A CONGRESSIONAL ACT CALLING THE AR-15 RIFLE THE NATIONAL GUN OF THE UNITED STATES IS A SENSELESS GESTURE, HAVING NOTHING TO COMMEND IT AND MUCH TO FAULT IT, ON MANY LEVELS

DISCUSSION OF H.R. 1095

PART THREE

In our initial article on H.R. 1095, Part One, posted on the AQ website, on February 26, 2023, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on February 28, 2023, we pointed generally to problems with H.R. 1095, a bill declaring the “AR-15 Rifle the National Gun of the United States.” In Part Two, posted on the AQ website, on March 2, 2023, we looked at flaws with this bill from a basic pragmatic/practical perspective.In this article and in the final article, we deal in depth with flaws in the bill, from three other perspectives: logical, legal, and Congressional procedural/mechanical.In this article, Part Three, we look at the principal problem with the bill from a logical standpoint.By “logical” we mean both “reasonable/rational” in a layman's sense, as well as “logical” in the academic, philosophical sense. From the reasonable/rational, commonsensical standpoint, does the bill have any positive feature or features to commend it? And, if so, do those positive features outweigh the negative aspects? And, what are those negative aspects? What works against it? Many things.Some comments by Ammoland readers of our first article on H.R. 1095 suggest there is nothing wrong with a bill declaring the AR-15 to be the National Gun of the United States and, that, if nothing else, the bill serves as “pushback” against those elements in our Country that rail against guns and bemoan the ubiquity of the AR-15 and bemoan the popularity of semiautomatic weapons generally among Americans.  Undoubtedly, the sponsor and co-sponsors of H.R. 1095, fed up with this endless assault on guns, and sanctimony, sought, through this bill, to goad these antigun fanatics.Anti-Second Amendment propagandists, providing fodder for members of the Press and leftist media sites and leftist Cable and Broadcast news anchors and commentators, incessantly and uniformly refer to the AR-15 as “a weapon of war,” an “assault weapon,” a “military-style rifle,” “a weapon having no use in a civilized society”—and so on and so forth. Constantly parroting each other, the public gets a daily dose of the same simplistic, noxious message, droning on endlessly, hypnotically. Public policy propagandists and psychologists create and then drill these viral memes deep into the psyche of Americans. These engineers of mind control hope to inculcate into the psyche of most Americans a pathological fear of firearms, a rabid abhorrence of them, and contempt toward those Americans who exercise their natural law right to keep and bear them. It is in this climate that Americans who are inured to the seduction that has worked its charm on so many, wish to fight back. But, is H.R. 1095 an effective mechanism upon which to resist? Is it not akin to lobbing ping-pong balls back at those who throw grenades?  Another Ammoland reader asserts in his comment to our article of February 28, “The sponsor of the AR bill [Representative Moore] was simply making the statement that the AR is here to stay! Because there’s plenty of people that seem to think it’s temporary.”Those are two points raised by some readers as criticism of our article. But, there is a third, not mentioned, although it might have been raised as a rebuke to our criticism of H.R. 1095.We had hazarded a guess that Moore didn't just happen to come up with the idea for H.R. 1095 out of the blue but probably got the idea from articles appearing in the January and February issues of America’s 1^st Freedom, an NRA publication we refer to in an earlier article on H.R, 1095, posted on AQ on February 26, 2023. Id., supra. If so, isn't this a good thing—an argument favoring the enactment of H.R. 1095? No, it isn't.The authors of the articles mentioning the popularity and utility of the AR-15 among Americans in their NRA essays didn’t assert, or suggest the need for a Congressional Statute, declaring the “AR-15” the National Gun of the United States.One is therefore left to ponder whether the authors would favor such a Congressional Declaration if they were asked. The bill does nothing tangible to strengthen the Second Amendment. It simply enrages those on “the Left” who detest firearms and who visit contempt on those who cherish the natural law right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.And if the bill enrages those who hate guns, inviting retribution, then that is hardly a constructive reason to introduce a bill.Further, if the bill is merely innocuous, not inviting attention good or bad, then why waste time, money, and effort on it?This bill isn’t a good idea, and it isn’t simply innocuous. It is deleterious to the import and purport of the natural law right to armed self-defense.It was a bad idea in the inception. It was worse yet when Representative Barry Moore introduced it in the House.The bill spurred the Press and Anti-Second Amendment politicians, such as New York Governor Kathy Hochul, to use it as a cudgel against the Second Amendment, proclaiming the bill to be an “insult to those people killed and wounded in mass shootings and their families.” See the article in Newsday.See also the article by Steve Benen, MSNBC Columnist, and producer of the Rachel Maddow Show. One need only look to bills that Anti-Second Amendment Congressional Democrats fashion to see what a properly tailored bill includes.The recent House bill, H.R. 698, “Assault Weapons Ban of 2023,” introduced by David Cicilline, Democrat, Rhode Island, on February 1, 2023, provides an example.This bill has one, a stated purpose and rationale; two, a definition, explaining precisely what the sponsors and co-sponsors of H.R. 698, intend to ban; and three, a description of where it is to be placed in the United States Code if the bill were enacted into law.Then there is H.R. 1095. It is vacuous. If the sponsor and co-sponsors of H.R. 1095 intended to enact a law to counter the Democrats’ push to ban “Assault Weapons,” (Semiautomatic Weapons”), H.R. 1095 doesn’t do that.It has no text, and Barry Moore, the sponsor of it, evidently never intended for the bill to include text. It is a naked, empty declaration. What clarification could he give? What content could there be that might otherwise give weight to a bill that serves merely as a declaration of something that Americans already know: that the AR-15 rifle, particularly, and semiautomatic weapons generally, are in “common use.”On cursory musing, a person knows that semiautomatic weapons are a national emblem of a sort. No Congressional declaration of that is required to make emphatic something that is common knowledge.Had Representative Moore introduced a bill that sanctions, approves, entitles, and “legalizes” civilian citizen use of semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15, or, had Moore introduced a bill that excludes all semiautomatic firearms from State and Federal regulation, such a bill would have a substantive, positive effect.Such a bill would be a marked improvement over a banal declaration that does nothing to secure Americans’ right to use such weaponry but merely taunts Anti-Second Amendment proponents and fanatics. If that were the intention of the sponsor and co-sponsors, they succeeded in the endeavor.But the H.R. 1095 makes light of the legislative process. The bill is bratty and puerile if all that its sponsor and co-sponsors expected it to do, and if all that its sponsor and co-sponsors intended for this bill to do, was to provoke, goad, and tease supercilious legislators on the other side of the aisle, along with a dementia-riddled President and his arrogant Cabinet, members of the legacy Press and of leftist cable and broadcast news shows. And that is the only thing, as written, that this bill is capable of doing. And the sponsor and co-sponsors of it appear remiss in not giving this bill more thought before putting pen to paper and affixing their names thereto. Better it would be had they done nothing.Neither H.R. 1095 nor Democrats’ H.R. 698, though, has any chance of passage, anyway. But that is beside the point. H.R. 1095 is senseless, whether enacted or not, but H.R. 698 is dangerous to the sanctity of the natural law right to armed self-defense if enacted.But suppose both did pass the House. Is that theoretically possible? It is. That points to a logical flaw in the bill from an academic standpoint.Logically, BOTH bills can exist side-by-side. They can both be given effect: one as a declaration the AR-15 Rifle is the National Rifle of the United States—a blanket and bold assertion with no impact—and the other positing a ban on civilian citizen ownership and possession of that rifle, a bill that, if enacted, would have a decisive and negative impact on the sanctity and inviolability of the Bill of Rights.The enactment of a wholesale Congressional ban on AR-15 rifles is consistent with the enactment of a law declaring the AR-15 to be the National Gun of the United States.So, calling the AR-15 Rifle the National Gun of the United States does not mean the “gun is here to stay” contrary to the assertion of one Ammoland reader.One can yell it till the cows come home, and all the while there could still be enacted a bill, or ATF ruling, or, perhaps, an executive decree that no civilian citizen can lawfully own or possess an AR-15 Rifle. So, a mere declaration that the AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States does not mean that the AR-15 is here to stay. That is false even if H.R. 1095 was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the U.S. President. And, that illustrates the vacuousness of asserting or acknowledging the AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States. It comes to naught.A declaration to that effect, enacted into law, is a meager reward to those who cherish the fundamental, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment. And it is no reward at all, if, at the end of the day, Americans cannot lawfully own and possess that rifle.

• The AR-15 is the National Gun of the United States. [Republican sponsored Statute]; and
• The AR-15 is banned. No civilian citizen can lawfully own and possess the AR-15. [Democrat-sponsored Statute]

So, then, the AR-15 remains the National Gun of the United States and IT IS still outlawed. Wonderful. What, then, is one to make of the claim that the AR-15 Rifle is our “National Gun?”  Side by side, with the two bills enacted into law, the silliness of H.R. 1095 becomes painfully obvious. Anti-Second Amendment Democrats would get a good chuckle over that. In fact, that might be reason enough for Democrats to urge Biden to sign the thing into law just to illustrate the idiocy of a declaration that becomes a National joke if, at the end of the day, no civilian citizen can legally own and possess this “National Gun of the United States.”  Now, suppose Congressional Republicans had drafted H.R. 1095 as the obverse of H.R. 698. That means only one or the other bill would pass and could be given effect. The one is incompatible with the other, as a matter of ice-cold logic.A Congressional Statute that proscribes, i.e., makes illegal ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle contradicts a Congressional Statute that prescribes, i.e., legalizes the ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle.Of course, at the moment, fortunately for a free Constitutional Republic, no federal ban on ownership and possession of the AR-15 Rifle, or of any other semiautomatic firearm exists.And this is so even as several States do ban ownership and possession of AR-15 Rifles and/or many other kinds of semiautomatic handguns, rifles, or shotguns, or otherwise, stringently regulate civilian citizen possession of such weapons.But, if Republicans did control both Houses of Congress and the U.S. Presidency, then Americans could see a law passed by Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, sanctioning civilian citizen ownership of all semiautomatic firearms.Such a law would prevent States from banning ownership/possession of such weapons.Congress would have to repeal such a statute as a condition precedent to a ban on ownership/possession of such weapons.The point of our remarks here is that Congressional Republicans should carefully think through their actions before spending time, effort, and tax-payer dollars on fruitless enterprises and escapades that do nothing to preserve our free Constitutional Republic and that fail to strengthen our Nation’s Bill of Rights. That didn't happen with this bill.What remains of H.R. 1095 is something that seems, at first glance, to offer gun owners some comfort, but, on balance, doesn’t have a pretense of that either.H.R.1095 does nothing from a practical/pragmatic standpoint or from a logical/reasonableness standpoint to commend it.In our concluding article, we look at the procedural/mechanical problems of H.R.1095, and, most importantly, its legal flaws.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA—PAVED WITH NOT-SO-GOOD INTENTIONS

WHEN DO AMERICANS BEGIN TO REALIZE THEIR COUNTRY NO LONGER BELONGS TO THEM?

