm in airports, anyway.And houses of worship and private buses are the only private entities, that the Second Circuit says can devise their own rules for the carrying of firearms.All other CCIA “Sensitive Location” provisions remain operative during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.But the Second Circuit’s treatment of the “four-factor test,” in the recent Order is both curious and disturbing. Recall the lower District Court had meticulously applied the Four-Factor test as it is required to do when first granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO, and subsequently granting the Plaintiffs’ PI. But why did the Second Circuit reject the findings of the District Court?In lifting the PI stay, the Second Circuit never explained its reasoning for doing so.The Court cites a case that is inapposite. And it is one that neither the Plaintiffs nor Defendants cite in any of their filings. The Court merely says it has weighed the factors and tacitly finds for the Government.This is all contrary to the findings and cogent reasoning of the lower District Court.It suggests the Court will overturn the PI, thus jeopardizing the attack on the constitutionality of the CCIA and further reducing the chance of eventually securing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA.This all suggests what New Yorkers have lost in failing to seat Zeldin in the Governor’s mansion.Had Lee Zeldin prevailed in the Gubernatorial race against Kathy Hochul, Plaintiffs and all other New York gun owners holding valid New York restricted or unrestricted handgun carry licenses would likely be in a different and better place.As Governor, Lee Zeldin could request the dismissal of Antonyuk. All other pending challenges to the CCIA would be mooted. The CCIA would have no effect.This would entail reverting to the originalN.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(F). That would benefit those present holders of New York concealed handgun carry licenses who had complied with the “proper cause” requirement of the older Gun Law.Eventually, Zeldin, as New York Governor, could work with the State Legislature in Albany to rescind the entire licensing structure. Alas, that will never be. Four years of Hochul in Office will mean further restrictions on the Second Amendment, as the CCIA and other New York Gun laws clamp down ever tighter on a citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.________________________________

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART B

AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THE APPLICATION OF THE FOUR-FACTOR TEST IN ANTONYUK VS. NIGRELLI

A perusal of the Four-Factor test demonstrates why the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of New York was correct in granting the Plaintiffs’ PI, and why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was wrong in staying the PI, during the Court’s resolution of it.

• The likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.

The District Court, in its opinions, both in Antonyuk I and Antonyuk II laid out a comprehensive argument supporting a finding that the CCIA is unconstitutional and that Plaintiffs would likely prevail in their suit on the merits against the Government.This first factor, therefore, works to the benefit of the Plaintiffs, supporting the granting of the PI.

• Irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs in absence of a stay of enforcement of the CCIA.

The District Court pointed out that, by carrying their handgun in public, the Plaintiffs would engage in behavior lawful under the original NY Gun Law but, under the “Sensitive Location” clause of the CCIA, now unlawful in many locations in New York.Thus, the CCIA operates perversely to restrict an already restrictive Gun Law the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional on the “proper cause” issue in Bruen. If current holders of a valid NY handgun carry license continue to carry under the CCIA, they will have committed a crime if they carry that handgun in a “Sensitive Location.”If arrested while carrying a handgun in public, in a “Sensitive Location,” they will lose their license to carry because the valid New York concealed handgun license they presently have is invalid if carrying a firearm in a “Sensitive Location.” The CCIA overrides the concealed handgun carry license in those locations.If arrested, the licensee will also be forced to surrender their handgun to the appropriate police authority, along with any other firearms they may have possession of in New York.Further, they will now have a criminal record on file, jeopardizing their acquisition of a license anew in New York. This will also jeopardize their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right in many other jurisdictions they may happen to work in or relocate to, thereafter.To avoid the possibility of arrest, these licensees must voluntarily relinquish carrying a handgun in public for self-defense. But doing so endangers their life, which was the reason these licensees applied for a concealed handgun carry license, in the first place.Remember, licensing officers had determined these license holders do face extraordinary risk, thus warranting issuance of a license under the original “proper cause” standard that the respective New York licensing authorities established, consistent with the original New York Gun Law.Plaintiffs are therefore in a bind. If they carry a handgun in a “Sensitive Location”, they risk arrest, loss of their license, loss of their handgun, and a criminal record to boot. If they do not carry a handgun for self-defense, they endanger their life.That is a  Hobson's choice; the idea that present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses have here; no acceptable choice, and evidence of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs.To give Hochul’s blatant refusal to abide by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen a leg to stand on, she attempts to give the public a sense that she cares deeply about the safety concerns of New Yorkers; that her amendments to the State’s Gun Law are designed to effectuate that end. What she delivers to the public is nothing more than an elaborate promo, an infomercial proffered to sell a product. The product she is selling is simply a more tortuous, and torturous version of the Sullivan Act enacted over one hundred years ago. And, like all promos and infomercials, it is meant to make a profit off a person’s gullibility. In the instant case, the Sullivan Act, a noose around the necks of free citizens, squeezed ever tighter. The Sullivan Act endangers the life of New Yorkers under the guise of securing life. It is all charade and theater.This second factor, therefore, works to the Plaintiffs' advantage, supporting the PI.

• Substantial injury to the nonmoving party. 

This is the mirror image of the previous factor. This is where the Government, the “non-moving” party, must demonstrate that the New York public faces irreparable injury if the Government is enjoined from enforcing the CCIA and that the harm to the public outweighs the harm to the Plaintiffs.That is what the Government says. The assertion is patently ridiculous.If the public was under no grave threat before the enactment of the CCIA, with stringent restrictive gun measures already in place, then it follows logically the public cannot be under a graver threat of injury now if the Second Circuit affirms the stay of enforcement of the CCIA,  pending resolution of the PI. But that’s what the Government wants. It wants the Second Circuit to lift the stay of the PI. This means the Government wants the Second Circuit to deny giving effect to the PI during the Second Circuit's resolution of the merits of it, thereby authorizing the Hochul Government to enforce the CCIA.The New York Attorney General Letitia James, arguing the case for the Government, asserted, in the Government's Opposition to the PI, that “Exposing eighteen million New Yorkers to a heightened risk of gunfire severely outweighs any prejudice to plaintiffs here from a stay.”This is ludicrous. It is nothing more than a snapshot of the imbecilic remarks of Hochul delivered to “CBS This Morning” on Friday, June 24, 2022, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, setting up what would come shortly after; the awful amendments to New York's Gun Law. The Daily Caller recites Hochul's tirade against the High Court, in its article, titled, “NY Gov. Hochul Says Law-Abiding Gun Owners Make People Feel Very Unsafe”:“Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday morning law abiding gun owners make people feel ‘unsafe’ just one day after the Supreme Court overturned a more than century old gun law.Speaking on CBS This Morning, Hochul said the right to carry outside the home makes individuals feel ‘unsafe’ and seemed to insinuate it should not be allowed.‘Everybody in America recognizes that there is a problem with gun violence and the people who cheer this, what they say, what they see is, ‘Look there is a problem with gun violence and I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be able to hold a gun on my person so that I feel safer.’ What do you say to that individual?” the host asked Hochul.‘I say that makes everyone else feel very unsafe. We don’t know if you’re provoked, you know, you’re in a bar and someone looks at your girlfriend or your boyfriend the wrong way. There are so many triggers. If someone wants to have a legal gun, licensed protection in their home, that is their domain, they can do that, we’ve always allowed that, or for hunting and other purposes,’ Hochul said.’‘But to think someone would be able to do this on a subway, in a crowded, tense situation during rush hour? No, we have a right to protect our citizens, not take away your right to own, that’s fine, but where you take it and the ability to conceal it, that’s just going to make things so much more complicated for law enforcement and others.’”

CIVILIANS DO NOT CARRY HANDGUNS OPENLY IN NEW YORK. THERE IS NO “OPEN CARRY”

First, it bears mentioning, but, apparently, only to morons like Hochul, that a holder of concealed handgun carry license does not ever carry his or her handgun openly, in New York, for all the world to see. The Gun Law itself recites the lawful carrying of a handgun, “concealed,” i.e., not openly by those issued concealed handgun carry licenses.In fact, no one in New York is permitted to carry a handgun openly apart from uniformed New York police officers, or other uniformed personnel who fall under specific provisions of the State's Gun Law.How, then, can any law-abiding member of the public honestly feel a sense of foreboding that another law-abiding member of the public who happens to possess a concealed handgun carry license is someone to be feared? The only creature that could realistically understandably “feel unsafe” is a psychopathic criminal who would dare to threaten an innocent member of the public. More than a few criminals and lunatics have met their untimely demise by threatening harm to an undercover police officer or off-duty officer, or to a holder of a valid concealed handgun license. In fact, for a career criminal—who isn't otherwise a psychotic maniac who wouldn't care whether a target of his lunacy is armed or not, as his reasoning organ is shot—he would never know for certain who is lawfully carrying a handgun concealed and who is not, if many more members of the New York public were to begin carrying, concealed, a handgun, as is their natural law right. And, he would think twice before targeting, at random, an innocent victim who is merely going about his business. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the garden variety criminal, who has some sense of self-preservation would be less inclined to take the chance to attack a member of the public who may very well be armed. This fact would result in a precipitous drop in violent crimes of opportunity.

“TRIGGERS” ANYONE?

Second, The notion that a person would go off half-cocked is a “Fever Dream” of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd. They would like to believe this myth. The Government thrusts all sorts of horrors on the public to rationalize ending the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense. But their wax museum of horrors coming to life is just entertainment, nothing more. It isn't grounded in truth. It's merely a fabrication, it's propagandist; a fictional horror film designed like many such films, i.e., to create a jump scare. Only the gullible and ignorant Americans would fall for it. If New York holders of handgun carry licenses were such a threat to public safety and order, how is it that we never hear Governor Hochul talking about instances of criminal acts of violence committed by these licensees? She can’t talk about this because there is no instance of this that she can drum up.  All such talk of an armed New York citizenry posing a threat to the Government's notion of public safety and public order in their well-ordered society is sheer unadulterated speculation, bordering on delirium.

“IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A LEGAL GUN, LICENSED PROTECTION IN THEIR HOME, THAT IS THEIR DOMAIN, THEY CAN DO THAT, WE'VE ALWAYS ALLOWED THAT.” ISN'T HOCHUL NICE?

Third, Hochul says, the Government has always allowed someone “a legal gun in their home.” But wait a minute? Is keeping and bearing arms a Government bestowed privilege or a God-Given Right? And didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the right to armed self-defense extends beyond the domain of one’s house, consistent with the meaning of the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense? Does New York law take precedence over the Second Amendment and the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court? Hochul demonstrates incredible arrogance. How did she get elected to Office anyway?If New York holders of handgun carry licenses were such a threat to public safety and order, how is it that we never hear Governor Hochul talking about instances of criminal acts of violence committed by these licensees? She can’t talk about this because there is no instance of this that she can drum up.  All such talk of an armed New York citizenry posing a threat to their notion of public safety and public order in their well-ordered society is sheer unadulterated speculation, bordering on delirium. The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies devised and employed to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And it all goes back to Government's lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. And, the fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against the Tyrant's Tyranny. The Neoliberal Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always the common people. Government exists primarily to control the populace. Our Federal Government, though, was constructed to serve the people. Everything in our Constitution points to that fact. The people are sovereign, not Government. But, like all Governments, our Federal Government has succumbed to tyranny. That tyranny is mirrored and multiplied in the Governments of many States. New York is one of those States. The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First, or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity, that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination. In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, such as that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

“A HEIGHTENED RISK OF GUNFIRE”?

“Exposing eighteen million New Yorkers to a heightened risk of gunfire severely outweighs any prejudice to plaintiffs here from a stay.” ~ Letitia JamesFourth, apropos of Letitia James' argument, on behalf of Defendant-Appellant New York Government officials, appealing the U.S. District Court's granting of Plaintiff-Appellees' Preliminary Injunction, where is this “heightened risk of gunfire” supposed to come from?The argument presented by Attorney General Letitia James and by Governor Kathy Hochul in support of the CCIA boils down to these two propositions:

• People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
• Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

