ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES CONTINUE THEIR PUSH TO ERODE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NEW JERSEY SENATE BILL S. 3757 IS ONE MORE SLAP-IN-THE-FACE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HELLER

PART ONE

The Arbalest Quarrel read with interest the NRA-ILA alert concerning New Jersey Senate Bill S. 3757 “that would force gun owners to store their guns and ammo under lock and key or face felony-level penalties.” We also read with interest and agree with Scott Bach’s well-written explication of the bill. Scott points out, “this ill-conceived bill imposes an absurd, one-size-fits-all totalitarian mandate to keep guns unloaded and locked up inside the home and to keep ammunition separately locked up inside the home, except when ‘in use’ – an utterly undefined term that will surely be interpreted to exclude everything except target practice.”As Scott notes, the New Jersey gun bill is absurd. And it is idiotic on logical grounds alone.But there is also a legal matter attendant to the bill. The bill flaunts and raises a disconcerting matter about the law that needs to be addressed.Just how broadly or narrowly is Heller to be read? This idea is not as simple as it may seem.Apart from the clear and categorical holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia—ostensibly knocking down once and for all time the erroneous idea often still propounded by some that the Second Amendment refers to a “collective right”—the Court addressed another matter that directly impacts the New Jersey Senate bill.The Heller Court said——“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” Does the New Jersey Senate bill square with the Heller holding? And, if it doesn’t, what is the impetus for the New Jersey Legislature drafting the thing at all?Let’s take a closer look at the bill as written.A preliminary “Statement” of intent, in the bill, reads in pertinent part as follows:“This bill, titled the ‘New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act,’ establishes penalties for improper storage of a firearm that results in access of the firearm; requires a warning to be issued to firearms purchasers; and requires the Attorney General to establish a public awareness campaign regarding the risk associated with improper storage of a firearm. The bill also repeals the provisions of current law that establish penalties only for a minor's access of an improperly stored firearm, and makes an appropriation.Under current law, there are storage requirements and penalties imposed if a minor accesses a loaded firearm that is not in use. However, there currently are no general requirements for storing firearms when they are not in use.This bill requires a legal owner of a firearm to: (1) store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and (2) store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.Under the bill, if the owner of a firearm fails to store the firearm properly as required under the bill, the owner will, for a first offense, be sentenced to period of community service of not less than 10 hours and not more than 40 hours. For a second or subsequent offense, the owner is guilty of a disorderly persons offense. If an improperly stored firearm is accessed by another person, and the access results in serious bodily injury to or the death of the person who accesses the firearm or another person, the owner is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. A disorderly persons offense is punishable by up to six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. A crime of the fourth degree is punishable by up to 18 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.”The language of the bill, proper, says in pertinent part:A legal owner of a firearm shall:

• store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and
• store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.

The bill also imposes requirements on the firearms dealer: The Superintendent of State Police, in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall adopt guidelines in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to require each licensed retail firearms dealer in the State, or the retail dealer's employee, to provide to any person who receives, possesses, carries, or uses a firearm, a written warning printed on eight and one-half inches by 11 inches in size paper in not less than 14 point bold point type letters which shall state:“NEW JERSEY STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL FIREARMS MUST BE STORED, UNLOADED, IN A SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER, AND ALL AMMUNITION MUST BE STORED IN A SEPARATE, SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER. FAILURE TO DO SO IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW AND COULD RESULT IN FINES AND IMPRISONMENT.” The written warning provided pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall include the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).The superintendent shall provide each licensed retail firearms dealer with a sign to be displayed prominently at a conspicuous place on the dealer's business premises at each purchase counter. The sign shall contain the statutory reference to section 3 of P.L., c. (C.). . . .”Left unsaid in the bill, is how the New Jersey Government is to know whether or how a person stores a firearm in his house.Is a New Jersey police officer to be given carte blanche authority to check on this? If so, would this not violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?But the more pressing issue is whether NJ S.B. 3757 is, on its face, patently illegal. Is the bill inconsistent with the Heller holding pertaining to one’s right of immediate access to a firearm in the home for the purpose of self-defense? It would seem so. But there is a problem.Just how broadly, in regard to immediate access to a firearm in one’s home, is Heller to be taken? We look at this in the next segment, and consider the ramifications of Heller, for Bruen.__________________________________________