PART FIVE

Take a moment to ponder a portion of President Donald Trump’s last State of the Union Address. Consider his most important remarks to the Nation, as reported on, and poignantly elucidated by Rebecca Walser of Fox News Business, on February 19, 2020, eleven months before the corrupt, senile store-window manikin, Joseph Biden, was sworn in as the 46^th President of the United States:“Who would have ever thought that any president of these United States of America would have to stand before Congress—and before the American people—and publicly declare that the United States is a free country, standing for liberty.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Trump made an unequivocal pronouncement against the multiplying cries for socialism in America.‘Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,’ the president said. ‘America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.’ [Emphasis added.]Unsurprisingly, many on the Democratic side of the chamber did not stand in unison to agree, nor did they even clap. No, no, they have the wheels of the socialism freight train started now, and they will give not an inch to stop it in its tracks.Free lunch? Yes please, that sounds nice. Hmm, how about a free education with a side of free health care?  Why don’t we even throw in student loan forgiveness, free housing, a guaranteed job, or forget the job, and let’s just give – you guessed it – free universal basic income while we are at it.America’s unique origin in escaping an overbearing, oppressive and overly-taxing government is likely the reason we have historically supported more freedoms, including economic freedoms, than our European cousins. But that is undeniably changing now.The shifting political winds are reflective of an underlying new positive attitude toward socialism in America. A recent Reuters poll found that 70 percent of Americans support Medicare-for-all, which includes a majority of Republicans. (A new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found support drops, however, when participants were told the plan could lead to higher taxes.) . . . .This is our failure America, in not holding our government accountable. They have been allowed for too long to fake it, to spend money that we do not have to pay for services we cannot afford on a sustainable basis.For the last three decades, we have spent significantly more than we have collected in tax revenues resulting in a federal debt of $22 trillion.This has been carried out for the last 30-plus years such that the American people have been lulled into believing that we can spend without end, without the pain of an European tax scheme (40 percent to more than 60-plus percent). So why shouldn’t we add Medicare-for-all, free college education and even UBI – universal basic income?But it is all an illusion. . . .Others say that you can just print more money, but inflating our way out of this economic hole is a non starter, since both Social Security and Medicare make inflation-adjusted payments. This means that if we try to inflate our way out, the costs of our biggest social programs just go up proportionally—solving nothing.Economic equality comes at the heavy price of freedom (yours). People logically act in their own self-interest even if it is to their long-term detriment, like a bug sucking its host dry. Most will take advantage of the government’s offer for "free" anything – thus the reason the road to America is packed while the road to Venezuela is empty.But let’s be clear – ‘free’ is not free to our country. The great Roman empire imploded and collapsed under the weight of their own debt and extreme taxation. Are we determined to go down that same road?Let us have renewed hope today that President Trump stands to say no.”Unfortunately, eleven months after this story and analysis broke, Trump is no longer President. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” along with their sidekick, the Neo-Marxists, that together share achieving their common goal of a one-world, uniform Super-State governmental scheme, with the U.S. to be unceremoniously merged into it and consumed by it, made sure that Donald Trump would never serve a second term in Office, and, more to the point, would never be permitted to serve a second term in Office, which might also explain why powerful Neoliberal Globalists have continued to attack him and to attack over a third of the Nation that had voted for him in the 2020 General Election. And the prognostications of Rebecca Walser as laid out in her 2019 Fox Business Report, have eerily, and uncannily, and no less dishearteningly, come to fruition.The American people are disillusioned and disenchanted. And the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a Socialist Country, despite Trump’s remarks to the contrary.So, then, was Trump wrong in his assertion—at once a sacred promise to Americans and a pronouncement of defiance to the Neo-Marxists of all stripes among the Democrats—even as Pelosi in a choreographed fit of pique, rips up her copy of the President’s address, thereby demonstrating her utter contempt for the U.S. President, the Country, the American people, and the Constitution.No, Trump wasn’t wrong. Yet, there is an unintended, unplanned, unforeseen irony in Trump’s assertion “that America will never be a socialist Country,” insofar as the Country is headed in that direction under a Neoliberal Globalist and Marxist-Controlled Congress and a Neoliberal Globalist controlled Executive Branch. The U.S. is in fact turning inexorably, and possibly inevitably and irrevocably toward Socialism. But if that should happen, if that would befall our Country, then the COUNTRY WILL NO LONGER BE AMERICA, for our Country will no longer be a free Constitutional Republic, and so THE COUNTRY WILL CEASE TO BE.Indeed, the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists don’t even refer to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; never did. Back in 2018, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, did say, of course, that:“We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is” which makes the Neoliberal Globalist “capitalist” monopolists happy to hear, who, for all that, eschew true competitive capitalism.But, has Pelosi ever been heard to reaffirm our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic?” In fact, has the infirm, corrupt, senile Joe Biden or the vacuous, opportunist Kamala Harris ever reaffirmed our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic? Has anyone in Biden’s Cabinet or Administration affirmed our Nation as a “free Constitutional Republic?”It stands to reason that the current crop of Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists in control of two Branches of Government have little if any regard for the Constitution. At best they give lip service to it, as they go about operating in the denigration of it. And no one in the legacy Press calls them to account for their abject failure to heed to the dictates of it. And we, Americans, are all the worse for it.________________________________________

HOW MANY AMERICANS APPREHEND THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?

PART SIX

It may be remarked—nay, must be proclaimed loudly, passionately, continuously as all too many Americans lose sight of the fact—that the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t mere supposition. It is fact.Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know this to be true, but they have no use for the Constitution as it intrudes upon their ability to consolidate economic power for themselves across the globe, at the expense of the economic well-being of the American people and at the expense of the well-being of the Country.And the sworn enemies of the U.S. Constitution and of a sovereign American people, America’s transnational Neo-Marxists, know this to be true as well because the U.S. Constitution is grounded on the tenets of Individualism, embracing the core notions of personal freedom and liberty—tenets and precepts and principles antithetical and anathema to those of Collectivism, upon which classic Marxism, and the spawn and shades of Marxism spring from. But they all come from one cloth, and they are all vehemently opposed to Individualism.For the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, alone form the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, and they are inconsistent with and in clear contradistinction to those of Collectivism that insist on the subordination of the human will, soul, and spirit to and that demand obsequious devotion to and subservience of the individual to the State. That explains why the callous, caustic, fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists and the idiosyncratic, cold-hearted Neo-Marxists are both of one mind in their stated objective to rid themselves of it.And so, with Trump out of the way, and as the Neoliberal Globalists and as America’s Neo-Marxists have brazenly, audaciously taken over the institutions of Government and of the Press and of much of society, they have begun in earnest to consolidate their power over the Nation and over the citizenry, in defiance of the plain import of the Constitution.And now they feel that the political and social and economic climate of the Country has changed to such an extent in their favor, that they feel no reticence in openly questioning the continued need for it. They have even gone further than that, questioning the very legality of it, and withal, cloaking their anathema to it and animosity for it, rebelling vociferously against it—the academia especially expounding through more and more rhetorical flourish and through sophistry, posing as a sound erudite argument, their naked abhorrence of it.See, e.g., the 2013 Article, in Harper’s Magazine, titled, “Constitution in Crisis;” and an article in The Atlantic, titled, “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here’s How to Write It.” And, in a lengthy New York Times’ Op-Ed, the paper has tacked together several essays by various legal scholars who propose amending the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Articles. A simple web search keying in the words, “do we need a constitution,” brings up a plethora of articles challenging the continued need for the U.S. Constitution—the blueprint of a free Republic that ceases to exist the moment the Constitution ceases to be.The reader should note that all or virtually all these articles arose in the most recent decade of the 21^st Century, and several of them within the last few weeks or months.But what explains this flurry of articles, and essays coming to the fore now? This cannot be accidental. Indeed, it isn’t.If the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists thought the Constitution was simply irrelevant, they likely would have given little thought to it, would simply ignore it, and in the actions of the Harris-Biden Administration, the American people have witnessed just that: the blatant failure of Biden to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as required of him, spurning his Presidential duty under the “take care clause” of Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This failure goes beyond an arguable difference of opinion as to the President’s duty, or to incompetence of which Biden has more than an ample supply. It is much more than that.Biden’s actions amount to outright subversion and sedition. And the Neoliberal Globalists and International Neo-Marxists are perfectly content with this. They have expected it of Biden. More, they have demanded it of him. And, he has delivered, doing all that his handlers expect of him, even as he makes a fool of himself during the few times his handlers allow him, albeit reluctantly, to appear before the public, hewing to script—at least to the extent that a person suffering from dementia can.Perfunctorily dismissing Congressional enactments such as the Nation’s immigration law, in direct defiance of the Legislature’s Article 1 authority, see irli.org, and dismissing out-of-hand U.S. Supreme Court rulings on evictions, demonstrating his contempt of High Court Article 3 authority on questions of law, if he ever thought about it, to the extent he is capable of coherent thought at all. See article in christianaction.org and article in theweek.com. Biden has not only defied the authority of two other co-equal Branches of Government, he has also spurned his own duties under the “take care clause” of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.But there’s more to the Constitution than the Articles demarcating and limiting the authority and powers of the three co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, critical as those Articles are to the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic.Even as few give little thought to it, there is one set of laws that preside even over that of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution. It is Law bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. It is the Law of Natural Rights, and there is no inconsistency in averring the authority of and the awesome power of natural law above even the U.S. Constitution. The framers of that great document, the Constitution of the United States, conceded as much, through the codification of Ten Amendments to it thereby embracing and enshrining Divine Law within it, an integrated part of it, inextricably bound to it, so there is no inconsistency between the import of Divine Law and ofthe U.S. Constitution’s deference to Divine Law.

THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Bill of Rights is of paramount importance to, and a singularly critical component of the U.S. Constitution, both shaping the nature of a free Republic, and establishing the role of Government vis a vis the American people, subordinating Government to the people.It is the Bill of Rights, especially, that has provided the U.S. Constitution with its true staying power; and that has allowed the Country to survive and thrive as a free Republic. The Bill of Rights is one feature of the U.S. Constitution that cannot be readily ignored or dismissed out of hand by the Neoliberal Globalists and the Neo-Marxists, much as they wish to do; much as they try to do.The Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic can, truth to tell, continue to exist, at least for a time, even where a corrupt Executive Branch and a corrupt Legislative Branch give little heed to limitations built into their own authority and duties under the Constitution. And, that is true of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, as well.The Bill of Rights, though, exists and operates on another plane; another order of magnitude; well beyond even the Articles, a human construct, and well beyond such man-made procedural Amendments that came thereafter. For, the Bill of Rights codifies Divine Law.The contents of the Bill of Rights isn’t a human construct because it isn’t a mere compilation of man-made law even though some there are who might perceive it to be such, namely the Neoliberal Globalist corporatist “elites,” and the transnational Neo-Marxists, and other Collectivists who, all of them, deny this, of course. Even to describe the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights as little more than an elucidation of and edification of man’s greater potential fails to hit the mark as to their true significance and purpose. For, it is only by the grace of Divine Providence that man can, a priori, recognize the Creator’s gifts to him, bestowed on man by the Creator as the supernal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect Being. These God-given Rights and Liberties, Natural Law, preexist within man, exist, then, prior to the creation of Government by man.It is not given to man, by mere experience, a posteriori, through man’s five sense organs, that man comes to know of his true Nature made in God’s own image but, through man’s non-physical Spirit that the fact of and nature of the fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Rights come to be apparent to man. How, then, can man’s nature be lawfully subordinated and subjugated to State control and dominance, since Government is a man-made construct, and such manmade device offends and subverts the will of the Supreme Creator, where man’s will, and soul, and spirit are quelled and suppressed?Such a Government transgresses God’s will and such Government that dares to subvert the integrity and sanctity of man’s spirit and soul is heresy, and this heresy is the goal of this new, obscene non-American Governmental scheme that has begun to take root in the Country, and it is growing apace, to be merged into a new world order, to bring man low. Americans must fight the attempt with all the power they can muster. The way they can do this is to insist that their fundamental rights are not subject to negotiation or compromise. That which is given to man by the Divine Creator cannot lawfully be revoked by the State, and cannot be contracted or purloined away.______________________________________

AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SOCIALISM CANNOT TAKE ROOT.