The reader will note that nothing is said about career criminals, murderous gangbangers, and drug-addled lunatics who may happen to get hold of a firearm. The reason is that the Hochul Government, and other Governments like hers—reflecting the beliefs and aims of the present Federal Government, aren't concerned about the behavior of the dregs of society. Government is concerned only over the rational responsible American who will not suffer tyranny. And it is tyranny that these Governments, local, regional, State, and Federal are selling. Criminals and lunatics serve their end. The breakdown of law and order is what these Governments want so that they can institute their own brand of crime on a national/industrial scale. The aim is the destruction of the mind, the Soul, and the Spirit. The sanctity and inviolability of the individual were once important to our Nation, worth preserving, things to be cherished. And the idea was threaded through our Nation's Constitution, and, especially, through our Nation's Bill of rights. That once was so, but no longer. The Federal Government makes a mockery of our Country now and of our sacred precepts and principles. We see it in the weakening of our economy, and our military. We see it in incredible profligate spending at a time when we must hold onto the monetary reserves and ascertain that our Nation's monies are spent carefully and wisely for purposes that benefit our Nation and its people, and not squandered on foreign escapades or lavishly squandered on special interests that benefit the few, including foreign entities and individuals that hate us. We see the weakening of our Country in the Government's obsequious behavior toward China and Brussels. And, we see it in the debauched, and degenerate, and mentally unbalanced individuals placed in high Government Office. Most Americans are appalled at these spectacles. And Government knows this and worries about it. Government is afraid of Americans who keep and bear arms, who clutch them ever tighter, for many of us there are who see well enough the mindless absurdity of a rogue, and dangerous, and patently deranged Government that threatens to engulf the Nation and its citizenry in horrific destruction. And, so, Government turns on Americans; sets one American against the other so as to short-circuit organization against a Government that no longer serves the Nation's best interests and, in fact, no longer goes through the pretense of doing so.The Biden Administration and the Hochul Government don't talk of their own fear of the armed citizenry. Instead, they project that fear on the populace at large both as a defense mechanism and as a strategy to divert attention away from themselves rather than upon themselves, where attention should be directed. The idea is that eviscerating the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms is done, not as a contemptuous assault on natural law that they have no lawful right to attack, but ostensibly as an act of mercy on behalf of the people who, as they argue, would benefit from a purgation only possible through the confiscation of guns in the hands of tens of millions of Americans. The Tyrant says——People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.Concerning this proposition, propounded by Kathy Hochul, if many Americans should happen to fear guns and fear those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren't the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the result of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan, at once deceitful and horrendous, to instill in the American citizen a phobic reaction to firearms and a phobic reaction to those Americans who choose to keep and bear them. The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Government against the entire civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans. Rather, it has everything to do with the carrying out of a secret plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence; the dissolution of our Constitution; and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire. AQ has written extensively on this. In fact, it is a theme that runs through the depth and breadth of our articles. Nothing else, to our knowledge, comes close to explaining well the dogged, and consistent, and insistent effort on the part of so many heterogenous agents and agencies both inside and outside this Country to destroy our Nation's Bill of Rights; to destroy our history, heritage, culture, our Nation's ethos, our Judeo-Christian ethic; and to launch a psychopathological reaction upon the citizenry the manner of which and the extent of which has no precedent in our Nation's history or, for that matter, in all of recorded history.The Hochul Government’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen case is really a component part of a much larger mosaic, as evidenced by a concerted effort to undermine the Second Amendment.And so confident is Hochul in her own power, that she does this brazenly and contemptuously, attacking not just the Second Amendment but also the Justices of the Highest Court in the Land, whose sin, in her mind, is that they give a fundamental natural law right the respect it is due. Hochul intends to shred it and she is doing just that.Thus, it isn't that New Yorkers or any American has an innate fear of firearms or those who keep and bear them. It is that the Government in New York and the Governments of several other States, and the Federal Government under the Biden Administration, have induced fear where none before existed, all in support of aims that are antithetical to our most sacred precepts and values and antithetical to the common good.Thus, Americans aren't afraid of firearms or those who possess them, but Hochul and others, beholden to the same ruthless, Globalist, and Marxist interests, create the illusion that this IS something inherent in people. IT ISN'T. It is only something inserted into the unwary mind: a meme, a mental virus, damaging to the psyche no less than a physical viral pathogen is damaging to the body.The Tyrant also says——Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.Concerning this second proposition, propounded by Kathy Hochul, as manifest in her statements to the Press and in the Government's legal documents—that average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order—this is a naked assumption cast as a self-evident truth, presented in lieu of any supporting evidence, for the purpose, one, to buttress amendments to the State's Gun Law that are inherently unconstitutional as the District Court had made poignantly clear through cogent argument, both in Antonyuk I and in Antonyuk II, and, two, to urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the lower Court's granting of Plaintiff-Appellees Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of Hochul's CCIA.Meanwhile, the law-abiding New York taxpayer daily faces rampant violent crime because of the abject failure of the New York Justice system to deal effectively with criminals and raving lunatics that constantly prey on the public.And the police are contemporaneously prevented from engaging in effective policing activities that protect the community. In addition, the police are leaving New York in droves. Who will replace them?And, even if the Hochul Government provided the public with a modicum of community policing and a justice system that didn’t kowtow to lunatics and criminals, the fact remains that the New York police departments have no obligation to guarantee the life and safety of individual members of the public.The police never had that obligation. And the New York public is under a misconception to think otherwise. Yet, the Government continues to keep the public in the dark about this, never troubling itself to inform the public that self-defense against threats of violence rests on each member of the public, not on the State. See, e.g., the AQ article posted here, on this site, on November 21, 2019. See also AQ article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on August 6, 2020.A well-trained, responsible, rational, law-abiding adult need not rely on the police, and cannot legally place that burden on the police. The responsibility for preserving one’s life and well-being rests solely on the individual.This was the salient point of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Armed self-defense is ultimately the responsibility and prerogative of the individual.The Hochul Government knows or should know that armed self-defense is the best defense against aggressive armed assault. The failure to acknowledge this or even attempt to proffer evidence to refute this is a fatal weakness in the Government’s argument against Plaintiff-Appellees PI.The Government simply erroneously assumes the well-armed citizen threatens the community.This is a central theme pervasive in the New York Government, and it is a thread woven into the very fabric of New York’s draconian gun measures that go back over one hundred years when the licensing of handguns was first enacted.Yet the Government takes this bald assumption as a self-evident truth. It isn’t. But it serves the narrative, and their end goal is to disarm the public.The Government’s remark begs the very question at issue:Does the rational, responsible, law-abiding citizen who wishes to exercise his natural law right of armed self-defense pose a risk to the public? There is something off in the sheer idea incessantly and vociferously proselytized to the public that the armed citizen poses a threat to public safety.This notion is contrary to fact. It is also contrary to the import of the Second Amendment:It is the natural law right of the American citizen to arm him or herself against assault by predatory man, predatory creature, and predatory Government.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen reiterate this point constantly:The individual has the right to armed self-defense. The corollary to that proposition is this: The armed citizen enhances public safety. This is the antithesis of the Hochul Government’s position that the armed citizen endangers public safety.In their response to the Government’s Motion for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction, pending appeal, the Plaintiffs said this apropos of public safety:“Even if Appellants had demonstrated some actual public safety benefit, it would come at the cost of disarmament of law-abiding gun owners, an unacceptably high cost, as “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010). Such enumerated rights cannot be balanced away by legislators, or judges, because “the Second Amendment is . . . the very product of an interest balancing by the people . . . it [] elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense. . . .” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).Nor can Appellants plausibly claim irreparable harm from temporarily halting enforcement of an unconstitutional law: ‘the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of [injunctive relief]’ are not just the vindication of constitutional rights but also the prevention of their egregious curtailment. Indeed, it is always in the public interest to enjoin an unconstitutional law. The government has no ‘interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.’”This third factor, harm to the non-moving party, does not outweigh the harm to the Plaintiffs. Thus, this third factor in support of the PI works to the Plaintiffs’ advantage.

• The Public Interest. The last factor a Court must consider in determining whether to issue a PI is whether the public is best served by its issuance.

The Plaintiff-Appellees assert: “The public interest is best served by ensuring the constitutional rights of persons within the United States are upheld.” We are dealing here after all with a natural law right.That the public is better served by curtailing a right the founders felt imperative to the Security of a free State and to ensure the sanctity and inviolability of one’s Selfhood, goes against the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our free Constitutional Republic was founded, and without which a sovereign people and a free Constitutional Republic cannot continue to survive.The New York State Government’s philosophy of the relationship of Government to the people is a distortion of all this Country holds dear and holy.This fourth factor also works to the Plaintiff-Appellees' advantage, supporting maintaining the PI during the Second Circuit's resolution of the merits of it.

IN SUMMARY

The New York Government places itself above the sovereign authority of the American people.This notion unfortunately is reflected in several other jurisdictions across the Country, and it is also present in the thinking of the Biden Administration and in the thinking of Democrats in Congress and by more than a few Republicans.Let us hope and pray the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ultimately, doesn’t betray the U.S. Constitution too.Unfortunately, the recent December 7, 2022, Second Circuit order doesn’t give New York gun owners much reason for hope, much less jubilation—nothing more, really, than a wing and a prayer of success.If such is the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is destined for resolution by the High Court.Justices Thomas and Alito would see that the case is heard, as the CCIA is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and to the rulings of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.In the immortal words of that late, great comic, Arte Johnson (a.k.a. the “German Soldier” routine), the Antonyuk case, and a slew of other post-Bruen cases wending their way through the Courts in New York and elsewhere in the Country are becoming “Very Interesting.” _______________________________*For those readers interested, a comprehensive (complete) discussion of the history of the date of filings of Court documents in the second Antonyuk case, (Antonyuk II), as recited by Plaintiff-Appellees (holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses) against Defendant-Appellants (New York Government officials) in Plaintiff-Appellees “Response In Opposition To Defendants-Appellants’ Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal And An Administrative Stay Pending Resolution Of The Motion,” filed on November 19, 2022, appears below:This case involves a challenge to New York’s most recent attempt to infringe the Second Amendment rights of its residents. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent vindication of the right to keep and bear arms in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the state hastily enacted a poorly named and ineptly drafted statute called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Rather than following Bruen and respecting the Second Amendment’s mandate, the CCIA defied the Supreme Court, making concealed carry of firearms far more restrictive, and the licensing process far more onerous, than before the Supreme Court’s decision. Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Appellees”) filed suit seeking to enjoin many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, seeking both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”), ECF #1 (Sept. 20, 2022); Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion for TRO”), ECF #6 (Sept. 22, 2022). After providing Defendants-Appellants (“Appellants”) the opportunity to submit briefing and to participate in oral argument, the district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining certain parts of the CCIA, while allowing others to remain in effect, and granting Appellants’ request for a three-business-day stay to seek review by this Court. Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF #18 (Sept. 28, 2022); Transcript of Proceedings, ECF #23 (Sept. 29, 2022); Decision and Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), ECF #27 (Oct. 6, 2022). Appellants sought from this Court (1) a stay pending appeal of the district court’s decision, along with (2) what they styled an “emergency . . . interim . . . administrative stay” while the Court considered their motion. Docket No. 22-2379, Motion for a Stay, Doc. #16 at 1. On October 11, 2022, Appellees filed a Response explaining, inter alia, that appeal of a TRO is improper, and the district court’s forthcoming decision on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction would render the appeal moot. Opposition to Motion, Doc. #22. On October 12, 2022, Judge Lee granted Appellants’ request for “an interim stay of the Temporary Restraining Order pending decision by the motions panel.” Order, Doc. #39. The case continued in district court, with Appellants filing their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on October 13, 2022. Response in Opposition, ECF #48. On October 22, 2022, Appellees filed their Reply. Reply to Response, ECF #69. On October 25, 2022, the district court heard oral argument on Appellees’ Motion. Transcript of Proceedings, ECF #72. On November 7, 2022, the district court issued a limited preliminary injunction (“PI”), supported by a 184-page opinion. Decision and Preliminary Injunction, ECF #78 (“Op.”). The district court’s opinion denied Appellants’ request for a three-day stay, and the PI took effect immediately. Their TRO appeal mooted, Appellants, with Appellees’ consent, withdrew that appeal on November 9, 2022. Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, Doc. #74 (Docket No. 22-2379). On November 8, 2022, Appellants appealed the district court’s grant of the PI, and on November 12, 2022, filed a similar motion in this Court, seeking a stay pending appeal and an “administrative stay” pending resolution of their Motion. Docket No. 22-2908, Motion to Stay (“Motion”), Doc. #18. Although having requested three days in which to seek a stay from this Court, Appellants waited five days to file this Motion. While the cover sheet (Form T-1080) describes Appellants’ filing as a “motion for emergency interim stay,” their motion is not captioned as an “Emergency Motion,” nor does it use the word “emergency” at all. Nor does it comply with this Court’s rule requiring that it “state the date by which the movant believes the court must act.” See L.R. 27.1(d)(2) and (4). Cf. Appellants’ filing in Docket No. 22-2379, Motion for a Stay, ECF #16, cover sheet (“request that an interim administrative stay be granted by the end of the day on Tuesday (10/11).”). Nor does Appellants’ motion provide any explanation of “the nature of the emergency and the harm that the movant will suffer if the motion is not granted” (L.R. 27.1(d)(3)), alleging only that the district court’s order “risks substantial harm.” Motion at 15. Cf. Docket 22-2379, Motion for a Stay at 2, 3, 20 (alleging “serious risk of irreparable harm,” “substantial risks to public safety,” and “imminent risk to public safety.”). Despite those deficiencies, a three-judge panel of this Court – without response from or notice to Appellees – granted a “temporary stay” on November 15, 2022. Doc. #32. Problematically, that Order provides Appellants broader relief than they sought, granting a “temporary stay … of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court.” Id. In contrast, Appellants’ Motion made clear that they are not seeking to stay every part of the district court’s injunction. See Motion at 13 n.5 (seeking a stay for churches “except as to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace,” “Appellants do not seek a stay as to airports” and “private buses.”) (emphasis added). This Court’s administrative stay was issued notwithstanding that undersigned counsel inquired on November 14, 2022 as to whether the Court would be treating Appellants’ Motion as an “emergency” motion, and notwithstanding the fact that there was no mention of any emergency in the body of Appellant’s actual Motion. Contrast treatment of this motion with the prior “emergency” request from Appellees (22-2379) where, within hours of filing, the Clerk’s office contacted undersigned counsel on a federal holiday (October 10, 2022) and requested that Appellees file a response by noon that next day (October 11, 2022), so the Court would have Appellees’ response prior to deciding the administrative stay. No such instruction was given to Appellees in this appeal, and undersigned’s voicemail was not returned. Rather than waiting to hear from Appellees, the Court sua sponte stayed injunctive relief even as to matters where no stay was requested. Moreover, in issuing this broad administrative stay, this Court altered the status quo in New York (see Motion at 14), allowing non-appealed provisions of the CCIA back into effect thereby causing the very harm of which Appellants complain. See id. at 2 (alleging “confusion . . . resulting from the frequent changes in the applicable provisions of law. . . .”). Appellees oppose both stays sought by Appellants (including the administrative stay already issued), and ask this Court to deny Appellants’ Motion in its entirety. In their Motion, Appellants generally malign the district court’s preliminary injunction, but fail to note that the CCIA is no ordinary law – breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality. The district court was correct to enjoin enforcement of many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, and this Court should (i) decline Appellants’ invitation to be the first circuit court to bless a statute specifically enacted to defy Bruen, (ii) vacate its improvidently granted administrative stay, and (iii) deny Appellants’ Motion. ____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA IS INEVITABLE IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITHERS AND DIES

A SEDITIOUS PRESS AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS SEEK TO UNDERMINE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

“If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.” Quotation one, ~Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, from Lecture titled, “Media, Knowledge, and Objectivity,” June 16, 1993“Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business . . . the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products.” Quotation two, ~Noam Chomsky, from article, titled, “Force and Opinion,” in Z MagazineThe picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from the point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting.” Quotation three, ~Noam Chomsky, from his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”

PART ONE

With this latest “mass” shooting, in Odessa, Texas, the antigun zealots and their fellow travelers in the Press lost little time in exploiting the tragedy. The antigun seditious Press, always protective of its fundamental right  of freedom of the Press  under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misuses that fundamental right to launch a vicious assault on another but equally, sacred, fundamental right—a sacred, inviolate right that tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational citizens exercise every day, as is their prerogative: the sacred, inviolate, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right as fundamental, immutable, unalienable as is the freedom of the Press that our seemingly Free Press seems exclusively concerned about securing, perhaps well aware that the seditious dogma it propagates can and should be constrained.In that regard it should be mentioned that President Trump can certainly take action to choke the Press for the malicious, bald-faced lies elicited from it, if he had the mind to do so; but he hasn’t done so, which speaks to his restraint, something that can’t be said for Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, who, as the Baltimore Examiner reported, prosecuted and spied on reporters to constrain the Press, and he did so several times. Obama’s actions amounted to an abuse of power that Obama never had to answer for. President Trump’s actions unlike those of Obama have amounted to amounted to mere rebukes against the Press. But Trump, unlike Obama, did have and does have every reason to clamp down on the Press for having orchestrating a comprehensive attack on him, an attack that goes well beyond criticism, amounting to vicious defamation of character and a fusillade of malicious lies. The Press sneers at the President, castigates him, ridicules him; derides, mocks, and taunts him viciously, constantly, relentlessly. The Press refers to Trump as an autocrat, and a danger to our Nation. Honestly? Which President is it who has really demonstrated autocratic tendencies? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? And, if, God forbid, any of the current crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President is elected President in 2020, it will be that person that ushers in a totalitarian regime.Yet, the seditious Press, ever protective of and jealous of its own inviolate right and prerogatives codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, perverts that right and has done so, since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s Presidency, launching endless scurrilous, pernicious, bombastic, inflammatory ad hominem attacks on Trump and on his Administration’s policies; trying to frustrate him at every turn, in every manner; intent on accomplishing that detestable aim; deliberately, seditiously making it difficult for the President to perform his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office set forth in Article 2, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution—doing everything it can to wear the President down, sabotage his efforts, and blind to the fact that harming the President means harming the Nation, the Constitution, and the American people. Trump has persevered through all of this, weathered the storm of noxious, incessant verbal and written assaults on his character and his policies and that speaks volumes to his fortitude, stamina, strength of will, to overcome adversity—adversity that, unfortunately and disturbingly, emanates from within the Nation, than outside it.

