Search 10 Years of Articles

4/9/23 4/9/23

PROGRESSIVE GAME PLAN: NEUTRALIZE THE SUPREME COURT AND DISARM THE CITIZENRY

The recent scurrilous attack on Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is part and parcel of the Political “Progressives”* attempt to neutralize the independence of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, and its most ardent supporter of an armed citizenry.On April 9, 2021, two years ago to this day of posting this article on the Arbalest Quarrel, Joe Biden issued an executive order, forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, “to examine the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”The key phrase in this executive order is “the Court’s role in the Constitutional system.”The Commission’s purpose may seem benign. It is anything but benign. Almost a hundred and thirty years earlier, Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted the same thing. Both sought to sideline and neutralize the U.S. Supreme Court.Fortunately, for the Nation, the efforts of Roosevelt and Biden came to naught.But the Biden Administration’s Progressive Globalist agenda is more extravagant and elaborate than anything dreamed up by Roosevelt and the fabricators of the “New Deal.”The Progressives’ goal of a neo-feudalistic global empire requires neutralizing the High Court and erasing America’s armed citizenry.The U.S. Supreme Court remains the only Branch of the Federal Government today that recognizes the importance of an armed citizenry to resist tyranny.In three seminal case law decisions—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—coming down in the last fifteen years, the conservative wing majority, led by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the late Justice Antonin Scalia, made patently clear the right to armed self-defense is an individual right and a natural law right, the core of which Government is forbidden to interfere with.But these decisions are at loggerheads with the Progressives’ desire to neuter the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In a report on “progressivism,’ published on July 18, 2007, the Heritage Foundation has described the nature of and the aims of the political, social, and cultural transformation of the Nation, using the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe it.Progressives have since made substantial strides in undermining the Constitution and transforming America beyond all recognition.But use of the word, ‘Revolution,’ to describe this transformation is inaccurate. Rather, this extraordinary and extensive push to remake American society, is not properly a Revolution because we had our Revolution—the American Revolution of 1776—when America’s first Patriots defeated the British empire.These Patriots constructed a free Constitutional Republic, unlike anything the world has seen before or since.Having thrown off the yoke of tyranny, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, created a true Republican form of Government.This “Federal” Government is one with limited and carefully delineated powers and authority. And those powers and authority are demarcated among three co-equal Branches.The Government comes to be not by Divine Right nor by Right claimed for itself by itself. Rather, it comes into existence only by grace of the American people, who are and remain sole sovereign.Since the people themselves created the Government, they retain the right to dismantle it when that Government serves its interests to the detriment of the people, devolving into tyranny.The natural law right to armed self-defense, a right that shall not be infringed, is the instrument of last resort through which the American people maintain and retain both the legal and moral right to resist tyranny that Progressives impose on Americans. See AQ article, posted on October 1, 2021.Progressivism is a thing openly hostile to and antithetical to the tenets and precepts of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution rests. See, e.g., article AQ article, posted on October 6, 2018.Adherents of this political and social ideology perceive Government as sovereign over the people, turning the Constitution on its head.Progressivism is an evil perpetrated on the American people, coming into being without the consent of the governed. It seeks a Globalist “Counterrevolution” in counterpoise to the morally good and successful “American Revolution.” See AQ article posted on October 26, 2020.It is in this that the arrogant and ludicrous attack on Justice Thomas comes plainly into view.Representative Ocasio-Cortez, a Progressive Democrat, has recently brought up the subject of impeachment against Clarence Thomas pertaining to “luxury trips and outings on yachts and private jets owned by Dallas businessman Harlan Crow, according to an investigation by ProPublica . . . .” See the article published in thehill.com.She adds, in her typical hyperbolic, rhetorical fashion,“‘Barring some dramatic change, this is what the Roberts court will be known for: rank corruption, erosion of democracy, and the stripping of human rights.’” Id.Impeachment of a sitting Justice does fall within the purview of Congressional authority, but it is impractical and almost unheard of in the annals of history.The House of Representatives impeached Associate Justice Samuel Chase, in 1804. He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate in 1805 and served on the High Court until his death in 1811. Another Associate Justice, Abe Fortas, resigned under threat of impeachment, in 1969. See the article posted in history.com.Impeaching Justice Thomas in a Republican-controlled House won’t happen.Progressives try a different tack.“Sixteen lawmakers led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., sent a letter to Roberts on Friday requesting an investigation into ‘allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct.’” See the article in Foxnews.com.Asking the Chief Justice to launch an investigation of his brethren is pompous, absurd, lame, and bogus.Roberts will do no such thing. And this will rankle Progressives.The Third Branch of Government remains constantly, aggravatingly, tantalizingly beyond the ability of Progressives to tamper with.Unable at present to sit more mannequins like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court, they continue to probe for weaknesses. As a last resort, these Democrat Progressives challenge the Court’s importance, independence, and role.Progressives employ like-minded attorneys to undercut the authority of the High Court.One such attorney is Barry P. McDonald, Law Professor at Pepperdine University. In an essay, posted on The New York Times, on May 26, 2016, McDonald writes,“The Supreme Court today is both political and powerful in ways that would be unrecognizable to the framers of the Constitution. They penned a mere five sentences creating a ‘supreme Court’ and defining its jurisdiction. The judicial branch was something of an afterthought for them, because they believed that in a democracy the elected branches would be responsible for governing the country.Judicial review, in its modern sense, did not exist. As the framers envisioned it, the justices appointed to the Supreme Court would mainly interpret and apply federal law when necessary to resolve disputes involving the rights of individuals. And though the framers’ views on the court’s role in interpreting and enforcing the Constitution are the subject of debate, it seems most likely that when disputes required determining whether a federal law comported with the Constitution, the court’s interpretation was supposed to bind only the parties in the particular case — not the legislative and executive branches generally.Over time, however, and especially from the mid-20th century on, the court’s vision of its role in our democratic system changed, from dispute resolver to supreme arbiter of all matters of constitutional law, so that elected branches of government at federal and state levels were bound to accept its interpretations. The American people largely went along with this accretion of power. But they surely never anticipated that eventually, many politically charged and contestable questions — for example, whether the Constitution guarantees the right to possess guns, to have an abortion, to allow gay couples to marry, or to allow corporations to spend money to help elect our political representatives — would be decided by one unelected justice who straddled political voting blocs on the court.This is democratic folly.”And, in a follow-up article posted in the Times, on October 11, 2018, Barry McDonald, writes,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.”McDonald claims the founders relegated the U.S. Supreme Court to a subservient role in our Three-Branch Governmental structure. This is not only an uncommon viewpoint among scholars, and legally odd; it is demonstrably false.In the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton made patently clear that, on matters of Constitutional authority, the Legislative Branch must yield to the Judiciary.“No legislative act . . . contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that . . . men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions of the Constitution. . . . . It is more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.”– Excerpt from Federalist Paper No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton and published in 1788, part of the founding era’s most important documents explaining to the people the nature of the Constitution then under consideration for ratification. See the article in constitutionalcenter.org. The article also cites to one of the Barry McDonald articles for comparison and contrast.Hamilton’s essay in Federalist Paper No. 78 is an outright repudiation of McDonald’s remarks about the U.S. Supreme Court. See citations, supra.U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Marshall was certainly aware of Alexander Hamilton’s remarks in the Federalist, when he drafted his opinion in Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The case is a mainstay of Constitutional Law, taught to first-year law students and one of the most important cases in American jurisprudence.The case lays out clearly and categorically the vital role played by the U.S. Supreme Court in our Three-Branch Federal Governmental system.In no uncertain terms, John Marshall, made definitely and definitively clear that it is for the Judiciary, not the Legislature, to determine the constitutionality of Congressional Statutes. We cite below a portion of Justice Marshall’s erudite opinion.“If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

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

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.”

Progressives pretend the U.S. Constitution is capable of shapeshifting. It isn’t.That doesn’t bother them, though, because they intend to eliminate the Constitution. Referring to it now, as they must, just to destroy it, and creating something novel, more to their liking—a thing subordinated to international law or edict, and subject to change as whim or chance dictates—that's what they they have in mind.In the interim, they force it to cohere to their precepts, agenda, and goals, all of which are antithetical and anathema to the Constitution, as written.In the naked attempt to knead the Constitution as if it were a lump of clay, they show their hand.Trivializing the role of the Court because they can’t easily control it and going after a U.S. Supreme Court Justice they don’t like because he defends a natural law right they don’t agree with, Progressives proclaim to all the world their shameless contempt for Nation, Culture, History, Heritage, Constitution, Ethos, Ethic, and People.They dare disparage us. Yet, it is we, true American Patriots, who rightfully ought to visit derision on them.______________________________________________*The expression ‘Progressive’ as with the expression, ‘Liberal,’ (less so with the expressions, ‘Marxist,’ ‘Neo-Marxist,’ or ‘Classical Marxist’) do not have precise and rigid definitions, due in part, perhaps, to the ubiquity and popularity of the first two terms in the Democratic Party vernacular.Most Democrats, it is here presumed, prefer use of ‘liberal’ as applied to them. And some no doubt prefer the term ‘Progressive,’ as an acknowledged more extreme version of ‘Liberal,’ and they take the label as a note of pride. See article on the website, thisnation.com.But most, if not all, Democrats avoid the appellation ‘Marxist,’ at least publicly, even if that label is most in line with their ideological beliefs, social, political, and economic, and demonstrated in their actions. They might use that expression amongst themselves even if they dare not refer to themselves as ‘Marxist’ in public and would deny the description vehemently if the label is thrust on them by an outsider. For this article, we are staying with the expression, ‘Progressive,’ as it aligns most closely with the theme of the article and apropos of references made in it.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