PART SEVEN

Only through exercise of the peoples’ fundamental rights can the citizenry hope to withstand the onslaught from those disparate evil forces consisting, inter alia, of a heterogenous assortment of Neoliberal Globalists, Corporatist Monopolists, Internationalist Neo-Marxists, Government Neoconservatives, liberal Progressive and Marxist members of Congress and of the Federal Bureaucracy, the seditious legacy Press, and Marxist elements in academia, all hell-bent on disassembling the United States, transforming the Country from its root structure as a free Constitutional Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State into an autocratic lackey of a larger autocratic super-structure, embracing the entire world.On some level the combined power of these terrible, ruthless, amoral and immoral forces operating both inside the United States and outside it, Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists alike, adopting a common Collectivist ideology, an ideology incompatible with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, driven by a singular lust for amassing wealth and power—of benefit to themselves at the expense of the American polity—continue to plot, connive, conspire, and machinate toward realization of a similar goal: the creation of a one-world transnational super State; a mammoth transformative political, social, economic, and juridical construct; a global totalitarian regime embracing and subsuming all present western nation-states; erasing all geographical boundaries; eliminating and eventually erasing from the memory of the polity any sense of a once-shared national identity, a once-shared history and heritage, a once-shared civic culture, a once-shared Christian ethos and a once-shared Judeo-Christian ethic. It would all cease to exist. Yet, for the U.S. to become merged into this transnational one-world, totalitarian Super-State, it is essential that the U.S. Constitution first be abrogated, and that means abrogation of the citizens’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties. All of it must go. But there is a tenaciousness to the Constitution, especially that part of it that speaks to the fundamental, unalienable Rights and Liberties of the citizenry: the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Even with vast sums of money spent behind a massive propaganda campaign to denigrate the Nation’s revered history, heritage, and culture, and to challenge the inviolability of God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, set in stone in Nation's the Bill of Rights, most Americans maintain and exhibit a deep attachment to and devotion to their Country and to their fundamental Rights and Liberties upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is preserved. And, on some level all American citizens understand that God-given Rights and Liberties cannot be simply ignored and dismissed out-of-hand, if the Nation is to survive as a free Constitutional Republic; and the American people will not long abide usurpers in Government who betray their Oath to the United States Constitution, whether it be the President of the United States who betrays the Oath of Office he is required to take, pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;”whether it be those in Congress who betray the Oath they are required to take, pursuant to Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; or whether it be those in the Civil Service or uniformed services of Government who betray the Oath they are required to take, to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 3331. The solemnity of the Oaths of those sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution are not to be taken lightly. And, if these betrayers of their Oath think there will be no accounting for an act of betrayal to the Constitution of the United States, the American people shall demand an accounting, as they are the sovereign rulers of the Nation as established by the U.S. Constitution. Those who serve in Government are the servants, not the masters of the American people, and the ultimate enforcement power that the American people wield over Government is made abundantly clear not in the electoral system through which the American people have a say only in the vote they cast for this or that servant of the citizenry, but in one especial fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Right: the inviolate Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.______________________________________________

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS CANNOT BE LAWFULLY APPROPRIATED OR COMMANDEERED  BY THE STATE; AND IT ISN’T FOR SALE!

PART EIGHT

The Bill of Rights cannot be easily supplanted, ignored, dismissed out-of-hand, as the fundamental rights and liberties are engrained deep in the psyche of most American citizens and they are loathed to surrender their sacred God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, knowing that, to do so, means the loss not only of their Country but of their own Soul.One natural, God-given right, in particular, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, codified in the Bill of Rights as “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is Divine Law that happens to have been codified into law by man. More to the point, this Divine Law is written into man's Spirit. That is what makes the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Divine Law, and not mere man-made law. This Divine Law serves to prevent the takeover of the Nation’s Country by tyrants. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, isn't for sale!The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, is subsumed in a more elemental Divine law: The Right of Personal Self-Defense, against a predatory animal, whether that predatory animal hops on two legs or runs on four, and against a predatory, tyrannical Government. Further, the Natural God-bestowed Right of Personal Self-Defense is itself subsumed in the God-bestowed Right of Personal Autonomy, for it is through Self-Defense that man is able to preserve and has the solemn duty and cardinal responsibility to preserve and secure from harm not only his physical well-being but his psychological and spiritual well-being; his individuality; the sanctity of Self-hood; the inviolability of his Soul, sanctified by the Divine Creator.If unable to exercise the God-bestowed Right of Self-Defense, of which the firearm is the most efficient means of Self-Defense, man cannot effectively persevere against those forces that would dare crush his will and spirit into submission; would not be able to effectively defend against those forces at work in society today that compel uniformity and conformity in all thought and conduct; would not be able to resist evil forces that insist on transforming a Nation of individual Souls into a collection of mindless, senseless drones, an obsequious, obedient, formless glob—a monstrosity, a thing created by evil forces in clear defiance to the Creator's will. For the Creator intended for man to be noble, that he might, through his individual Soul, be a demi-Creator in his own right, set out on his own path, realize his full potential as an independent creative Spirit; for he is made in God's Image.Yet, it is a thing strange that, given the plain meaning of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in clear, precise, concise words in the U.S. Constitution, it would come to pass that an American citizen would find it necessary to petition the Judiciary to secure for him a God-given Right that Government or private enterprise interests—artificial constructs of man—would dare deny him. Yet for decades, before the seminal Second Amendment Heller case was heard, ignoble forces were at work to subvert the plain meaning of the Divine Law, arguing that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was not an Individual Right at all, and certainly was not to be perceived as a Natural Right, but one bound up in service to a collective, a militia. This idea is false on its face, and, when one realizes that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in the Second Amendment, isn't a man-made law at all, but Natural Law, of Divine Origin, pertaining to the Individual Self, to the Individual Soul, to one’s personal autonomy, then any notion that the Right is to be understood as, to be taken as, something that applies to and has meaning only in the context of groups, to a collective, falls apart of its own weight as a matter of logic, as well as of law. One comes to realize that the mistake of law and logic that arises from the conclusion that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has meaning and purport in the context of one's service in a militia, in the context, then, of one's service in a group, is due to problematic, false assumptions. The mistake of law and logic that some academic scholars as well as the lay public fall prey to commences from an assumption, taken as axiomatic, as self-evident, that the Bill of Rights, is simply a creation of man, an artificial construction of the government, an arbitrary formulation by State actors in Government, not unlike the Articles of the Constitution, or later procedural amendments to it, and not unlike other man-made common or codified law. In that case, grounded on acceptance of false assumption and illogical reasoning, one draws the illogical conclusion that fundamental rights are no more than privileges to be bestowed onto this one or that one, or to this group or to that group by the grace of the State, and, just as readily, rescinded by the State, as the sole creator of the Right. Through acceptance of the false assumption that the Bill of Rights is really a set of State created privileges, all sorts of inanities arise therefrom, such as the idea that the Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights can readily be amended no less so than the Articles of the Constitution or the procedural amendments subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution or just as readily repealed. But, the Bill of Rights is no mere collection of Rights and Liberties, for they were not created by man. They are codifications of Divine Law. As such, they existed prior to any artificial governmental construct of man. As Divine Law, not man-made law the Bill of Rights cannot be lawfully amended, modified, abrogated, or ignored. The Rights codified in the Bill of Rights exist internally in and eternal in man. They aren't creations of the State, of Government, of man. This fact, the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Counterrevolutionaries both inside Government and outside it, will not accept—indeed cannot accept—for the idea that some Rights exist beyond the lawful power of the Government to whittle away at, to reinterpret the import and purport of, or to nullify outright, frustrates these evil forces to no end, as that idea makes impossible the realization of their goal of a one-world transnational governmental regime in which man is subjugated to the dictates of Government, as the State, alone, to these Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists, is to be perceived as god, having power of life or death over the men they rule.__________________________________________

LOOKING BACKWARD TO HELLER AND MCDONALD AND FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING BRUEN (CORLETT) CASE

PART NINE

The late, eminent Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, announced in Heller, what was always patently clear, but often denied: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The clear language of the Right should have been enough to evince the Omni-expansiveness of it; the elemental inalienability, immutability, and illimitability implicit in it. Yet, from the inception of Heller, there was hesitancy and arrogance among many academicians and Government functionaries that compelled them to disavow the plain import and purport of the Right, grounded most likely on jealousy to concede the obvious import of the Right, having no desire to admit that sovereignty over Government is not a shared power or one that belongs only to those who serve in Government, but is sovereignty that rests solely with the American people. The servants of Government exercise such limited authority that the Constitution provides for and that authority is exercised only with the consent of the citizenry. That consent can be withdrawn. And the servants of Government well aware of the limitations inherent in their power constantly seek to constrain the sovereignty of the American people and they have been at work, enacting countless laws, rules, codes, regulations, and ordinances to constrict and restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding the reaffirmation of the import of the right as categorically stated in Heller.And Anti-Second Amendment State Governments, as well as the Federal Government, are always looking for a way to avoid the import of Heller to affirm the legality and Constitutionality of State Action infringing the core of the Right protected. The first major attack against Heller took shape in the Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction of Chicago, Illinois, with the City pointedly arguing that the Heller rulings pertaining to the right of Americans to utilize handguns for self-defense in their own homes, only operates as a constraint on the Federal Government, not on the States. Justice Alito who penned the majority opinion in the second major Second Amendment case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, set forth at the outset of his remarks, the nature of and extent of Chicago’s defiant stance on the matter:“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City. . . . They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners' argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent.”The McDonald case made clear the rulings in Heller applied to the States too. In pertinent part, Justice Alito, wrote:“. . . we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. . . .Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.  Explaining that ‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home . . . we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family. . . . ‘[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon’). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted ‘to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”Heller makes it clear that this right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. . . . Heller explored the right's origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.’Blackstone's assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III's attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760's and 1770's ‘provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.’The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.In Heller, we held that the protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.”Yet, the apparatus of Anti-Second Amendment forces in Government remained undeterred. These forces continued their efforts to find ways around Heller and McDonald through more and more comprehensive and Government licensing schemes.State and local Government firearms’ licensing schemes became progressively bloated through time, and with that bloat the language of them became increasingly vague and ambiguous; and, in the worst instances, became convoluted, inconsistent, and incoherent. Anti-Second Amendment Courts continually, blatantly misinterpreted the rulings of Heller and McDonald, setting down their imprimatur on unconstitutional Government actions.Perhaps the most voluminous Anti-Second Amendment regime to be constructed and one of the earliest, and one of the most insidious; a regime that was continually expanded and revised through time, is that one emanating from New York.Not surprisingly, the first major case the U.S. Supreme Court accepted for review, almost a decade after the seminal Heller case, was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York And The New York City Police Department-License Division, commonly and colloquially referred to as the “New York City Gun Transport Case.”The case held a lot of promise for Americans who cherish their right of self-defense and the right of personal autonomy, for having granted Petitioners’ writ of certiorari, these Americans expected quite reasonably that the U.S. Supreme Court would apply its precedents in Heller and McDonald to affirm the unconstitutionality of the constraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, outside the home, at least for the purpose of transporting a handgun to a locale outside the environs of New York City. New York’s Courts had hitherto placed burdensome constraints on transportation of handguns outside the home for those New York residents who held valid but restricted handgun premise licenses.Although some Americans might see the New York Gun Transport case as a win for those who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it wasn’t. Rather, it was a lost opportunity. Consideration of and a decision on the merits of the case were sidestepped. Now Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right are looking to a second New York case, NYSRPA vs. Corlett (now captioned, NYSRPA vs. Bruen*) on which to pin their hopes for reaffirmation of the significance of the Heller imperative. The case will be heard in November 2021 and decided probably at some point in early summer, 2022.Our concern is whether and to what extent—even with a complement of three new Justices, all Trump nominees, who would seem to adhere to the methodology of the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, when analyzing and deciding cases—the Bruen case will be decided in a manner that will reinvigorate and clarify the rulings and holdings and reasoning of Heller and McDonald.To get a good handle on the New York Bruen case, and to assess various outcome scenarios, it is necessary to understand what transpired in the earlier New York Gun Transport case, along with a few major post-Heller D.C. gun cases and others.Our focus going forward will be directed to the elucidation of four matters:

• THE IMPORT OF GOVERNMENT FIREARMS’ LICENSING SCHEMES GENERALLY AND THOSE OF NEW YORK PARTICULARLY
• THE FRAMING OF THE SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUE BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE BRUEN CASE
• STANDARDS OF REVIEW EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS AFTER HELLER
• A PERSPECTIVE ON THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACHES OF THE JUSTICES

As for the first bullet point, firearms licensing schemes are a fact, and Heller’s position on them isn’t crystal clear. The mere fact of them and the propensity of Courts to align themselves with Government to stamp their imprimatur upon them are inherently in tension with the import and purport of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, a tension that Heller did little rectify.As for the second bullet point, the Court has recast the issue for review. This recasting of the issue is critical to the decision to be reached and we will speculate on why the Court recast the issue and analyze what that may portend.As for the third bullet point, many lower Courts have routinely fallen back on judicial standards of review that majority opinion in Heller considered and rejected. The High Court may wish to clarify the standard that should be employed in Second Amendment cases where the Government actions impact the core of the right.As for the fourth bullet point, while the legacy Press constantly refers to the High Court as comprising 6 Conservative-wing Justices and 3 Liberal-wing Justices. That is an incorrect statement by the legacy Press and it is one constantly projected by the Press to express the need, as the Legacy Press sees it, for a contingent of new Justices, in the mold of the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and in the mold of the three remaining liberal Justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. These liberal-wing Justices, as often described by the Press, all ascribe to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a “Living Constitution,” (See, e.g. Acton Institute Article), which really calls for the death of the U.S. Constitution. These liberal-wing Justices' utilize a methodology for deciding cases that looks beyond the original text of the Constitution. These Justices believe in an expansive view of Constitutional analysis that routinely interjects ever-changing international law and international norms into their juridical pronouncements. This analysis is antithetical to and anathema to the methodology employed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who realized that to interject international law and normative views of foreign countries into judicial decision-making is to denigrate the U.S. Constitution, subordinating the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States to that of a Global initiative and Global objectives, at odds with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers of it intended. Thus, these liberal-wing Justices find a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, for example, to be inconsistent with international law and norms and, so, rather than reject international law and international norms and standards, they would reject the language of the Constitution. This is most blatantly illustrated in their desire to reduce the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as codified in the Second Amendment, to a nullity. Thus, they seek to undercut the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings and holdings, and their opinions demonstrate their clear animosity to the methodology employed by the late Justice Scalia in deciding cases: originalism and textualism. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito also adhere to the methodology of originalism and textualism, which demands strict adherence to the plain meaning of the Constitution and especially of that critical component of it: the Bill of Rights.Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wields considerable power as the Chief Justice, is not to be seen as an avid proponent of the Second Amendment, and, apart from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, whose commitment to the defense of exercise of the Right embodied in the Second Amendment is established beyond doubt through a large body of Supreme Court Opinions, the commitment of the newest members of the Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the sanctity of the Second Amendment and to the other Nine Bill of Rights is not firmly established. And, as for Justice Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, their dubious commitment to the preservation of the Second Amendment is manifest from a perusal of their handling of the New York Gun transport case. These latter two Justices demonstrate significantly less commitment to and decidedly less ardor toward the Second Amendment than do Associate Justices Thomas and Alito and as did the late esteemed Associate Justice Scalia. This is expressed in their failure to adhere unerringly to the methodology of originalism and textualism that serves to preserve the Constitution as written, upon which the continued existence of the Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, necessarily depends.Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh do not employ—with the same devotion as do Justices Thomas and Alito, at any rate—the juridical methodologies of textualism and originalism, heralded by the late Justice Scalia; nor do they apply Supreme Court legal doctrines, uniformly and evenhandedly. This is apparent from their handling of the legal doctrine of “mootness,” which led to a less than optimum result in their handling of the New York Gun Transport case as a consideration of and decision on the substantive merits of the case were dispensed with.We discuss these matters in-depth in our upcoming articles._________________________________*When the Corlett case first wended its way up through New York’s Court, the Defendant, Keith M. Corlett, happened to be serving as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, the 16th Superintendent. But at some point, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the “Corlett” case for review, Kevin P. Bruen replaced Corlett as the New York State Police Superintendent: the 17th Superintendent of the New York State Police. The case now reflects Bruen as the proper Defendant-Respondent and properly the case should be referred to as the Bruen case even though many journalists who discuss the case continue to refer to the case as originally captioned. See New York State Police website.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON NICS REPORTING AND FIREARM ACCCESSORY REGULATION