AN ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN ATTACK ON THE NATION, ON THE CONSTITUTION, ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ON THE FOUNDERS AND ON THE FOUNDERS’ VISION FOR THIS NATION

The attack by the Press is pervasive, vigorous, vicious, vile, and all-consuming: a constant barrage of invective directed against President Trump, against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, against guns and gun owners, against NRA; even against the founders of our Republic, and their vision for our Country of which the Constitution is the Nation’s blueprint. The Press has conspired with others who are intent on undermining all of it. This virulent, seditious, antigun Press is intent on denying to Americans their sacred, inviolate, unalienable right to defend their life, safety, and well-being, with the best means available, a firearm. Through its incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and through its never-ending, attack on the President who has, for the most part, defended that right, and against NRA that tirelessly protects it, the Press would also, not surprisingly, place obstacles in the path of Americans who recognize that the most effective way to guard against the insinuation of tyranny into our Nation is by dint of an armed citizenry.Obviously, a seditious Press knows this, and, as that same seditious, incorrigible Press, is in league with Left-wing extremists—who some people refer to as the New Progressive Left—whose sick and bizarre vision for America mandates the establishment of a Marxist/Socialist dictatorship, a dictatorship our Nation is inexorably chugging along toward. The public should well take note of what a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship shall bring: misery, oppression, hopelessness for and in the lives of every American. And, don’t think that such a hell-world cannot come to pass. For, if the New Progressive Left actually succeeds, in the forthcoming General Election, in taking control of both chambers of Congress, and of the U.S. Presidency, as well, autocracy will manifest itself, and it will manifest quickly. Tyranny of Government—the very fear of the founders of the Republic—will be inevitable.A vision of our Country grounded on the tenets of Collectivism, rather than on the tenets of Individualism, as it presently is, is now a stark possibility, as extremist Left-wing elements have high-jacked the Democratic Party. That is plain. And the Press knows this too; welcomes it; nurtures it. And why not? After all, the seditious Press has been high-jacked by extremist Left-wing elements, too, using its First Amendment freedom, ironically and disturbingly, not to defend, safeguard, preserve, and strengthen our Constitutional Republic—but to undermine and destroy it, commencing with an unending parade of indictments against the Second Amendment and vicious and unparalleled attacks on the President and, indeed, on the very institution of the Presidency that this Nation has never before seen.But, to condemn one fundamental right is to condemn them all, including the Freedom of the Press—a singular right that Mark Levin, an attorney, author, and true Patriot, has perceptively referred to as the "Unfreedom of the Press," and has so titled his recent best-selling non-fiction book on the subject of the Press; as the Press, today, has corrupted the very right it disingenuously defends and extols, but misuses to undercut the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, in fact, undermines the very right, the Freedom of the Press, that it seemingly fervently defends; for all ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights go together to form a single coherent, comprehensive whole. The Bill of Rights is a unique testament to the importance the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, placed in the American people; for it is American people in whom sovereign power over the Nation rests, not the federal Government.The Government the framers constructed is a Government divided into three separate but co-equal Branches, each with its own set of limited powers, as meticulously set out in the Articles of the Constitution. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people as set forth in and made abundantly clear in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. And, if those who exert power and authority in Government ever forget where it is that true lawful, sovereign power resides, then the right codified in the Second Amendment exists to remind them that Government was created to serve the American people, and not the other way around; nor does Government exist to serve itself.The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, would be absolutely appalled to witness the Press’ perversion of its sacred freedom. These extremist Left-wing elements that have taken over a substantial part of our news media and news commentary are a deadly contagion, spouting vile venom and filth, dispersing it with pomposity and sanctimony, on radio, on television, in printed media, and over the internet—indeed, everywhere throughout the Country and the world.And this so-called New Progressive Left plague is firmly planted in and dispersed throughout our institutions of Government—federal, State, and local—and it is a prominent fixture in the entertainment business. The New Progressive Left is pervasive in the Press and in media. It has permeated the major technology companies. But all this spawn of the New Progressive Left know full well it cannot dismantle a free, Constitutional Republic so easily. The New Progressive Left brood cannot long survive as long as there exists an armed citizenry. The root system of the New Progressive Left will wither and die as long as there exists an armed citizenry in the U.S. But an armed citizenry will only continue to exist if the American public manifests and maintains its strength of will and an indefatigable faith in our founders’ vision for our Nation and does not fall prey to the specious emotional laden nonsense constantly flowing through and out of the radical Left’s echo chamber: the Unfree Press.__________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BUCKLE UNDER TO THE PRESS AND TO DEMOCRATS WHO EXPLOIT TRAGEDY TO UNDERCUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, "1984"

ENGAGING IN COMPROMISE WITH THOSE WHO ABHOR FIREARMS AND WHO DETEST THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL SERVE ONLY TO COMPROMISE THAT RIGHT, DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution. The New Progressive Left demands the surrender of all firearms from the hands of the citizenry. Government control over an armed citizenry is impossible. Those Leftist radical elements know this and it infuriates them. The need for an armed citizenry, as the framers of the Constitution planned for, intended, and made eminently clear in the words of the Second Amendment, is indisputable, inescapable; and, as we see more so, today, than ever before, their vision for this Country cannot remain true and pure without an armed citizenry. The Leftist extremists come up against an impenetrable roadblock in the very existence of the Second Amendment. They realize their vision of a Marxist/Socialist Country, where America is merely a small cog in a mammoth Marxist/Socialist new world order, cannot come to fruition as long as the American people possess firearms, and they find this state of affairs intolerable.But, as long as the founders’ vision for our Nation remains fixed in the psyche of the American citizenry, and as long as the American public remains mindful, vigilant, and  undeterred by the dire threat the New Progressive Left poses to our Nation, and as long as the American public, the silent majority, is resolved to prevent the Left’s replacing the founders' vision for our Country with that of their own, will the American public be able to effectively resist and forestall the establishment here of a Marxist, Socialist dictatorship--a dictatorship in which the betrayers of our Nation, consisting of the New Progressive Left itself, but also comprising crass opportunists, stand willing to sell their very souls to secure for themselves nothing but personal aggrandizement—bootlickers and lemmings all—ready to abase themselves, obediently taking their marching orders from their overlords holed up in Brussels.If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party, and more in the growing possibility that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article title, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.Our Nation already has more than enough restrictive gun laws. We don’t need more; for more gun laws will not make this Nation safer. More restrictive gun laws, targeting the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen, which is the aim of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats will only make this Nation less safe--will leave those Americans without the means of adequate defense against the psychopathic criminals and dangerous psychotic lunatics who prey on innocent Americans. And, be well aware of this: The gun control proposals of Democratic Party candidates policy goals is specifically designed to target the millions of average, law-abiding gun owners, not the common criminal, the vicious drug cartels, or the occasional lunatic. We know that; and Democrats know that too. And, they don't deny it. The Press doesn't ask these candidates for U.S. President what their gun measures are really designed to do, whom it is they are really targeting. But, then, they are of one mind with antigun New Progressive Left. And, apparently, the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans aren't asking either. These “muscular new gun control measures” various Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President are calling for are directed squarely at the millions of law-abiding gun owners, not common criminals, not psychopathic gang members, not psychotic lunatics, all of whom are not permitted to own and possess firearms under current federal law, anyway—federal law that in many instances isn’t enforced. And this indisputable truth compels one unmistakable, disturbing conclusion: That further gun control laws the New Progressive Left Democratic Presidential candidates are vociferously and blatantly arguing for are not directed to reducing gun violence; nor, for that matter, are they directed toward the reduction of violence of any kind. The appeal for more restrictive gun measures is a makeweight, a platitude, for on close inspection, the logic behind the appeal falls apart, and one realizes the scam for what it is and that those demanding comprehensive gun control are really calling for comprehensive population control. The expression 'muscular, ' in muscular new gun measures' even sounds ominous. It alludes to something a criminal psychopath would utter, as the Progressive New Left intends to "muscle" the  average, honest, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen out of  their firearms--in other words, force average Americans to surrender their firearms on pain of serious repercussions for an American citizen who fails to do so. But, even taking the implausible platitude of ending gun violence for what it is, namely a ruse to compel the American citizenry to surrender its firearms—a ruse that has become ever clearer in the assertion, and severe in the contemplation of it—what we need to do is to understand what the core issue really is and drill down to that core issue and resolve that core issue. The question that we need to ask is this: how do we best contain violence directed toward innocent people? Focusing on guns merely serves to obscure the core issue and resolution of it, if we assume, for purpose of argument that containing violence is what the New Progressive Left has in mind and what they really want to resolve as well. But, to cut to the chase: they really don't. The New Progressive Left isn't interested in curtailing gun violence against innocent Americans. For, if they did, they would be approaching the issue sensibly, reasonably. Their objective would be to to curtail violence, whatever the mechanism employed. But they don't do that. And even apropos of guns, the New Progressive Left isn't really interested in curtailing violence committed by criminals and the occasional lunatic. Their interest is simply banning as many firearms as they can and that means targeting as many people as they can who happen to possess guns, namely tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens. And, even on that score, they aren't honest. For, while it may seem superficially plausible to target as many gun as possible, the reason for doing so has little to do with preventing violence, for if the New Progressive Left were successful in that endeavor all that they would accomplish would be to leave tens of millions of average, law-abiding Americans defenseless, at the mercy of criminal predators and dangerous lunatics who will be able to get their hands on firearms anyway. So, it isn't curtailing violence against innocent people that the New Progressive Left is interested in protecting from "gun" violence. It is those very people that the New Progressive Left fears because tens of millions of armed Americans is a formidable force that can oppose a tyrannical Government, and it is just that sort of Government that the New Progressive Left is intent on creating. Guns themselves are merely an implement. Bad actors, the agents of violence will always be able to obtain firearms as most now do anyway, not in gun stores, or over the internet, or at gun shows, but on the Black Market. So, if it is containing societal violence, then Congress should address that. And, if not, then President Trump and Congressional Republicans should call Democrats out for their ruse. For gun control only increases the risk of societal violence, as gun control that Democrats have in mind is not a surgical strike targeting the criminal and the dangerous lunatic; it is a sledge hammer targeting the law-abiding citizenry.President Trump and  Republicans must not be hesitant in calling these Democrats out. They should ask the question directly, first of themselves and then of the radical Left Democrats: What is the goal of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats in calling for gun control? Is their goal to reduce societal violence or is it to disarm the American citizenry? Congressional legislation is a function of the matter to be addressed, and that is where attention ought to be focused. Taking Democrats at their word, if, then, Democrats truly desire to curtail violence in society, thereby promoting public safety, attention should be directed to answering that question, but attention is never directed to that question; not really, for that is not what Democrats want. That is not what they are after. What they seek is comprehensive citizen disarmament, and withal, removing the incipient threat to the unconstitutional usurpation of Government power and authority. In so doing the New Progressive Left turns the paramount concern of the founders of our free Republic, on its head. For an armed citizenry was precisely what the founders prescribed; for their aim was to deter the rise of tyranny, not enable it.The Press, echoing the demands of Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, with whom the Press is in league, pretends to be interested in promoting public safety, failing to realize or even to consider that an armed citizenry is the best defense against armed assailants. The goal of the Progressive New Left isn’t really public safety at all. If it were, attention would be directed to incarcerating serial criminals in prison where they belong; placing the criminally insane in institutions where they can receive the care they need and the public can be spared the danger the criminally insane pose; and deporting illegal aliens who commit the serious crimes of rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder, instead of releasing them out into the public where they can commit crimes anew.But, many Democrats, including their leaders, aren’t concerned about any of that. If they were, then they would spend more time campaigning for toughened sentencing against hardened criminals, and institutionalizing dangerous psychotics who have demonstrated a predilection for violence, and deporting illegal aliens who have demonstrated a proclivity toward violence. But we see none of that happening. We see, instead, Democrats spending much of their time campaigning for more restrictive gun laws, directed to the law-abiding citizen, which, if enacted, would have the perverse result of leaving the law-abiding citizen defenseless. The need for further restrictive gun laws is, then, again, just a ruse—all directed to one ultimate goal: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, after which the amassing of Government power can take off, unconfined by the limitations imposed on Government in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, and undeterred by, and no longer concerned with the threat an armed citizenry poses to Government's usurpation of power, which the New Progressive Left has sought all along. No longer would the need exist for the Government tyrants to go through the motions of complying with the Constitution, for the means to compel Government compliance with the limitations the Constitution imposes on Government. an armed citizenry, would no longer exist.____________________________________________________

NEW GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS ARE CITIZEN/POPULATION CONTROL PROPOSALS; THEY ARE BLATANT ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART THREE

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~Noah Webster, American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author; from his essay, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787

SO-CALLED COMMON-SENSE GUN MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!