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONS ROUTINELY AND BLATANTLY IGNORE HELLER AND MCDONALD PRECEDENTS

PART TWO

To both proponents of the Second Amendment and its detractors, Heller is known for its salient holding: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. No one has any doubt about that holding whether one accepts the truth of it or not.It is the central holding of Heller and it is a broad ruling; no question about it. This is as it was always meant to be, and the Heller majority opinion says this clearly, succinctly, and categorically. And the Court meant for this holding to have universal application—applicable to every jurisdiction in the Country.Moreover, contrary to what some say or wish to believe, this central holding of Heller is consonant and consistent with the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. The language of the Amendment does nothing more than codify a fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, natural right that exists intrinsically in every person. The one odd thing about the Heller case is that the High Court would have to point this out at all.Even so—All too many Courts blithely ignore Heller’s holding notwithstanding they are all dutybound to be mindful of and rigorously adhere to the import of it when reviewing government actions that target it. The implication of Heller cuts across and into all government actions directed against the application of the right embodied in the Second Amendment.These Anti-Second Amendment Courts merely rubberstamp unconstitutional government actions when they should be striking down government actions that, on their face, infringe the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.But there are other holdings in Heller that Anti-Second Amendment proponents and other “neutral” Americans miss.Unlike Heller’s paramount and broad holding pertaining to the universal nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual rather than as a mere collective right, there are other seeming “narrow” holdings in Heller.These additional holdings address the District of Columbia’s actions concerning handguns and the right of the people to have immediate access to them in one’s own home, for the purpose of self-defense.The New Jersey gun bill, S. 3757, if enacted, would preclude a gun owner’s immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the gun owner’s own home. On its face, NJ S.B. 3757 mirrors the major import and purport of the D.C. law that the Heller Court struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said this:“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” But is this seeming narrow holding, directed as it is to the District of Columbia, truly meant to be confined only to the District? Or, is it a broad-based, universal holding, applicable across the board, to every jurisdiction in the Land even as the High Court addressed the language of a law enacted by the District of Columbia that could only apply to the District?Assume for purpose of argument that this holding is meant to be confined to D.C. This isn’t to suggest that, if the New Jersey’s gun bill were enacted and someone were to challenge its constitutionality on appeal, the High Court would find the New Jersey law to be constitutional when the District’s law wasn’t.With the conservative wing in the majority, New Jersey’s gun bill, if enacted, would be summarily struck down, as patently illegal. No question about it.But who knows if the High Court would ever hear the case? Likely it wouldn’t, presumably because the New Jersey gun bill is similar to the D.C. law that was struck down. The New Jersey Legislature knows this. Very few cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.The New Jersey bill, as law, would be inconsistent with the D.C. gun bill but would be enforced by New Jersey anyway, unless or until it was struck down.Consider longstanding unconstitutional gun laws such as New York’s notorious “Safe Act”—which, itself, merely expands on unconstitutional laws going back decades. And the New York Legislature still expands upon the “Safe Act” slowly and inexorably engulfing and dissolving the whole of the Second Amendment.The “Safe Act” is, as we have expressly said, not the finalization of the work of Anti-Second Amendment zealots, but a work in progress, building upon the notorious, discriminatory Sullivan Act, enacted over one hundred and ten years ago.And while there have been challenges to New York’s gun laws through the century, following upon enactment of the Sullivan Act of 1911, look how long it took for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review of a major challenge to New York’s firearms’ licensing scheme. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners vs. City Of New York, commonly referred to and known as the New York City Gun Transport case. That case was decided in 2020, and it did not meet expectations.The liberal wing of the Court, along with the ostensibly conservative wing Chief Justice John Roberts—who, it seems, cajoled the Trump nominee Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to go along with him, adding a crucial fifth vote—emasculated the Gun Transport case. Justices Thomas and Alito were justifiably outraged.The High Court majority refused to review the case on the merits, thus allowing the massive, bloated, convoluted, confusing gun licensing edifice to remain intact.How much more damage can Anti-Second jurisdictions and the Harris-Biden Administration do to the Second Amendment before a decision in Bruen is published? Even today, we can see the stirrings of unrest among the anti-Second Amendment proponents.Using propaganda to focus the public’s attention anew on guns, the corrupt and senile messenger boy for the Marxists and Globalists is attempting to drum up public support for new assaults on the Second Amendment. Resurrecting the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, Biden said, as reported by The Hill:“‘As a nation, we owe all these families more than our prayers. We owe them action,’ Biden said in a video message released by the White House.He said the Senate needed to quickly pass three House-passed bills, one to extend background checks, another to keep guns out of the hands of abusers and his Build Back Better act that includes a $5 billion investment in community violence prevention and intervention.‘I know our politics are frustrating and can be frustrating and it’s particularly frustrating now. But we can’t give up hope, we can’t stop,’ Biden said.The president mentioned the school shootings in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 and in Oxford, Mich., last week, adding that similar shootings occur in Black and brown communities every day. The White House unveiled a fact sheet on Tuesday on the work the administration has done to combat gun violence, touting executive orders from the president to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns, which are untraceable guns assembled using parts bought online; regulate stabilizing braces used on firearms and help states enact red flag legislation, among other things. It also noted that local governments have used funding from the American Rescue Plan, which Biden signed into law in March, towards community violence intervention and hiring more law enforcement officers.When asked if there are any conversations about a filibuster carve-out to pursue gun legislation, a senior White House official didn’t comment directly.‘I think the president and the direct to camera really speaks to this issue in an impactful way. He shares in the frustration with gun safety advocates regarding the lack of progress made in Congress, and he also talks about the progress made in the past,’ a senior White House official said, referring to the video released on Tuesday. In the video, the president called Sandy Hook, which occurred during the Obama administration when he was vice president, ‘one of the saddest days we were in office. . . . We have to keep up the pressure.’”This is more than just a veiled threat. The Harris-Biden Administration is preparing a major assault on the Second Amendment, in part to deflect attention from Biden’s dismal poll numbers—hoping that most Americans will support a campaign to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it is a dangerous gamble that can backfire. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists know this but figure they have no choice given the 2022 Midterm elections that they must prepare for. The economy is in tatters. Foreign and Domestic policy is in complete disarray. Geopolitically, militarily, economically, socially, politically, the Country is in the throes of chaos. This is just as the Destructors of the Marxist/Globalist agenda intend, but they must convince the American public that the Nation is on the right path, “to build back better.”One must wonder who dreamed up that imbecilic slogan. It sounds oddly like the slogan in the old Burger King commercial: “the bigger the burger the better the burger. . . .” And that is what the Destructors of our Nation and their puppets are doing: grinding our Country and its people into hamburger meat._____________________________________

REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT OF THE BRUEN RULINGS IN NEW YORK, WHAT IMPACT WOULD BRUEN LIKELY HAVE ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS?

PART THREE

A ruling on Bruen likely won’t be handed down until next summer, keeping many New York gun owners and applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses in limbo for months. And it will be months longer still for the State and the New York City Licensing Division to redraft its concealed handgun carry license Rules, assuming a Bruen ruling requires that to happen.And what would be the impact of a ruling on Bruen in all other “may issue” jurisdictions?Would those jurisdictions construe the rulings in Bruen narrowly or broadly: applicable to those jurisdictions as well, or as having no impact on them?Given what we have seen to date, many jurisdictions blatantly ignore Heller whether the Heller holdings and reasoning are construed broadly or not.So, why then would or should one expect other “may issue” jurisdictions to give Bruen any credence?They ought to, of course. The right of armed self-defense, as a natural right, is not to be taken lightly in the United States, even as it goes unrecognized in other western nations, including the Commonwealth Nations and countries of the EU. And it is unrecognized by the UN, as we pointed out in prior articles.The breadth and depth of High Court rulings is not to be considered a matter of academic interest to legal scholars and legal historians only—as rulings to be adhered to or not, or as stringently or not, as this or that lower Federal and State Court wishes.U.S. Supreme Court holdings often do have or should have, real impact on our Nation even as many jurisdictions routinely misconstrue them. But is this inadvertent or not? Do these jurisdictions deliberately twist, contort and distort Second Amendment Heller and McDonald holdings and reasoning they don’t like?Do these jurisdictions alter Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning to suit their personal fancy about guns and gun possession, thus allowing Anti-Second Amendment agendas can continue to be pursued, unimpeded? It would seem so.And, this, is, unfortunately, a disturbingly familiar occurrence we see with those government actions that infringe the core of the Second Amendment.