1/22/23 1/22/23

NEW YORK’S SULLIVAN ACT OFFENDS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND MUST BE STRUCK DOWN

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

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY-THREE

SUBPART A

NEW YORK HAS ENACTED MANY GUN MEASURES FOR WELL OVER A CENTURY, BUT THERE IS ONLY ONE GUN LAW: THE SULLIVAN ACT OF 1911

For well over a century, ever since the enactment of the notorious Sullivan Act of 1911, the New York Government has successfully weathered all challenges to it.Since then, New York has enacted many laws directed at guns and gun possession, but these laws, properly understood, are not standalone gun laws. They are all revisions or amendments to the archaic Sullivan Act.This means that, while New York has MANY “gun laws” (lower case), the State truly has only ever had ONE “GUN LAW” (upper case).It is important to understand this. As long as the Sullivan Act exists, Americans residing or working in New York who desire to exercise their fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense will face constant obstacles and hurdles, and even Government harassment that negatively impacts their enjoyment of the Second Amendment guarantee.The 2022 U.S. Supreme Court case NYSRPA vs. Bruen did nothing to diminish the impact of the Sullivan Act in practice. New York’s GUN LAW is as dictatorial and as oppressive now, as it was prior to Bruen.This became apparent once the New York State Legislature passed, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law, a new package of amendments to the Sullivan Act, titled, “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022, more often referred to by the acronym “CCIA.”The CCIA pays lip service to the Bruen rulings insofar as, and only to the extent that, the GUN LAW sheds the verbiage “PROPER CAUSE” from the Sullivan Act. That is the only concession made. Other than that, the GUN LAW is no less burdensome than before the passage of the CCIA, and in one major respect, worse.For, even with “PROPER CAUSE” struck from the GUN LAW, the “MAY ISSUE/GOOD CAUSE” requirement remains unscathed.The Government simply subsumed “PROPER CAUSE” into “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.” The new standard is as subjective as the old one.Present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses must comply with a new set of requirements to carry a handgun in New York. They are placed in the same boat as new applicants.New York gun owners were not fooled by the CCIA. Challenges to the Constitutionality of the amendments came within days of the Government's passage of it. Those cases are ongoing.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this and will stay on this. Readers are invited to peruse our comprehensive blog posts. And Ammoland Shooting Sports News has kindly reposted our articles. See, e.g., articles posted on January 20, 2023, January 9, 2023, January 6, 2023, January 5, 2023, and December 28, 2022—just to name a few.Unconscionable constraints on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense under the Kathy Hochul Government are no more relaxed than under the Government of her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and remain a top priority for her administration. The Sullivan Act of 1911 makes this possible.Suppression of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York continues unabated, with the infusion of more and more restrictive, repressive gun measures, inexorably whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense.Nothing will stop this juggernaut unless or until either one of two things occurs: The State Legislature repeals the Sullivan Act, or the New York Federal or State Courts strike the Sullivan Act down.Neither one of these two actions will occur as long as the New York Government and the New York State and Federal Courts retain a mindset abhorrent of firearms and antithetical to civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms. Neither the New York Government nor the U.S. Supreme Court has any illusion about this.The problem rests with the concept of “LICENSING OF HANDGUNS,” spawned by the Sullivan Act well over a century ago. The Sullivan Act introduced the formal handgun licensing scheme to New York.The New York Government knows that, as long as handgun licensing remains ostensibly “lawful,” the Government can and will continue to make incursions on the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court knows this, too.“The current handgun laws of New York State and New York City trace their origin to the state Sullivan Dangerous Weapons Act of 1911. Proposed by Democratic State Senator and Tammany Hall leader Timothy D. ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, who represented the slums of lower Manhattan, the Act made it a misdemeanor to possess a handgun without a permit and a felony to carry a concealed weapon in public. Whereas the Act designated judges as the licensing officers in much of the state, it gave the New York City police commissioner sole authority to grant or deny licenses in New York City, an arrangement that persists to this day. At least part of the motivation behind the Sullivan Act was a desire to keep firearms out of the hands of recent immigrants from Italy and Southern Europe—perceived to be prone to violence—by giving the New York Police Department (NYPD) the power to grant or deny permits. The NYPD's Licensing Division still handles all handgun license applications in the city. Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. Section 265.01(1) of the New York Penal Law makes possession of a handgun an automatic class A misdemeanor, unless a person can qualify for one of the exceptions listed in section 265.20. For ordinary citizens, the only exemption that applies is possession with a license issued under section 400.00. . . . Today, it remains illegal to possess a handgun anywhere in New York State without a license. . . . As has been the case since the passage of the Sullivan Act, obtaining a license under Penal Law section 400.00 is the only lawful way for civilians in New York State to possess a handgun. . . .” “Pursued by a ‘Bear’? New York City's Handgun Laws in the Wake of Heller and McDonald,” 46 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 145, Winter 2012, by Matthew Bridge, J.D. Candidate 2013, Columbia Law.”New York holders of valid handgun licensees may not be immediately aware of an important fact. The handgun license acquired does not belong to the holder of it. The license is and remains the property of the licensing authority. Moreover, the conditions set by the licensing authority are terse, categorical, and blunt. For example, the holder of a handgun license issued by the New York City Police Department must surrender the license upon demand of the Police Department. That means his firearms must be vouchered as well. The reverse side of the license issued by the NYPD sets forth the following:“This license is revocable at any time. Upon demand of a police officer, a licensee must immediately surrender his/her license and handguns. Lost, stolen, confiscated, or surrendered handguns must be reported to the License Division immediately at 646-610-5560 or 646-610-5154.” [see discussion of NYPD handgun licensing procedures in AQ article, posted on October 19, 2015]The CCIA doesn't address this. But one should assume that such language will be incorporated in such new handgun licenses that a New York license authority happens to issue.When the High Court handed down the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, the Court knew it was tinkering around the edges of a beast. It should have struck down the Sullivan Act, at that time, but it didn’t.Possibly, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito would have done just that. The Court certainly had an opportunity to attack the Sullivan Act head-on when the Court took up for review the New York Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020). Little came of that.__________________________________

SUBPART B

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD TWO OPPORTUNITIES TO CONFRONT NEW YORK’S NOTORIOUS SULLIVAN ACT HEAD-ON BUT IN BOTH INSTANCES THE COURT PUNTED

Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the liberal wing of the Court would have none of that. They allowed the City of New York and past Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, to sidestep the unconstitutionality of the Sullivan Act, by amending both the New York City gun regulations and the New York State Gun Law to ostensibly cohere with the dictates of the Second Amendment.Justice Brett Kavanaugh, adding an odd Concurring Opinion, attempted to split hairs, writing,“I agree with the per curiam opinion’s resolution of the procedural issues before us—namely, that petitioners’ claim for injunctive relief against New York City’s old rule is moot and that petitioners’ new claims should be addressed as appropriate in the first instance by the Court of Appeals and the District Court on remand.I also agree with Justice Alito’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 1540-1541; see Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Justice Alito joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saw the game the New York Government had played on New York’s gun licensees.The Chief Justice and other Justices permitted this. Perhaps they were pleased with it. But Associate Justices Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch would not stand for it. He set forth in detail his awareness of it, and his justified anger over it:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced. Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests.On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller. Among other things, the ordinance prohibited law-abiding New Yorkers with a license to keep a handgun in the home (a ‘premises license’) from taking that weapon to a firing range outside the City. Instead, premises licensees wishing to gain or maintain the ability to use their weapons safely were limited to the seven firing ranges in the City, all but one of which were largely restricted to members and their guests.In the District Court and the Court of Appeals, the City vigorously and successfully defended the constitutionality of its ordinance, and the law was upheld based on what we are told is the framework for reviewing Second Amendment claims that has been uniformly adopted by the Courts of Appeals. One might have thought that the City, having convinced the lower courts that its law was consistent with Heller, would have been willing to defend its victory in this Court. But once we granted certiorari, both the City and the State of New York sprang into action to prevent us from deciding this case. Although the City had previously insisted that its ordinance served important public safety purposes, our grant of review apparently led to an epiphany of sorts, and the City quickly changed its ordinance. And for good measure the State enacted a law making the old New York City ordinance illegal.Thereafter, the City and amici supporting its position strove to have this case thrown out without briefing or argument. The City moved for dismissal ‘as soon as is reasonably practicable’ on the ground that it had ‘no legal reason to file a brief.’ Suggestion of Mootness 1. When we refused to jettison the case at that early stage, the City submitted a brief but ‘stress[ed] that [its] true position [was] that it ha[d] no view at all regarding the constitutional questions presented’ and that it was “offer[ing] a defense of the . . . former rul[e] in the spirit of something a Court-appointed amicus curiae might do.” Brief for Respondents 2. A prominent brief supporting the City went further. Five United States Senators, four of whom are members of the bar of this Court, filed a brief insisting that the case be dismissed. If the Court did not do so, they intimated, the public would realize that the Court is ‘motivated mainly by politics, rather than by adherence to the law,’ and the Court would face the possibility of legislative reprisal. Brief for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse et al. as Amici Curiae 2-3, 18 (internal quotation marks omitted).Regrettably, the Court now dismisses the case as moot. If the Court were right on the law, I would of course approve that disposition. Under the Constitution, our authority is limited to deciding actual cases or controversies, and if this were no longer a live controversy—that is, if it were now moot—we would be compelled to dismiss. But if a case is on our docket and we have jurisdiction, we have an obligation to decide it. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821), “[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”Thus, in this case, we must apply the well-established standards for determining whether a case is moot, and under those standards, we still have a live case before us. It is certainly true that the new City ordinance and the new State law give petitioners most of what they sought, but that is not the test for mootness. Instead, “a case ‘becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.’” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 172, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 185 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2013) (emphasis added). “‘As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot.’” Ibid. (emphasis added).Respondents have failed to meet this ‘heavy burden.’ Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U. S. 216, 222, 120 S. Ct. 722, 145 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is so for two reasons. First, the changes in City and State law do not provide petitioners with all the injunctive relief they sought. Second, if we reversed on the merits, the District Court on remand could award damages to remedy the constitutional violation that petitioners suffered.”See also AQ two articles analyzing the “Gun Transport Case” posted on our website on April 27, 2020, and on May 8, 2020. Our April 27, 2020 article was reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on that same April 27 date. See also the AQ article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports news on April 26, 2021. In that article, we remarked with satisfaction that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to take up a second New York gun case. In that case, captioned, NYSRPA vs. Corlett, 141 S. Ct. 2566 (2021), the High Court granted certiorari:“Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”The public would come to know this case as NYSRPA vs. Bruen, once Kevin P Bruen, the new Superintendent of the New York State Police replaced his predecessor, Keith M. Corlett.The matter discussed in NYSRPA vs. Bruen was of an order of magnitude greater than the earlier case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York, insofar as the Bruen case dealt more directly with the Sullivan Act—the Act that required Americans to obtain a license to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.Yet, as impactful as the Bruen case WAS and IS, the High Court didn’t strike down the core of the Sullivan Act.Chief Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court evidently realizing the possibility of this, consciously limited the issue on review.The Bruen rulings, handed down on June 23, 2022, although potent and compelling, nonetheless provided the Hochul Government a modicum of wiggle room. That wiggle room allowed the Government to slither around the rulings through the enactment of a plethora of amendments to the Sullivan Act.As implausible and unconvincing a response to the Bruen rulings, as these amendments are, they served a purpose: to waylay the full impact of Bruen. And that is exactly what Hochul and the State Government in Albany did._____________________________________