THE ANTIGUN NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS BETRAY OUR NATION WITH FOUR EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE GUN PROPOSALS THEY ARE DEAD SET ON IMPLEMENTING AND WILL IN FACT IMPLEMENT IF DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, THE U.S. PRESIDENCY, IN THE UPCOMING GENERAL ELECTION

We hear the expression "common-sense gun measures" bandied about often enough; so often, in fact, that the average person doesn't bother to give it much thought, but takes the veracity of the expression as self-evident true. But, it it? On even cursory inspection such so-called "common-sense gun measures" that operate to restrict the average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational American's exercise of the natural, fundamental, and immutable, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no sense at all. The expression is an oxymoron and nonsensical. That fact becomes painfully obvious when one takes a long hard look at particular measures these Antigun Progressive New Left politicians have in mind. When these politicians assert that this or that gun measure makes perfect common sense, you can rest assured that it does not. The problem is that, while these politicians will tell you that this or that gun policy or gun measure will reduce "gun violence," they don't provide you with sound evidence to support their statements; nor do they give the American public a good sense of how the restrictive gun measure is designed to work, and how it is expected to be implemented. They probably don't have a clue themselves. Still, once the public gets a handle on what these antigun radical Left-wing politicians are really up to--constraining the exercise of the Second Amendment to the point that the right codified in it becomes essentially nugatory and not, contrary to what they insist, reducing "gun violence," and promoting public safety--it becomes abundantly evident that these gun control measures, when utilized together, are directed to do three things very, very well: all of them directed to disarming the citizenry and, hence, destroying the Second Amendment; and none of them directed to reducing "gun violence" and promoting "public safety"The New Progressive Left politicians' goal of disarming the citizenry through legislation, through Administrative rule-making, and through executive order--operating as a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment--has essentially three components:First, the New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the kinds of guns and components of firearms the average law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen will no longer be permitted lawfully to possess, and, for those individuals who are permitted to lawfully possess firearms, these antigun politicians seek to control the number of firearms a person may own and possess and to strictly control the amount of ammunition and the kinds of ammunition that a gun owner is permitted to have. Second, The New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the domain of American citizens who are prohibited from lawfully owning and possessing firearms, components of firearms, and ammunition. Third, as for those Americans who are not immediately prohibited from exercising the sacred right that is codified in the Second Amendment, the New Progressive Left politicians' "common-sense" gun policies and  gun measures are designed to be oppressive, exceedingly so, in order to make ownership and possession of firearms, ammunition, and component parts of firearms, an expensive proposition and an administrative ordeal to maintain lawfully, if the gun owner is to avoid loss of his personalty and suffer civil or even criminal prosecution. Below, we discuss a few of the ramifications of the recent antigun proposals the New Progressive Left politicians have vociferously argued for, as echoed, incessantly, by a seditious Press.Note: three of the four restrictive gun measures have been around four decades. Every so often, when a lunatic goes off half-cocked, the gun grabbers bring these proposals out of the closet and try to push them, anew, on the public. These proposals include, one, bans on commonly owned firearms; two, expansive gun background checks; and, three, so-called "gun buybacks." The fourth restrictive gun measure"Red Flag" laws, is fairly new. But, any one of these four draconian gun measures clearly infringes on the Second Amendment and negatively impacts or directly infringes other Constitutional rights and liberties as well. If all of these antigun measures were to be implemented, the Second Amendment would become effectively nugatory. But, that is the point of them. And with the last few shooting incidents, hyped up, endlessly and vigorously, by a seditious Press, we see these politicians and the Press effectively manipulating public opinion to the point that even some Congressional Republicans and Republican State Government Officials are coming on board. The Second Amendment is again under dangerous siege. 

RADICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LEFT’S FOUR-PRONG STRATEGY FOR DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EVENT DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY

FIRST PRONG: INSTITUTE NEW BANS ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS , AMMUNITION MAGAZINES, AND OTHER GUN COMPONENTS AND GUN ACCESSORIESIt isn't bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and on all component parts of those weapons, and on all accessories for those weapons; The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, 'assault weapon' and 'high capacity magazine' isn’t not by accident, and this point must be clearly pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the expressions are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish. The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the Radical Left and New Progressive Left antigun crowd is beginning to use the expressions, ‘semiautomatic weapon’ and ‘semiautomatic weapon’ interchangeably. More so than revolvers, semiautomatic firearms have become the weapons of choice for personal defense. They are weapons in common use by millions of Americans, and, they are the weapons that the antigun Progressive New Left is most desirous of banning outright, along with their ammunition magazines. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots. Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry. To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal. The New Progressive Left must accomplish destruction of the Second Amendment if they are to be able to subjugate the citizenry, and, in so doing, they will begin to bring to fruition, their ultimate goal: a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship that will emerge from the tattered remains of our Republic. But, the New Progressive Left politicians must first curry public support for their unconstitutional, unconscionable antigun policy objectives and measures. In that effort we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to preservation of the Second Amendment. These fictions include loaded, emotionally charged terminology: ‘assault weapon,’ ‘military styled assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ and “high capacity magazine.” The public usually doesn’t even bother to ask for explication of these expressions, and in the few instances when it does ask for an explication, we see the antigun spokesperson often saying that the targeted weapons look like and operate like military weapons. This, of course is a nonsensical response, first, because the military isn't interested in the appearance of firearms merely for the sake of appearance, anyway, and, second, because the antigun pronouncement that civilian “assault weapons” operate like military “assault rifles” is simply wrong.In weapons’ design and fabrication for military application, form follows function, not the other way around, and the critical importance of function of a weapon is that of operation and handling. The military, ‘assault rifle,’ by definition, is a selective fire, intermediate caliber weapon. The civilian version of an assault rifle, if the notion of a ‘civilian version’ of military assault rifle is even meaningful, is hardly an adequate descriptor for weapons found in the non-military marketplace since such weapons are not capable of full auto or short burst auto fire.Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Second, even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. , even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. Those are all legitimate purposes. Further, suppose, an American simply wants a fully functional ‘assault weapon’ as a collectible. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen be able to own and possess that weapon? It is no answer to say no American needs one. But, that is the answer often given. In fact, why should the law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen even have to proffer a reason for owning and possessing a so-called 'assault weapon' at all. The antigun New Progressive Left activist simply presumes that a person must explain why he wishes to own and possess this or that firearm. No he doesn't. Where in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, or in any other provision of the Constitution, does it say that an American citizen must demonstrate a purpose for or need for owning and possessing a particular firearm? Nowhere. The implicit understanding of the text of the Second Amendment is that a weapon be a personnel weapon, that, in fact, is expected to be used for, inter alia, military use. So, contrary, to the antigun New Progressive Left’s assertion that civilians are not permitted to own and possess a 'weapon of war,'—a shibboleth that is accepted as true and obviously so—the import of the Second Amendment points to the falsity of the New Progressive Left’s claim. A salient, and, indeed, the salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government's own standing army to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation. The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, onmniscent, and omnipresent federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God! To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, 'muscular' desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakeable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt, and with actual selective-fire assault rifles and submachine guns, not merely armed, then, with what the antigun Progressive New Left refers, inaccurately and pejoratively, as 'weapons of war' and 'as military style assault weapons.’ For rhe real threat posed to the preservation of our Nation to as a free, Constitutional Republic and a free people, comes from those within the Nation, as subsidized by seditious billionaires both within and outside the Country, who desire to destroy the very framework of our Nation, as designed and created by our founders. No better evidence is there of their seditious intent, than their desire to disarm the citizenry; and no better reason, then, for the citizenry to be well-armed. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller, the seminal Second Amendment case, has made abundantly clear that firearms in common use, which includes those antigun Leftists refer to under the pejorative ‘assault weapons,’ and ‘military styled assault rifles,’ and ‘weapons of war,’ are a protected category of firearms under the Heller standard. One would wonder whether, given the dire threat posed by insurgents in our midst would not had led the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, to conclude that, as consistent with the import and purport of our Second Amendment, a citizen army should be armed with military personnel weapons to best thwart a takeover of our Nation's Government by those hell-bent in instituting a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship—a form of Government altogether inconsistent with the framework that the founders of our free Republic had heretofore established for it, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution that the States had ratified—a Constitution that includes a well-stocked set of elemental,fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties that are not to be modified, abrogated, ignored, or perfunctorily dismissed. As for ammunition magazines, the retort to the perfunctory exclamation of the antigun New Progressive Left that no one needs high capacity magazines is threefold. First, we begin with the obvious: ammunition magazines are a necessary component of semiautomatic weapons. And, as for what constitutes an acceptable number of cartridges, and what might, to the antigun radical Left activist constitute an unacceptable, “high capacity,” ammunition magazine, no one can reasonably define what ‘high capacity’ means; any attempt to do so reduces to arbitrary absurdity. Second, an ammunition magazine holding several rounds, for home defense, makes simple common-sense, whether an innocent individual faces one assailant or several assailants. The imposition of limitations on the number of cartridges a given ammunition magazine is, for a particular firearms, under law, permitted to hold, are ultimately arbitrary senseless and pointless. Third, going back to the initial antigun pronouncement that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible civilian citizen simply doesn’t need a ‘high capacity’ ammunition magazines, whatever that expression, ‘high capacity’ means, simply begs the question whether one does need such high capacity ammunition magazines to adequately thwart a potential threat. "Need," in and of itself, namely "need per se," is defined by purpose. But, the antigun proponent’s pronouncement that a person doesn’t need a ‘high capacity magazine’ is logically faulty on other grounds. There are many things a person possesses that a person may not need. There are wants as well. Suppose I just happen to want a so-called ‘assault weapon’ and so-called high capacity ammunition magazine, as a component of that weapon. Why shouldn’t I, as an average, law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, be able to have one? It is no answer to say society will be safer if I don’t have certain weapons and certain ammunition magazines. Extrapolating from misuse of any firearm by a dangerous lunatic and psychopathic criminal to me and tens of millions of other Americans who desire to exercise their natural right to own and possess these firearms and ammunition magazines and who are not lunatics or psychopathic criminals is to constrain, unconstitutionally and unconscionably, tens of millions of Americans due to the actions of a few undesirables. Again, the idea promulgated by antigun proponents that society, the Collective, the Hive, will be better off if those tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible citizens don’t have access to these weapons and components even if they themselves are not a danger to society and never would be is to accept an ethical position, utilitarian consequentialist, that most Americans don’t ascribe to: the idea that it is better to lose a few innocent lives for the apparent benefit of a larger group. But, that is an alien concept, abhorrent to most Americans, and certainly abhorrent to those who founded our Nation. People are not ants or bees, even as these New Progressive Leftists believe them to be so, and would treat people as such.And, as 'need' is defined by purpose, no greater need exists, today, than for a citizen army to be well-armed against the real threat of a Marxist-Socialist takeover of the Government and the enslavement of the American citizenry that such a takeover would entail. It is just this dire need that exists and more so now than ever before in light of those who argue that no need exists for so-called ‘weapons of war.’ The American citizenry must be well-armed to thwart a possible takeover of our Government by this antigun New Progressive Left that is intent on destroying our Nation's Constitution; that is intent on erasing our Nation's history; and that is intent on endowing the federal Government with the means necessary to do so: to subjugate the American citizenry, and thoroughly control all thought and action. The American citizenry must never be taken in by the duplicitous, claim made by this insurgent antigun New Progressive Left that its motive for disarming Americans is simply a desire to protect the life, well-being, and safety of Americans and that society, the Collective, is best served if Americans are disarmed, even if that means that the lives of individuals in that society will be placed in danger therewith. What in fact does it even mean to say that it is okay to lose a few innocent lives through the disarming the citizenry if the greater society, the greater Collective, the greater Hive, is secure? If a Left-wing extremist argues that the well-being of ten lives are worth more than the well-being of one, what is the sanctity in numbers if not for the individual? And, how, for that matter, is one better served to have lost his or her life for having not had the effective means a firearm provides to secure it, to be told that his sacrifice is an acceptable loss because the Collective, the Hive has been better served thereby? Really. If the antigun New Progressive Left proponent doesn’t give a damn about the sanctity of the individual, where is the sanctity found in numbers alone? And, why should that Collective, that Hive even bother to exist at all, that the multitude is nothing more than expendable fodder anyway? Who, then, or what, then, is better served? And, is everyone truly in the same boat, abjectly defenseless? What about those policy maker and billionaire elites who live behind gated communities, and who travel in armored vehicles, with a contingency of armed guards? “Oh,” the hoi poloi is told, “they are the queen bees!” “Their lives are worth so much more than yours!” How so? That the New Progressive Left so decrees THAT to be so? But, how does that idea square with the notion that the antigun New Progressive and Radical Left and cares about securing the life, safety, and well-being of Americans, when their Collectivist and Utilitiarian Consequentialist precepts dictates quite clearly that they don’t give a damn at all? It is all just empty words! In fact, the ethical, political, and social position of the New Progressive Left is bankrupt. We see that in the fact that the New Progressive Left supports late term abortion. They don’t care about the most innocent of human life, so it is highly doubtful that they vouchsafe care about ten or twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand or a hundred thousand lives. Reducing life to mere numbers reduces to absurdity the New Progressive Left’s concern about the value of human life at all. These people are simply masters of emotional rhetoric. Phrases like, military styled assault rifle,’ and ‘weapon of war,’ and ‘high capacity magazine,’ are emotionally charged, deliberately deceptive phrases, intended to and calculated to spark a feeling of unease in the target audience: the American public, thereby making the public receptive to bans on any firearms and any gun components that fall into the named categories. But, the fact that they really don’t care about the life of individuals is reflected in their policy stances on immigration and abortion, as well as on the matter of firearms ownership and possession. Hence, any argument they make even if superficially plausible is vacuous, because the basis for it concern for human life, really doesn’t exist at all. It is just a platitude, a makeweight, a sad, disturbing ruse.

SECOND PRONG: ENCOURAGE EVERY STATE TO ENACT “RED FLAG” LAWS

This restrictive gun policy objective entails expanding the list of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess firearms. New Progressive Left Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President—namely, the front runners—all support across the board State enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Several States have already enacted such laws, and all of them either directly infringe the Second Amendment or otherwise come dangerously close to doing so and certainly impinge upon one's exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although the text of these laws as they presently exist in those jurisdictions that presently have them, or that are otherwise in the process of enacting Red Flag laws or considering enacting Red Flag laws, do vary from State to State. But, all of these Red Flag laws have one defining characteristic: they all operate ex parte. What does that mean? It means that Courts conduct hearings  where only one party to the action is present at the hearing, namely the party who is attempting to obtain a Court order against another party who is not initially present at the Court hearing to defend his interests. The interest at stake here is retention of one's personal property, namely, one's firearms. In an ex parte hearing, under Red Flag laws, one party, or side, at the hearing seeks a Court order requiring the other party, who isn't present at the hearing, an American citizen who has  committed no crime but whom the accuser is claiming is nonetheless dangerous because that person has firearms in his or her possession,. to surrender those firearms to Governmental authority. Thus, the accuser is seeking the removal of that person’s personal property, that person’s firearms— prior to the affected party’s ability to present a case in his or her defense, who would obviously wish to keep his personal property but cannot do so because the affected party has no opportunity to confront the accuser until some point subsequent to the actual removal of the person’s personalty, their firearms, assuming the Court issues an order requiring the surrendering of weapons to Governmental authority. It is only after the fact, the removal of the firearms--the personal property--takes place, that a hearing is conducted where both sides are present and the party, against whom the action was taken, attempts to make a case for restoration of his personal property. All of these “Red Flag” laws, play on some variation of this theme and all of them impinge upon or are in danger of impinging upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, all of these "Red Flag" laws are Constitutionally suspect and they all should be scrutinized before enactment to see if they pass Constitutional muster. But, that never happens. The question is do we really need these laws to protect society from the possibility of danger. And that notion of 'possibility' is a red herring. We would ask: How “possible” is that possibility of danger, and how do we know that a person, whomever it is that may target a person’s firearms, is doing so with an honest motive. And even if the accuser has an ostensibly honest motive for bringing action against a gun owner, forcing a person to forsake his personal property by Court order, under a State’s “Red Flag” law, the machinery of justice is, for all that, moving against a person who has committed no crime. The Court is faced with the dubious task of rendering an adverse decision against a person without having actually met with the person and therefore has no opportunity to conduct and to preside over an adversary proceeding to which all American citizens are entitled. Ex parte proceedings are, not surprisingly, frowned on in the law, as they are by nature, contrary to our Nation's sacred jurisprudential principles. Generally, a full adversary proceeding can and should be conducted. Likely, we would see that the person who is making a claim against individual without having to confront that person in open Court, would think twice about the danger presented, if a full adversary hearing were conducted. But, suppose the danger is imminent or appears to be truly imminent. In that event, every State has mechanisms by which a person can request a Court to order a personal protection order against that person who is deemed a threat. That too is handled ex parte, and a Court if convinced that a threat is imminent could certainly issue an ex parte order requiring of the person who is deemed a threat, to relinquish his or her firearms if they have any. Thus, Red Flag laws don’t do anything that personal protection orders don’t already accomplish except they make it easier for more people to make spurious, specious claims against people, often for ulterior motives, and yet avoid having to face the consequences for making those false claims, as Red Flag laws do not generally, if not invariably, provide a mechanism through which a person wrongly targeted can bring action against his or her accuser.Secondly, under federal law, 18 U.S.C § 922(g) and (n), individuals, including those convicted of felonies and those who had been institutionalized for mental illness, are not permitted to own and possess firearms anyway unless they obtain a certificate of relief from disability. Red Flag laws operate as a backdoor for expanding the domain of individuals not permitted to own or possess a firearm. Since antigun proponents denounce out-of-hand the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it should not come as a surprise that they would look for seemingly plausible ways to expand the domain of people considered unfit to own and possess firearms beyond those categories that already exist in federal law, claiming as they always do, that what motivates them is the desire to protect society when that is patently untrue. What really motivates these people is a desire to reduce the Second Amendment to a nullity, under the pretext that they give a damn about the life, safety, and well being of others. But they don’t because they don’t recognize that a person has a right of self-defense and don’t care that a firearm is the best means by which a person can effectively defend themselves against attack; and as they place their faith in Government to control the masses, and don’t trust the citizenry, their entire view of man and man’s relationship to Government and to each other is the obverse of that of the founders of our Nation. The Second Amendment isn’t consistent with the tenets of Collectivism.