ON THE MATTER OF “NARROW” AND “BROAD” U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS

But what constitutes a narrow or broad U.S. Supreme Court holding, really? What does the expression “narrowly tailored ruling” mean?This often perplexes the Federal Appellate Courts.See, e.g., United States vs. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit opined,“We do not think it profitable to parse [all the] passages of Heller as if they contained an answer to [all] the question[s] [of what] is valid. They are precautionary language. Instead of resolving questions such as the one we must confront, the Justices have told us that the matters have been left open. The language we have quoted warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: thatthe Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open. The opinion is not a comprehensive code; it is just an explanation for the Court's disposition. Judicial opinions must not be confused with statutes, and general expressions must be read in light of the subject under consideration.”So, if the issue of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the home is, as the 7th Circuit says, meant to be broadly construed—then why is it that some jurisdictions routinely choose to ignore Heller?The answer is plain: because they can and because they want to.NJ S.B. 3757 is a blatant example of this practice. The language of this bill is, in its import, essentially a rehash of the original D.C. handgun bill that the High Court struck down as unconstitutional.Many jurisdictions across the Country loathe the Second Amendment. And it is apparent that, given this loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they pretend Heller and McDonald don’t exist. This blatant dismissal of these two seminal cases enrages Justices Thomas and Alito to no end, and justifiably so.But the U.S. Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to see to it that its Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning are adhered to.Lower Courts are required to adhere to precedential rulings of higher Courts in their jurisdiction. And all Courts, State and Federal, are required to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are obligated to but often do not.Courts, in a very real sense, are merely on the honor system in this regard. They may be roundly chastised for failing to adhere to higher Court rulings, and should be, but, really, the worst that happens is these Court holdings are, simply, overturned on appeal.Jurists who flagrantly fail to adhere to precedential rulings get a pass. They have absolute immunity from liability.And, as we have heretofore pointed out, even if the High Court rulings were truly expansive, it is unlikely that Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions will pay heed to those rulings. They will attempt to find ways around them just as they have done with the rulings in Heller and McDonald; treating them with the same disdain and incredulity; rendering opinions that serve merely to torture and obfuscate the rulings and reasoning of the High Court. Nothing is likely to change as long as the citizenry keeps voting into Office individuals who support the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda.Anti-Second Amendment State legislatures that enact laws that violate the core of the Second Amendment continue the practice because they know their Courts will uphold the constitutionality of illegal laws if challenged. Thus, plaintiffs who might otherwise challenge the constitutionality of gun laws that flagrantly defy the Second Amendment and blithely ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent must think twice before doing so. They know they have an uphill battle.The attendant time wasted for plaintiffs, who challenge unconstitutional government gun regulations, and the attendant monetary costs associated with bringing such actions, are significant, and will usually amount to wasted effort.State and local Governments know this as do Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress.One must appeal to the next higher Court to obtain relief from adverse lower Court decisions. And Appellate Courts will often just rubber-stamp decisions of the Trial Courts. And, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court for review is, especially, no easy task. It is time-consuming and extremely expensive. And the High Court grants review in a pitifully small number of cases.It would be nice if the High Court could issue orders sua sponte, enjoining Governments from enacting laws that blithely ignore its Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings. But the Court cannot do this.Indeed, it would require a separate office within the Court just to keep tabs on all the unconstitutional actions of the State and Federal Governments and of the erroneous rulings coming out of lower Courts.But the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority even to efficiently monitor unconstitutional actions of government and erroneous rulings of lower Courts that negatively impact the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if it had the wherewithal and resources to keep tabs on unconstitutional gun laws.And within the High Court itself, several of the Justices all too often interpose their own philosophical prejudices and biases on the Second Amendment issues to be decided. And those prejudices and biases come into play even in the very construction of the legal issues.This has disturbing implications for Bruen. We discuss this matter in the next segment and in future articles._______________________________________________