SUBPART C

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL KNEW THE BRUEN RULINGS WOULD BE DAMAGING TO THE STATE’S GUN LAW, THE SULLIVAN ACT, BUT SHE WOULD NOT ALLOW BRUEN TO GET IN THE WAY OF HER AGENDA

Challenges to the amendments to the Sullivan Act, i.e., the CCIA, came at once. This wasn’t unexpected.The Hochul Government knew this would occur since the Government’s amendments didn’t alleviate New York gun owners’ justified concerns over the exercise of the right to armed self-defense. The measures Hochul signed into law weren’t meant to do that. Hochul’s attack on the Second Amendment continued unabated and, in fact, intensified.The Government had planned to proceed with its agenda to restrain and constrain the exercise of a Divine Natural Law Right ever since New York enacted its “GUN LAW.”Heller and McDonald didn’t stop New York and other similar jurisdictions from continuing to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And Bruen wasn’t going to constrain New York and these other jurisdictions, either.The Hochul Government hoped the Courts would dismiss the challenges to the CCIA.After all, the New York State and Federal Courts had more often than not acquiesced to the Government in the many years and decades since the passage of the Sullivan Act, and the Hochul Government had no reason to expect the Courts wouldn’t do so now.Striking the expression, “PROPER CAUSE” from the GUN LAW served as mere window dressing.The Government knew exactly what it was doing when Albany passed the CCIA and Kathy Hochul signed the CCIA into law, as did the Plaintiffs, who brought suit against the Government, intent on preventing the Hochul Government from defying Bruen.Placing the requirement of “PROPER CAUSE” into another fixture of the Sullivan Act, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER,” that the High Court didn’t address, apparently seemed to both Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, a convenient way to avoid the strictures of Bruen.Hochul and Albany simply had to convince the New York Courts to go along with the charade.But the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York—the first Court called upon to deal with the CCIA—didn’t play along. This obviously surprised and puzzled and concerned the Hochul Government. The Federal trial Court imposed a stay on enforcement of the CCIA by granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ suit on the merits.The Hochul Government immediately appealed the decision of the New York District Court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the higher Court provided Hochul with some breathing room.The Plaintiff New York concealed handgun carry licensees weren't going to take this lying down. They appealed the adverse Second Circuit Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court deemed the case important enough to review a non-final interlocutory order, a rare occurrence.The High Court didn’t lift the stay imposed by the Second Circuit on the Plaintiff New York Concealed Carry Handgun licensees, but the result wasn't a complete win the Hochul Government might have wished for, either. The Hochul Government is able to breathe a sigh of relief, for a time at least. But the High Court made clear it will be watching closely to determine whether either the Second Circuit or the Government is dragging its feet on this. A day of reckoning is coming for the New York Government. And the Sullivan Act’s head is in the guillotine.Having grown visibly tired of seeing Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen waylaid by stubborn State Governments and their Courts, and by their brethren on the High Court as well, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito will insist on attacking unconstitutional Government laws directly, and strenuously. With a no-nonsense legal mind like Amy Coney Barrett on the High Court, New York gun owners and Americans around the Country may finally see their efforts through the years and decades finally bearing fruit.Hochul and Albany know the Sullivan Act’s days are numbered. A gun licensing regime clearly designed to subvert the fundamental natural law right to armed self-defense is a thing that, long ago, should have been repealed by the State Legislature or struck down by the New York Courts, buried, and never again resurrected.Instead, this thing has not only lingered but has through time grown appreciably stronger. It is an affront to the Nation’s history and heritage, and inconsistent with our Nation's core beliefs, grounded as they are on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Self over Government. New York's Sullivan Act is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Bill of Rights and contrary to the natural sovereignty of the American citizenry over the Government.The New York Safe Act of 2013, signed into law by Andrew Cuomo, and the Concealed Carry Improvement Act of 2022, signed into law by Cuomo’s successor, Kathy Hochul, are not to be perceived as models of a new era in America, but, rather as relics of an earlier time—a much earlier age—one harkening back to medieval feudalism.The U.S. Supreme Court must strike down the Sullivan Act. That will serve to send a strong message to the States that have similar Anti-Second Amendment regimes, and that will also serve to send a strong message to the Biden Administration, too.These so-called “elites” who machinate for a world empire in their meetings held in Davos and in the Government offices of Brussels and in the clandestine meetings of the Bilderberg Group and in other such secretive enclaves dispersed throughout the world are all throwbacks to and should be perceived as nothing more or other than throwbacks to medieval Europe.These “elites” seek a return to the world of the Middle Ages, a world of empire, consisting of legions of abjectly penurious serfs, the “preterite,” and a minute number of extravagantly wealthy and powerful royalty and nobility, the “elect.”The empire this new royalty and nobility envisions, and which is taking shape, is designed to embrace all of Europe, the British Commonwealth Nations, and the United States as well.Craven toadies like Hochul and Newsome and the brain-addled, corrupt Biden, have made clear that their interests are not our Nation’s interests nor those of our people. And their allegiances are not to our Nation, nor to our Constitution, nor to our people.Their aim is to incite ill will among the American people and to destabilize our cities, counties, states, and the entire Union, so that the whole may weaken and fall. These destructive forces then intend to merge the remains of our Country and its people into a grandiose neo-feudalistic world order that serves the interests and goals of their foreign, alien masters, not their Countrymen.Americans should resist all efforts, seductive or forceful, aimed to compel compliance.We can begin by making clear that we will not relinquish our Bill of Rights.We will not relinquish our duty and our ability to resist tyranny.We will not relinquish our natural law God-Given right to keep and bear arms.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

12/14/22 12/14/22

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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART NINETEEN

SUBPART ONE OF PART NINETEEN

A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF RUINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART A

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

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

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART B

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

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

The likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.

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

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

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

Substantial injury to the nonmoving party.

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

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

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

“TRIGGERS” ANYONE?

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

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

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

“A HEIGHTENED RISK OF GUNFIRE”?

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

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

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

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

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

IN SUMMARY

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

11/7/22 11/7/22

WHY DO SO MANY AMERICANS BLINDLY ACCEPT GOVERNMENT AND PRESS STORYLINES

AN ESSAY ON THE DANGERS OF ACQUIESCENCE TO TYRANNY*

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATIONS}“There is no real direction here, neither lines of power nor cooperation. Decisions are never really made – at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all around assholery.” “It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted . . . secretly, it was being dictated instead by the needs of technology . . . by a conspiracy between human beings and techniques, by something that needed the energy-burst of war, crying, “Money be damned, the very life of [insert name of Nation] is at stake, . . . .”“Paranoids are not paranoid because they're paranoid, but because they keep putting themselves, fucking idiots, deliberately into paranoid situations.”~From the Novel, “Gravity’s Rainbow,” published in 1973, by Thomas Pynchon

ARE HISTORICAL OUTCOMES MORE OFTEN A FEATURE OF GOVERNMENTAL KNEEJERK RESPONSES TO CATASTROPHE OR ARE THEY MORE THE PRODUCT OF CALCULATED DESIGN?