THIRD PRONG: "EXPAND" GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS

Expanding background checks, delaying the purchase of, trade, or resale of guns and gun paraphernalia is merely another 'muscular' attempt to slowly whittle away at the true efficacy of the right codified in the Second Amendment. It is merely another mechanism to reduce the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a nullity. It need hardly be said that most criminals don’t obtain their firearms lawfully. They either steal firearms or obtain them on the black market or through straw purchases all of which are illegal, If the stated purpose is to close what antigun proponents point to as loopholes, then let’s take a look at those purported loopholes. One concern mentioned is that people don’t have to go to the holder of an FFL to obtain a firearm if one purchases a firearm directly or if a person purchases a firearm from another person at a gun show, where laws are not enforced. Well, actually they are. No one is permitted to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of firearms without complying with federal law and applicable State law. Purchases through the internet have to be made through the intermediary of a person holding an FFL. Purchases at gun shows are usually made through a holder of an FFL directly as are purchases made at a retail gun store where the sellers would be required to have an FFL, and possibly a State gun license as well. What about private sales at gun shows? Well, sellers of firearms are still required to comply with the law. No one is permitted to dispose of a firearm to an individual who is prohibited from federal law from possessing a firearm. Antigun groups like to argue that “gun” people are unscrupulous. Well, no they aren’t. Law-abiding gun owners are the most scrupulous of American citizens. See NRA discussion on thisThe antigun New Progressive Left, viewing gun ownership as evil, doesn’t draw a tenable distinction between law-abiding gun owners and criminals. But, this should come as no surprise. The Progressive New Left conflates the two groups, illegal aliens and legal immigrants, to make the spurious argument that President Trump is against immigration. No he isn’t, and never was. During his campaign he pointed out over and over again that what he does oppose is “illegal immigration.” The Progressive New Left seems to have amnesia about this. The President’s immigration policies since holding Office are systematize and streamline legal immigration, and to get a handle on illegal movement of people and drugs across our Nation’s borders that, for decades Congress has failed to deal with. And, so, the problem has worsened through the years, becoming virtually impossible to manage now. And President Trump is receiving no more assistance from Congress now, than had any President before him. He is not suggesting anything unusual. Other Countries control their Nation’s borders. Consider Canada for example. Why should our Nation be different?While blasé about controlling illegal traffic across our Nation’s Southern Border, it is wondrous strange that the antigun Progressive New Left is so particular about clamping down on the law-abiding citizen’s wish merely to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without being plagued by hundreds of extraneous laws drawn up merely to frustrate and oppressive the gun owner. The instant gun background check program has worked fine. Instances of so-called “mass shootings” are few in number and pale into insignificance when compared to the daily shootings due to criminal misuse of firearms. The Progressive New Left seems to be little bothered by that, only drawing attention to, and with great fanfare, the use of a firearm by the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked. And their answers are directed not to dealing effectively with those sorry souls, but for tens of millions of innocent, average, law-abiding, rational, responsible individuals.

FOURTH PRONG: IMPLEMENT GUN "BUYBACK"  MEASURES 

Gun buybacks fall into two categories. One category utilized by various Cities in the past is “gun buybacks” as voluntary program that antigun politicians draw out of the closet now and again merely as a political stunt. These buybacks are directed, of course, not to the psychopathic killer, common criminal, or to those few individuals who suffer from psychoses that truly represent a danger both to themselves and others abd then goes off half-cocked. No! These gun buybacks are directed to the average, law-abiding, responsible gun owner. But, not surprisingly, gun owners who take part in these programs do not surrender expensive firearms, but, rather, old, probably inoperable firearms. Even the liberal weblog, Trace, admits that the truly voluntary “buybacks” don’t work to lower crime rates, as criminals don’t take part in these programs. Why should they? And, those individuals who do surrender firearms to police authorities for a few bucks aren’t people who misuse firearms anyway. So, then, what seemingly plausible basis is there for these buyback programs? The implicit, but false, assumption, is that by reducing the number of guns in the public domain that will, ipso facto, reduce “gun” violence. Yet, that idea, on its face, is ridiculous, and not simply due to the volume of firearms in the public domain, if that is a sound factor for accounting for “gun violence” anyway because, again, the people who take part in the program are not those who commit crimes with guns—or with any other implement for that matter. So, this category of gun buybacks is at best, a poor solution to resolving the problem of criminal violence and, at worst, it is a cruel hoax, designed to give some ignorant Americans the feeling that Government is doing something effective about crime rates in some urban areas when it really isn’t and is simply a “smoke and mirrors” scheme to create the false impression that Government truly cares about providing a safe and secure City environment for the public, when Government doesn’t really give a damn at all. Antigun groups and antigun politicians are aware of this, of course, but in rebuttal, simply assert that gun buyback programs do work, especially those that are structured properly. The website gunxgun.org, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment, to acknowledges that, on a macro level, namely, in the public domain, these gun buyback programs, to date, don’t make communities any safer. What the site does say is that, homes are safer, once firearms are removed from the home: no guns in the home means no gun violence. Well, that point is true, but only trivially so. For, this doesn’t mean people prone to violence in the home won’t or can’t find the means to injure or kill another human being whether a gun is the implement of harm or some other implement. But, what is really interesting about the comment is the implicit point made that is a running theme through all attempts to impose on the public more and more draconian gun schemes. The running theme is that the citizenry cannot be trusted; that all people are potentially a danger both to themselves and to others, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from the homes. But, what of the obverse? Aren’t particular individuals in the community thereby made less safe  having lost the most suitable means available to secure both their life and that of their family, namely that a  firearm provides? The fact of the matter is that the antigun New Progressive Left cares little, if at all, for the well-being and safety of individuals in society. They are only interested in protecting the wealthy, and well-connected and powerful. For these people—people who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism—perceive our Country, our society, as an ant colony or bee hive. As long as the greater Collective, the Hive, is secure—meaning that as long as they, “the elite” of society are safe and secure—that is all that truly matters. They view the mass of society, the Hoi Poloi, as expendable. That is the inference to be drawn from their policy goals. For all their talk about concern for the masses, including illegal aliens—even those who are acutely dangerous to the life, health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry—the New Progressive Left cares little for the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. They seek to control all thought, and all conduct, to treat everyone equally—that is to say, subjugated, submissive to the will of the State, the Government, a Government they control. The New Progressive Left’s vision for  our Nation is the antithesis of that of our founders. It is little wonder then that these people attack their memory, demolish our monuments, and seek to erase our history. The Second category of gun “buyback” programs and one championed by Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Eric Swalwell, and a signature component of his campaign before that campaign came to an abrupt end, isn’t a gun buyback program at all. It’s a confiscation scheme, similar to the infamous gun confiscation schemes employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, neither Government of which recognizes the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of its citizens—really subjects—to keep and bear arms. What Eric Swalwell championed, and what Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, has taken up is a antigun policy measure mandating that the American public surrender any and all firearms that the Government deems unsuitable for public ownership and possession and which it places under the banned category of ‘assault weapons,’ which means, as we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have known all along and as we have heretofore so stated on our website: the eventual confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms. The expression, ‘buyback,’ always a misnomer, is, as conceived by and mentioned by Joe Biden and, in fact, as understood and desired by the Democratic Party Progressive New Left, not a buyback at all, under any reasonable interpretation. It is a blatant gun confiscation scheme scarcely cloaked as a “gun buyback.” The program as envisioned isn’t voluntary. It’s mandatory. As conceived, and as it would likely be implemented either by any Democratic Party New Progressive Left—if that Candidate is elected U.S. President—any firearm designated by the New Progressive Left to be an ‘assault weapon,’ would be illegal. Any American citizen who presently has one or more such weapons would be required to surrender them to Governmental authority. If the Democratic Party controls both Houses of Congress we can expect Congress to enact mandatory gun confiscation, along with other draconian “muscular” laws. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, mandatory confiscation is unlikely to be enacted. But, if a Democrat secures the U.S. Presidency, the American public may very well see a flurry of executive orders operating as law, and accomplishing, then, the same thing as a Congressional enactment. Kamala Harris has threatened to issue just such an executive order were she to secure her Party’s nomination and then secure the Presidency. Such law or executive order would be immediately challenged. A mandatory gun confiscation scheme amounts to an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment’s ‘just compensation’ clause as semiautomatic weapons--essentially every weapon, now, that the New Progressive Left lumps under the fictions of 'assault weapons' or 'weapons of war'--manufactured by reputable companies like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sturm Ruger, Beretta, Sig Sauer, Heckler and Koch, Remington, and many others, all of which produce extremely well-designed and engineered products. These firearms cost, on the retail market, several hundred and even several thousand dollars. A gun confiscation scheme would not provide just compensation for these firearms. A gun confiscation scheme would also, and obviously, infringe the Second Amendment. And such a gun confiscation scheme would infringe the Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. The gun confiscation scheme targeting semiautomatic weapons would impinge on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment would be implicated and violated as well. But, then, the New Progressive Left doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights, and never did. It is all sham for them to even suggest that they do. But, if it should come to pass the New Progressive Left does take control of Government--both Houses of Congress, and the U.S. Presidency-- the American citizenry will see Government imposing a flurry of unconstitutional, unconscionable gun restrictions on the American citizenry such as this Nation has never seen before. The New Progressive Left intends to force their new vision of America on the Nation, a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders, the framers of our Constitution. And the New Progressive Left will commence with an attempt at de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. The founders of our free Republic would not abide this; and those of us who believe in our Nation as a Constitutional Republic, where the American people, the citizenry, are the ultimate sovereign of their Nation, not Government, and where Government was created to serve the people and not the other way around, should not abide this occurrence either, and most likely, won't.When firearms are removed from average, law-abiding, rational citizens in violation of Due Process requirements, and when those American citizens, for whom draconian gun laws do not preclude gun ownership and possession, are oppressed by complex gun registration requirements making gun ownership and possession an increasingly difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, and when guns are treated less like personal property and more like State owned property that Americans can only rent for use at a particular time and at a particular place, after which guns must be returned to the State, to be secured and stored, then it should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not public safety and never was. The goal is population control and always has been.__________________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT FRAMES FALSE SMOKE AND MIRRORS ISSUES: “GUN VIOLENCE’ AND ‘GUN CONTROL’ TO ADVANCE ITS ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA

PART FOUR

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” First quotation ~ Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany, 1933-1945“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly— it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Second quotation~ Joseph Goebbels“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” ~ Philip K. Dick, Twentieth Century American author; prolific writer of science fiction and winner of prestigious Hugo award for best novel: “The Man in the High Castle,” published in 1962It should be evident to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that all these calls for further gun restrictions, many of them coming from all of the leading Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President—Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Pete Buttigieg—are evidence of a personal bias against guns generally, and against civilian gun ownership particularly; and all of them vying for a chance to impose their Marxist/Socialist agenda on the entire Nation.Every one of these people clamors for further gun background checks, enactment of “Red Flag laws,” and bans on so-called “assault weapons,”  and so-called "gun buybacks." Not one of these people has the least interest in securing, preserving, and strengthening the Second Amendment. To the contrary, they all wish to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether, and their gun control measures are clear evidence of that, and their recent pronouncements on the subject make that fact abundantly clear. A slippery slope to Armageddon is not fallacy here. Prima facie evidence exists for this conclusion. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment is the goal of the New Progressive Left.The New Progressive Left seeks nothing less than a complete transformation of our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist State, and they have been appealing to the public to make that nightmare a reality.The present crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President know that the transformation sought isn’t tenable as long as the public does in fact keep and bear arms and they mean to change that; to change public attitude toward guns and toward self-defense by means of guns; and, with the Press, with whom these New Progressive Left candidates have an incestuous relationship and with whom they are constantly collaborating, in an attempt to control the running narrative of solving “gun violence” with a new wave of “gun control measures,” we see the New Progressive Act employing a massive Psy-Ops campaign against Americans, inserting memes into the psyche of the citizenry: ‘guns are evil,’ ‘guns cause crime,’ ‘civilized people don’t need guns and don’t want them,’ ‘guns turn good people into bad people,’ and so on and so forth.But, the issue of ‘gun violence’ is nothing more than a fiction, a straw man devised and concocted out of whole cloth by public relations firms for their client, the antigun New Progressive Left. This straw man created is diabolical in the conception, cunningly employed in practice. The New Progressive Left uses this straw man to deliberately draw attention of the public and Congress away from the two truly legitimate issues: the causes of ‘societal violence’ and the perpetrators of it. By framing the issues in the way it does--on implements of violence, rather than on the root causes of violence and on the perpetrators of violence, the New Progressive Left forces Congress and the public to focus attention on a false issue, ‘guns' per se--'gun violence'--as if the gun itself was the perpetrator of violence. But, there is method to the New Progressive Left's madness: An all-consuming obsession with  undermining the Second Amendment; wasting tax dollars pursuing a bugaboo that the radical Left itself had evoked; and deliberately fomenting anger and resentment in the public, in furtherance of its own misbegotten and loathsome agenda. The New Progressive Left, by sleight of hand, conveys the impression that the true threats to society are guns, gun owners, the Second Amendment, the NRA, and firearms manufacturers, notwithstanding that the true threats to societal equanimity and serenity fall squarely on the New Progressive Left itself and on those who sympathize with their agenda: the Hollywood producers who create films that glorify killers and their misuse of firearms, and the radical political Left-wing Hollywood actors who portray these killers, even as they bemoan guns and demean law-abiding gun owners and the NRA off camera; the software programmers, creators of thousands of gruesome video games; and the technology industry whose new and ever evolving products serve, increasingly, to induce human beings to spend more time in the world of virtual reality rather than in the real reality, cultivating real relationships and real human interaction. In fact the New Progressive Left, is directly responsible for creating the environment in which societal violence is nurtured and in which that violence is allowed to grow and flourish. The New Progressive Left does this through the constant vitriol it spouts and the false dichotomy it has conceived--a society of victims and victimizers. It has created a false dichotomy in attempt to foment the very violence it disingenuously tells us it seeks to curtail and that, it claims, deceitfully, would be curtailed, if only the citizenry would surrender its firearms--all of them, as if "the gun" is the root of problem of society, when the root problem, rests, of course, in the disease that is the New Progressive Left itself and in those radical, anarchist elements in society who desire to tear down the very framework of a free Republic that the founders lovingly gave to us. The radical Left elements and anarchists are the rot and cancer that must be cut out, but the New Progressive Left diabolically focuses the public's attention away from itself and  directs the public's attention on the healthy tissue of society, our Nation's Constitution,  urging excision of great portions of the Constitution, commencing, not unsurprisingly, with the Second Amendment--suggesting major changes, involving a general weakening of the other natural, fundamental, and immutable rights; and these unspeakably evil, ruthless elements, are calling for, nay, demanding a major reworking of the Articles of the Constitution. And, many members of the polity have, unfortunately, been seduced by the sanctimonious bellowing of these radical Left elements, and many members of the polity have bought into this dangerous nonsense. How is it that many members of the polity have been seduced?Through use of military techniques of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the New Progressive Left controls public opinion, and seeks to force Congress to bend to its will. The New Progressive Left has deliberately created a toxic environment throughout the Country, creating division among the polity, fomenting violence, all in an attempt to exert pressure on Congress; to extort concessions from Congress that serve the interests of the Progressive New Left, and not the interests of the public. Through deliberate deception, the New Progressive Left eggs the public on in a naked attempt to cajole both the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans to enact further gun control laws that the President and Congressional Republicans know full well are not in the best interests of the public; are antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment; and are detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic. But how many citizens have fallen prey to the constant, pounding of the deceptive messaging of the Radical Left elements and the Radical Left Press? How many Americans have really jumped on the antigun bandwagon? How many of them have been unconsciously and unconscionably manipulated into fully accepting such ludicrous, outlandish antigun, Anti-Second Amendment policy proposals? How many Americans have been reduced to raging, uncontrollable beasts, the acolytes of the New Progressive and Radical Left politicians, those laughing hyenas and  jackals, sitting in their lofty perches, spurring the doting lemmings on and over the cliff. Apparently, all too many Americans have been seduced. Radical shock therapy may be necessary to draw these Americans out of their brain-induced stupor.___________________________________________

DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESS URGE CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS TO FURTHER RADICAL LEFT AGENDA

PART FIVE

In an article posted in The New York Times, on September 2, 2019, titled, “Congress Faces Fresh Urgency On Gun Laws,” the Times is pressing Congress to cave to the frenetic urging of the Leftist antigun crowd, hell-bent on further weakening the Second Amendment, having found an opening in the recent spate of random shootings that occurred in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and, now, Odessa, Texas; exploiting these tragedies, appealing to emotion, rather than to reason, employing the informal logical fallacy of ad misericordium, a fallacy well known to the ancient Greeks: the fallacy of appealing cunningly to pity, misery, and sympathy--playing on the public's emotions, rather than appealing to the public's reason, to obtain the goal, an unarmed citizenry that, if that should come to pass, will not secure public safety, but will endanger the life and safety of the citizenry and will be an open invitation to tyranny. Where will appeals to pity and sympathy for Americans rest, then?Extremist elements are hammering Congress to enact, first and foremost more gun background checks, even as the New York Times acknowledges in its own story that: “In fact, whether a background check would have prevented the West Texas gunman from acquiring his weapon is not known. Chief Michael Gerke of the Odessa Police Department said the gunman, who had been fired from a trucking job, had used an AR-15-style rifle, but had a criminal record. It was not clear on Sunday whether the gun had been acquired legally, and the authorities stressed that they had not established a motive.”What is deeply disturbing, perplexing and distressing is that President Trump seems to be allowing himself to be caught up in the frenzied emotion of the moment, seeming to give in to moronic emotional, irrational rhetoric, spawned by another convenient shooting incident. We say this because President Trump has himself resorted to using the same language of the antigun zealots, such as “common-sense” gun laws; and “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” as he appears to be considering the proposals coming from U.S. Presidential Democratic Party candidates. The New York Times details all of this in its typical tabloid fashion, using colorful adjectives and inapt language, like, ‘gruesome,’ and ‘ massacre,’ and ‘assault weapon,’ and ‘powerful gun rights lobbying group’—which emphasizes the NY Times own personal distaste for guns generally; its abhorrence of civilian ownership of guns particularly; and its hatred of the NRA, singularly and emphatically. The article, appearing in the national news section of the paper, reads more like an Op-Ed piece than a news story. But, then, from the content of New York “news” reporting today it is clear that no efficacious distinction exists any longer between the reporting of news and opining about it. The use of Section Headings in the newspaper are superfluous, and need no longer exist, but the paper keeps up the pretense, obviously to confuse its readers into believing that what they take for fact is merely personal value judgment, and what they take for personal value judgment is fact and, as between the two, the way the world is and a normative account of the way the world ought to be is, ultimately, the same; that there is no appreciable difference--as fact and value judgment are one and the same so, that, as what is reported as news and expounded upon in the same news story is, in fact, all news, an exposition of and on reality, on the way things are. And, so the seditious Press tries to make its case against guns and civilian gun ownership, as it always, does as the following purported story illustrates. The NY Times “reports/opines”:“The deadly shooting spree in West Texas this weekend — the latest in an especially gruesome summer of massacres — has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation, giving fresh urgency to a debate that was already expected to be at the top of lawmakers’ agenda when they return to the Capitol next week.The attack in Midland and Odessa, Tex., which left seven dead and 22 wounded, comes weeks after a 24-year-old gunman with an assault weapon killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, in early August. That massacre, hours after one that killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, thrust gun violence into the Washington debate just as Congress left town for its annual August recess.President Trump expressed new openness to gun safety laws — including, he said then, “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” for gun buyers — and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, promised a Senate debate. But in the weeks since, with lawmakers scattered across the country in their home districts, the issue seemed to drift from public view.Now it has come roaring back, with Congress set to return on Sept. 9. At a briefing about Hurricane Dorian at Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters on Sunday, Mr. Trump, who has a record of flip-flopping on gun safety, pledged to find a way to “substantially reduce” mass shootings. But he earlier appeared to dismiss background checks, telling reporters that “they would not have stopped any of it.”Behind the scenes, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, White House officials have been quietly engaged in bipartisan talks with senators who support expanding background checks and so-called red flag laws. The laws make it easier for law enforcement to take guns from people deemed dangerous by a judge who issues a special type of order, called an “extreme risk protection order.”Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said in an interview on Sunday that the two sides still seemed far apart. Mr. Blumenthal said much would depend on whether the president, who has been consulting with the National Rifle Association, was willing to stand up to the powerful gun rights lobbying group.‘I think there is a sense that the American people just desperately want something to be done, and they have to respond to that imperative,’ he said, ‘but are so far nowhere near crossing the Rubicon to stand up to the gun lobby and the N.R.A. as far as I can tell.’”________________________________________Thank you, New York Times, for working diligently and tirelessly on behalf of the Marxist/Socialist new world order. Profuse thanks for once again misleading the American people, spinning elaborate fairy tales about the horrors of guns and “gun violence,” and about that evil, “powerful gun rights lobbying group.” And what is this all for?” We know the answer; you don’t have tell us. You have written a collection of Grimm’s fairy tales—grim indeed—dedicated to the cause of bringing the United States into line that it may be included in the serried ranks of the EU. To accomplish that, you are doing your part to first achieve the penultimate goal.  So, kudos to you. And, what is that penultimate goal? It is to deny to the American people the ability to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms; of course it is!And, what is the ultimate goal of the Marxist/Socialist new world order? You don’t have to tell us because we know the answer to that question too. Once the American citizenry is effectively disarmed, the Marxist/Socialist dystopian dream—the dismantling of a free, Constitutional Republic—can proceed, unimpeded by a disaffected, unruly and restless, and rebellious American citizenry. Whatever is then left of our Nation can then be thrust into the framework of a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance. Quite an accomplishment, that!But, you might want to ask the founders of our Nation, those who risked their lives and well-being to realize their vision of a free sovereign people, living in a free Land, what they happen to think of your new world order you have planned for a new generation of Americans, existing subjugated and subservient to foreign taskmasters. We suspect they would be less than delighted; less than thrilled with the transformation of our Nation into a despotic wasteland. And, we suspect they would be less than overawed at seeing our Nation and the American people controlled with rein, and bridle, and whip by foreign overlords, riding roughshod over them.___________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO COMPROMISING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SIX

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, political philosopher, and one of the founding fathers; from his letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~Patrick Henry, American Attorney and a Founding Father; and famous Antifederalist; quotation from “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution” Note: the Antifederalists demanded that Man’s natural rights be codified in a Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be formally incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists thought that a formal codification of natural rights, since preexistent in Man (both Federalists and Antifederalists took as self-evident the veracity of certain rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator) was unnecessary, as the powers of a Federal Government were to be limited; all other rights and powers retained by the States and the people. The Antifederalists feared that Government would not be held properly in check unless those serving in Government were constantly reminded of the fact that the citizenry would be armed. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights serves as that reminder—a painful thorn in the side of the Radical Left elements today that are forced to deal with it. Circumstances of the present day aptly demonstrate the Antifederalists concern to be acutely and eerily prescient. Fortunately for us, the Antifederalists won the day, and the Constitution was ratified with a set of the quintessential natural rights etched in stone, an integral part and the most critical part of the U.S. Constitution.“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803The Democratic Party Leadership, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, say they are willing to work with President Trump, as reported by The New York Times. Isn’t that nice! We would advise the President and Congressional Republicans to be extremely wary of the overture coming from those two.In the article published in The New York Times on September 16, 2019, titled, “Schumer and Pelosi, Talking to Trump, Try to Sweeten the deal.” The Times reports that,“The top two Democrats in Congress, seeking to ramp up pressure on Republicans to pass legislation extending background checks to all gun buyers, told President Trump on Sunday that they would join him at the White House for a “historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden” if he agreed to the measure.The offer, made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, during an 11-minute phone conversation with Mr. Trump, comes as the president is considering a package of measures to respond to the mass shootings that have terrorized the nation in recent months. The three spoke only about gun legislation, according to aides.Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said in a statement that the conversation was cordial but that Mr. Trump “made no commitments” on a House-passed background checks bill that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are urging him to support.Mr. Trump “instead indicated his interest in working to find a bipartisan legislative solution on appropriate responses to the issue of mass gun violence,” Mr. Deere said.Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer want Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to take up the bill, but the senator has refused to do so without knowing whether the president would sign it. ‘This morning, we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access,’ their statement said, adding, ‘We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the president must sign it.’Their pressure continued a campaign on an issue that has dominated the political debate in Washington and on the Democratic presidential campaign trail since a string of mass shootings over the summer.A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal deliberations, said on Sunday that the president had instructed his advisers to continue to work to find a range of policies that would go after illegal gun sales while protecting the Second Amendment, and expand the role of mental health professionals.”The President needs to be very, very careful suggesting to Schumer and Pelosi that he is conducive to entertaining a gun measure that, on its face, may seem narrowly tailored to constraining the criminal or dangerous lunatic but that can, and most likely would, operate as a backdoor to restricting exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, for the population at large. He may find himself entangled in their antigun mythos. And, if so, he will find it exceedingly difficult to extricate himself from it. Clearly, Left-wing extremists, of which Schumer and Pelosi must be counted among them are desirous of controlling the law-abiding gun owners’ exercise of their Second Amendment right even as they claim only to be concerned with, or suggest that they are only concerned with reducing “gun” violence. But we are talking here of a population consisting of the criminal sociopathic element or dangerous psychotic element of society. Or are we? The Democrats aren’t really saying, and we’ve seen where all of this is headed, before. We know how this plays out; as it always plays out. The Democratic Party Leadership, along with more and more radical Leftist members of the Party, all of whom are taking their cue from members of radical Left-wing Socialist and Communist groups active in this Country, lurking in the shadows, ingratiating themselves with radical Congressional Democrats, have an agenda with items to tick off. One of the items, a key item, is to whittle away at the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry is an abomination for the Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats and for those operating closely with them, orchestrating policy. As they all abhor the Second Amendment, and they are fearful of an armed citizenry, these Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats will use every opportunity they can to constrain law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. If they succeed, tyranny looms._____________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART SEVEN