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT WITH THE HELP OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONSTRAINS BRUEN

PART FOUR

It is a rather curious thing, when one stops to think about it, that the broad right of self-defense, and the narrower fundamental right contained in it and inextricably bound to it—the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of armed self-defense—would have to come up for review by the U.S. Supreme at all. After all, the right of self-defense/the right of self-preservation and the concomitant natural right of armed self-defense are axiomatic; self-evident true.One would think that, a Country such as ours, with a rich heritage of cherishing natural rights, would not have to suffer enactment of laws that place so many hurdles in the path of citizens who wish nothing more than to be able to exercise the rights the Bill of Rights guarantees them. The Second Amendment, though, is treated by those jurisdictions, controlled by Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as an outlier, even an outcast—a thing inconsistent with international norms and, so, something to be mercilessly attacked and eventually abrogated. Will this change?Many people, both proponents of the natural right of armed self-defense and its detractors, expect a decision in Bruen, when handed down next summer, will be expansive and all-encompassing and resurrect the Second Amendment’s status as a cherished right—a right absolutely essential to the maintenance of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and for the preservation of the Nation in the form of a free Republic for centuries to come.But, even with an expected Conservative wing majority, a positive decision will likely not be as broad-based and all-encompassing as proponents of the Second Amendment yearn for and expect and as the Amendment’s opponents anticipate and dread.Assume, for purpose of argument, that the High Court does strike down New York City’s notoriously oppressive and repressive “may issue” requirements involving the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses outright. How will this impact similar statutes in other “may issue” jurisdictions? The answer is clear.The Bruen ruling won’t affect other “may-issue” jurisdictions. It won’t affect the prerogative of State and Local Governments in these other jurisdictions that have, in place, their own may-issue procedures. The Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to that in having reframed the issue, as we explain below.A ruling for Plaintiff Petitioner would probably, at best, only serve to strike down unconstitutional procedures established by the City’s gun Licensing Division. Such a ruling would not logically or legally entail the dissolution of “may issue” regulations. It would just impact the particular procedures the City presently employs when rendering its decision.In order for a Bruen majority opinion ruling to be compelling, it would have to be all-encompassing. This means the Court would have to rule that the very notion of “may issue” concealed handgun carry licenses, instead of “shall issue” concealed handgun carry licenses—in the absence of major failings in a person, including, for example, a felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge from the military, mental incompetence, or illegal alien residency in the Country—are logically inconsistent with the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment regardless of procedures utilized. See, 18 USCS § 922(g).And the Court should render a ruling on this because geographical constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are absurd.For, if a law-abiding, rational, responsible person has the right to preserve his or her life and safety with a firearm, being no threat to another innocent person, how is one’s life and safety to be adduced more valuable in one locale—one’s home say—but not in another locale, i.e., outside one’s home.The Court should respond to this but won’t do that, and the reason is plain: Built-in constraints due to the framing of the issue before the Court preclude a decisive ruling on the exercise of armed self-defense outside one’s home.That is not to say all the Justices would be pleased by this, for the idea behind “may issue” impacts and infringes the very core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. “May issue” is an affront to the Second Amendment and logically contradicts the very import and purport of the sacred right.From their writings and musings on the Second Amendment, Justices Alito and Thomas would, if they could, strike down “may issue” gun regulations across the board, both as utilized in the City of New York and around the Country. But they can’t. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to this.Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were keenly aware of the ramifications of a major ruling on New York City’s “may issue” regimen if “may issue” were on the table. These Justices abhor other profound rulings as in Heller and McDonald. The entire legality of “may issue” should have been on the table. It should have been on the table, but it isn’t.Roberts and the liberal wing had thought very carefully through this, and they made sure that “may issue” gun licenses would not be targeted, even as Plaintiff Petitioner brought the very issue of “may issue” to the fore, as the question goes to the heart of whether, or to what extent, there should be limitations on where the right of armed self-defense is to be exercised.There should be no geographical parameters defined apropos of one’s exercise of the right of armed self-defense but there will be.____________________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT DIDN’T LIKE THE ISSUE AS PETITIONERS PRESENTED IT IN BRUEN