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CONGRESS: TO REPAIR AND IMPROVE NICS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OR TO TURN NICS INTO A MASSIVE FIREARMS REGISTRATION SCHEME?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774—1776On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided over by Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-IA, held a three-hour Hearing on firearms, titled, “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” The full Committee attended. That included the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, and virulent opponent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.  CSPAN televised the Hearing.Two panels convened. The first one included senior officials of the ATF, FBI, the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the Inspector General of Department of Defense. The second panel convened included, inter alia, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting tragedy, Heather Gooze, who was the first to speak; two Second Amendment legal experts, David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook; and the Montgomery County Chief of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association President, J. Thomas Manger.The two mass shooting incidents—one occurring during the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017 and the second occurring at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, roughly one month later, on November 5, 2017—served, evidently, as the impetus for and the backdrop for this Hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused its questioning of the first panel on: one, the mechanics of criminal and mental health reporting requirements, two, the sharing of data or lack of sharing of data between State and federal police agencies, and, three, the failure of Governmental agencies, both federal and State, to maintain accurate, reliable, and complete databases on those individuals who are not permitted to possess firearms. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused questioning of the second panel on firearms—semiautomatic rifles—that the killers, Stephen Paddock and Devin Patrick Kelley allegedly utilized to murder innocent people.The purpose of this article is not to delve into the interstices and intricacies of the Senate Hearing but to inform the American public of the fact of it and the specific concerns addressed during it that cast in high relief the dangers posed to preserving the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment.Antigun proponents, through their Congressional representatives—Senate Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democratic Party member, Dianne Feinstein, and her principal cohorts, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others—wish to move the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other criminal and mental health databases into an efficient and massive and broad digital firearms registration scheme, embracing more and more individuals and incentivizing the military and the States to add comprehensive criminal and mental health data into NICS and other databases. Through this Hearing, and through recent comments of antigun proponents in news broadcasts, we see renewed efforts by antigun proponents, stoked by the recent mass shooting incidents—to weaken the Second Amendment beyond past efforts. Emboldened, we see efforts afoot by antigun proponents to transform NICS and other federal and State databases into a comprehensive digital firearms’ registration scheme, wrapping it into a more restrictive, draconian criminal and mental health background check scheme.If successful, these efforts by the antigun movement would infringe not only the basic, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, but would also infringe the fundamental right embodied in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, and infringe, too, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And, the antigun movement does not stop there. Not content to ban some semiautomatic firearms—that Federal Statute (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)) at one time, defined certain semiautomatic firearms as ‘assault weapons,’ until the AWB expired in 2004, and which several States, with their own assault weapon ban statutes, in full force, presently prohibit—the antigun movement now seeks to ban all semiautomatic firearms.There are efforts afoot to enact federal law not unlike the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Under the NFA, the ATF heavily regulates civilian ownership and possession of from possessing fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns and selective fire assault rifles. And, the civilian population is prohibited altogether from owning newly manufactured fully automatic weapons.So, even as the House in recent days passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), a bill that strengthens the Second Amendment, which now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration, we see--in stark contrast and contradistinction to pro-Second Amendment efforts to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms--efforts by antigun Legislators mobilizing and gearing up to dispossess American citizens of semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic firearms, not merely those bizarrely categorized as ‘assault weapons.’ Antigun proponents evidently feel that they can hoodwink the American public, given the recent mass shooting incidents—which they use to their advantage—as they work unceasingly toward their ultimate goal to dispossess all Americans, eventually, of their firearms.During the questioning of the first panel, senior Officials of the Federal Government admitted that the NICS system was incomplete and faulty. The reason for this is that the military, especially, but also the States, have been remiss in entering data pertaining to individuals convicted of crimes that preclude these individuals from possessing firearms. Senator Ted Cruz, in his opening remarks, also made the pertinent point that individuals who falsify information to obtain a firearm have violated federal law, but that these crimes are rarely prosecuted and, so, all too often go unpunished.Falsifying information to obtain a firearm when an individual is not permitted to possess a firearm is a serious crime. 18 USCS § 922(a)(6), titled, “Unlawful acts” sets forth clearly, categorically, and unequivocally that: “it shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.” Senator Cruz was making the point, albeit tacitly, that laws that have no legal consequences do not amount to laws at all. Enforcement of federal firearms laws is lackadaisical at best, a point often made by NRA and a point perfunctorily ignored by antigun proponents whose real goal, after all, is to go after the millions of law-abiding gun owners, even as they profess to express concern over those individuals, alone, who are absolutely prohibited by law “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce.” See United States Code, 18 USCS § 922(g) and 18 USCS § 922(n), titled, “Unlawful Acts,” as set forth in Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” of Part I, “Crimes,” of Chapter 44, “Firearms.”During the hearing, Legislators on the Judiciary Committee uniformly expressed concern over faulty federal NICS record-keeping and they requested, from the panel of senior Government officials, an explanation for the failure of these Government Offcials to keep the criminal databases up-to-date. But, it is one thing to repair the NICS record-keeping system; it is quite another to contemplate dumping ever more people into it, essentially, eventually, encapsulating minutia of mental health details of every American, along with details of every infraction committed by every American during every period of his or her life—every spat between husband wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, and an accounting of every instance, every bout of depression or anxiety an American citizen at one time or another may have had. Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee—alluded to expanding NICS and other criminal and mental health databases into a comprehensive and permanent digital—as opposed to merely manual—database of every firearm’s transaction and tying that to and in tandem with a universal background check schema.Clearly, the aim of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee is, then, more ambitious and grandiose than merely repairing a faulty NICS system. We are headed toward a universal registration system if antigun proponents have their way. Every firearm owner becomes suspect. Hence, every American, who owns a firearm must be carefully screened, and those licensed and therefore “privileged” to own and possess a firearm, will be carefully and continuously observed for signs of anti-social behavior, predicated on subjective standards of assessment. The implication of a universal criminal and mental health background check system tied into a permanent NICS databases are dire from the standpoint of Constitutional privacy concerns.Then, there are the firearms themselves. During the questioning of the second panel, it became clear that it wasn’t Stephen Paddock or Devin Patrick Kelley who were being castigated for the horror they caused. Rather, it was the semiautomatic weapons that were the target of and the focus of the Senators' ire--those Democratic Party members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.One speaker on the second panel, who was the first to speak, was a young woman named Heather Gooze. She detailed her personal experiences during the Las Vegas shooting episode and resulting carnage. This survivor’s anguished account of holding and attempting to aid and comfort a dying stranger, who had been shot by Paddock, was poignant, graphic, heart-rending, heartfelt, and deepfelt, as it was meant to be—but, for all that, it was also irrelevant. The fault for the tragedy in Las Vegas was not laid at the feet of the maniac, Stephen Paddock, the sole cause of the carnage—assuming there were no others that abetted Paddock. No! The fault for the crime is laid on inanimate objects—the weapons Paddock used in the commission of his heinous acts. But, if civilian access to an entire category of weapons, semiautomatic rifles, in common use by millions of law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans, is to be curtailed, then, those who would ban civilian possession of semiautomatic weapons  must propound sound legal and logical arguments in support of their case. Arguments amounting to emotional rhetoric, however endearing and heartfelt and honest they may be, are not rational substitutes for sound reasoning.What was on display during the Hearing, was unabashed grief and anger. That is what we heard from the young woman, Heather Gooze: a plaintive and soulful, if tacit, cry for a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons, and that is what the Senators on the Judiciary Committee got from her. This appeal to sympathy for one's cause, derived from heartfelt pain, is representative of a common fallacy. It's one an undergraduate college student learns about in a course on informal and formal symbolic logic. The Latin expression for this informal fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from pity or sympathy or misery, or compassion). The fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam is committed when pity, or sympathy, or compassion, or misery is appealed to for the sake of getting someone to accept a conclusion predicated on emotion, alone, sidestepping the salient issue.Appealing to pity, compassion, or sympathy, or misery avoids dealing with the pertinent legal questions. The pertinent legal question here is this: do semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection? Antigun proponents use the argument from pity incessantly to sidestep this legal issue—the real issue—because they do not wish to hit the issue head-on. Appealing to sympathy or pity, or misery, or anger operates as a convenient substitute for cogent and sound legal and logical reasoning. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has, at least twice, decided not to take up the issue whether semiautomatic weapons do fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, as appellants in the cases failed to garner four votes necessary to secure high Court review. See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed.2d 483 (2015); and, recently, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. Md., 2016), cert. denied, 2017 LEXIS 7002. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both these cases.The legal and logical weaknesses of the antigun proponent’s position, apropos of semiautomatic weapons, would be all too apparent were they to try to evince an argument. The public is hit with emotional rhetoric and pious sentiments, instead. Such emotional outrage has clout, even as it is devoid of substance. Heather Gooze used it to good effect during the Hearing. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was as much a plea for action from the public as it was a plea for action from the Senate. No doubt, that was the reason she was invited to speak before the Committee at this public Hearing.Antigun proponents invariably take the argumentum ad misericordiam out of their sack of tricks whenever a tragedy involving the misuse of firearms occurs. They know that tragic events tug at the heartstrings of anyone who has a modicum of compassion in his or her heart, which are the majority of us—and which do not include psychopaths, who have no inkling of and therefore have absolutely no understanding of the concept of compassion. And, these individuals, who lack a modicum of compassion include, as well, common criminals who might understand the concept but simply don’t care since a consideration of compassion during the commission of a crime interferes with their personal selfish ends.Appealing to sympathy as an argument to dispossess millions of law-abiding firearms owners of their firearms operates as a useful makeweight, a convenient scapegoat, for antigun proponents, allowing antigun proponents to avoid factoring in the complex legal, logical, historical, cultural, and ethical ramifications of taking firearms away from millions of sane, rational, honest Americans. Essentially the antigun proponent’s argument, in various forms and permutations, boils down to this:“semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ are weapons of war and have no legitimate use in civilian hands other than to commit murder and to do so on a large scale. And, manufacturers market these weapons to the entire civilian population which includes, then, mentally ill individuals and criminals who should not have them. These weapons have incredible firepower and no legitimate civilian use. Just look at what happens when a poor, deluded person gets hold of this ‘weapon of war.’ Just look at the harm he calls. Anyone who has a heart at all should see that semiautomatic assault weapons will only cause bad things to happen and will cause good people to do bad things. If you don’t want to see an innocent child, a vulnerable woman, a weak old man harmed—and what caring, compassionate human being does—then you will agree with us that there is no place for these ‘weapons of war’ in a civilized society, and you will write or call your Congressman or Senator, asking your Legislator to enact legislation that permanently bans these awful weapons of war, to ban them for the good of society so that no other person will ever suffer the needless tragedy that these weapons of war cause.” Well, if there is a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from civilians, this isn’t it. Apart from appealing solely to one’s emotions, the argument embraces false assumptions, hyperbole, and irrelevant considerations. And, if you think our illustration of the fallacy of argumentum misericordiam amounts itself to a fallacy—the straw man fallacy, as some, who challenge our position, may claim—it does not. The remarks, concerning semiautomatic weapons as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war,’ “weapons that have no legitimate civilian use,” and the notion that firearms manufacturers market these “weapons of war” to criminals and to the mentally ill are not suppositions the Arbalest Quarrel has invented to illustrate an argumentum misericordiam, for the purpose simply to knock down a straw man. No! These remarks are not our invention at all. These remarks, purporting to be arguments against civilian possession of firearms, are utilized constantly, incessantly by antigun proponents. And, more to the point, these remarks, as set forth in our example, comprise, in part, allegations taken from an actual formal legal pleading—namely and specifically the First Amended Complaint of the Soto Plaintiffs, in Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this case and continues to write articles about it. See, for example, our in-depth article, titled, “Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.” We also wish to point out that a detailed account of one’s personal experiences, as related to the reader or listener—those of Heather Gooze, during the Senate Hearing—amount to a series of declarations that have no appreciable epistemic value. In other words, her account of the tragedy in Las Vegas, that occurred during the Harvest Music Festival, is not the sort of thing that one can reasonably challenge, or that need be challenged, or is expected by anyone to be challenged, as false.The Arbalest Quarrel accepts the account of Heather Gooze, as related at the Senate Hearing, as true, and does not quarrel with it. There is no reason to. There is no reason to consider her personal account as false. We say this because the remarks of Heather Gooze have no concrete epistemic value on the salient issue whether semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. Her remarks or declarations of events as she experienced them at the Harvest Music Festival do not serve as a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from the millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens who own and possess them, notwithstanding that the Democratic Party Senators on the Judiciary Committee happen to believe the account of Heather Gooze to be relevant to the issue whether semiautomatic weapons are the sorts of firearms that properly belong in the hands of the average, rational and responsible American citizen. The remarks of Heather Gooze simply attest, at best, to a matter that everyone can agree with: that criminals, psychopaths, Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics—the flotsam and jetsam of society—should not have access to any firearm. One might by the same token argue that the worst elements of society should not have access to anything that can feasibly be used to cause great harm to others and to many individuals at one time. Consider for example: a knife, an automobile or truck, or chainsaw. What we are getting at here is that common criminals, and members of drug cartels and criminal gangs, and psychopaths, and Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics and maniacs and riffraff who pose a danger to others, as these individual do, should be removed from our society. It is not the firearm that should be removed from American society.That common criminals, terrorists, psychotics, or psychopaths may happen to get their hands on a semiautomatic rifle or on any other firearm to harm others does not serve as a sound legal or logical reason for banning semiautomatic weapons en masse from millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, make no mistake, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee do seek to ban and do work feverishly to ban all semiautomatic weapons, just as fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons have been essentially banned from civilian possession, since 1934, with passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein would accomplish this feat through enactment of a very devious bit of legislation, which was referred to during the Senate Hearing.Roughly two months ago, on October 4, 2017, Senator Feinstein introduced the following bill in the U.S. Senate:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act".POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIREARM ACCESSORIES. Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-   in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following:   "(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.   This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."; and   in section 924(a)(2), by striking ", or (o)" and inserting "(o), or (v)". Attorneys David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, sitting on the second panel, and testifying at the Senate Hearing—were acutely aware of this Senate bill. David Kopel pointed out that the language of Feinstein’s bill, the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act," makes very clear that any change at all to any semiautomatic weapon—lightening the trigger pull, for example, or even cleaning a firearm—can effectively serve to increase the rate of fire of the weapon. Thus, any semiautomatic rifle can, were Feinstein’s bill enacted, serve as the basis to ban outright all semiautomatic rifles. When faced with David Kopel’s critical, astute remarks, Senator Feinstein demurred, seemed agitated and, evidently, perplexed, asserting, disingenuously, that the bill was drafted by capable attorneys, suggesting, perhaps, or, then again, perhaps not, that her bill only targets certain types of accessories or components for semiautomatic weapons, such as the “bump-fire device” (“bump stock”) that are specifically mentioned, and not, ipso facto, all semiautomatic weapons. But, that doesn't seem to be the case; and, if that is not the case, then this would suggest that the drafters of Feinstein’s bill either know very little about the operation of semiautomatic rifles or know the operation of semiautomatic weapons all too well. If the former supposition is true, then the bill has unintended consequences: positive consequences for antigun proponents; negative consequences for everyone else. This means that all semiautomatic rifles can and eventually would be banned. This is consistent with the plain meaning of the bill. If the latter supposition is true, then, given the plain meaning of the bill, the bill is a subterfuge. This would mean that those who drafted Feinstein's bill intended, all along, not merely to suggest that only some accessories for semiautomatic rifles would be banned, but that, in fact, all semiautomatic weapons would be banned, as this is what antigun proponents want and have wanted all along and this is what the bill says: no semiautomatic weapons in the hands of American citizens qua civilians. Either way, Senator Feinstein would derive from her bill, if enacted, exactly what she had long sought—a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’—meaning, of course, that all semiautomatic weapons would be banned because all semiautomatic weapons are, ipso facto, ‘assault weapons,’ as Senator Feinstein sees it.Never underestimate the deviousness of antigun proponents and never trust them when they assert that they do not seek to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. These antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and their billionaire benefactors, and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media and in Hollywood, will not rest easy until each and every average American citizen qua civilian—apart from the so-called “elites” in society, like Senator Feinstein, herself—is prohibited, by law, from owning and possessing any kind of firearm._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONNECTICUT HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS AND PROCEDURES: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE: THE APPLICATION PACKET

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. WRIGHT.

SUBPART FIVE

COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

In the previous segment of the ROAD TRIP series, we commenced a detailed analysis of the application process for obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. Mr. Wright, an American citizen and successful businessman has applied for several handgun carry licenses. He has done this because he conducts business in several jurisdictions and he carries with him substantial business assets when he travels to and through various States. He is a tempting target for thieves. Mr. Wright knows that the best defense against assault, when he is on the road, is through possession of handgun. Mr. Wright is thoroughly trained in the safe handling of a handgun and he has had special training in the use of a handgun for self-defense in critical life-threatening situations.We laid out for you, in the previous segment, SUBPART FOUR, all the documents the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police provides in the information and application packet. In this segment, SUBPART FIVE, we take a close look at the formal “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION." This Application is four pages in length—two pages folded over, in dark blue heavy stock paper. The first page lays out the instructions. There are three columns: one, “Instructions for State Pistol Permits,” (which applies to residents of Connecticut); two, “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits;” and, three, “Instructions for Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Pistols or Revolvers and/or Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.”As we are following the procedures for completing applications for handgun licenses that Mr. Wright—a law-abiding U.S. citizen and successful businessman who we use as our example in this exercise—followed, we see Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security consultant, reviewing the application. Since Mr. Wright is a non-resident, Mr. Wright first checks off the box for a “Non-Resident State Pistol Permit.” Turning the page, Mr. Wright fills out the usual information requested—which he has done many times before, when completing applications for handgun licenses as issued in other jurisdictions. He sets forth his complete name, date of birth, vital statistics, namely, sex, height, and weight, race and sex.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE UNDERGONE SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY OR WHO WISH TO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS TRANSGENDER AND WHO IDENTIFY WITH A SEX OTHER THAN THEIR BIOLOGICAL (BIRTH) SEX.