“Ladies and gentlemen, attention, please! Come in close where everyone can see! I got a tale to tell, it isn’t gonna cost a dime! (And if you believe that, we’re gonna get along just fine.)” ~ Stephen King, American author of horror, fantasy, and the supernatural; first quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991“There were people who lied for gain, people who lied from pain, people who lied simply because the concept of telling the truth was utterly alien to them . . . and then there were people who lied because they were waiting for it to be time to tell the truth.” ~Stephen King, second quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO NEGOTIATING WITH DEMOCRATS ON TERMS THAT DEMOCRATS CREATE.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If Government seriously wishes to deal with violence in society, we have an answer for the President and for Congressional Republicans. To begin, the President, along with House and Senate Republicans, should keep uppermost in mind that the issue that they are confronted with involves “societal violence,” not “gun violence.” For, construing societal violence as gun violence tends to create the illusion that societal violence equates with and reduces merely to a consideration of the existence of guns in society. Get rid of guns, so these Democrats will tell the American public and the problem of violence in society will take care of itself. But, that notion is simply false, and somehow suggests that Congress need not concern itself with the motives of a psychopath or dangerous psychotic in committing a violent act, but only with the implement a person prone to violence might happen to use to harm an innocent human being. And, on that score the concern is not with just any implement—a knife, a bomb, a truck, a hammer, a rope, an axe, one’s own hands, or anything else an evil or sick person bent on doing harm to an innocent person might conceive of using and then put to use—but with a very specific implement that the psychopathic criminal or dangerous psychotic lunatic might happen to use to commit a horrific act of violence: namely a firearm. That, of course, is ridiculous. Yet, reducing the issue of societal violence to gun violence compels one, say a medical researcher or legislator, to focus on the implement of violence rather than on environmental factors at work, along with the genetic markers, that predispose a person to engage in violence in first place. Indeed, the very fact medical researchers working for the CDC would waste research dollars focusing on “gun violence” is, in itself, singularly bizarre, as it compels fascination in the implement of violence a psychopath or dangerous psychotic might happen to employ in wreaking havoc, rather than on the state of mind of the psychopathic killer and of the dangerous psychotic that predisposes that person to commit an act of horrific violence in the first place. Yet, this is precisely what the Radical Left focuses on and what it would have the CDC spend time and money on. This is wasted effort directing medical researchers and legislators to chase after ghosts, and bugbears, and bugaboos. But, that is their intent, predicated on a false premise: that guns somehow predispose a person, any person, to commit horrific acts of violence. For, if true—and for those who have a phobia of or personal abhorrence toward guns, they would presume truth where none exists—the conclusion they seek, which is embedded in the premise, is preordained: the citizenry must be divested of its firearms.So it is that Radical Left Congressional Legislators constantly rant and rave over the scourge of “gun violence,” rather than on the real scourge in this Nation: “societal violence.” In so doing, these reprobates in Congress castigate the gun as if the inanimate object were the perpetrator of the violence, rather than the sentient being who happened to use the gun to harm innocent people. It is all a lie. A tale that Radical Left Congressional Legislators weave. These radical Leftists focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, notwithstanding that it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. By keeping public attention focused essentially on guns, rather than on the psychopathic or psychotic human agent who misuses guns, Congressional Democrats make clear their desire to enact laws targeting guns themselves and, by extension, targeting the vast majority of those who own and possess guns: the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner. The argument oft made by Democrats, either tacitly or expressly, is that gun violence is a function of the sheer number of guns that exists in the Nation and that since the vast number of guns are owned by law-abiding Americans, and not by the criminal or the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked, it is necessary to attack the volume of guns outstanding and that means attacking the millions of law-abiding citizens who own and possess them. But, one could more sensibly argue that, since the law-abiding gun owner does not commit the crimes that take place, it is illogical to conclude that the volume of guns outstanding is a legitimate factor in accounting for violence that ensues as a result of misuse of firearms as it is the relatively small population of criminals and psychotic lunatics who misuse firearms. So, it is those individuals who should be the focus of attention; not “the gun” nor the law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner. After all, guns are not sentient beings. Guns don’t commit violence in the absence of a human agent.Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. The President and Congressional Republicans must not for this. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. The President and Congressional Republicans must not lose sight of this fact for a moment.The real issue that Congress needs to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to  encourage Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda, as dictated to them by American Socialists and Communists. What they all want to do is continually weaken the Second Amendment, until the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essentially nugatory, amounting to the disarming the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to Congressional Republicans that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats that the nature of the issue to be addressed is how to best deal with the dangerous criminal element in society and how best to deal with the dangerous psychotic element in society. These are the issues to be addressed; and these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that the radical Left-wing Democrats seek to direct Congressional attention to, if only obliquely: disarming the law-abiding citizen, and oppressing the law-abiding citizen who seeks to exercise his natural right to keep and bear arms. If the President and Congressional Republicans allow Democrats to frame the issues and, thus, frame the debate, the result attained will do nothing to curb violence in society and will do everything to leave the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen defenseless, and, at once, invite tyranny. But, the most disturbing thing of all is that the President and Congressional Republicans will have had a hand in all of this, unaware that they have been manipulated and played for dupes all along.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE "GUN" NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE AND NOT AGAINST GUNS; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The real issue to be confronted is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence, in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances, i.e., the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once the President and Congressional Republicans mist focus their attention on the right issue, to avoid being led astray into the Leftist narrative. Otherwise they will be drawn into a morass, playing the Democrats’ game, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead the President and Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to encourage the President and Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical Left and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues to be addressed and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel them to address issues they wish for the Trump Administration and for Republicans to address. For the goal of Democrats is not the President’s goal or that of Republicans. The Democratic Party leadership and other Radical Left Democrats have only one goal in mind, even if they talk only obliquely about it: eventual total citizen disarmament.________________________________________

DEMOCRATS TREAT GUNS AS SENTIENT BEINGS AND THAT LIE INFORMS THEIR ACTIONS

PART EIGHT

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ~Jeff Cooper, U.S. Marine, firearms instructor, and author of, “The Art of the Rifle”Guns are not sentient beings. They are no more the perpetrator of violence than a knife, bomb, or motor vehicle is the perpetrator of violence. The issue that Democrats want the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans to deal with does not and never did have anything to do with guns, regardless of what those radical Left Democrats have said. They are setting a trap for President Trump and for Republicans if they even begin to think about negotiating with them over new restrictive gun laws. The salient goal of the Democrat Party leadership and of other Radical Left Democrats is to weaken the Second Amendment, not to preserve and strengthen it; and that salient goal has nothing to do with curbing gun violence, or curbing, for that matter, any violence. A Funny thing about that, though: one would think that all members of Congress would be doing their damnedest to preserve and strengthen the Bill of Rights—all ten of them. But, not all of them do. The Radical Left politicians seek to constrain and weaken the Bill of Rights. They seek to weaken the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. They seek to constrain and weaken the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. They seek to weaken the due process, equal protection, and just compensation clauses of the Fifth Amendment. And, they seek to disembowel the Second Amendment. And, when the Bill of Rights is gutted, our Free Republic will fall. But, placing that hard fact aside, we must ask: What really motivates Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats? Do they really seek to promote public safety and public order? Hardly! But, assuming for sake of argument that these Democrats do have public safety and public order in mind as the impetus propelling them to attack the Bill of Rights and, especially, to viciously attack the Second Amendment. At what cost are public safety and public order thereby secured? We know the answer to these question. There’s no reason to guess. The citizenry must forego exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, then, shall Americans truly forsake their fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable rights for purported public safety and public order that Democrats promise to give them in return for the sacrifice of those sacred, inviolate rights and liberties—sacred, inviolate rights and liberties that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution had fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for Americans, thereafter and ever after, and that good, decent, patriotic Americans have since fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for each and every American? If the citizenry does forsake its God-given rights, then the citizenry forsakes the very mechanism by which and through which it holds a capacious and rapacious Government in check. This isn’t bare and base conjecture. This is hard fact. And, this is principal reason why the Second Amendment must always be robustly defended.President Trump and Congressional Republicans must not fall into the Democrats’ snare. For, Democrats view the issue of violence solely from the standpoint of a need to take guns away from citizens as they abhor guns and they abhor civilian gun ownership. And that fact has become more in evidence in recent weeks and months. Democrats don’t even pretend any longer to preface their remarks, as they once did, with the phrase: “of course we respect the Second Amendment.” Obviously, they don’t; and they never did. And, they have since doffed the mask to convey the illusion that they did care in preserving the Second Amendment. The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans must not go down the path that Democrats are leading them. It’s a no-win situation for them if they do; it's a no-win situation for the Nation; it's a no-win situation for the people of our Nation; and it's a no-win situation for our Constitution.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST GET BACK ON TRACK IF THEY ARE TO REIN IN DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP AND OTHER RADICAL CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS

President Trump and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to the nonsense spouted by the Radical Left about the need for more restrictive, draconian gun laws: laws needlessly, mindlessly expanding background checks, and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to enacting unconstitutional national ‘red-flag’ laws, and laws that have, as their salient purpose, the removal of firearms—semiautomatic firearms, pejoratively and erroneously referred to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—that the anti-Second Amendment Left-wing extremists in Congress seek to confiscate from tens of millions of average, sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens. None of these restrictive gun proposals will work to protect innocent Americans. None of these proposals would ever work. And, here’s the kicker: none of these proposals was ever expected or truly intended to work! They are simply designed to whittle away the basic right, that is fundamental to the safeguarding of our Free, Constitutional Republic, and that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen. If President Trump and Congressional Republicans think that any one or more of these anti-Second Amendment gun measures would work to curb societal violence, and if they would even think of jumping on the bandwagon just to “play it safe,” politically, that would be one sure way to destroy their political futures. To play the game the radical Left Democrats want the President and Republicans to play means only that they have allowed yourselves to play into the hands of those forces in our Nation who seek nothing less than to destroy the very foundation of our Nation. They seek not to preserve the Nation, nor to preserve the life, safety, and well-being of Americans who reside in the Nation.

THE SUREST WAY TO DESTROY OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If someone wanted to destroy our Nation, the surest way to do so would be to undermine the Second Amendment. That, in fact, is what extremists in this Nation, seek to do; to reshape our Nation into something completely at odds with the vision of a free Republic that our founders sought to create and to preserve. Don’t Republicans see that? Can’t they see that? The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution saw the possibility that the foundation of our Nation could be threatened as much by dangerous, rabid forces within the Country, as well from threats arising outside the Country They knew this to be true. That is why they placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of our Nation’s Constitution, creating a citizen army. And, contrary to what some may Americans may believe, including some jurists, most prominently, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment, along with other rights, comprising our Bill of Rights, are fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights—rights that exist intrinsically in man, and, as such, they are rights that predate the creation of our Nation as a free Republic. The Second Amendment is as important today as it was at the time of the ratification of our Constitution. Indeed, the Second Amendment may be more important today. For, the Democrats, controlled now by the New Progressive Left and other radical Left elements within the Party seek to transform our society beyond anything the founders of our Nation could imagine or foresee, except, perhaps, in their worst nightmares. They would be absolutely appalled to envision our Nation moving in the direction the leading Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President seek to drive our Nation toward: a Marxist/Socialist nightmare, if any one of them were actually elected to that high Officee.____________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS  MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON GUN ISSUES, AND THAT MEANS STRENGTHENING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND DIRECTING ATTENTION ON THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE, NOT ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO SEEK MERELY TO EXERCISE THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART NINE

LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” ~ First Quotation, Vladimir Lenin, Russian Revolutionary, Head of Soviet Russia from 1917 through 1924“The goal of socialism is communism.” ~ Second Quotation, Vladimir LeninUnfortunately for us, Left-wing extremists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists have hijacked the Democrat Party. They did this so that they could use the Party—a well ensconced institution of Government—to their advantage; to work through their own agenda: an agenda antithetical to the best interests of our Nation as a free Republic and antithetical to preservation of our Constitution; antithetical to the best interests of the American citizenry; and antithetical to our rich cultural and historical heritage. They seek to subvert this Nation. They seek to transform our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship, and thence, to an out-and-out Communist State. But President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the Americans citizenry know this or ought to know this. Left-wing extremists are unapologetic in their aims. They are inveterate liars and ruthless to the core. Given these facts, why would the President and Congressional Republicans even consider negotiating with these reprobates at all, as these extremists seek, as the first item on their agenda to enact more restrictive gun laws that do nothing to protect the citizenry but leave the American citizenry defenseless—prey to the lowest common denominator in society, the criminal, psychopathic and sociopathic elements and to dangerous psychotic elements; and susceptible to an overreaching, overarching, overbearing Government that is capable of harassing, subjugating, and controlling the unarmed American citizenry?‘These Left-wing extremists seek to disarm the American citizenry, making the citizenry decidedly and decisively less safe. Criminals and dangerous lunatics would have open season on the innocent human beings in our Nation; and the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing elements in Government would have open season on the Constitution; ripping it from its moor; thrusting the Nation into chaos; enabling radical elements in our Nation to exploit the chaos to institute revolution—a revolution that is not designed to create a stronger Nation, nor to preserve the autonomy and individuality of each American citizen in it, but to twist and contort the fundamental underpinnings of our Nation into something abhorrent and horrific, something completely antithetical to what the framers of our Constitution, envisioned, proposed, and successfully implemented—a Dystopian vision of our future, completely at odds with the vision of that of the framers of our Constitution, the founders of a free Constitutional Republic..The American people tolerate much and can forgive much. But, Americans are very attuned to duplicity, mendacity, hypocrisy, and outright stupidity. Neither the President nor Congressional Republicans will save their jobs by failing to stand up for the Nation, for the American people, and for our Constitution against the Leftist extremists who seek to destroy it all.To behave like the New Progressive Left and other Left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party will, in the eyes of Americans, would only serve to make the President and Congressional Republicans, one of them. The President and Congressional Republicans will be be dead wrong if they think they can play both sides against the middle.___________________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART NINE

NINE POINTS  TO PONDERFirst, understand that the Radical Left Democrats focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, when it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. Don’t fall for it. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. Don’t lose sight of that fact for a moment. Second, so, then what is the real issue? The real issue you need to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead you astray. Don't let them, for they intend to encourage you to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to you that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. You should make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues that you wish to address, and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel you to address issues they wish for you to address, that they may attain their goal: eventual citizen disarmament.Third, so, then, make clear to all Congressional Democrats that you want to address societal violence. To do that, you must gain control of the narrative. Explain to the Democrat Party Leadership and to other Radical Left Democrats that if they truly wish to curb societal violence, then discussion and debate must be directed to the issue of societal violence and the perpetrators of that violence. The issue before you is not about guns or gun violence. The issue of societal violence never was about guns and gun violence. Redirect discussion in the direction it belongs: on the causes of societal violence and the measures to be taken against those that threaten innocent lives, regardless of the implements they use. You must create the narrative, and make Congressional Democrats follow your lead.Fourth if Democrats continue to scream for more gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, tell them that those laws that target misuse of firearms should be vigorously enforced. The Nation does not need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner, when the laws already enacted are not enforced against perpetrators of violence: the common criminal, the psychopathic gang member, and the dangerous lunatic.Fifth, if Democrats insist on enacting restrictive gun laws infringing the Second Amendment, then force these antigun elements in the Democrat Party to explain how further gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners will curb or curtail societal violence. These radical Left Democrats can’t, of course, offer a sound logical explanation because their goal is to disarm the civilian population. That was always their goal. A rash of “mass” shootings is, for these Democrats, simply a pretext to accomplish that end. But, they will never admit that. So, hit these Democrats with the truth. Tell them that their attack on firearms is and always was a fairy tale concocted by public relations firms at the direction of the extremist Left-wing elements who seek to wrest Government control from the hands of the citizenry, where power truly belongs, and that you will not assist them in delivering that power to those who seek to bring to fruition a new vision of our Country, a vision inconsistent with that of our founders. Tell these Democrats that you will not assist them in tearing down the U.S. Constitution. Sixth, tell these Democrats that you are well aware that their gun policies are not designed to safeguard of our Nation; tell them that enactment into law of the gun policies they seek won’t preserve our Nation, that the gun proposed gun policies they seek to enact into law would only endanger the very foundation of the Nation. Tell these Democrats that you are sick and tired of hearing the same “song” over and over again. Tell them that you have heard well enough from these anti-Second Amendment elements in the Democrat Party, in the seditious Press, and in the Nation at large, once again and ever again, as bring out of the attic the same old tired firearms proposals—and occasionally, as with “Red Flag” laws, concoct new ones—and that all of these proposals are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to weaken and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment in order to undercut the entire Constitution, the very foundation and framework of our free Republic, and a free, autonomous citizenry. Tell them you will not tolerate the constant unconstitutional and unconscionable battering of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Seventh, make plain to the reprobates in the Democratic Party that the best way to protect innocent lives is by enforcing those numerous laws against criminals and the criminally insane that we already have on the books, and make clear that Congress must aggressively enforce those laws before considering adding more restrictive gun laws into the mix. Ask those who seek to disarm the citizenry to explain why they think we need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, anyway. Make these reprobates produce sound evidence to support their position. Eighth, force Democrats to acknowledge that they are simply exploiting tragic incidents to bring their ultimate goal into fruition: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Force them to acknowledge that what it is they really seek, what it is they really want is not “gun control” but “citizen/population control” and what they truly seek to control is not the common criminal or the occasional lunatic, but the average, law-abiding citizen. Force these New Progressive Left and radical Left-wing Democrats to acknowledge that they see an armed citizenry as the real threat to the kind of Country they envision, and that the kind of Country they want to erect is abhorrent to the Nation the founders sought to give Americans and which they did give to Americans: a free Republic.Nine, tell Democrats that the gun policies they seek to enact into law, including, inter alia, unnecessary gun background checks and extended gun transfer waiting periods, bans on semiautomatic firearms, ‘red flag’ laws, and universal gun confiscation measures disguised as voluntary ‘gun buybacks,’ are inconsistent with the present framework of our Nation, and that, if Democrats are unhappy with that framework and seek to dismantle it in order to create another one to their liking, then you are not interested in talking with them; that the gun measures they seek to implement are beyond the pale, and that you are at an impasse.__________________________________________

