NEW YORK’S “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTION IS A TRAP FOR UNWARY HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

In an article published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the NRA-ILA asserts,“Since the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, gun control advocates have parsed every word of Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for ways in which to continue their campaign against the Second Amendment. Relying on creative interpretations of dicta, these activists try to twist the landmark gun rights ruling into an endorsement of their anti-gun policies.An example of these efforts is on display in the NRA-supported case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case concerns the validity of New York’s discretionary carry licensing regime, where law enforcement is tasked with determining if an applicant has “proper cause” to carry a firearm for self-defense.”That article came out on March 7, 2022, about four months before the U.S. Supreme Court came out with Bruen.The NRA-ILA is correct. Anti-Second Amendment activists do twist legal opinions.Heller held, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”Attempting to secure a loophole, the City of Chicago said the Heller ruling serves as a limitation on the Federal Government, not the States.McDonald shot that idea down, holding “the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Did Anti-Second Amendment zealots accept defeat? No. It just invigorated them, even enraged them.They argued the right to armed self-defense in the home does not extend to the public arena, and energetically pushed that idea, frustrating Americans who sought to exercise their right to armed self-defense wherever they happened to be. Note: there is nothing in the Second Amendment that so much as suggests that the natural law right to armed self-defense is confined to one's home or to some specific place. The natural law right to armed self-defense goes with the man wherever he happens to be. That is basic common sense. The right of self-preservation is not meant to be applied to this or that place, but, rather, it applies to all places and at all times. The right to armed self-defense simply means that a person has the right to use the best, most effective means available to defend his life and that of his family when the need arises. And for the last several hundred years the most effective means available to defend one's life is that provided by a firearm. No one can rationally dispute that. In fact, those activist groups, individuals, and governments that rail against civilian citizen armed self-defense implicitly acknowledge the efficacy of a firearm over any other implement. It works! Compare a firearm to any other instrumentality: knife, bat, golf club, bow and arrow, bullwhip, pepper spray, mace, whistle, air horn, cowbell, arms and legs, stun guns, taser, baton, self-defense keychain, proficiency in martial arts, et cetera. Nothing else comes close in immediate effectiveness for the average person, trained in the use of a firearm for self-defense, and prepared to use it when the need arises.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, made clear:“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”Looking for loopholes in High Court Second Amendment rulings and reasoning has become progressively more difficult for activist Democrat-Party-controlled Governments, true. But they are a creative, resourceful, and crafty bunch.Like the Devil, they always attempt to outmaneuver and outwit the U.S. Supreme Court.The result is a constant dizzying merry-go-round of government action infringing the core of the right.And that, in turn, leads inevitably to challenges to the governmental action and to U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down an unconstitutional action.What follows is yet more governmental action, looking for loopholes in the Court rulings that might allow for constraints on the exercise of the natural law right, and on, and on, and on. . . .In Bruen, the Hochul Government placed a ‘bug in the ear’ of the High Court.In its Brief in support of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement, the Hochul Government mentioned the need for “Sensitive-Place”   restrictions even though, at the time, curiously, the Consolidated Laws of New York never made mention of such “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Was this use of the expression ‘Sensitive-Place’ restriction, in the Government’s Brief, a “motif” for salvaging the State’s concealed handgun carrying regime in anticipation of a negative U.S. Supreme Court ruling?If so, did the Court see through this and hope to get the upper hand on it, or did it fall into a stratagem devised by the Hochul Government that intended to use, and did make extensive use of, this ‘sensitive-place’ motif? It isn’t clear.Justice Thomas made much of it, opining, on behalf of the Court’s majority, “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.”This did not stop the Hochul Government. On the contrary, the Government included it in the CCIA.“Sensitive-Place” restrictions, along with a bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement (that the Court did not address), are a mainstay of the “Concealed Handgun Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), amending the State’s Handgun Law.It would seem the Hochul Government, predicting a challenge to the CCIA, intends to reiterate the need for “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Further, the Government plans on arguing that the CCIA’s “Sensitive-Place” prohibition complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s concerns. But does it?One thing is clear: The Hochul Government would expect to see a sharp increase in filings for a State concealed handgun carry license, and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction provision is meant to lessen the impact of issuing a substantial number of concealed handgun carry licenses—unheard of prior to Bruen—thereby weakening the State’s Handgun Licensing regime.In fact, as of August 2022, just two months after the Bruen decision came down, The New York Times reported a 54% increase in applications for concealed handgun carry licenses.New Yorkers desirous of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license do feel they are much more likely to have their applications approved after the Bruen decision than at any time prior to Bruen.In theory that’s true, assuming they can contend