Do tragedies in our Country just happen out of the blue or do they happen because someone or something wants them to happen; needs them to happen so they can make a profit off it or to attain some obscure or extravagant goal for themselves but of little benefit to, and more a curse, for everyone else?Take war, or a viral plague, or the wrecking ball of crime in society, and all of the actions of a Government Bureaucrat, or of a Congressional Legislator, or the vacuous words emanating from the mouth of a demented President—burning away all our rights and liberties, and hopes and dreams, in the process, and telling us: “it’s all for a good cause, all for the best;” “we have the solutions to all your problems, and we have your best interests at heart;” “you can trust us; you can trust ME, rely on ME, I have your back.”Does this guy, Joe Biden, mean to placate us? Sure! Does he really expect Americans to believe him? Probably not, certainly not all of us; probably not even most of us. But, so long as he can count on a few of us—a few true believers—that’s all that really matters, doesn’t it?To be sure, some tragedies—in the insurance industry vernacular—are true acts of God. Earthquakes, tidal waves, floods, drought, famine, hurricanes, oh, and the occasional meltdown of a nuclear reactor, and meteor strike. All of these and probably a few more may come to mind. And, yes, some would say that those, too, are by design, if only through indifference.But no sane person could wish for these things to happen. But then, not everyone is sane.There are always a few irrational minds dotting the landscape: a Government Bureaucrat here, a Congressional Legislator there, and a few other sociopaths and psychopaths, here and there, sprinkled and dotted throughout the Land. They are to be found in Press rooms, radio stations, on broadcast and cable news sets, in the halls of academia, in the workplaces of social media and internet companies, in the boardrooms of Commercial and Investment Banks, in the monolithic Federal Reserve Buildings, in the Headquarters of High Finance—all with too much power, and too little moral compunction.But, for most of us, accidents DO happen. And their occurrence cannot be ascribed to, nor ought to be ascribed to, the intentional act of a sentient agent.For, in the happening of these natural catastrophes or technological catastrophes, they are of no discernible benefit to anyone—least of all to those immediately confronted by the full weight of them.But then, there are those tragedies that are manmade—deliberately manufactured or otherwise “allowed to happen,” perhaps with a little nudge, but otherwise with minimum expenditure of money or effort—because, horrible as they are, they do benefit someone or some cabal and that someone or something wants these events to happen, as the tragedy helps speed along their personal agenda.Recall the famous, or infamous, quotation of the acolyte of the silent, secretive “Powers That Be,” Rahm Emmanuel, a former advisor to Bill Clinton, a former Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, and former Mayor of Chicago: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.” See the Youtube video. This wasn't a bit of idle chatter. He meant it. He was deadly serious when he said this. He worked for people in Government who used it, and he likely employed it himself, as Mayor of Chicago.But, what if a fortuitous event, subject to useful exploitation, doesn’t arise?In that case, the agent will set into motion the conditions through which a tragedy or calamity does occur; must occur.And the point of intentionally inflicting pain and horror on innocent people——The point is to evoke an outpouring of grief, followed by anger and resentment, and then rage in the target population. And the sentient agent of the tragedy or calamity proclaims he has a solution—a solution that will deal effectively with it, prevent the recurrence of it, and deal with those responsible for it.Consider the attack on the Nation on September 11, 2000, burnt into the psyche of Americans and referred to by the acronym, 9-11.Some Americans believe this event was engineered from the outside, by the rabid, Islamic Al-Qaeda organization.Others say it emanated from inside the Country by individuals who assisted Al-Qaeda.But whatever the cause, the fact remains that powerful individuals in Government and industry within the Country used the horrific assault on our Country in pursuit of their own selfish, immoral interests and goals, pushing the Nation toward authoritarianism of Government, economic and financial chaos, geopolitical uncertainty, and societal upheaval.How did all these bad things come about? They weren’t accidental.A “Think Tank” comprising a collection of “neoconservatives’ hatched a plan to hurdle the Country back into a perpetual state of war, the details set forth in a paper titled, “The Project for a New American Century.”A war in the Middle East, conceived before the fact of the attack on U.S. soil in A.D. 2000, was sold to the American public as a solution to a national security crisis posed by Radical Islamic Terrorists, after the fact, serving as a useful pretext for the conflagration in the Middle East. The result: turmoil; decades of war, $8 trillion expended, over 7,000 American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen lives lost and hundreds of thousands more innocent lives lost, and a vacuum created.On the home front, Americans saw the enactment of the “Patriot Act”—the short deceptive title of a Congressional Act ostensibly to be utilized only against Islamic Terrorists. The Patriot Act is still very much with us.Those wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, perhaps. The mischief and devastation they caused are not. But the Patriot Act is still very much with us. In the space of twenty years, the Act has been rejiggered for use against Americans deemed by the Biden Administration to be “Domestic Terrorists.”Some Congressional Legislators demurred. In 2001, over five dozen House Representatives voted against its passage but only one U.S. Senator did so: Russ Feingold, the Democrat from Wisconsin. His concerns and those of House Representatives who voted against the Patriot Act were prescient.Looking back on his lone Senate vote, Russ Feingold stated, on the 20^th Anniversary of enactment, in The Nation:“This legislation, rightfully, has long been critiqued for sweeping in unprecedented government surveillance. The anniversary is an opportunity to also reckon with how the Patriot Act distorted our democracy’s checks and balances—and what needs to be done to realign them. . . . The Patriot Act, to me, represented unchecked executive power. Congress was giving authorities to law enforcement that they had long requested, even before 9/11, and was agreeing to do so with minimal oversight built into the system. . . .Suddenly, law enforcement had access to broad swaths of information via roving wiretapping authorities and expanded search warrants. The law also expanded the definition of terrorism, enabling law enforcement to use its new authorities in more instances, including in drug enforcement and to surveil political activists.Compounding the expansion of executive authority, Congress simultaneously agreed to restrict the judicial branch’s oversight of the executive’s use of these new authorities. The provision in the Patriot Act that expanded the government’s ability to access personal records did so in part by creating incredibly broad criteria for doing so. This left judges with little avenue for stopping law enforcement from accessing our library records, medical records, and other private information.” ~Feingold’s article published in the NationThe war on Iraq and the enactment of the Patriot Act did not benefit Americans. And, now decades too late, most Americans see that the proffered solutions to the attack on New York City were unnecessary, counterproductive, and, worst of all, massively injurious to the Nation, the American people, and to the U.S. Constitution.But so wrapped up in the horrific tragedy of the moment were most Americans, including most of Congress, that they allowed their lizard brain to dictate their reaction to a monumental tragedy.It should by now be evident to most Americans that the proffered solutions to tragedies and calamities that strike our Nation negatively also impact our basic rights and liberties, and THAT, undoubtedly, is by design.Thus, even if the tragedy and calamity were accidental, the proposed solution was not. The solution was intended not to benefit the public but to harm it. The tragedy or calamity and the solution to it were both harnessed to achieve the end goal: the subjugation of the American people.The propagandists went to work on the people. They contrived to induce in the populace the false belief that the shedding of and shredding of their natural law rights and liberties benefit them. This could not be easy and would take substantial time. For on some level, Americans would understand the enormity of the assault on their basic rights and liberties, and they would abhor it. The Government propagandists and psychologists and their agents understand this. Thus, the messaging must be subtle, and it must be persuasive.The public must believe in the message. Drastic as the solution is, the public must internalize it, come to understand the need for it—accept it wholeheartedly, unconditionally, heedless of the negative impact of it on their life, on their culture, on the concept of what it means to be an American, to have an American identity. The public must not have second thoughts about any of this. The public must forsake the application of their higher critical faculties, which would compel them to doubt the onslaught of messaging assaulting their brains, mandating the need for the proposed, and recommended solution, the absolute necessity, and propriety of it. But the messaging would not so much as hint at the detrimental impact the proposed solution would have on their life, well-being, and welfare, and that of the Nation.These draconian solutions ostensibly directed at dealing head-on with the Nation’s ills and tragedies and calamities do no such thing. Rather, they strike at the heart of our most sacred rights:

The First Amendment Freedom of Speech
The Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms
The Fourth Amendment Right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