PART FIVE

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING DEMANDED THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED, BE RECAST, TO MAKE IT PALATABLE TO THEM

The question for review, succinctly but broadly presented by Petitioner in his Brief in Corlett(recaptioned Bruen) was,“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”This is a broad-based issue that questions the legality/constitutionality of may issue/atypicality requirements, on any conceivable interpretation.The issue as presented to the Court is meant to question the constitutionality of “may issue” concealed handgun carry regimes not only in New York City but in every jurisdiction in the Land. And that is precisely what Petitioners set out to do.The Bruen Petitioners clearly and concisely challenged the idea of Anti-Second Amendment proponents that an unassailable right of armed self-defense does not extend beyond the doorstep of one’s home.Recall that the Heller Court confined its ruling on the geographical perimeters of armed self-defense to the issue at hand: whether an individual has a right of immediate access to a handgun for self-defense inside one’s home.In answering that question, many jurisdictions interpreted the ruling as applying only to the District of Columbia, when the Court never stated or implied that the ruling on the right of immediate access to a firearm inside one’s home is directed to the District of Columbia gun codes and doesn’t implicate similar gun codes or laws in other jurisdictions. In fact, the implication is that the right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home does apply to all jurisdictions.Many State Governments and State and Federal Courts also interpreted the Heller decision as suggesting that a right of armed self-defense doesn’t extend beyond the doorstep to one’s home, regardless of the jurisdiction, but is to be confined—if there is to be such a recognized right at all—only to one’s home.But that idea is simply wrong. The High Court’s silence on the issue meant only that the issue was not before the Court. So, nothing further was to be presumed or deduced from that ruling.New Jersey’s bill, S. 3757, requiring disassembly of firearms in one’s home erroneously presumes the Heller ruling was meant to apply very narrowly only to the District of Columbia. Either that or the New Jersey Legislature didn’t care if the Heller ruling was meant to apply to other jurisdictions, figuring that, if wrong about its application to other jurisdictions, it didn’t matter. The Legislature knew that, if S. 3757 were enacted, a gun owner, unhappy with the law, would have to challenge its constitutionality in Court to obtain recourse—a time-consuming and expensive ordeal.Yet, one’s right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home is not to be presumed to be locale-specific. The ruling applies to all jurisdictions, albeit tacitly, but still unmistakably, by logical implication. Still, the Heller Court ruling didn’t expressly assert the universality of the ruling. It should have done so. The Court should have articulated clearly and categorically that its ruling on one’s Constitutional right of immediate access to a handgun inside the home, for purpose of self-defense—although directed to the D.C. gun codes—was meant to apply, as a general holding, throughout the Country. But the Court didn’t do that.Likely Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito wanted to make the ruling unambiguous on that score but could not do so if they were to gain a majority. That would require positive votes from Chief Justice Roberts and from Justice Kennedy, and those Justices wanted the ruling to remain narrow and nebulous as to its application in other jurisdictions. The only clearly broad-based holding in Heller is that where the Heller Court held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia.As to the impact of specific rulings on the D.C. gun codes on other jurisdictions, for one to infer or assume that the rulings on the D.C. gun code rulings do not apply and were not meant to apply outside the District is implausible, but theoretically possible—hence the draft legislation in New Jersey:S. 3757. And that follows from the fact that the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy wanted to make clear that the Heller ruling was not intended to constrain the right of States to regulate the citizen’s access to guns. That message came out loud and clear and Justice Scalia was compelled to make that assertion explicit, assertingAnd this takes us back to Bruen.On granting the writ for certiorari in Bruen, on April 26, 2021, the Court recast the salient issue very narrowly: “Granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of Petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court “gamed the system,” even though some legal scholars don’t wish to acknowledge this and some patently deny it.Amy Howe, for one, erstwhile preeminent editor and reporter of SCOTUSblog, who regularly covers U.S. Supreme Court cases, and who ostensibly has an inside track on the musings of the High Court, made light of the Court’s recasting of the issue. Howewrites, in part, “After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall with a decision expected sometime next year.” But will Bruen lead to a landmark ruling? Is this recasting of the issue in Bruen a big deal? Amy Howe, apparently, doesn’t think it is, or at least, won’t admit it if she harbors any reservation about it. But we do believe the matter is a big deal and are not reticent about asserting this. If this recasting of the issue in Bruen amounted truly to a slightly narrower question, as Amy Howe asserts, then why would the Court bother to reconfigure the issue at all? The answer to this question is alluded in Heller, as we explain in the next segment.____________________________________