with the bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement the Court did not address, and assuming they don’t mind waiving their right under the Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures clause.Do applicants really believe that the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license is a godsend? Likely they do. But is it, really?There’s a catch. There’s always a catch, and the catch now rests on this notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ restrictions.The licensing of concealed handgun carry goes to the heart of New York’s licensing regime—going all the way back to the Sullivan Act of 1911 that started the thing.The New York Government has no intention of allowing the defeat of the machinery of handgun licensing that's been in place for well over a century—much less being itself the agent of the New York licensing regime's own destruction. The agenda of the New York Government is to make the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses increasingly more difficult and onerous, as time goes on, not less so. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of that effort. The Hochul Government zealots will not allow the U.S. Supreme Court to waylay the State's singular campaign against—and, in fact, obsession directed to thwarting—civilian citizen exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense, in New York. That explains the Hochul Government's brazen defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court along with its visible contempt for the Court's conservative majority.New Yorkers who think they now see a new golden era emerging in New York gun law matters with the publication of the Bruen decision, may be sadly mistaken. They should be a little less cheerful and gullible, and a little more watchful and reflective, regarding their expectations. In their exuberance to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, first-time applicants don’t see potential problems. But they will unless the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision in the CCIA is struck down. At the moment the CCIA is active, and that includes the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision. But for a couple of minor ‘Sensitive-Place’ suspensions, the CCIA is enforceable, and the Hochul Government IS enforcing it. Acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license may leave much to be desired. License holders may find that a seemingly unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is very much restricted, offering much less than what was anticipated and what was sought, and leaving the licensee vulnerable to arrest if he isn't very, very careful and mindful of where he happens to be carrying a handgun while out in public. And he must be extraordinarily careful of displaying it, always asking himself if, one, a threat to life is genuine and imminent and, two, if he is presenting a gun in a designated, non-sensitive place. At the end of the day, the licensee may be left asking himself—— “What’s the point of acquiring a license to carry a concealed handgun if I face severe constraints on where I can lawfully carry it for use in self-defense, as the need arises, and if the need is real enough to satisfy a Court of law.” In a State plagued by a high incidence of random violent assaults—especially in New York City—the need for an effective means of self-defense, a handgun is acute. See the March 27, 2023 article in the New York Post. But, when residing and/or working in a jurisdiction that abhors firearms and that maintains a jaundiced view of the armed civilian citizen, Courts will demonstrate leniency toward the depraved criminal, and throw the book at the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen. Such is life and justice in New York's major cities. That explains the reason for escalating violence and the irony. The criminal remains undeterred, even encouraged to commit violence. And the innocent victim of random, violent crime, is often resigned to his fate—hoping the odds play in his favor, that someone other than him will be the victim of random violence—or trusts that his concealed carry license, if he does acquire it, will provide him, at last, the ability to avoid being the victim. But the Hochul Government is doing the licensee no favors.The New York Government may issue more concealed handgun carry licenses, sure, but licensees are now severely hampered in where they can carry it and, therefore, where they can lawfully use it if the need should arise.This means that the era of issuance of true New York “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses is, at this moment in time, at an end, for all civilian citizens whether applying for a new license or for the renewal of an existing license. The impact of the issuance of more licenses serves only to dilute their utility.There is no “grandfathering in” of issuance of true unrestricted carry licenses for those holders of licenses acquired under the old “Proper Cause” standard. Every licensee is in the same boat.The holder of a freshly minted State concealed handgun carry license, under the CCIA, would do well to talk to those individuals who have heretofore held valid “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses under the “Proper Cause” standard. Those days are over as long as the CCIA remains in effect.  And it remains to be seen how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will decide Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which involves a major challenge to the CCIA. New York has become, under the CCIA, a massive patchwork quilt of designated restrictive ‘Sensitive-Places.’ A licensee will need to carry a map, demarcating all those areas in New York where he can and cannot lawfully carry a handgun. Worse, “Sensitive-Place” restrictions are subject to amendment which means “subject to constant expansion.”This is more than problematic. It’s potentially unnerving for law-abiding New Yorkers who have newly minted concealed handgun carry licenses—especially for those New Yorkers residing and/or working in New York City. See the article in the world population review. New York City's 2023 population stands at 20,448,194, hardly an insignificant number.“Nearly 43% of New York state's population live in the 305 square miles that comprise New York City. The next largest city in the state of New York is Buffalo, with just over 250,000 residents. This means New York City is over 33 times larger than the second largest city in New York.” 