That is the aim of these purported solutions. And, on reflection, one sees that this was the intention all along. This was the Grand Design.“Solutions” to claims of this thing, “Domestic Terrorism,” take the form of censorship of ideas and beliefs that do not conform to Government- sponsored narratives. These are false stories. These are the Government's fairy tales that are projected onto the mind of the target population. It is a Psyops on an industrial scale, in blatant defiance of the Smith-Mundt Act. But did Congress ever formally, and effectively repeal the Act? Some scholars say Congress did just that. See, e.g., the article by Weston R. Sager. But no one doubts that Congress did tinker with the Act. No one can reasonably doubt that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, intended to weaken the Act, thus opening up the American people to Government propaganda, the creation of and manipulation of public opinion, and now it is all nice and legal. And the Government itself handles this but it also operates through private party proxies: the massive social media companies. And other major companies develop policies to cohere with the Government program to control public thought and speech. Recall the Government's creation of the DHS Disinformation Board, designed, so we are told to protect free speech. Really? See the article in Forbes. How does that work—protecting free speech by curbing free speech?The public wasn't amused. Neither were at least a few members of Congress. The Board was quickly and quietly disbanded, at least officially. But the Creation of the Board and its overt presentation to the public is disconcerting, quite apart from the reason for the ostensible reason for it. The Federal Government demonstrates its overt intention to control the psyche of the American public. And the audaciousness of the action demonstrates the Federal Government's contempt for the public. And the Government's action also demonstrates the troubling power and authority the Government now wields over the public; the usurpation of that power, and the growing consolidation of power, in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and its only true reason for existence: to serve the American people. One must wonder if this Disinformation Governance Board is still operating, albeit quietly, in the shadows, underground, as a black program, or an extensive secret Government Office, such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) once was. How many other secret programs has the Government created, say, in the last ten or twenty years, alone? How many of these programs or agencies, offices, or bureaus are directing their energies toward, or were specifically created to target the American citizenry? Is this the stuff of paranoid ideation? But, if so, is this paranoid ideation itself deliberately fostered by the Government and by its proxies to keep the public off balance; in a constant state of confusion, fear, and mental exhaustion?Censoring of dissent, mass surveillance, electronic data collection, and the creation of dossiers on every American, violate the natural law rights codified in the First and Fourth Amendments of the Nation’s Bill of Rights. But the public is told this is necessary to protect the public from “right-wing extremists,” “white supremacists,” and “Christian Nationalists,”—all of whom are potential “Domestic Terrorists.” The idea is ludicrous on its face. Yet many Americans believe this. And, through an insidious psychological conditioning campaign targeting “whites,” many Americans find it easy to accept the boogeyman amongst us—in part by way of viewing it as an aspect of themselves.The propagandists subconsciously induce self-hatred in any member of the Caucasian race for the audacity of having been born “white,” with the baggage of “white privilege” that such birth ostensibly delivers. It is bizarre, but the mind can be conditioned to accept absurdities, casting aside his intellect and faculty for self-reflection. The idea also presumes the notion that so-called colored people are all victims, but that it is somehow good and moral to be born “colored.” Thus, the purveyors of this nonsense offend all races, alluding to all white people as members of a noble, superior white race but one that must be chastized for that presumed nobility and superiority, and, at once, extolling the virtue of being a black or colored person for being born ignoble and inferior. Piggybacking off this, the propagandist induces the public into the false belief that only these “right-wing white extremists” would want to possess a firearm. The subliminal message is that guns, as an invention of white people, are an emblem of suppression of black and colored people. Thus, the propagandist equates and encapsulates in the mind of the target audience, three “bad things”—one, right-wing extremist thought directed at blacks and the“goodness and benevolence of Government” that seeks to protect the oppressed black and colored races from their oppressor; two, firearms, and the ownership and possession of them by white men and sine qua non of the oppressor; and, three, the white race and all things white. All these ideas are taken as axiomatic true, and co-extensive. This in a nutshell is the myth created and generated by those forces both here and abroad, and the vehicle through which they intend to: dismantle a free Constitutional Republic, erase the U.S. Constitution, dissolve the United States as an independent, sovereign nation-state, and reduce a sovereign American people to subjugation, penury, and dependency on the largess of Government. Thus many Americans blindly accept more and more constraints on self-expression and blindly accede to conformity and uniformity in all thought and conduct; and willingly, even cheerfully allow Government to constrain their ownership, possession, and use of firearms even as all of these constraints clearly violate the sanctity and inviolability of individuality of the human will, soul, and spirit, and clearly violate the fundamental and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms in their own defense against the predatory animal, the predatory man, and the predatory Government. BUT IT IS THE PREDATORY GOVERNMENT THAT THIS “PREDATORY GOVERNMENT” intends to protect. An armed citizenry with the will and fortitude to resist the enslavement of mind and body is antithetical to tyranny. But, the public isn’t supposed to acknowledge this or even to perceive the extent to which the Government has taken over their dignity and their strength. Thus, they blithely forsake the right of dissent, the right to think for themselves. They lose the resolve to resist encroachment on the sanctity and inviolability of their Selfhood by the Government and they lose the resolve to resist those forces that dare take from them the only tenable physical means to resist the tyranny of Government close upon them: their firearms. Many Americans don't have an inkling of this program to usurp the sovereignty of the American people over the Government; the meticulousness and constancy of it; the insidiousness and scope of the assault on their very Soul by a tyrannical Government and its agents. And this elaborate program of mind control is effective. The will to resist Government control over the mind, the body, and the personal property rights of the individual is dead. One is left an empty husk, the property of the Government to do with it as it will. That is the goal. But many Americans DO RESIST. They are inured to or immune to the propagandists' trickery. It is imperative that a Tyrannical Government take control over the vast stockpiles of weaponry in the hands of the citizenry. The TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT concocts a SOLUTION for the real their very real PERSONAL PROBLEM, THE ARMED CITIZENRY, by FABRICATING A PROBLEM they then thrust on the public: GUN VIOLENCE.This TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, through their propaganda arm, CONVEYS TO THE PUBLIC that the CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS is the PERFECT SOLUTION to THE SCOURGE OF “GUN VIOLENCE.” IT IS ALL A LIE AND IT IS A LIE ON TWO GROUNDS:First, reflect on this idea of “GUN VIOLENCE.” “GUN VIOLENCE” refers to a violent criminal act committed with a firearm. Seen in that light, a gun is merely an implement. And in fact, that is all a GUN IS. It’s an implement. It’s a tool that can be utilized for good or naught. Consider: The propagandists never talk of “KNIFE VIOLENCE,” “VEHICULAR VIOLENCE,” “HATCHET VIOLENCE,” or HAMMER VIOLENCE.” That is discordant. Sure those implements can be used in the commission of violence, and they have been so utilized. But, one would be puzzled by the assertion. For, these implements do have utility for non-violent purposes. One doesn't perceive criminal use of these implements by the psychopathic common criminal, or a raving lunatic as an argument for constraining lawful use of them by others. The aforesaid phrases are misnomers. Similarly, talk of “GUN VIOLENCE” is a misnomer. But, through the consistency and constancy of mass messaging, a person begins to see what the propagandists what a person to see, namely that guns have no redeeming attributes. So no civilian citizen should have access to them. The use of the phrase “GUN VIOLENCE” by the Press, social media, and other propagandists is discordant. But so attuned is the public to it, having heard it incessantly and vehemently, that the public doesn’t realize the singular oddity of the expression. If the desire is to curtail “GUN VIOLENCE,” the solution to that is to remove the perpetrators of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, not remove, or attempt to remove, a firearm from the hands of tens of millions of Americans who are not the cause of CRIMINAL VIOLENCE. In fact, doing so denies the innocent person the means to protect him or herself against a serious threat.Yet, the propagandist asserts that this thing “GUN VIOLENCE,” would be drastically reduced by reducing the number of guns in the hands of everyone. Yet, firearms in the hands of tens of millions of average law-abiding, rational, responsible Americans isn’t the cause of violence in America. The problem of criminal violence rests with the criminal, not the implement utilized.The merging of “VIOLENT CRIME” or “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” into “GUN VIOLENCE” serves to draw attention away from the agent of violence and onto the object of violence. That is the purpose of using it, as a propagandist phrase.Consider: This is analogous to the conflating of LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. No one is against LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Our Nation’s laws specifically provide for it and posit it as a good thing. ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is a different matter entirely. ILLEGAL ENTRY into our Country is a crime, and rightfully so. The integrity of our Nation’s borders and the security of our citizenry are sacrificed illegal entry is made into our Country. The Government pretends there is no such thing as “ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.” But such is the power of propaganda and psychological conditioning that the public fails to recognize the logical absurdity in this and the impossibility of it, and blithely holds in one’s mind a logical inconsistency. THERE IS LEGAL IMMIGRATION and there is ILLEGAL ENTRY. IMMIGRATION CAN'T BE BOTH LEGAL AND ILLEGAL. To avoid a logical contradiction, one has to deny the idea of illegal entry into the Country. But that presents its own problems. Our statutes specifically discuss the crime of illegal entry into our Country. The laws are clear and comprehensive. They haven't been repealed. And if Congress were to repeal those laws, that would be tantamount to denying the existence of the United States as an independent, sovereign Nation with clearly delineated borders. But, the destruction of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State is the agenda of the Biden Administration and, in its actions, it operates as if the Country is indeed nothing more than a geographical landmass, not a sovereign Nation-State.The Biden Administration has sought to strike the words, “ILLEGAL ALIEN” from statute, thereby embracing the idea that illegal entry into the Country isn’t a crime, and certainly not a serious one. But isn't it? The Democrats prefer to embrace the euphemism and legally dubious expression, “UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANT.” But such is the power of propaganda and psychological conditioning that the public fails to recognize the absurdity in this holding in one’s mind a logical contradiction.The Press, on behalf of the Government, assists one in promoting this cognitive misdirection sleight of hand and linguistic incongruity by substituting the verbiage “UNDOCUMENTED PERSON” for “ILLEGAL ALIEN.”Second, the use of the phrase “GUN VIOLENCE” in lieu of “CRIMINAL VIOLENCE” or “VIOLENT CRIME” or “VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS” serves as a smokescreen. The intent here is to direct attention away from the exercise of the fundamental right of armed self-defense, which the Press and the Government don’t accept as either a NATURAL LAW RIGHT or a legitimate MORAL ACT anyway even though the right of armed self-defense is grounded on the self-evident truth of the survival of SELF. This is embedded in the codification of that natural law right in the Constitution.The insidiousness of the Government’s position is that violent crime—and evidence of the growth of violent crime in the United States—is not important, and, unsurprisingly, there is no real attempt to deal with it. Violent crime, especially in our major urban areas, under the control of Democrats and Soros-sanctioned “Prosecutors,” cavalierly ignore all species of violent crime. It stands to reason, then, that, if the right of self-defense, armed or not, isn’t recognized, then the Government's indulgence in criminal violence would result, and that, in fact, is what has happened and this is what the public sees, and what it suffers under the present Democrat Party-dominated Federal Government and Democrat Party-controlled States and Cities around the Country.Since the exercise of one’s natural law right to armed self-defense is the most obvious SOLUTION to crime in the streets and tyranny of Government, why isn’t this recognized? It isn't recognized because the SOLUTION to VIOLENT CRIME AGAINST SELF BY PREDATORY MAN is also the SOLUTION TO TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT.The present Federal Government. It will not abide an armed citizenry because THE ARMED CITIZENRY need not and ought not to have to suffer TYRANNY. VIOLENT CRIME, however, is a PROBLEM, but it is not a PROBLEM for a tyrannical Government. So it tolerates the presence of VIOLENT CRIME. Consider the way “Criminal Justice” is handled in the Democrat Party-controlled Cities and States. The SOLUTION for VIOLENT CRIME is easy: deal harshly with it.A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT CONCERNED OVER THE ARMED CRIMINAL WHO PREYS ON INNOCENT AMERICANS. THE GOVERNMENT'S CONCERN IS DIRECTED TO THE ARMED CITIZEN WHO MIGHT DEFEND THEMSELVES NOT ONLY AGAINST THAT ARMED CRIMINAL BUT AGAINST THE TYRANT GOVERNMENT. THE FORMER MATTER IS IRRELEVANT TO THE TYRANT, BUT THE LATTER MATTER IS OF GRAVE CONCERN TO THE TYRANT.GOVERNMENT perceives the ARMED CITIZEN to be the problem. It does not perceive the common CRIMINAL and occasional lunatic as a problem for it. Indeed, THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL and THE RAVING LUNATIC are serving if unconsciously the goal of the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT—the breakdown of law and order to effectuate the demise of a FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.Thus a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT sees the PROBLEM TO BE THE ARMED CITIZEN, who presents a potential if not an imminent threat to the TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT. THE ARMED CITIZEN IS THEN THE SOLE SOURCE AND CAUSE OF THIS THING “GUN VIOLENCE.”Thus, the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT sees that the SOLUTION to the problem THAT IS the ARMED CITIZEN IS THE CONFISCATION OF HIS FIREARMS.But the Government cannot say this. And the Propagandists would never directly assert it even as it is difficult for the Propagandists to avoid alluding to it. But, one need only look to the City of New York, under Mayor Eric Adams, and to the State as a whole, under present Governor Kathy Hochul, to see that their aim is not to curtail criminal violence, but to make damn sure that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizen residing and/or working in the City or in upper State New York finds it difficult to impossible to exercise his or her right to armed self-defense.THE REAL TRAGEDY OF CRIMINAL VIOLENCE, CONFLATED WITH “GUN VIOLENCE,” SERVES AS THE PRETEXT FOR THE TRUE GOAL SOUGHT: DISARMING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.That is what these Democrat Party-controlled Governments want, and, in the implementation of their policy—their solution to “GUN VIOLENCE”—CONFISCATION OF THE CITIZEN'S FIREARMS is what many Americans see what the Government is doing, and what its real intention is.But, many Americans go along with THIS CONTRIVED SOLUTION to a CONTRIVED PROBLEM, “GUN VIOLENCE,” oblivious to the REAL PROBLEM, perceived by these Government leaders. And that is THE EXISTENCE OF THE ARMED CITIZENRY and the SOLUTION to the ARMED CITIZENRY is the DENIAL OF THE CITIZENS' ACCESS TO FIREARMS.Many Americans understand this. They aren’t fooled by the HOCUS POCUS of the Government and their propagandists. They resist; some vehemently.And for these latter “MALCONTENTS” who refuse to acquiesce to authority, the orchestrators of the CHARADE have an answer for dealing with them too.Those Americans who voice a complaint about the proffered solutions are deemed outcasts. These Americans are ridiculed and reviled by the Government and the Press as “GUN NUTS ” and as proponents of wild “conspiracy theory.” The Federal Government and a compliant, obedient Press have settled on the use of a couple of expressions to describe these perceived malcontents who refuse to go along with the Government agenda. They call them “Far-Right Republicans,” “Ultra-Maga,” and “Mega-Maga Republicans.” One cannot but wonder at the fertile minds of propagandists. But, reference to particular Americans by insulting language is one thing. It is quite another when Government begins to“ WEAPONIZE” its Departments, Offices, Agencies, and Bureaus against Americans that it perceives as DEFIANT, and potential ADVERSARIES to the GOVERNMENT'S USURPATION OF POWER AND AUTHORITY THAT BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Government is aware of its unlawful, unconstitutional conduct, and it knows that many Americans KNOW the Government KNOWS it is operating illegally against the RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES of the PEOPLE it is supposed to serve and protect in accordance with the dictates of the U.S. CONSTITUTION.The use of the phrase ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY’ is meant to castigate and demonize Americans. But, this phrase too, just like that of ‘GUN VIOLENCE’ is but one more contrivance. And, the phrase, ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY,’ didn’t just pop, of its own accord, into existence. It has been around for quite some time.The expression was “invented by the CIA in order to prevent disbelief in official Government stories.” See the article by Paul Craig Roberts. But it is an odd phrase, to be utilized in the propagandists' lexicon. For the word, ‘conspiracy,’ is a legal term of art. Blacks Law Dictionary defines the crime of conspiracy as:“A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is innocent in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.”There IS, then, the CRIME OF ‘CONSPIRACY.’ But there IS NO crime of ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY.’The latter phrase is utilized by propagandists to encourage Americans to along with the official Government narrative lest they be treated like fools. But who really are the fools here? Those who believe the Government's FAIRY TALES or those who challenge them, pointing to the holes in them?The propagandists know well that many Americans seek to avoid public stigma. Many Americans wish to take the easy way out and proclaim their faith in Government and in their agents, refusing to believe the Government would mean them harm, that Government doesn’t have an ulterior motive, and that, at worst, the Government and its agents only “make mistakes” sometimes. Many Americans play the game out of a sense of caution, acknowledging to themselves, if but tacitly that, "YES, WE AMERICANS DO NOW LIVE IN THE SURVEILLANCE, POLICE STATE," AND BETTER IT IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT FACT.Then there are the true believers, those who, like Lemmings jumping off a cliff, blindly accept the nonsense spouted. And, so, with either weak or firm conviction—and with a dollop of fear—with the incessant and noxious messaging daily pounded into them by the legacy Press, and Social Media, operating at the behest of their Government sponsors and benefactors, many Americans accede to the axiom that the Government can do no wrong, just as, in the past, the subjects of monarchs, acceded to the axiom that “the king can do no wrong” (“rex non potest peccare”), i.e., the king can never be capable of intentional wrongful conduct.With the November 8, 2022 Midterms now just hours away as this article goes to publication——“President Biden warned that a Republican-controlled Congress would seek to impeach him.‘I’m already being told that if they win back the House and Senate, they’re going to impeach me. I don’t know what in the hell they’re going to impeach me for. . . .’” ~ Joe Biden delivered a speech at Mira Costa College in San Diego on Thursday night, bemoaning a GOP-controlled Congress. Reported by the Wall Street Journal. Thus speaks the Tyrant, oblivious to or uncaring of his Tyranny.___________________________________*This is a major reworking of the article posted yesterday, October 7, 2022___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