WHY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT INSISTED ON RECASTING THE LEGAL ISSUE IN BRUEN

PART SIX

To understand why Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were adamant that the Bruen issue be recast narrowly and in the form that it was, it is necessary to go back to the reasoning in Heller. It is pertinent to the matter at hand to understand why the Court dealt with the paramount issue of whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia because that wasn’t an issue in the case, as framed. In the opening sentences of Heller case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said:“We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns.  It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited [citations omitted]. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods [citations omitted]. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device’ unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities [citation omitted].”The Heller majority opined that the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in the home along with the requirement of disassembly of all firearms in the home hit at the very heart of the Second Amendment, as the D.C. Government did intend for it to do.But, Justice Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, knew quite well, that it was impossible logically to rule against the District of Columbia’s draconian gun law without ruling on the ultimate issue—tantalizingly kept at bay since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791:Does the right of the people to keep and bear arms constitute an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia” or only a collective right, contingent on one’s service in a militia?Of course, to anyone with even a smidgeon of understanding of law and logic, and who is intellectually honest, knows that the import of the right as codified in the Second Amendment is clear on its face.But many academicians and many jurists, too, have for decades, erroneously treated the right as a “collective right” only. And they still maintain that, even after Heller made categorical and irrefutable what was already clear from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment’s language.One’s philosophical or emotional bent often gets in the way of one’s intellectual reasoning faculty.If proponents of the collective right thesis were correct, then any government regulation on gun ownership and possession must be construed as lawful and constitutional so long as a “rational basis” for the government action existed.This means that, while a collective right of the militia to keep and bear arms must be construed as a fundamental right and an action infringing that right would require stringent review of the government’s action, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms would not require such scrutiny. That is bizarre, to be sure, but that is consistent with the “collective right to keep and bear arms” thesis.Taking that thesis as true, arguendo, then an individual challenging the legality of government action, arguing an infringement of his right to keep and bear arms would not invoke stringent court review of the constitutionality of the Court action. A reviewing Court would only have to determine whether the government action bore a reasonable connection to achieving a legitimate State or Federal objective, nothing more. And That is an easy test to meet.Thus, if the Heller Court had not dealt with the underlying issue at the heart of the case—the case would have been decided much differently. The District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns would be ruled legal and Constitutional, as would the government’s requirement that all firearms be disassembled and not available for immediate self-defense use, even in the confines of one’s home. This is tantamount to denying a right to armed self-defense—period.Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito determined that they would not let the opportunity to decide the paramount Second Amendment issue pass. And, given the indomitability of Scalia’s will, and through the power and tenacity of his spirit, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, reluctantly went along. And, so, the Court majority ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.But Justice Scalia is no longer with us. Can Justices Thomas and Alito take up the slack? Bruen likely won’t be the next blockbuster case supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the extent that Heller is. And, a decision on the merits, unlike the New York Gun Transport case, will be forthcoming. The New York Government cannot amend the gun licensing scheme in a manner that would keep the entire structure intact as it did in the Gun Transport case.For “may issue” is really at the heart of New York’s licensing regime. If “may issue” goes, the entire New York handgun licensing structure comes crashing down._________________________________________