RURAL COUNTY SHERIFFS ARE NO LESS IN A BIND THAN MUNICIPAL POLICE IN COPING WITH THE CCIA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is presently reviewing a challenge to the constitutionality of “Sensitive-Place” restrictions and other provisions of the CCIA, in the parent post-Bruen New York case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and related cases.The U.S. Supreme Court, having lifted the stay on enforcement of the CCIA that the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York had granted, has allowed enforcement of the CCIA during the Second Circuit Court’s review of the merits of the case.The Second Circuit had reversed the District Court’s stay of enforcement.The High Court agreed to the lifting of the stay, not because it thought the District Court was wrong in having issued it, but out of deference to the Second Circuit, as the High Court acknowledged in its Order.*Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The District Court made a convincing argument for this. That was the basis for the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction—which is no easy thing for a party to obtain given the requirements for convincing a Court to grant one.If the Second Circuit, on review, fails to strike down those unconstitutional provisions, the Plaintiffs will appeal that negative ruling to the High Court. And the High Court will take that appeal up, as it must since the CCIA not only infringes the core of the Second Amendment, but it is a blatant affront to, and contemptuous of, the Bruen rulings.But what happens when law enforcement sees the CCIA colliding with the Bill of Rights, during the pendency of the Antonyuk case?That may not concern the State Police and major city police officers, but it does present a problem for New York’s County Sheriffs, like Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino. See the Arbalest Quarrel article posted on our website on March 15, 2023, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on March 20, 2023, we explored how Sheriff Giardino contends with a conundrum.After all, the CCIA may be “THE LAW OF THE STATE” since 2022, but the “BILL OF RIGHTS” is “THE LAW OF THE LAND and it has been so since 1791.The CCIA must take a backseat to the stricture of natural law, as codified in the Bill of Rights.Where there is a conflict, Sheriff Giardino will always follow the dictates of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, not State law. But doing so amounts to chancing to incur the wrath of the Governor. What can she do against perceived recalcitrant Sheriffs?Governor Hochul has no authority to remove rural Sheriffs, at will. For they are elected by and are therefore beholding to the people of the County that elected them.But Hochul may, pursuant to the consolidated laws of New York, bring a civil suit against a Sheriff who refuses to comply with the CCIA, claiming malfeasance in office. Such an action will bring to bear a clash between a Sheriff’s duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution versus a duty to uphold State law as ordained by the Governor._____________________________

THE “SENSITIVE PLACE” PROVISION OF NEW YORK’S CCIA IS A TRAP FOR HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

CONTINUATION OF INTERVIEW OF NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO

PART TWO

Sheriff Giardino has repeatedly and pointedly asserted that when or if State law conflicts with the United States Constitution, his duty, as Sheriff, is to uphold the Constitution, which he has taken an oath to faithfully serve.He has not taken an oath to serve the interests of the State’s Governor, and there is no implicit requirement that he do so either.But then, is a given “Sensitive-Place” prohibition on lawful carry, inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution? How can a law enforcement officer know? That places the law enforcement officer in a quandary. And that is but one puzzling question to be resolved. The Sensitive-Place prohibition on the carrying of a concealed handgun raises another more obscure question.There are nuances and fuzzy areas connected with “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.In some cases what may at first blush seem to be a place where a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license may lawfully carry his handgun turns out, on analysis, to be a “Sensitive-Place,” where a person cannot lawfully carry a handgun, after all.This places County Sheriffs in a quandary and under considerable strain.No less so it places the holder of a license in a precarious situation.That person is in danger of being cited for carrying a handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” even if this occurred innocently, and inadvertently.He then faces revocation of his license. He must surrender his handgun and any other firearms, rifles, or shotguns he may happen to possess. And he faces a serious misdemeanor charge.Sheriff Giardino’s observation provides an apt example of the problem.Although he wouldn’t take such drastic action against a person for engaging in an inadvertent slip-up, a person facing scrutiny in New York City would likely not be so fortunate.Sheriff Giardino says,“We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law now says and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.” About carrying a handgun into a barbershop, Sheriff Giardino isn’t jesting.The ubiquity and ambiguity of New York’s Handgun Law carries over into the operation of other New York laws—creating entanglements that the average licensee wouldn’t be aware of. And many law enforcement officers may not be aware of the intricacies of the laws, either.We know. We delved into this. This is what we found——The notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ as a legal restriction means the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” under the Handgun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19): “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 expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  as mentioned in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)(vii), is defined in a new section of the Penal Code: CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  is a legal term of art, not previously defined in New York law.Subsection CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)) says, “any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” is a “Sensitive-Place.”Proceeding with our inquiry, further, we ask,“Is a barbershop considered a place “providing health” services?” If so, then it comes under New York’s public health code, NY CLS Pub Health § 225. The Health Code section, NY CLS Pub Health § 225, includes all places subject to the Sanitary Code, and the Sanitary Code IS part of the Health Code.Subsection 5(A) of the Sanitary Code says, “The sanitary code may: (a) deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York, and with any matters as to which the jurisdiction is conferred upon the public health and health planning council. . . .”We must now determine whether New York barbershops are subject to the “Sanitary code.” They are.NY CLS Gen Bus § 436, governing barbershops exclusively, says,“All barber shops shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the provisions of the state sanitary code, except in the city of New York where the city health code shall apply, and all licensees or persons employed or engaged therein or in connection therewith shall comply with the provisions of such rules.”So, then, Sheriff Giardino is correct in his supposition/inference.Under New York law, the holder of a valid New York State concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun into a barbershop. Carrying a handgun, or any firearm, rifle, or shotgun into a barbershop falls within the purview of the CCIA, even if the expression “barbershop” isn’t specifically mentioned in CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)). Application of other New York State Code sections makes categorically and conclusively clear the prohibition on carrying a concealed handgun into a barbershop, notwithstanding that a person holds a valid concealed handgun carry license. A barbershop falls into the category of a restricted “Sensitive-Place.”A holder of a valid license carrying a handgun in a barbershop in Fulton County need not be concerned about an arrest, but what if that person is carrying a handgun into a barbershop in New York City, and an NYPD officer notices that? How many other little traps exist—a preponderance of “Sensitive-Places” that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license is unaware of and that many law enforcement officers may not be immediately aware of, also?These little snares can get a licensee in a whole heap of trouble.Sheriff Giardino knows this full well and these problems trouble him. Complex Gun laws are vexing. Often, problem areas aren’t perceptible until after these laws take effect. And, if they work against the individual who wishes to exercise his natural law right to armed self-defense, the activist Government finds that a pleasant surprise, and is perfectly content with it.The expression, ‘Sensitive Place,’ never appeared in the Consolidated Laws of New York, prior to the enactment of the CCIA. And now that it has become a fixture in the law—possibly, hopefully, subject to remedial Court action—it is something that becomes, for the Hochul Government, a useful instrument for defeating the benefit that having a valid concealed handgun license was intended to provide holder.Prior to the CCIA, holders of “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses could carry their handguns in “Times Square,” but no longer because “Times Square” is now a “Sensitive-Place.”But how large is this area colloquially referred to as “Times Square?” What does the area encompass? The expression itself is now a legal term of art.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2)(t) says this:“For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean: 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.”So, Mayor Eric Adams and the City Government determine the size of the area—expanding it or reducing it at will, like an accordion.The CCIA is designed to keep the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license off-balance.And, once again, an activist government’s unconscionable, unconstitutional Anti-Secondment action is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A fourth seminal Second Amendment case is in the making with Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and it is not likely to be the last.If the High Court is going to get a handle on this gamesmanship of activist Governments—Federal, State, or local—it must end or severely constrain government licensing. This won’t, of course, stop further attempts by Anti-Second Amendment zealots to constrain the natural law right to armed self-defense. But it’s a good start.The Court has heretofore been hesitant to take on handgun licensing schemes directly and aggressively.In Bruen, the Court began to look at New York’s unconstitutional handgun licensing regime by striking down the “Proper Cause” requirement. But that at best was merely a half-hearted attempt, likely attributable to the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts, and with the urging or connivance of the Court’s liberal wing.The Court’s conservative wing must now exert its will.Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is likely to come before it after the Second Circuit issues its final, appealable order.Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must exert maximum pressure on John Roberts, if the opportunity presents itself, to review New York’s Handgun licensing regime straightforwardly, unswervingly, and aggressively.The Court cannot just tinker around the edges as it has done in Bruen. That only emboldens activist Governments as we have seen.The fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense is not subject to negotiation. The U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to give effect to the Bill of Rights as the framers of the Constitution intended.We are at a pivotal juncture in our Nation’s history. The Biden Administration has made inroads into the High Court’s independence by seating Neo-Marxist Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the Court.Her aim is that of her sponsors: to eliminate the exercise of our natural law rights. It is not to strengthen them.Do we really want to see Merrick Garland joining her on the Bench at some point—and others like those two? That could happen.What then becomes of our sacred rights and liberties in this seemingly “free Constitutional Republic.”____________________________________