Given changing societal norms, matters that have, for decades, never been an issue but that are slowly manifesting as new issues in employment, in schools in the military and in government, generally may create conundrums for applicants.It goes without saying that those parties authorized to prosecute applications for firearms’ licenses and permits are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, national origin, and that likely includes sexual orientation. Now, the matter of sex identification is a complex subject. Much legislation and litigation is or will be ongoing for some time to come. So, prior to specific legislation and Court rulings on the matter of sex, how should a person who, say, was born a man, but who identifies as a woman, complete an application for a firearm’s license or permit, when that person is instructed to set forth sex?For those who have not undergone sex reassignment, one should check the box that refers to their sex at birth—namely, their biological sex. Even for those who have undergone sex reassignment, it is probably best to indicate one’s sex at birth. Remember, the purpose here is to obtain a handgun license. Do not attempt to get into a philosophical fight with the firearms’ licensing official. You will lose. Nor should you leave the entry pertaining to sex, blank. The licensing official will assume that you had simply forgotten to enter your sex and this will delay prosecution of one’s handgun license. That goes for the issue of one’s race. A person may not wish to check off the appropriate box. There are six categories for race, and they include a category for “unknown.” Do not refrain from checking off at least one box on the application form. For, once again, if you leave this category blank, that will only delay prosecution of the application.If there is any doubt as to the appropriate course of action, you should contact a licensed attorney.For, Mr. Wright, the completion of this section on vital statistics was simple enough to complete. Mr. Wright is male, and white. He completed the entry for his height, weight, date of birth, place of birth and Country of Citizenship. Mr. Wright is a citizen of the United States.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTRY.

For those individuals who do not reside in this Country legally, do not attempt to complete this application. The licensing official will deny your application. If you do reside in this Country legally, there is a box on the application form requiring you to set forth your “alien registration number.”

RESIDENTIAL AND MAILING ADDRESS AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

In this section of the Application, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requires applicants to provide residential address—which includes addresses for the last seven years, from the date of the application, if the applicant has changed residences, and a mailing address (if different from residential address). Note, if residential address and mailing address are different, this may cause the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer to flag the application.The applicant must also provide the name, address, and telephone number of one’s employer. If the applicant has had several employers, then the applicant must list the name, address, and telephone number of each employer that that applicant worked for during the last seven years. Be specific and do not refrain from listing every employer.Mr. Wright, for his part, is self-employed and has been self-employed for many years. So, Mr. Wright listed his Company as employer, the address of his main business offices, and his business phone number.

"PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION”

Every section of the Application is critical. But, some sections raise red flags. This is one of those sections. This section of the application requires the applicant to indicate whether he or she has had an application for a firearm’s permit “denied,” “suspended,” “revoked,” from any jurisdiction. Mr. Wright has several firearms’ permits and licenses issued by appropriate licensing authority from multiple States and, as required, from various jurisdictions within a State—as is the case with the State of New York, as Mr. Wright has handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing authority for New York City and for Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Mr. Wright has never had a firearm’s license permit, denied, suspended, or revoked and he checks off the appropriate box to indicate that fact.For those individuals who have applied for a firearm’s permit or license and a permit or license has been denied, suspended, or revoked, you must indicate that fact and give the particulars, by identifying the jurisdiction that denied, suspended, or revoked the application, the date of denial, suspension, or revocation, and the reason for the denial, suspension, or revocation.DO NOT LIE! And, do not refrain from indicating a denial, suspension, or revocation, that you might have, for that is tantamount to lying on the application. While admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation does raise a red flag, this does not constitute an automatic denial of your application. Lying does. You will find that The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police unforgiving of outright lies. On the other hand admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation of a handgun license does not mean that you will not receive a permit. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police is mindful that, in some jurisdictions, securing a handgun license or permit is very difficult and that this is due to the fact that some jurisdictions are “MAY ISSUE,” not “SHALL ISSUE,” where a person seeks to secure a handgun carry license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut is certainly mindful that denial of a handgun carry permit or license may not be due to a “disability”—such as a felony arrest record—but simply due to the fact that a person does not meet the stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun carry license. Now, even though Connecticut is, itself considered a “MAY ISSUE” State for handgun carry permits, the issuance of a handgun carry permit is, for qualified individuals, much less stringent than is the case in a jurisdiction such as New York City. For, in Connecticut, the stated reason of “SELF DEFENSE” constitutes good and sufficient cause for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified person. In New York City, on the other hand, “SELF DEFENSE,” as a stated reason for issuance of a handgun carry license is patently insufficient.If an individual’s application for a firearm has been denied due to “DISABILITY” that individual must indicate that fact. If an individual’s firearm’s license or permit has been suspended or revoked after issuance, the date of suspension or revocation and the reason therefor must also be stated. Once again, DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING EACH AND VERY OCCURRENCE OF A DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF A FIREARM’S LICENSE OR PERMIT! Be advised, too, that the Connecticut Application makes reference in this Section of the Application to “FIREARMS.” So don’t try to be cute and suppose that, if one had applied, in another jurisdiction for a long gun—that is to say, a rifle or shotgun—and that person has been denied issuance of a permit or license for a long gun—a person may refrain from mentioning that fact simply because he or she is applying, in Connecticut, for a handgun license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police has used the term, ‘Firearm,’ for a reason, when it asks an individual to indicate whether that person’s application for a license or permit, in any jurisdiction, has been denied, suspended or revoked. If the Special Licensing Unit had indicated an interest in determining whether an individual’s application for a pistol or revolver had ever been denied, suspended, or revoked, it would have made specific reference to the denial, suspension, or revocation of one’s pistol or revolver license or permit. The use of the general term, ‘FIREARM,’ here is meant to be all-inclusive.

MEDICAL HISTORY, CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND MILITARY HISTORY

The third page of “THE PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” is the most critical section, for it is the true “RED FLAG” portion of the Application.In the “MEDICAL SECTION” of the Application, the applicant for a Connecticut handgun carry permit must check the appropriate for each of the following:

CONFINEMENT TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS BY ORDER OF A PROBATE COURT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been confined in a hospital for mental illness in the past sixty (60) months by order of a Probate Court?” There is a check box for “yes” and for “no.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no” as he has never been confined to a hospital for mental illness by order of a Probate Court. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THE QUESTION PERTAINS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS AS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITMENTS REQUIRE AN ORDER OF COURT. NO ONE CAN BE LAWFULLY CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS OR HER WISHES ABSENT AN ORDER FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY HAVING BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL DEFECT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been discharged from custody within the past twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of a mental disease or defect.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as the question asked is inapplicable to him. He has never been charged with a crime and, so, has never been in the position of having been found guilty of a crime where a court might have found him not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect. Mr. Wright now proceeds to the next section of the Application.

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been voluntarily admitted to a hospital for mental illness within the past six (6) months for reason other than solely for alcohol or drug dependence?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as he has never had reason to voluntarily commit himself to a hospital for mental illness or, for that matter, for any reason, relating to mental illness, or for alcohol or drug issues. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright then proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THIS QUESTION, UNLIKE THE FIRST QUESTION, REFERS TO A VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARILY ADMITS HIM OR HERSELF TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT FOR A MENTAL ILLNESS OR FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG ISSUE RELATED TO OR UNRELATED TO AN UNDERLYING MENTAL ILLNESS.If the applicant has voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for treatment for alcohol dependency or for dependency on drugs, whether those drugs be illegal or through lawful prescription, but the treatment does not entail “mental illness,” then the applicant can reasonably check the corresponding check box, “no.” This is tricky, though. If the applicant voluntarily commits himself to a hospital, within the six months preceding the date of application for a Connecticut, handgun carry permit, for treatment of an alcohol and/or drug related problem, the applicant may also be treated for a mental condition as alcohol and/or drug related problems may subsume a mental condition. If there is doubt about this, the applicant who has voluntarily committed himself or herself to a hospital for alcohol and/or drug related problems within the last six months should take a look at his or her medical record to ascertain whether the record indicates a mental disorder as it is incumbent on the applicant to be certain what his or her medical record says.“NOTICE: “DESPP HEREIN NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT, PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 29-28 THROUGH 29-30b, DESSP WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIXTY (60) MONTHS BY ORDER OF PROBATE COURT, OR IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS WITH THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SOLELY FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE.”This “NOTICE” is to alert the Applicant that, regardless how the Applicant answers the questions of this section, DESPP will contact the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. So, under no circumstances should the applicant think that, by lying on the application, the DESPP, will not find out whether an applicant has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a hospital for treatment. DESPP will also be contacting the FBI, to ascertain criminal record of the applicant if any and if an individual was found not guilty of a crime due to mental illness or mental defect, that is likely to be in the FBI data bases as well.

PRIOR ARREST RECORD

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been ARRESTED for any crime in any jurisdiction?”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.For those individuals who do have an arrest record and therefore must check off the box, “yes,” the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police instructs the applicant to list all arrests, indicating charges, locations, dates of arrest and dispositions.“NOTICE: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE GBEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 46-b-146, 54-142a. IF YOUR CRIMINAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO ONE OF THESE STATUTES, YOU MAY SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED. CRIMINAL RECORDS THAT MAY BE ERASES ARE RECORDS PERTAINING TO A FINDING OF DELINQUENCY OR THAT A CHILDE WAS A MEMBER OF A FAMILY WITH SERVICE NEEDS (C.G.S. 46b-146), AN ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (C.G.S. 54-76o), A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR NOLLED, A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY, OR A CONVICTION FOR WHICH THE PERSONA RECEIVED AN ABSOLUTE PARDON (C.G.S. 54-142a).”“WITH REGARD TO CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION ARISING FROM JURISDICTIONS OTHER THAN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF THE OTHE RJURISDCITION. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARREST ARISING FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION IF YOU ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION TO SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.”The Section pertaining to criminal history too, gets tricky. The applicant with an arrest record must, of course, be completely honest. Failure to admit an arrest record when required to do so, will not likely fool the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. And, even if a handgun carry license should issue because a mistake was made, don’t think that you have “pulled the wool over the eyes” of the Licensing Official. For, at some point the truth will come out. You will lose your firearms; you will lose your handgun carry permit; and you will face federal prosecution and possibly State prosecution as well on the ground of unlawful possession of firearms contrary to law because of disability. On the other hand, whether you can properly check the corresponding check box, “no,” regarding ARREST RECORD, notwithstanding that you DO have an arrest record, this comes down to whether you fall within an exception as noted above. READ THE "NOTICE" CAREFULLY. The safest course of action for those applicants who do have an arrest record, whether or not it is apparent that the applicant falls within an exception to acknowledging the arrest record on the application, is to contact a licensed attorney before completing and sending in the application packet. That will prevent a multitude of sins if you make an error, intentionally or not, in filling out this section of the Application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit. For mistakes in accurate reporting have negative ramifications, not only in Connecticut, but in any other jurisdiction where a person is considering applying for a handgun carry permit or license.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been CONVICTED under the laws of this state, federal law or the laws of another jurisdiction?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate check box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: TO THOSE APPLICANTS FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME EITHER IN CONNECTICUT, OR IN ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, THAT APPLICANT MUST LIST ALL CONVICTIONS, INCLUDING, CHARGES, LOCATION , DATE OF ARREST, AND DISPOSITION.THE APPLICANT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION TRUTHFULLY, AND MUST PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS. THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT WILL OBTAIN RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE APPLICANT RESPONDS, BUT THE LICENSING OFFICIAL IS LOOKING FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR VERACITY ON THE PART OF APPLICANTS FOR HANDGUN CARRY PERMITS. IF AN APPLICANT IS LIAR, THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF ONE’S APPLICATION, FOR LYING ON THIS APPLICATION CONSTITUTES OVERT ADMISSION OF BAD CHARACTER, AND INDICATION THAT SUCH A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

PROBATION, PAROLE, OR WORK RELEASE

Other than arrest or conviction of a crime, or concomitant with arrest or conviction of a crime, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Are you currently on probation, parole, work release, in an alcohol and/or drug treatment program or other pre-trial diversionary program or currently released on personal recognizance, a written promise to appear or a bail bond for a pending court case?"Mr. Wright responds, truthfully, answering, “no,” by checking the appropriate check box and proceeds to the next section of the application.NOTE: THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS SET FORTH IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY, CHARGES, LOCATION OF COURT, AND SPECIFIC DISPOSITION. THE QUESTION APPEARS MORE OPEN-ENDED, PARTLY, PERHAPS, BECAUSE PROBATION, PAROLE, WORK RELEASE, AND OTHER COURT ORDERS, RESPECTING SPECIFICALLY DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT ,REQUIRE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF CONVICTION AND ARREST IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS AND HAVING TO REPEAT THOSE IS REDUNDANT.

PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Within the past five (5) years, have you been the subject of a Protective Order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”Mr. Wright truthfully answered, “no” to this question, checking off the appropriate box on the Application. He then proceeded to the next question.NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING DIVISION ISN’T INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, BUT MERELY FACT OF IT AND, IF AN ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SET FORTH, ON THE APPLICATION, THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER.

MILITARY HISTORY

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Were you ever a member of the Armed Forces of the United States?” And, if so, the Applicant is requested to provide a copy of the applicant’s “DD-214”—the Discharge Documents.Mr. Wright was never a member for the Armed Forces, so he truthfully, responds by checking the appropriate checkbox, “no,” and he proceeds to the next section of the application.If the applicant were a member of the Armed Forces, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police pointedly asks:“Were you ever discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a less than Honorable Discharge?” The Applicant must respond with either, “yes,” or, “no,” checking off the appropriate check box.

AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS

The “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” doesn’t state, but an individual applying for a pistol permit in Connecticut—or in any other jurisdiction for that matter, should be advised that, under FEDERAL LAW, specified grounds exist that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. That means the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police cannot and will not issue a handgun carry permit to anyone who is not permitted under federal law—wholly apart from the requirements of Connecticut Law—from possessing a firearm. Under Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 44 (Firearms) of the Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1)  is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2)  is a fugitive from justice;(3)  is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4)  has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5)  who, being an alien—(A)  is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B)  except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (26));(6) [who] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7)  who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8)  is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)  was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B) (i)  includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii)  by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9)  has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”If you fall under any one or more of the above categories, then do not apply for a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Save your money. The Firearms and Special Licensing Division will deny you a permit to carry and you may be subject to federal and State criminal penalties for attempting to gain possession of a firearm by lying on the application. Worse, if you lie on the application and a permit is issued to you, and through the issuance of a permit you obtain a firearm, you are now in criminal possession of a firearm and subject to immediate arrest. AND, Be advised that, if a handgun permit is erroneously issued to you, because you lied on the Application, the DESPP will eventually become aware of the error. Don’t think that you will be able to fool the DESPP—that no further investigation won’t be done specifically to spot errors on an application. Further, suppose you are truthful in answering each question on the Application and yet you are under a disability that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit Officer fails to spot, still, under federal law if you are not permitted lawfully to own a firearm, then the mere assertion you told the truth when completing the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION and that it is the fault of the DESPP in issuing you a handgun carry permit will not protect you from criminal liability. For, intent to be truthful is not a defense to the litany of disqualifications of Title 18. If a person isn’t permitted under federal and/or State law from possessing a firearm, then the fact that he or she has been issued a firearm’s license or permit erroneously will not provide one with a defense to the discharge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

PROOF OF TRAINING

On page 4, the last page of the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION, the applicant must attach a copy of his or her handgun training certificate, setting forth the agency that offered the training and issued the certificate, along with the Instructor’s name and ID Number.Mr. Wright made a copy of his Certificate and completed the application with the information requested.

DECLARATION

The Applicant must attest that the information he has provided in the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION is truthful and that the Applicant understands that an untruthful statement will void the Application. This DECLARATION is UNDER OATH. So, the Applicant must swear before a Notary Public and the Notary Public must duly notarize the Application.Mr. Wright duly signed his name and swore, before the Notary Public, that the contents of the Application that he completed were truthful. Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security expert then made sure that the Application packet contained all documents that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESPP required, that all portions of the Application that Mr. Wright had to complete were in fact answered, and that the Application packet contained Mr. Wright’s personal checks to cover the processing of his Application.Mr. Wright waited a few weeks. His attorney checked with the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit, regularly, to make sure, first, that the Licensing Unit did receive the Application, and subsequently, that Mr. Wright’s Application was complete and, lastly, that the Application was being prosecuted.Mr. Wright was eventually contacted by the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. Mr. Wright was required to travel to Connecticut to receive his Connecticut Pistol Permit.

NOTICE: APPEAL PROCESS FOR PERMITS

The final section of the Application provides the Applicant with the process for Appeal if his or her Application is denied. Further discussion of the appeals process.In the concluding segment of analysis of Connecticut handgun carry permit application procedures, Subpart Six, we discuss renewals. Although renewals are generally a relatively easy and painless process, they do take time and they do require more outlay of cash. Furthermore, each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewals. This causes a busy entrepreneur like Mr. Wright more than a little frustration. Renewals of handgun licenses must not be taken lightly. Missing a renewal date means that the license or permit holder will have to go through the entire ordeal of obtaining a permit again with the concomitant monetary outlays, aggravation, and delays in the processing of the application.National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation will go a very long way in streamlining the process of obtaining and renewing a handgun carry permit, as, if Congressional Legislation is drafted well, then the handgun holder of a valid handgun permit or license will only be required to have on his person, when carrying a handgun, just one valid handgun carry permit. That means, too, that the permit or license holder will only need to renew one handgun license and not several that many license holders must now carry—that Mr. Wright must, at present, hold.We conclude our discussion of Connecticut handgun licensing laws and procedures with the next installment of the Road Trip Series: Part Four, Subpart Six, a Postscript. We will then move to a detailed analysis of Massachusetts handgun licensing laws and procedures, as we continue the Road Trip Series of articles.____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS; OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 1: OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS?

Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth clearly, concisely and categorically: “all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Among those legislative Powers, Article 1, Section 8 says, “the Congress shall have Power to establish . . . a uniform rule of Naturalization.”  The term ‘naturalization’ means ‘immigration’ and the power to regulate immigration implies the power to vest citizenship in a person. This means that Congress has authority to enact federal legislation establishing the rules for naturalization and the rules for conferring citizenship. But, does this mean the President also has power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization?Unless specific language in the Constitution says otherwise, we must infer that Congress alone has control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship. And the Constitution does not confer control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship on any Branch of Government, other than the Legislative Branch: Congress. So, then,

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT?

Article 2, Section 1 says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article 2, Section 3 mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .” This means that the President has the singular duty to make sure the laws of Congress are adhered to. Nothing in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution suggests the President shall share law making functions with Congress. Yet, President Obama says he can do this.We must assume that President Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and Constitutional Law Professor, has a firm grasp of the Constitution of the United States. He must know that Congress, alone, and not the President, has power to establish a uniform law of Naturalization. Yet Obama in defiance of Congress has granted, through Executive fiat, amnesty for five million illegal aliens. By that act Obama has usurped a Power that resides solely in Congress. Does that usurpation of power constitute an impeachable offense? Article 2, Section 4 makes clear that, “the President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Executive Office usurpation of the Powers of Congress certainly falls into the domain of impeachable offenses.

THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Contrary to Obama’s remarks about the purported benefits illegal immigrants bring to this Country, the cost to Americans is astronomical. “By some estimates, illegal immigration costs the United States $45 billion a year. Not only does society bear the financial costs of illegal immigration, but it is also burdened with the loss of jobs and a decrease in the average household income. The labor market is more than willing to hire illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying American workers a higher wage. Many illegal immigrants, in turn, accept payment below the federal minimum wage. Consequently, American workers are forced out of their jobs and are unable to locate jobs elsewhere because the only jobs they are qualified for are being taken by illegal immigrants.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation On Postsecondary Education Benefits For Illegal Immigrants," Rebecca Ness Rhymer,” 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).Moreover, most Americans oppose amnesty for undocumented workers. “Americans also feel the financial burden of illegal immigration in other areas, such as social security, criminal justice programs, housing, public education, and health care. With illegal immigration posing a threat to workers and their families, it is understandable that two-thirds of Americans oppose measures designed to make it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the borders in hopes of securing United States citizenship. In 1986, the federal government, intending to curb illegal immigration, implemented a program which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants already within United States borders and increased measures to block further illegal entry. The program sanctioned employers whose hiring of illegal immigrants spread the use of ‘forgery-proof’ residency documents. After 3.1 million illegal immigrants received amnesty, subsequent measures to enforce the program failed. The result did little to curb illegal immigration.” Id.Notwithstanding Americans’ opposition to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the lack of Congressional authorization to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the failure of past Congressional amnesty programs, Obama has, nonetheless, decided, unilaterally, and contrary to the authority of the Chief Executive to do so under our Constitution, to give amnesty to millions of these people anyway.

HOW OBAMA HAS REWRITTEN THE UNIFORM LAWS OF NATURALIZATION AND VESTING OF CITIZENSHIP

To understand how Obama has rewritten the uniform laws of naturalization and the vesting of citizenship we need to look at a couple of the Naturalization laws that Congress has enacted in prior years.The idea of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is nothing new, but Congress alone has authority to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants if it chooses to do so, not the President. While naturalization programs go back to the dawn of the Republic, Congress has most recently experimented with amnesty during the last quarter of the Twentieth Century. This was a time – continuing to the present moment – when millions of aliens have crossed and are continuing to cross the Nation’s borders illegally. Amnesty for illegal aliens took the form of providing temporary asylum for some illegal aliens. The program failed miserably as it simply encouraged rather than discouraged ever more illegal entry into the Country.  So, subsequent acts of Congress were directed to denying amnesty to undocumented aliens.Let’s take a look at the two most recent immigration programs.The first such fairly modern program was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This Act did in fact grant temporary amnesty to certain qualifying illegal immigrants, did in fact grant permanent residency for certain qualifying agricultural workers, and did impose legal penalties on employers who hired undocumented workers. The program also funded border patrol in the hope of preventing more undocumented workers from venturing onto U.S. soil. See, generally, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012). IRCA failed because the INS was unable to satisfactorily enforce the Act. Id.See also, “NOTE: The Political Discourse of Amnesty in Immigration Policy,” Bryn Siegel, 41 Akron L.R. (2008). “IRCA is widely recognized as a failed attempt to regulate undocumented immigration. The failure of IRCA to control illegal immigration now stands as the central hurdle in any campaign for a legalization statute.  Known commonly as the ‘first amnesty,’ IRCA has a pervasive legacy. Following IRCA, illegal immigration continued to rise and many undocumented immigrants in the United States remained without legal status when the opportunity to apply expired.  The critical failure of IRCA in terms of inspiring sympathetic supporters was the relative ease of the legalization process.”So, Congress decided to end leniency toward illegal aliens.Congress enacted a new immigration program: the “Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” (IIRIRA). Congress enacted the 1996 program, IIRIRA, to correct problems inherent in the Act of 1986, IRCA. The new program, IIRIRA, imposed stricter penalties on immigrants remaining in the U.S. after expiration of their authorized period of stay. And the 1996 Act restricted deportees from reentering the U.S. for several years after deportation. Id. The stricter penalties were designed to discourage unauthorized immigration. “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).The 1996 IIRIRA program, together with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), “imposed a number of restrictions on illegal immigrants’ in the United States. Specifically, Congress created this legislation to reduce the increasing availability of public benefits to illegal immigrants, which serve as incentives for keeping their illegal status.  Not only did the PRWORA and the IIRIRA restrict illegal immigrants’ access to federal public benefits, such as social security and health care, but they also restricted access to state and local benefits, including the limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment for higher education purposes.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation on Postsecondary Education Benefits for Illegal Immigrants,” Rebecca Ness Rhymer, 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).

UNDER PRESENT LAW HOW MAY A PERSON BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN?