IF GUN MEASURES ARE WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT, THEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD GIVE THEM ONE AND IT IS ONE REPUBLICANS HAVE PROMULGATED BEFORE

PART NINE

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of a noble spirit, the most corrupt congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. ~Reverend Nicholas Collin, writing under the pseudonym,” ‘Foreign Spectator,’ taken from an article he penned, appearing in a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette,  November 7, 1788“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Joseph Story, early Jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th Century; quotation from Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 1833“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” ~Alan Dershowitz, Contemporary American lawyer and academic; Professor Emeritus, Harvard University; and scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law; well-noted, self-ascribed Civil Libertarian; now apparently loathed by the Left-wing “power elite” for having the audacity to assail the ACLU, and for defending President Trump; often a guest on Fox News; but shunned by the mainstream networks, CNN, MSNBC, et.al.

A GUN MEASURE THAT WOULD WORK TO CURB SOCIETAL VIOLENCE

Democrats have recently proposed a flurry of restrictive gun laws targeting tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners. Those antigun measures are not carefully constructed to target the criminal and occasional lunatic. The American public knows this. Hopefully, the President and Congressional Republicans know this, too. Such draconian gun measures will not make our Nation safer, and are not designed to make our Nation safer. They are only designed to weaken the Second Amendment. But, if any federal legislation would tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Second Amendment, what would that legislation look like? There is such a gun law, and it is one that would enable the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner to carry a gun for self-defense wherever that person travels in this Nation and in the territories of our Nation. Such a gun law would deal effectively with societal violence. And such Congressional bills had been introduced to realize the goal of reducing societal violence.Perhaps Congressional Republicans need to be reminded that they had a bill once to deal effectively with societal violence. In fact they had several such bills, when they controlled both Houses of Congress when the 115th Congress was in session. These sets of bills involved National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity.* What happened to those bills? One that had actually passed the House, 115 H.R. 38, was allowed to die in Senate Committee. Well, it is high time to resurrect that bill. The best way to deal with Democrats’ concern over so-called “gun violence” is, after all, to enact a bill that deals effectively with all societal violence perpetrated by both the criminal psychopath and the dangerous psychotic lunatic. Looking at the issue of societal violence as “gun violence” in order to deny to the average American citizen the best means available to defend their life and safety, namely through that which a firearm provides, is a blind, nothing more; a media creation, hyped up by Democrats as if it were a real issue. It isn’t. And, media concocted phrases such as ‘assault weapon’ and ‘weapon of war’ are mere pejoratives and erroneous fictions at that. Such firearms are semiautomatic weapons specifically designed for civilian use, for legitimate purposes. Congressional Republicans should tell antigun Left-wing Democrats that Republicans will henceforth refrain from using glib terminology, a fiction, created merely to inflame the public, nothing more. Republicans should not encourage use of fictions that are created merely for their emotional impact and that enable Democrats to control the running narrative against guns and civilian gun ownership in order to promote an agenda designed to weaken the Second Amendment. What Should Congressional Republicans Do?Congressional Republicans should draft a new bill calling for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The answer to “gun” violence—an effective answer to any violence, really—is found in firearms in the hands of those who are best equipped to deal with that violence immediately when violence occurs or is threatened, before police officers can respond to it. This means that a firearm in the hands of the average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizen is the best response to a threat of imminent violence. Congress should also enforce laws against perpetrators of violence, and really enforce those laws; not pretend to enforce them. This is absolutely necessary before Congress gets swept up into the maelstrom of enacting any new restrictive “gun” laws that invariably target tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen gun owners.A national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bill will certainly get the attention of Leftist extremists self-righteously exclaiming that it is either “their way or the highway.” Republicans might tell the antigun Radical Leftists to take the highway and leave the Nation alone, in peace, for the tens of millions of Americans who believe our Nation is doing just fine as a free Constitutional Republic, with the Bill of Rights intact. Republicans should tell these radical Leftist Democrats that our Nation’s Constitution does not need more tweaking. It is time for Republicans to control the narrative on guns and on other major issues confronting our Nation, including illegal border crossings and at-will abortion.Republicans can present a reasoned and cogent argument for national handgun carry reciprocity as that law strengthens and preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Sure, the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing Democrats will scoff, or laugh, or walk off in a huff, but the fact remains that their attempts to create more and more restrictive gun laws only serves to make a mockery of our Bill of Rights.Did not President Trump make crystal clear in his State of the Union address that this Nation will never become a Socialist State? Did Republicans not notice that most Democrats did not applaud the President when Trump asserted the Nation will never become a Socialist State, but sat sullenly in silence at his remark?Republicans must remain true to the vision that the founders had for this Country, a vision that has allowed our Nation and its people to prosper for over two hundred years; a vision that has made our Nation the most powerful on Earth. Republicans might remind Left-wing Democrats and those who support them that this Nation has succeeded admirably and completely in defeating outside threats; and Republicans should tell these Left-wing Democrats that Americans will succeed in defeating threats emanating from within the Nation as well. President Trump and Congressional Republicans should explain to these reprobates on the other side of the aisle that, despite Left-wing Democrats’ intense distaste for the very existence of the fundamental, indelible, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and despite their singular intent and reprehensible desire to destroy the exercise of that primordial, natural right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, they will not succeed in their efforts to disarm the American citizenry—ever!__________________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this. See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article on House bill 115 H.R. 38 to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, a bill that passed the House but died in Senate Committee. Of Course, a federal law authorizing what already exists intrinsically in man, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, should not be necessary, as such law is at best redundant. But, there is another issue of more pressing concern with a federal mandate, or multi-State compact, permitting a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed throughout the Nation and throughout the Nation’s territories. There is the incipient danger in even countenancing that such Government action is necessary if the right exists implicitly in the American citizenry. For, asserting that Governmental action is necessary to secure the right, in effect, then, undermines, paradoxically, the very nature of the right secured—turning a fundamental right into something less than it is and what it was, as codified, meant to be—transforming it into a statutory right, which is, then, something less a fundamental right, something more akin to a privilege, which is what a Government-made right really is. For, if, truly, Government bestows a right, that can only mean that the right did not exist until Government created it. And, if Government creates a right that it bestows to this person or that person, then Government, as the creator of the right, may also, ipso facto, rescind one’s exercise of it or repeal it outright so that no one can exercise it. Thus, if Congress were to enact national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, there is a real danger in the public tacitly acknowledging that Government has created a right that had not hitherto existed before Congressional enabling legislation that created the right. This undermines the strength of the Second Amendment, essentially subordinating it to mere Statute; subjecting the Second Amendment to constant tinkering: modification, refinement, and loss of import and purport. But, we talk about the need for national handgun carry reciprocity anyway because of the many laws, through the decades that have whittled away at the efficacy of the Second Amendment; and we see this constant disturbing churning away of a God-given right, continuing through the recent flurry of restrictive gun proposals being actively bandied about now—another disheartening round of efforts to undercut the strength of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment._________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE POLITICAL BOYCOTT: AN ASSAULT ON THE NRA AND ON NRA MEMBERS’ FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Antigun activists seek to dispossess the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. That is the reason for their existence. That is the reason for their being. They will deny this of course. They will tell you they don’t want to take all your firearms away, just some of them. They will also tell you they don’t want to prevent every American citizen from owning and possessing firearms, just some of them. But, when pressed, they will admit they abhor firearms and they will tell you that, in a civilized society, no one needs firearms anymore, anyway. They will also tell you that law-abiding, rational citizens today may become lawless, rabidly insane tomorrow. That is highly improbable, ridiculously so, even if only logically possible in a philosophical sense. But mere possibility is enough, for antigun proponents and activists, to support the elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and firearms’ possession.Those who espouse the elimination of firearms would like to see civilian ownership and possession of firearms relegated to the dustbin of history. They hope that guns, as with buggy whips and corsets, will become merely a distant memory. But, there is one hitch to the antigun activists’ goal and that hitch is the presence of the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as categorically affirmed by the high Court in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.The Bill of Rights and U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent antigun legislators from instituting wholesale confiscation of guns in the vein of the Australian scheme. So, antigun proponents in this Nation employ an incremental approach. Instead of banning firearms en mass, they attempt to ban categories of guns.The National Firearms Act of 1934 made possession of machine guns and “sawed-off” shotguns illegal. In fits and starts, many semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by antigun proponents, have become illegal for the average American citizen to own in several States. Antigun legislators also expanded and wish to continue to expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own any firearm.With the murder of students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida by a deranged gunman, antigun activists immediately began to harness public outrage at the senseless deaths. Antigun activists directed public anger toward the activists’ perennial favorite targets: guns, gun owners, gun manufacturers and dealers; and toward their arch-enemy, the NRA.Antigun groups might have reasonably directed public anger at Hollywood for producing movies filled with gratuitous, horrific violence and carnage. They didn’t. And, they could have directed the public’s wrath toward manufacturers of violent video games. They didn’t. Nor did antigun groups look at the cultural milieu in which we live as the true root cause of violence in our Nation: broken homes; illicit drugs; criminal gangs running amok; moral relativism; multiculturalism; historical revisionism; bizarre social constructs; gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, masquerading as mere “life choice;” and the rise of atheistic and socialistic tendencies in this Country, belief systems that are incompatible with natural law and incompatible with the idea of a Divine creator in whom an effective normative ethical system derives.No! It is far easier, although absurd in the contemplation, to direct public anger at an inanimate object, the firearm, and toward the NRA, and toward any person or business entity that espouses support for the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms.One tactic antigun activists employ recently to achieve their ends is the “political boycott.” The way it works, is this: antigun groups attack companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA. Some companies, for example, offer discounts to NRA members. Antigun activists have coerced companies into ending programs offering discounts to NRA members under threat of economic ruin and public shame and condemnation. The purpose of these political boycotts is expressive and coercive, not economic. Antigun activists seek social and political change here, not economic benefit.The use of the political boycott invariably has a First Amendment free speech component, but even those who support the use of political boycotts recognize its danger. “Boycotts are indeed powerful. They do, in fact, have the ability to exact real-world, human costs from those businesses and individuals targeted. The concern over boycotts exists because they have consequences that might have the potential to extend outward from their target to impact a boycotted business's employees or community.” Democratizing The Economic Sphere: A Case For The Political Boycott, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 531, 534 (Winter 2012), by Teresa J. Lee.Scrutiny of both motives and effects of using political boycotts to achieve political and social ends is warranted, lest our rights and liberties be destroyed.Use of the political boycott by antigun activists against the NRA is legally and morally suspect and, from a historical perspective, incongruous. The reason is that the NRA, as a Civil Rights organization—the original Civil Rights organization—has, as its first stated purpose and objective the strengthening and sanctifying of our sacred heritage:“To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.”NRA is the only Civil Rights Group that has, as its salient raison d’être, the defense of a sacred right and liberty as codified in the U.S. Constitution. And the NRA is attacked for this! There is something both odd and deeply disturbing in antigun activists’ reliance on the exercise of one sacred right, free speech, to attack an organization whose stated objective is simply to defend a second sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "NRA Freedom, Join It!"Keep in mind, too, that the political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens. Basically, NRA members have their own First Amendment right of free speech, as expressed in their support of the Second Amendment. The political boycott is used by antigun activists, and is meant to be used by antigun activists, to squelch free speech. This is an impermissible coercive use of the political boycott.“To be protected under the first amendment, the boycott advocates' appeal to their listeners must be persuasive rather than coercive. The distinction is crucial. Persuasive speech has always been accorded the highest first amendment protection on the theory that the free flow of ideas is central to our democratic system of government: ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ By contrast, speech that deprives its listeners of freedom of choice, i.e., coercive speech, distorts the marketplace of ideas by causing listeners to accept an idea not for its ‘truth’ but to avoid some sanction. Coercive speech also undermines the political process, since a democratic society depends upon the autonomy of those who publicly espouse a point of view and of those who listen.” Secondary Boycotts and the First Amendment, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 811, 825 (Summer 1984), by Barbara J. Anderson.There is, though, no autonomy between those who publicly espouse the elimination of civilian gun ownership, ergo de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comprising antigun activists, antigun legislators, antigun billionaire Globalists, and members of the mainstream media who shriek at and attempt to cajole into submission, the American public and businesses, the listeners, who may happen to harbor contrary views.These antigun influences, some domestic and some foreign, intend to speak to and for the American public and for the business community. For companies that do not willingly accede to the antigun agenda, the political boycott operates as a club to coerce compliance with that agenda. The political boycott is not used here as a mechanism meant merely to persuade.The political boycott is as well, a club wielded against NRA members. Antigun proponents ostracize Americans who are NRA members. But, NRA membership is a legitimate First Amendment expression of one’s Second Amendment right. By attacking a citizen’s membership in NRA, antigun forces seek to control speech, crushing dissent. In a free Republic this cannot be countenanced. NRA members should challenge these boycotts.

 ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.PHONE: U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121;PHONE: U.S. House of Representatives: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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