*FURTHER BACKGROUND OF PARENT CASE, ANTONYUK VERSUS NIGRELLI, ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, made a convincing argument for this in Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Hochul Government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerned the District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, staying enforcement of the CCIA, pending resolution of the case on the merits. It is is no easy task for a party to obtain a preliminary judgment under any circumstances, given the rigorous requirements that must be met before a Court will grant a preliminary injunction. The fact that Plaintiffs, present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses, were able to convince the District Court of the necessity for a stay on enforcement of the CCIA, attests to the strength of Plaintiffs’ suit against the Hochul Government and the likelihood of success on the merits. The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, that had stayed the preliminary injunction, thereby allowing the Hochul Government to continue to enforce the CCIA during the Second Circuit’s review of the case. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. As an interlocutory (non-final) decision of a Federal Circuit Court, it is rare for the High Court to consider a matter. But it did so here. In its issuance of an unusual non-order “request,” the High Court inquired whether the New York State Government would like to respond to Plaintiff concealed handgun carry licensees opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA. Realizing the necessity to respond, the Attorney General for the Government, Letitia James, filed a formal response, contra Plaintiffs’ opposition to the lifting of the stay. The arguments were weak, but any response, apparently, was all that the High Court needed to see. In its order, drafted by Associate Justice Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the stay of the preliminary injunction to continue, asserting that this was done in deference to the Second Circuit, notwithstanding the merits of the lower District Court’s granting of the preliminary injunction in the first instance. But, the High Court cautioned the Government not to dawdle, as it would be inclined to do. The Government knows full well that the CCIA is inconsistent with the Bruen rulings and is likely to be struck down by the High Court if the Second Circuit finds for the Government, prompting the Plaintiffs to appeal a final adverse decision of the Second Circuit.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

RADICAL LEFTISTS SEEK TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND SILENCE ALL DEBATE

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

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

PART THREE

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

I. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

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

II. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATIVES

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

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

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

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

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

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

WHERE DOES THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS REST? FROM CONGRESS? FROM THE PRESS? FROM THE PRESIDENT? FROM ALL THREE TAKEN TOGETHER? THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU!

KOLBE VS. HOGAN:

INTERIM REMARKS

The Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadily on a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the Kolbe case. We are taking a short timeout with this segment, subtitled, “Interim Remarks,” to place the substantial time we are devoting to Kolbe in proper perspective. We feel our analysis has singular importance now with the Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Gorsuch confirmation that took place these past few days, and which have concluded. Senate Democrats are now filibustering, to prevent a vote on the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.The Arbalest Quarrel will continue its comprehensive, analytical exposition of the Kolbe case, considering its negative impact on the Second Amendment and considering, as well, the failure of the Fourth Circuit to take proper note of and abide by the rulings and reasoning of the high Court in the seminal Heller case. The high Court provided clear guidance to the lower Courts for the proper handling of Second Amendment cases where government action attacks the core of the Second Amendment.What is unfortunately abundantly clear now is that lower federal Courts will, at times, ignore rulings and reasoning and guidance of the U.S. Supreme Court if those lower federal Courts do not agree with the methodology, the rulings, the reasoning, and the jurisprudential underpinnings of the law as reflected in specific cases. So it is that we see some United States Circuits ignoring the precepts of Heller. But, regardless of a jurist’s political and social philosophy, precedent must not be ignored. Precedent must never be ignored. All too often as we see, though, judicial precedent is ignored, and it is, not infrequently, ignored in the most important cases: those cases negatively impacting our most sacred rights and liberties.If anything came out of the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings —where Judge Gorsuch had to suffer through days of torturous questioning and insufferable pontificating of Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee—the public has come to see that Judge Gorsuch believes fervently in the importance of legal precedent as the cornerstone of our system of laws. This is necessary if our system of laws is not to be reduced to a set of discordant, inconsistent body of law, providing no guidance on which Courts may reasonably rely.The public has also seen that Judge Gorsuch gives credence to the law enacted by Congress, as written. Judge Gorsuch does not allow personal feeling to sway his rulings. That seems to bother some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It should, though, give the public hope. For, the public can rest assured that Judge Gorsuch, sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice, will demonstrate proper restraint—applying the law to the facts as that law exists, and not as he may, perhaps, rather like the law to be.What the law ought to be is subject matter for legal and political philosophical musings set down in essays. When a judge opines on a case before that judge, the jurist is not to render judgment on what the law ought to be but must predicate his or her rulings on what the state of the law is, and elucidate findings of fact and conclusions of law on that basis and on that basis alone. Frankly, all too often we do not see this. The worst and most dangerous example of improper legal judgment is judgment reflected in personal feeling peppered, if only tacitly, but unmistakably, in legal opinions—personal feeling overriding judicial restraint in matters directly impacting the Bill of Rights, not least of which, we see on the continued assault against the clear meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.The rabid assault on the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution continues unabated notwithstanding the clear reasoning of and holdings in the Heller case. But, where do the greatest and gravest threats rest?Contrary to popular opinion on the matter, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests less upon the assertive, pretentious, sanctimonious, noxious rhetorical flourishes and rancor of some elected officials who disdainfully, arrogantly voice their antipathy toward the Second Amendment—even if that rancor is masked through the obligatory assertion, “but of course I support the Second Amendment,” as if, through the addition of that assertion to the official’s polemic, the elected official may effectively hide his or her clear distaste toward the very idea that the average, law-abiding, rational, American citizen—not working as a policeman, or as a soldier, or as a licensed bodyguard, or as a government or private security officer, or in some unknown, secretive governmental capacity, but merely, solely as a civilian—should actually ever be armed with—horror of horrors—a firearm.And, contrary to popular opinion on the matter, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests less upon the loud, vociferous, discordant voice of writers, editors, and owners of mainstream media whose antipathy toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms is well-known by the public, and is at once both longstanding and supremely malevolent.Rather, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests more on the actions of activist Jurists of the federal District and Circuit Courts whose arcane opinions, seemingly well-learned and well-reasoned, merely obscure an intent to defeat the Second Amendment despite clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court.The threat posed by an activist Judiciary to the preservation of our basic liberties, as envisioned by the founders of our Free Republic is very real, not to be reasonably denied. And that threat posed to our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is ultimately greater than that posed by either a recalcitrant Congress or a derelict Press.The danger posed by an activist Judiciary is greater and graver to our sacred rights and liberties because the Judiciary is the final arbiter of what our law means and, therefore, how the law impacts our lives.As our Constitution sets forth, Congress makes the law we live by. The Executive enforces the law that Congress enacts. But, as the grand interpreter of the law—what the law means and whether the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution—whether a law shall operate at all, and, if so, the effect it has on our lives—it is for the Judiciary to say. It is not for Congress to say; and it is not for the U.S. President to say; and it is certainly, not for the Press to tell the American people what the law of the