9/26/22 9/26/22

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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

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

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

7/26/22 7/26/22

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DESERVES ACCOLADES FOR THE BRUEN DECISION, BUT NEW YORK’S CHANGES TO ITS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW MAKE CLEAR THERE IS NO CAUSE YET FOR JUBILATION

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

MULTISERIES

PART SEVEN

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LAW WAS ALWAYS A MESS—AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A MESS!

The Amendments to the New York State handgun regime are a “mess.” That one word is the best descriptor of them and for them, and for the entire State handgun licensing regime. These Amendments do nothing to alleviate the past difficulties an individual has had attempting to secure an unrestricted handgun carry license. These Post-Bruen Amendments merely substitute one ludicrous arbitrary and subjective, and vague handgun licensing standard, “Proper Cause”/ “Demonstration of Extraordinary Need,” for another nonsensical subjective and vague handgun licensing standard, “Demonstration of Good Moral Character.”The present New York Government, referring here to Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, have manufactured a response to the Bruen rulings that is a sham, a dissembling, a pretense at satisfying the dictates of the Court—one that isn’t at all subtle.Implementation of the new handgun licensing standard makes it decidedly and decisively more difficult, not less so, for the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding civilian citizen, to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun license. In fact, implementation of the new standard makes it more difficult for the average New Yorker to obtain even a restrictive home and/or business premise handgun license.The New York Government has brazenly defied, not obediently complied with, the Court’s Bruen rulings, thereby vitiating the import of Bruen, and violating the Court’s Article 3 Constitutional authority.In her words and actions, Hochul has made her feelings known, and the New York State Senate Majority Leader has echoed those sentiments.Contemptuous of the High Court’s rulings and reasoning, the New York State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, hurled a stream of invective, at the High Court. She regurgitated the same tiresome, disingenuous, and caustic rhetoric of Anti-Second Amendment fanatics and Neo-Marxist Cultists, proclaiming that the New York Nanny State knows what’s best for the people, not the U.S. Supreme Court. And so, the New York Government informs the Court that New York has no intention of complying with the Court’s rulings. In her Senate Majority Press Release, Andrea Stewart-Cousins retorts——“In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, implying that guns are more important than lives in this country, we are passing legislation to ensure that New York State has safe and responsible gun laws. States are the last line of defense, which is why we are stepping up to protect New York from being easily flooded with concealed weapons and keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. These measures, in addition to the previous anti-gun violence legislation we passed, are vital in a time when there are more guns than people in America. New York will continue to prioritize people’s safety and lives, and I thank my conference, Speaker Heastie, and Governor Hochul for their partnership.” ~New York State Senate Majority leader’s remarks after the NY Senate in Albany passed amendments to the State’s handgun licensing statute in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the State’s concealed handgun carry law.The implication of Stewart-Cousins’ remarks is that the Government's changes to the handgun statute are designed to make it more difficult, not less difficult, for the average civilian citizen to exercise his or her right to armed self-defense in New York, thus necessitating the filing of further time-consuming and expensive lawsuits on the part of the citizen to obtain redress for Government's unconscionable, unconstitutional behavior.It is evident that the goal of the New York Government is to make the process of obtaining a New York handgun carry license—that one requires to lawfully possess a handgun in New York—so difficult, so onerous, so expensive, so time-consuming, so oppressive that one’s desire to exercise his or her natural law right to keep and bear arms is snuffed out, and the individual concedes defeat, and gives up further attempt to secure the right. Of course, some individuals will remain undeterred, and that is to be expected as long as the Second Amendment remains, de jure law, in the Bill of Rights—a thing that angers and frustrates the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists to no end. For, as long as the Second Amendment remains explicit in the Constitution, the sovereignty of the American people cannot be disturbed, and United States, as a free Constitutional Republic, and independent Nation-State cannot be dismantled and its remains inserted into the “international rules-based neo-feudalistic, neoliberal empire,” a.k.a. “new world order,” a.k.a. “Open Society,” that the Destroyers of independent nation-states have long yearned and aimed and planned for. New York's handgun regime is where the Globalists/Marxists are focusing their energies. If they can defeat the Second Amendment there, they also defeat the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. So, the puppet-masters have given their puppets, Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, their marching orders. The Amendments to New York's handgun law are no less draconian than what stood before. The New York Government assumes that many people who had hoped to obtain an unrestricted handgun carry license easily, Post-Bruen, now realizing the hopelessness of the task, will simply capitulate, surrender the effort to obtain one.And, as the Government has included, in the Amendments, many more restrictions pertaining to places where, henceforth, it will be unlawful for the holder of a valid unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public, that, too—the Government hopes—will dampen whatever residual desire a civilian citizen may have to carry a handgun for self-defense. Obtaining a coveted handgun license will be, at best, at long-last, nothing more than a Pyrrhic Victory—hardly worth the effort.And, so, a recalcitrant, intransigent New York Government pushes hard against those citizens who intend to exercise their Second Amendment right regardless of the obstacles the New York Government places in their path. This means citizens must continue to expend earnest effort filing more expensive, more lengthy, more time-consuming lawsuits against Hochul and her Government. And the Government knows that, given the nature of the legal process, and of the effort, and time, and money involved, all those factors work to the Government’s advantage—not that of the citizen.Hochul's message is clear: “the New York handgun regime is here to stay, and any person who doesn’t like New York’s handgun regime, better have a deep pocket to file another lawsuit like Bruen, and they better have the time and energy and will power to follow through on it. They will need it.”Or, in the alternative, Americans can simply leave New York. Kathy Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—creator of and champion of the notorious New York Safe Act of 2013—has made abundantly clear that members of the GOP who hold “extreme views,” in Cuomo’s mind, are persona non grata. As he says, “you don’t belong in New York.’” See article in New York Post.So, then what? “Just leave?” And to be sure, many American Patriots have left New York. They have also left Illinois and California. But many other Americans, true Patriots, too, have stayed and they intend to fight for their fundamental rights and liberties in their State, their home.After all, many good Americans were born and raised in New York, in Illinois, and in California. These Americans consider those States to be their home. And those States are their home. So, why, then, should they leave? Let the corrupters of those States, like Cuomo and Hochul, and DeBlasio and Eric Adams leave New York. Let corruptors like Pritzker and Lightfoot leave Illinois. Let corruptors like Newsome, and Garcetti, and Breed, and Schaaf leave California, as well they all should. But where do Americans go if the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist cultists take over the entire Country—which is occurring apace? The Biden Administration allows CCP China and the Billionaire, Bill Gates, to buy up vast tracts of land—and to what end? The Administration uses tens of billions of American tax-dollars against the interests of Americans and politicizes Government departments, agencies, and bureaus for its own nefarious ends. The military and police are demoralized and weakened. Our founders are denigrated. Our monuments and statues are defaced, removed, and desecrated. The Biden Administration has done much to destroy this Country’s economy, infrastructure, and its resources, and its military preparedness and prowess. That is its sole reason for being. It is the sole reason, money, and time, and effort, and massive corruption of the electoral process was expended in getting Donald Trump out and getting Joe Biden and legions of lackeys into positions of power that they may damage the Republic irreparably.It has all paid off for the Corruptors of the Country. The Nation’s vitality is on the wane. This is not due to accident or mere happenstance; nor can it be explained as a product of gross incompetence. It is intentional. It is all part of an elaborate, sophisticated plan; carefully conceived and orchestrated; and methodically carried out.Yet, there are limits to the harm a feeble-minded and physical wreck of a man can inflict on this Country even though Joe Biden is but a titular Chief Executive. But, if California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, should run for President, and secure the Democrat Party’s nomination for President in 2024, and, horror of horrors, if he became the 47^th U.S. President, what then becomes of the Country.? Newsom’s California will be replicated across the 50 States. Where might Americans run to, then? What State shall be able to operate—may operate—consistent with the Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, once tyranny cements itself firmly in the Nation, and reigns unchallenged, supreme over Constitution, Nation, and People?For what Americans have experienced, especially, in the last 19 months, one must conclude the American Revolution of 1776 was less a hard-fought war, won, than it remains a war yet ongoing, with battles Americans must continue to fight against its own Federal and State Governments. For these Governments adamantly refuse to acknowledge and accept the sovereignty of the American people, as first conceptualized by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and then as actualized through the fact of our Nation's well-armed citizenry. But can America's Patriots prevail against such powerful, malevolent, and tenacious forces that dare to suppress our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties and to oppress our people until they capitulate—every one of us—to a world-wide feudalistic empire whose central offices one shall find in Brussels, Belgium?As we have seen, even simple recognition of the sacred natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be found everywhere in our Nation, but only in scattered spots here and there. A tyrannical Federal Government and several more tyrannical State Governments, blotting the National landscape, refuse to countenance such basic right—the cornerstone of our free Republic and of the sovereignty of the American people over Government. Our Constitution demands that Government pay homage to the will of the American people through recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No other Government on Earth allows such. Most other Governments mock the very idea of it. But not here. Yet, today, our Government, this Federal Government, and many State Governments and regional and municipal governments have become like so many others; corrupt, and jealous, and guarded of their powers: a blight on a Free Republic. These Governments demand the American people pay homage to them; not they to the American people!The forces that crush have made substantial inroads into achievement of their goal: the demoralizing, destabilizing, and dismantling of our free Republic. They have corrupted every institution of our Country. They have denigrated our history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Christian ethic. And, they are stripping our Nation of its strength, and will, and fortitude. Only the sovereignty of the Nation’s people remains, albeit attenuated, as our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal rights and liberties are being inexorably, and swiftly, eroded before our very eyes. _____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