“There are currently four ways to become a naturalized U.S. citizen: (1) permanent U.S. residency for five years, (2) permanent U.S. residency for three years and a spouse who is a U.S. citizen, (3) serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, or (4) being a child of a U.S. citizen. The majority of immigrants become a naturalized U.S. citizen through permanent residence by obtaining a "Green Card." A Green Card can be obtained through family, employment, asylee or refugee status, and other special programs that apply to a very small class of immigrants. In order to obtain a Green Card, you must first acquire a visa in order to enter the United States. In 2010, there were 482,052 immigrant visas issued.” See, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).Under present immigration law, enacted by Congress, amnesty for illegal immigrants doesn't exist. A person who enters the U.S. in the hope of becoming a U.S. citizen must first obtain a visa. Id. That means a person must enter the U.S. legally. Visas are not issued to individuals who cross a U.S. border illegally.

WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE “DREAM ACT.” DOESN’T THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDE AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS?

The answer is, “no,” because it was never enacted. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM ACT) which is trumped up in the news – “a law that would have provided a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants living in the United States who succeed academically and/or through service in the United States military” – failed. See “The State of the Ordinary Family: A Symposium: Article: The Impact of Recessionary Politics on Latino-American and Immigrant Families: SCHIP Success and DREAM Act Failure," Mariela Oliveras, 55 How. L.J. 359 (Winter, 2012).The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM Act) might be considered a revamped Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that had failed decades ago. Democrats in Congress pushed for it. Understandably, Congressional Republicans pushed back. As IRCA had failed abysmally, Congressional Republicans, justifiably, saw nothing to warrant resurrecting it in the form of the so-called "DREAM Act."

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR OBAMA TO UNILATERALLY GRANT AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Frustrated that Congress wouldn’t enact the DREAM Act, Obama decided to take action without Congress -- threatening to do so only after the Midterm elections, hoping that Democrats would retain control of the U.S. Senate. That didn't happen. Realizing that the Dream Act -- or some form of it -- wouldn't be enacted anytime soon, if ever, Obama decided to act on his threat.Curiously, Obama previously admitted, correctly, that he cannot legislate where Congress fails to do so. He now argues, inconsistently, that Executive amnesty for millions of undocumented aliens falls within his purview as Chief Executive. Supporters of Obama’s action may call it “administrative expediency.” But Obama’s action amounts to an Executive Order of clemency for millions of undocumented aliens who should be deported. In effect the Order is an unlawful legislative act on the part of the Executive. It is not a legitimate administrative action. Rather, Obama's Order is designed to thwart immigration law.What Obama’s immigration Order says is that illegal immigrants won’t be deported if they don’t pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security. What Obama's immigration Order means is that immigration officials are prohibited from doing their job -- deporting illegal aliens. Obama believes that he has the legal authority to do this because immigration officials work for the Executive, not Congress, and because he believes that telling immigration officials not to do their job, deporting illegals, is somehow different than telling Congress straightforwardly that he won't faithfully execute immigration law -- that he won't, then, give any thought to the intent of Congress.

HOW DOES DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WORK AND IN WHAT MANNER DOES OBAMA BELIEVE HE CAN LEGALLY OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY?

Obama believes he can legally get around what, to his mind, is an uncooperative Congress. Obama argues he isn't willfully disobeying Congressional authority because his immigration order only goes to the matter of deportation, not amnesty. And deportation authority, unlike the matter of granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, is an Executive function. So Obama is trying to make the case that he isn’t really giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at all. He is simply not enforcing deportation. Indeed, “the most common form of protection {for illegal immigrants} has been the non-enforcement of deportation rather than the grant of a specific temporary status.” See, "ARTICLE: Temporary Protection: Towards a New Regional and Domestic Framework," Susan Martin, Andy Schoenholtz, and Deborah Waller Meyers 12 Geo. Immigration L.J. 543 (Summer, 1998).This is just equivocation. Whether Obama, on his own, were actively to bestow amnesty on millions of illegal immigrants (in effect, wrongly invoking Executive clemency for illegal immigrants by implicitly rewriting present immigration law) or simply were to order his  immigration officials to refrain from enforcing deportation rules, Obama is telling illegal immigrants that they can stay in the United States. In fact Obama has ordered immigration officials to stop deporting millions of illegal immigrants whom Congress has dictated, through present immigration law, must be deported. Obama is thus telling millions of illegal immigrants that  they need not fear deportation because immigration officials will not deport them, as immigration officials have been ordered by Obama not to deport them. However one chooses to describe Obama's action here, Obama has clearly thwarted the will of Congress. That is obviously Obama's intention and that is certainly what he has done. That will certainly make millions of illegal immigrants happy. But whom does Obama, as President of the United States, represent: illegal immigrants or bona fide American citizens? And, whose welfare is Obama, as President of the United States, supposed to be concerned with: the welfare of illegal immigrants or the welfare of bona fide American citizens? It appears that Obama is concerned more for the welfare of  people who ought not remain in this Country, who should never have come to the Country in the manner they did -- in defiance of our laws, exhibiting contempt for our People -- and he seems concerned less for the welfare of bona fide American citizens. Illegal immigrants are not honest, law-abiding people. Their very presence here is a testament to their disrespect for our laws, our culture, our citizenry. Obama caters to that!Moreover, through his actions, Obama hasn't merely condoned illegal immigration, he has actively encouraged it. And he is inviting more of the same.Americans will see millions of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders in the future, many more from Mexico, from Countries of Central America, from Countries of South America, and from Countries around the world. This is just what Congress -- Congressional Republicans at least -- sought to prevent enactment of IIRIRA in 1996.Obama's action undermines America's immigration laws and constitutes a direct challenge to the authority and power of Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, to establish the rules of Naturalization and Citizenship for all Americans. And, what does Obama's action say to foreigners who have waited for years to become American citizens, through proper legal channels, through adherence to the rule of law? What does Obama's action say to the  millions of Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents came to this Country legally through Ellis Island? How much respect can a person have for a Country's rule of law when that person has already broken the Laws of the Land through illegal entry into this Country? Such a person doesn't care. And Obama doesn't care either.Obama says his policy will not prevent the deportation of  "criminals." That is an incongruous remark since all illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. The phrases, 'illegal entry' and 'illegal reentry,' denote 'crimes' under U.S. immigration law. For a historical perspective on this, see, generally, "Article, Re-thinking Illegal Entry and Reentry," Doug Keller, 44 Loyola U. Chi. 65 (Fall 2012)What Obama is doing, essentially, is pushing the DREAM Act through by Executive Action/Executive fiat since Democrats in Congress were unsuccessful in their efforts to enact the DREAM Act. Indeed, his action, tying the hands of immigration officials so they aren't permitted to do their job, deporting millions of illegal immigrants, extends the Dream Act well beyond what even the Dream Act was designed to do if Congress had enacted it.

OBAMA HAS NOT ACTED ALONE

To Argue Obama has acted alone in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is not precisely true. Congressional Democrats encouraged the President to act and, in so doing, they, too, have acted irresponsibly. Moreover, these elected officials have undermined their own authority. They have undermined the authority and power of  Congress as an independent Branch of Government -- a Branch critical to the operations of and well-being of the Republic. Their action constitutes a betrayal to the American public they were elected to serve.Congressional Democrats complicity in the President's action is clearly in evidence. Consider: “In April 2011, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and twenty-one other Democratic senators published a letter they sent to President Barack Obama urging him to use executive discretion and authority to stop deportations and removals of undocumented young people-who grew up in the United States or have been residing in the United States for many years-who would have benefitted from the DREAM Act.” See, “Symposium: Noncitizen Participation In The American Polity: Dreams Deferred: Deferred Action, Prosecutorial Discretion, And The Vexing Cases(s) Of Dream Act Students, Michael A. Olivas, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 463 (December, 2012).“The Obama Administration has apparently determined that any forms of immigration reform will have to be modest, and in the nature of non-legislative, adjudicatory, administrative review and discretionary deferred action.” Id.Deportation of aliens is an Executive function to be sure. But, that does not mean the Chief Executive – the President – can take it upon himself unilaterally to suspend deportation of millions of illegal aliens. That is an abuse of Executive discretion because deportation is a tool that Congress uses to effectuate the laws it has enacted. It is not a device to be used by the Chief Executive to thwart the will of Congress.Still, Congressional Democrats persevered in their own irresponsible actions. Senator Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer wrote a personal letter to then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attempting to pressure her to exclude millions of illegal aliens from deportation. But, Napolitano, a lawyer herself, responded with a letter of her own, barely containing her anger, “insisting that no category of Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) would be employed for groups of individuals: ‘I am not going to stand here and say that there are whole categories that we will, by executive fiat, exempt from the current immigration system, as sympathetic as we feel towards them.’” Id. Yet, three years later, we find Obama compelling Executive departments and Agencies to do just that: defying Congressional Mandate by excluding entire categories of individuals – literally millions of them – from deportation.

OBAMA HAS PREVIOUSLY EXPERIMENTED WITH AMNESTY

On June 15, 2012, Obama initiated a new policy, providing temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came here as children -- a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA). "Note, 'You may say I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the Only One,' a1: Categorical Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Consequences for US Immigration Law," Maria A. Fufidio, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J., 976 (June, 2013).  Opposition to DACA came not only from Republicans in Congress but from State governments and even from agents within the Department of Homeland Security. Id.What does DACA do? DACA "defers removal action for two years and provides individuals with work authorization if they meet other eligibility criteria for eligibility." Id.We now see what DACA really was and where DACA was obviously headed: universal amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. The President's DACA policy was, then, merely a dress rehearsal for his latest initiative. For, where DACA granted temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants, the President has now granted amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. It would not be a stretch to infer from the President's actions, that he intends, ultimately, to bestow amnesty to the 11 million plus illegal immigrants who currently reside on U.S. soil and to the thousands  -- perhaps millions  more -- who are crossing U.S. borders today and who, undoubtedly, will continue to cross U.S. borders and enter our ports, illegally, in the coming weeks, months, and years.

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Not surprisingly, Senate and House Republicans are livid and the American public should sound off too.It may be academic why Obama waited almost three years to thwart the will of Congress. Likely, Obama hoped that Congress would enact the DREAM Act or something like it. Pressured by House and Senate Democrats, and by millions of undocumented aliens who shouldn’t have a voice at all, Obama decided to usurp the authority of Congress. Even now Obama says a Congressional enactment on immigration would override his Executive action. So saying, Obama is admitting he has usurped the authority of Congress. Moreover, immigration legislation already exists. That legislation does not provide for general amnesty. Obama doesn’t like it. Democrats in Congress don’t like it. And eleven million plus illegal aliens don’t like it. But most Americans -- bona fide citizens -- do like it. And it is the law.Obama likes to blurt out slogans. He says the present immigration system is broken. But, is it? What does he mean by the word, 'broken?' Does he mean the system is broken because it doesn't sanctify the presence of "border jumpers" in the U.S.? One might say, just as nonsensically, that our criminal justice system is broken because it preys on individuals who commit crimes.Apparently, illegal immigrants, some members of Congress, and the United States President believe they can, together, thrust their will on the American People, contrary to the import and purport of the United States Constitution and contrary to the authority of Congress, which alone, has power, under the Constitution, to establish the laws of naturalization and citizenship. Hopefully, some members of Congress will remember where their duty rests.

WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The American People must understand that usurpation of the U.S. Constitution – even by those who believe, possibly, they are acting with the best of intentions – undermines the Republic. The Obama Administration is testing the waters by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, contrary to dictates of the present immigration law. But, Obama is testing the waters in ways far beyond the issue of immigration. If Congress fails to take strong measures against the Obama Administration and fails to do so immediately, then precedent will exist for further encroachment upon the Powers of Congress.Would a President dare to argue, for example, the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Fourth Amendment Rights might be legally curtailed on the ground of a President’s personal convictions? We see an inkling of this -- and in matters of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, more than an inkling -- even now. If a President believes his Office is unassailable and that he, personally, is invincible, then the Rule of Law ceases to exist; the Constitution weakens; the Republic falls.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.