Land is.No! The Judiciary, alone, is the final arbiter of what the law is. Some may think the Judiciary wields less power than the two other Branches of Government. After all, the Judiciary does not have the power of the purse, which, along with the unequivocal and singular power to make law, exists in Congress alone. The Judiciary does not wield power over the military, or over the federal police agencies, or over the vast intelligence apparatuses, all of which fall within the direct purview of the Executive. But, as the final arbiter of our law—what the law means and how the law is to be applied—assuming we remain a Nation ruled by law, truly ruled by law, and not by men—no American should underestimate the power the Judiciary wields over our lives.Even the most uninformed citizens among us knows full well the power of the Judiciary in the matter of immigration. That has been on full display. That power can and, most recently has tied the hands of the U.S. President, as Commander in Chief of our Nation, taxed with the singular duty to protect the People of our great Nation from all threats both foreign and domestic.President Donald Trump, promising to do his best to defend this Nation against imminent and serious threat posed by Islamic terrorists —clearly among his most important duties as U.S. President—has been constrained and frustrated in that effort due to the machinations of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and thereafter by the U.S. District Court of Hawaii—Courts that have, through their actions, placed the welfare of this Nation and the physical safety of its citizens at considerable risk as those Courts, through their opinions, demonstrate that the wishes of non-citizens who seek to emigrate to America from failed States are to be given more consideration than are the health and well-being of this Nation and the physical safety of American citizens. And, it doesn’t stop there, with immigration.Activist U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges express their disdain of the Second Amendment and their continued defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court through decisions that rein in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They denigrate the import and purport of our Second Amendment through manipulation of legal doctrine.If our pronouncement be undiplomatic, untactful toward the Judiciary, so be it. This is not a time for niceties. For the decisions of the Judiciary—the words expressed in opinions—are proof of political activism that strike at the heart of the health, welfare, and safety of our Nation and at the import and purport of our Bill of Rights.No less has the Fourth Circuit, in our estimate, manipulated legal doctrine, in denigration of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Obscuring opinion in arcane legalese does little to disguise the fact that legal opinions coming out of this Circuit in the recent Kolbe case are antithetical to and involve a misunderstanding—whether consciously deliberate or incautiously but honestly mistaken—of the rulings and reasoning of the Heller Court.The Fourth Circuit relies for support, in part, on similar rulings of its sister Courts, most notably, those of the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. By relying for support on opinions of their sister Courts, the Fourth Circuit aims, it seems to us, to deflect honest criticism away from itself, thereby suggesting that similar rulings of these other Courts that belie the rulings, reasoning, and clear guidance of the majority opinion, penned by Justice Scalia, in Heller, do somehow demonstrate that the Fourth Circuit does give due consideration to the holdings and reasoning of Heller, rather than contradicting the holdings and reasoning of that seminal Second Amendment case. But that is not the case at all.We firmly believe—as we have explained and will elucidate yet further—the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, having taken its cue from the U.S. District Court of Maryland and from the opinions of various sister Courts, strained to find a loophole in the Heller case to justify finding Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act to be legal. There isn’t any. So, the Fourth Circuit created one out of whole cloth.The gravest error of the Courts of the Fourth Circuit consists in the application of a standard of review that the Heller Court specifically rejected. Proceeding from an improper footing, an erroneous decision—but one the Fourth Circuit obviously wanted—could not but follow from the application of the wrong standard.Happy the Fourth Circuit would be, as would other United States Circuit Courts that elicit similar sympathies, if Heller were simply overturned. Were Judge Merrick Garland to have sat on the high Court, that pipedream for the antigun movement would come to pass. There is no doubt about that. Clearly, that was one end that Barack Obama had in mind which is why he nominated Merrick Garland to Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was one end that Hillary Clinton would have had in mind were she to have been elected U.S. President. For, she would certainly have been elated to sit Judge Garland on the high Court. Thankfully, neither the previous U.S. President or the one who would be Queen will never get their wish.If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed and he should be and undoubtedly will be—despite a Democratic threat of filibuster of his confirmation which is now unfolding—the Heller case should remain untouched—even if ignored by various Circuit Courts as we see in Kolbe. Heller is the first case that extends—albeit tacitly—the idea that, where the very core of a fundamental right is attacked in a government action—a facial challenge to that governmental action will be given proper consideration.The U.S. Supreme Court made clear enough in Heller, to the surprise and, we are sure, much to the consternation of the D.C. Government and to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, that the U.S. Supreme Court would not shrink from applying facial challenge methodology to an action by government that attacks the core of the Second Amendment even if that had not previously been done. We should see that methodology applied as well in Kolbe if Kolbe or a similar case is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. We hope and trust and pray that Judge Gorsuch sits on the high Court as the Ninth Justice when this happens.We continue with our analysis of the Kolbe case with Part Five of our multi-series article, to be posted shortly._________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.