6/30/22 6/30/22

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose. Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige. And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it. The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website. It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov. A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from. The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny. Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold. And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association. The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed. Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

9/17/21 9/17/21

DEVELOPING A DOCTRINE OF TREASON IN AMERICA

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

As we maintained in our first article posted on Ammoland, “Does the Biden Administration’s Assault on the Second Amendment Amount to Treason,” one should be circumspect in the application of ‘TREASON’—this so there is no mistake in our understanding of the import of it, lest we dilute its significance—attaching the dire duo labels of ‘TREASON’ and ‘TRAITOR’ to those who never warranted it, but happened nonetheless to be branded with it, and crucified for it.And we know whereof we speak: Donald Trump, and those closest to him, those who assisted him in his run for the U.S. Presidency, including Cabinet-level Officers; close friends and associates; even members of his own family have branded and crucified the 45^th U.S. President and those connected closely to him. And now with Trump out-of-office—whether the loss of a Second Term was due to a fair and disappointing election outcome, or chicanery of the highest order, those who replaced Donald Trump with a National embarrassment, in the form of a corrupt, placid, flaccid, and senile shell of a man, one, Joseph Biden, must continue with the charade.The forces that crush a Nation and its people into submission now focus their attention on one-third of the population that supported the “MAKE AMERICA GREAT” agenda that sought to reset the Nation’s course back toward the vision of the founders of the Republic.Through an orchestrated program of DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, DIVERSION, and DIVAGATION, the Nation’s OBSTRUCTORS and DESTRUCTORS who control the legacy Press and social media draw the public’s attention away from Federal Government policies designed to dismantle the Republic in clear violation of and defiance to the U.S. Constitution and to Federal Statute and channel the public’s reasonable, rational concern to the Nation’s DISSENTERS—those Americans who seek to preserve the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic—treating true PATRIOTS as improbable TRAITORS and treating possible TRAITORS as improbable PATRIOTS. And this topsy-turvy elaborate propaganda campaign reflects the FOUNDERS gravest concerns, their most deep-seated fears.The Founders realized, over two hundred years ago that THE BEAST in MAN, such as it is, never changes, and that BEAST would eventually, inevitably bring out THE WORST in MAN. The Founders were deeply concerned that appellations of ‘TREASON,’ ‘TRAITOR,’ ‘BETRAYER,’ and ‘JUDAS’ would be misapplied not to true ENEMIES of the Nation, but to its veritable PATRIOTS, the Nation’s PROTECTORS. The Founders were well aware that unscrupulous, scurrilous, craven, usurpers of the sovereign authority of the American people would damage and disparage and bring to utter ruin the lives and character of innocent people, and do for any of multiple reasons: anger and rage; spite and jealousy, or even for no other reason than political expediency or perceived political exigency.“English treason law influenced America's founding fathers as they crafted the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, America's founders wished to develop a treason doctrine that—unlike English treason doctrine—could not be used to suppress political adversaries.” United States v. Hodges: Developments of Treason and the Role of the Jury, 97 Denver L. Rev. 117, by Jennifer Elisa Chapman, Jennifer Elisa Chapman, Ryan H. Easley Research Fellow, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

THE STUDY OF TREASON IS THE STUDY OF HISTORY

“The study of treason is really the study of history. No other constitutional provision is as deeply rooted in English history as the Treason Clause. William Blackstone wrote that treason ‘imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith.’ Treason Blackstone further noted that treason against the sovereign—termed ‘high treason’—amounts to the ‘highest civil crime.’ Due to the gravity of the offense, the crime of treason must therefore be precisely ascertained. ‘For if the crime of high treason be indeterminate, this alone . . . is sufficient to make the Government degenerate into arbitrary power.’“Treason is the highest crime known to law. It is more serious than even murder: the murderer violates a single person or at most only a few, whereas treason cuts at the welfare and safety of all members of society. And the punishment for treason has always underscored the gravity of the offense.“The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a significant dilemma when they met to frame a new system of government. On one hand, the new republic would not last if the government could not demand the loyalty of its citizens; on the other hand, history had shown that broad treason laws led to the suppression of political opposition and free speech. English experience had also shown that leaving the definition of treason to judges left the law open to abuse through ‘constructive treason.’ The Framers therefore took upon themselves the difficult task of fashioning a law that would protect the newly formed government from disloyalty and betrayal, while simultaneously preserving the right of political dissent.” State Treason: The History and Validity of Treason Against Individual States,” 101 Ky. L.J. 281, 2012/2013, by J. Taylor McConkie, Brigham Young University, B.A.; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division.The Founders were deeply concerned about the misuse of treason by a rogue Government that would use “TREASON” for unlawful, nefarious purposes.“The Framers’ intent for including the Treason Clause within the Constitution was to immortalize the definition thus preventing a rogue legislature from creating what James Madison called ‘newfangled and artificial’ treasons These judge-made expansions of the common law definition of treason more commonly called ‘constructive treasons were made in order to cover conduct that had never before been known as treasonous. This was a common practice in England and is what prompted the passage of the Statute of Edward III in order to control the definition of treason by the legislature instead of the courts. “Another major concern was that the state could use an undefined definition of treason to punish political dissidents or people who opposed the sovereign’s policies. Based on the freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful political expression, later memorialized in the First Amendment, it was important to limit the definition of treason to only levying war and adhering to enemies of the United States by providing aid and comfort to them.’” “The Revival Of Treason: Why Homegrown Terrorists Should Be Tried As Traitors, 4 Nat'l Sec. L.J. 311, Spring/ Summer, 2016, by Jameson A. Goodell, George Mason University School of Law, Juris Doctor Candidate, May 2017; Virginia Military Institute, B.A., International Studies & Arabic Language and Culture, 2014.It is the purpose of these Arbalest Quarrel articles on the subject of “TREASON” to lay all this out for the reader.For, if there be TREASON in our midst, we must recognize the legal contours and parameters of it in the manner the founders of our Republic intended for it to be used, as elucidated further in case law. Thus, before we apply it, we must be reasonably sure of our case against those we deem to have committed it. And, once assured of the efficacy of our case, proceed forward aggressively forward, to bring those charged with treason to account for their treacherous actions against the Nation and its people.Let us be clear. It is not enough to say, for example, that such individuals in Government that have committed treason should simply resign from their posts or should, if they refuse to resign, then be fired.Several media pundits deplore the actions of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken; Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin; White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff. And, these media pundits have voiced, vociferously, their anger over the manner in which these individuals handled the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan—a complete debacle. Biden, for his part, not unsurprisingly, stated his support for General Milley and others. Some media pundits in the last couple of days, on Fox News, at least, have even made reference to “treason.” See, e.g., a recent episode on Tucker Carlson. But that is as far as any of the media pundits have, to date, gone and that is, apparently, as far as any of them are will to go. None of them has suggested impeachment of any of Biden's people except, perhaps, in a couple of instances pertaining to Biden, himself, and, even so, no one in the Fox Press Corps, or in any other media organization, that we are aware of, has suggested that Biden himself should be impeached specifically for the crime of “Treason.” And, we can appreciate the circumspection of the Press on that score. For unless a person can articulate the legal basis for impeachment on a charge of treason of Biden, or of impeachment or General Court Martial on a charge of treason of any one else in Biden's Administration, it behooves a person to be very mindful of and careful of what he or she is asserting. Nonetheless, what has taken place in Afghanistan under Biden’s watch, and the many devastating, deadly, horrific repercussions from that debacle which are just beginning to play out in Afghanistan and here in the U.S. and that are having a ripple effect around the globe, cannot be simply wallpapered over through mere resignations or firings of Biden officials even if Biden were to do so.Our adversaries in China, Russia, and Iran as well as our allies have taken due notice of the extent to which this weak-willed, corrupt, compromised, physically ill, and mentally debilitated “U.S. President” has given up all pretense of ability to lead a great Nation. Joe Biden has shown that he has no authority—bullied and pushed this way and that, this Country is going Hell in a Handbasket and taking the rest of the world down with it. In fact, the ineptitude and incompetence of Joe Biden and his Administration—from the instant Biden took Office up to the present moment in time—is so acute and so extensive, that one must wonder if the policy decisions made by Biden or by a secret cabal, operating behind the scenes, can simply be chalked up to a cascading series of unfortunate missteps, a set of deeply unfortunate circumstances and puzzling misadventures that the Harris-Biden Administration could not have reasonably made proper allowances for or contingency plans for because the events that unfolded simply could not have been reasonably foreseen, even as flagrant as those missteps seem to be and even as one remains deeply puzzled that Joe Biden is seen complimenting his advisors for doing a great job. Is he kidding?Anyway, that is one explanation one might conjure up for the disasters confronting our Nation on multiple fronts—disasters that are affecting many countries and that will eventually engulf the entire world. But there is another explanation. It is this:Americans are witnessing precisely what was meant to happen, is meant to happen, a meticulously contrived, calculated, calibrated, and executed series of scenes and acts of a monstrous Shakespearian Play. Be it comedy or tragedy depends on one’s perspective. But it is all preplanned, and prearranged, carried out sequentially, having commenced with a flurry of executive orders and actions designed to unravel the order and stability Trump had brought for our Nation, and, by extension, this order and stability that Trump had brought for the world.The goal of this elaborate, extravagant, carefully choreographed performance that is now unfolding under the auspices of the Harris-Biden Administration is meant to undermine the most powerful, successful, and prosperous Nation on Earth. And with the destruction of the United States as a preeminent world power and stable influence for the world, a whirlwind would materialize to destabilize the entire world and thereby pave the way for a new “INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER” that powerful functionaries here and around the world are intimating; a new world order that the late U.S. Senator John McCain happened to mention (see article in the Independent Sentinel, published March 26, 2017) and that the illustrious statesman and regular Bilderberg Group attendee, Henry Kissinger worked tirelessly for and wrote a book about, with the hardly inscrutable and singularly uninspiring if, for some, wistful title, “World Order,” published, on September 9, 2014, during Barack Obama’s reign.We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, are going under the assumption that, whether by sheer ineptitude and incompetence or cold, calculated, callous, caustic, and cruel design, high officials of the Harris-Biden Administration—and this must include Joe Biden himself, and any and all secret handlers that the American public is not privy to if such there be that had a hand in this, and we look at one example here, a real “cluster f**k” that transpired at Kabul airport involving the drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan and the deaths of Americans during that drawdown—DID DO what they intended TO DO even if the consequences of their actions were not what they had in mind, can those policy decisions support a legal finding of TREASON of any one or all of them. And we will look at other policy decisions and the execution of those decisions as well.Through all that we do in the articles to follow, we ask that you etch in your mind the following, for we will be constantly coming back to it:Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. And, “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason,”“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”The third part of our series on treason follows forthwith.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

2/5/19 2/5/19

GUN GRABBERS DELIVER FALSE MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

PART ONE

OPPRESSIVE ANTIGUN MEASURES DO NOT PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

THE RESHAPING OF AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FIREARMS

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

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

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

AN INCREMENTAL ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

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

THE THREE ANTIGUN PLANKS

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

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

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

12/1/15 12/1/15

CLINTON CLAMORS, ALL GUNS MUST GO!

The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country. On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. In response she remarked that Canada, the UK, and Australia have all implemented national “gun buyback” programs. Remarking further on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary. It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. But, it stretches credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens would voluntarily surrender to their Government for wasteful destruction, well over 600,000 perfectly functional firearms, even if one accepts at face value Clinton’s disingenuous remark that the Australian populace was actually getting a “good price” for them.Of note, Clinton didn’t bother to elaborate on what specific “automatic” weapons were surrendered to the Government authorities; nor did she bother to elaborate on the specific “good price” each Australian happened to receive for his or her weapon or weapons. Indeed, how would Clinton know the price any Australian received for a particular weapon? And, if the price were unknown, then it would be patently ridiculous to assert that Australians received a “good price” for those weapons.Indeed, Australians, who were compelled to surrender their weapons, may not feel that the Australian Government gave them a “good price” for their weapons. More to the point, one might stop to consider that, to the typical Australian gun owner, who thought it important enough to purchase and possess a firearm in the first place, no price is a good price for a weapon that had to be forfeited to the Government. For, once forfeited, Australians knew that they would never again be able, lawfully, to obtain suitable replacement firearms.Of course, no one at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting bothered to weigh-in on these matters. And Clinton, for her part, did not trouble herself to offer argument in support of her statements, relying only on bald assertions, lest she defeat the poignancy of her rhetoric. And, this is the most aggravating thing about Clinton, even if one is drawn to her at all. She treats her adult, target audience as if she were speaking to grade school children. In her remarks to the public she routinely tends toward gross exaggeration, conflation, pontification, embellishment, evasion, falsehoods, over-generalizations, over-simplifications and outright lies. If one tries to pin her down, she refuses to respond, flamboyantly throwing her hands up in disgust.Clinton’s goal is securing the Oval Office, whatever the cost. Doing so would be the culmination of her quest for self-aggrandizement. In pursuit of that goal she forever engages in shameless self-promotion. Everything she says is carefully orchestrated for emotional effect, not for intellectual clarity. A Town Hall meeting is not, apparently, the place where the American public is expected to pose hard, well composed questions to this Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States; nor should the public expect detailed, cogent, intelligent answers. Clinton doesn’t relish a lively, frank, intelligent debate before the public – ever!Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations rest a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed, calibrated remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Congress would never oblige. And, even if she, as U.S. President, would dare, through an illegal executive order, to implement such a vast gun forfeiture scheme, she must know that the result could invite insurrection. Perhaps that is why Clinton added, somewhat obliquely and lamely – although the damage had already been done – that she didn’t know how such a massive undertaking could be instituted here in the U.S., for the mechanism of a gun buyback is surely simple enough. Just ask the Australian Government. But, in the U.S., it is the public’s response to such a program that would be particularly problematic to Clinton and to other antigun proponents, both in this Country and abroad, who wish to dispossess Americans of their firearms. Clinton is evidently suggesting that she doesn’t know how she could get the majority of law-abiding American gun-owners to acquiesce to a quiet coup d’état by the Federal Government; for a massive gun confiscation scheme is exactly that: a takeover of the Federal Government from the People.The mainstream news media – apparently, and rightfully, concerned that members of the public who do not share Clinton’s views on gun ownership and possession – namely, the vast majority of us – might object to the idea of a massive gun forfeiture scheme carried out on the national stage – created a news blackout of her remarks, lest the American public find a Hillary Clinton Presidency too repugnant to even contemplate. The mainstream news media obviously realized -- even if Clinton, herself, did not immediately realize the serious ramifications of her blunder -- that a federal government seizure of millions of firearms from the hands of the American public means nothing less than the seizure of government from the People! Such an undertaking is unforgivable. It is legally and ethically indefensible even if seemingly tenable to an irrational antigun crowd, unable to truly appreciate what it would presage for Americans’ rights and liberties, and even if desirable to a predacious, calculating and scheming cabal of international socialists who would like very much to see the United States Constitution discarded and a Free Republic dismantled.Under our Constitution a national, coercive gun confiscation program is patently illegal, and rightly so. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own. For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another. It is legally defensible and feasible in Australia. It is not legally defensible here in the U.S., even if it were feasible, and it isn’t. Australia’s history as a Nation is wholly unlike that of our own. And the Constitutions of Australia and the U.S. are notably quite different.Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. As an ex-commonwealth Nation, Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms. This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, such rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of "the Crown." Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here. Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.The assertion of that right, etched in stone, serves two purposes. It serves, one, as an emphatic reminder to those who serve the People – the Congress, the Executive and its bureaucrats, and the Judiciary – that together comprise the federal government – that the sovereignty of this Nation rests in, with, and upon “We the People.” The American People will suffer no rule under any other nation or under any trans-national or international ruling body; nor will they be subordinate to the federal government. And, the assertion of that right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves, two, as a constant reminder to those elected to serve the American People and to those appointed or hired as functionaries to serve the American People that ultimate power rests in, with, and upon the People and that those limited powers the People have granted to the federal government are for no purpose other than to serve the People. The American People reserve to and for themselves alone, the absolute power to revoke any and all federal government powers if or when that government ever subverts the Will of the American People.In light of these facts it is exceedingly odd, even perverse, that the leading Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton – who graduated from an elite law school in the United States – would dare emulate Australia’s gun buyback, confiscation program and that she would assert how much she would like to see a national gun “buyback” program played out in this Country since such an undertaking is patently illegal under our Constitution. In the assertion Clinton dares to express her blatant contempt for the American People.But there is more. Apart from the legal constraints, precluding a massive, coercive national gun confiscation program, there is another matter to consider. It is one that is rarely if ever discussed. It is the ethical theory upon which massive, coercive gun confiscation programs are grounded. The Australian Government argues, at least tacitly, that gun confiscation programs maximize “the good” for society, for “the Collective.” But, “the good” referred to here has nothing to do with crime reduction. It has everything to do with maximizing control over the citizenry, over the commonalty. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. It is based on the notion that “the good” equals what is best for society, that is to say, what has “maximum utility” for society as a whole. But who decides what “the good” for society is? In Australia, it is the Government that decides. Moreover, whatever “the good” for society – for “the Collective” – is or is presumed to be, will, most likely, not be good for the individual in that society. And, therein lies the root problem with utilitarianism. The drafters of our Constitution did not subscribe to utilitarianism. Our Constitution, framed on the idea of limited government and on a Bill of Rights, incorporating the right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right that shall not be infringed – clearly expresses the sanctity and autonomy of the individual over the collective “good” of society. Ethics in this Country, as manifested in our Bill of Rights, is grounded on what is “morally right,” not on what maximizes utility (“the good”) for the collective. Ethical theories that are based on the notion of what is morally right are known as deontological theories, in philosophy. The two ethical theories, utilitarianism and deontology, are mutually exclusive; for, what is morally right and in the best interests of the individual in society is antithetical to what may happen to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, for “the Collective.” No better example of the conflict of the two ethical theories exists than that illustrated by massive, coercive gun confiscation programs, such as those created and implemented by Australia’s Government, on the national stage.Taking away the guns of the citizenry will enhance a government’s control over its citizenry. Enhancing government control, as perceived by the antigun crowd and by international socialists, equates with maximizing “the good,” maximizing “utility” for society, under the utilitarian ethical model. But, taking away guns from the law-abiding citizen does not enhance safety for that citizen, as an individual, in his or her own right. Rather, the individual is less safe as the individual is essentially defenseless against an armed psychopathic criminal or a lunatic. Moreover, the individual is harmed by that individual’s own government since an unarmed citizenry cannot adequately defend itself against the suppression of the citizenry’s rights and liberties. So, gun coercive confiscations programs are unethical under a deontological theory of ethics, grounded on what is “morally right,” even if such programs may, to some, appear to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, that is to say, for “the Collective.” And, in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and given the primacy of “We the People” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, such coercive gun confiscation programs – whether or not cloaked as seemingly benign gun buyback programs – are facially illegal.Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama, clearly holds to utilitarianism – an ethical theory that is repugnant to the sensibilities of our founders as reflected in the Constitution the Founders drafted for future generations of Americans. On both legal and ethical grounds the position of President Obama and Hillary Clinton on gun ownership and gun possession in this Country is unsound. It is little wonder, then, that, although voicing constant rancorous, vociferous objection to gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, they offer no sound argument in support of their position – only empty emotional rhetoric and platitudes – because sound argument in support of their dubious position on gun ownership and gun possession in America simply does not exist.The existence of our Bill of Rights is a testament to the fact that our founders did not hold to utilitarianism. Our Constitution is predicated on a moral code, not a utilitarian one. The criterion of moral conduct is based on what is right; not one that is based on a Quixotic quest to maximize utility for society, for the Collective. The Second Amendment is an assertion of the importance of individual responsibility; and morality is predicated on the right of the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, the founders of our Republic believed all the more in emphasizing, exemplifying, and extolling the sanctity of and the moral worth of the individual, and significantly less on maximizing utility for an amorphous society – for “the Collective,” which effectively denigrates the individual. Gun confiscation/forfeiture programs illustrate distrust of government in its own citizens. The citizen is told that, for his or her own good, the citizen must be dispossessed of firearms. The philosophy of President Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify the predominance of government might over individual rights and liberty; government control over the citizen, rather than citizen control over government; inculcating obedience to authority and subservience to the State, rather than enhancing freedom of expression, individuality, and personal autonomy.Americans, of late, suffer endless exhortations that they ought sacrifice their rights and liberties for the Societal Collective “good.” Strident remarks against gun ownership and gun possession should serve, especially, as a warning to Americans that if they do not take steps to preserve their Constitution, they will lose it. A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.