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

The U.S. Supreme Court, knows that the driving mechanism of the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests on the assumption, taken as axiomatic, self-evident true, that the right is grounded on the natural, fundamental right of armed self-defense that itself is inextricably bound to the basic right of self-preservation and personal selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy. The right exists inherently in each person as an individual Soul, as the Divine Creator intended.If the Second Amendment were to be treated as a “collective right,” that is tantamount to saying there is no right at all. The right would be nugatory, because  right would belong solely to the State, not to the person.The framers of the Constitution couldn’t have meant that. They didn’t put pen to paper just to waste ink. Moreover, such an interpretation would conflict with the very import of the Bill of Rights, essentially deflating the import of the entirety of it. For, without a personal right of armed self-defense, man is vulnerable to attack from predatory beast, which is bad; and from predatory man, which is worse; and  from the predatory government, which is worst of all.So, in Heller, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito took that opportunity—when it finally came around—to pointedly and decisively hold that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This of, course, is plain from the text of the Second Amendment but since many courts and scholars choose to ignore it, pretending that the language of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, the High Court made the point clear, so that no one can conveniently obfuscate the meaning of the language.Note: the issue as to the meaning of the nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms was never before the Heller Court. The only two issues before the Court were whether:“the total ban on handguns under D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4), as well as the requirement under D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 that firearms be kept nonfunctional, violated exercise of the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.”But, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito knew that striking down these Statutes would do little to constrain a government that abhors civilian citizen exercise of the Second Amendment right, unless the High Court made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and not a privilege to be bestowed on a person by government prior to exercising the right.The District of Columbia would continue to enact new laws that did much the same thing as the old laws. Anti-Second Amendment Governments would have to exercise more discretion and creativity in denying Americans their God-given right.Once the right is understood clearly, succinctly, and unambiguously, to be an individual natural right, rather than a Government bestowed privilege, it is easy for reviewing courts to ascertain whether government action constrain exercise of the core individual right.Of course that should happen but didn’t happen. The recent New Jersey bill, for one, is evidence of  rabid disdain of many in Government toward the Second Amendment. It also demonstrates the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment in continuing to drum up more and more unconstitutional codes, regulations, ordinances, and statutes despite of and in spite of the clear pronouncement in Heller. Resistance to Heller is obdurate.Still, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had held out the hope that a clear and categorical pronouncement on the import of the Second Amendment would constrain resistant vocal forces in Government. And, in fact Anti-Second Amendment Courts cannot dismiss the salient holding of Heller out-of-hand, but must remark on it, even as they strain to uphold unconstitutional gun laws, as they continually do.Be that as it may—At least in Heller, with the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right now, finally, laid to rest—and not to be denied out-of-hand the Heller Court could deal effectively with the issue at bar in Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said,“We turn finally to the law at issue here.  As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.” But, the impact of Heller on Bruen may be minimal. Even if the High Court finds the New York City Rule to be unconstitutional and strikes it down, this only amounts to a finding simply that the decision on the Plaintiff Petitioners’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license was unconstitutional. An answer to the “narrow question” as reframed, only requires that; nothing more.At best, the High Court can, consistent with the rephrasing of the question on review, find the City’s procedures for determining whether an applicant meets the stringent requirements of ‘atypicality’ to be inadequate.If that is to happen, a remand of the case to the trial court would require the trial court to strike down the procedures now in place in New York City, and instruct the Government to promulgate new procedures for handling the licensing of concealed handgun carry licenses. This, unsurprisingly, is what the Respondents have requested. It would be a satisfactory win for them. For the constitutionality of atypicality would go unanswered: The handgun licensing structure of New York would remain intact; and the core issue the Petitioners wanted decided—an unqualified right of armed self-defense outside the home—would remain unresolved.And the redrafting of New York City’s “may issue” procedures would likely be no better than the ones currently in place, because the NYPD License Division would still retain authority to grant or reject applications: an inherently subjective judgment call.Moreover, the ramifications of “may issue” procedures only impact New York—consistent with the issue as restated. Other “may issue” jurisdictions can proceed as they always have.Anyone who questions “may issue” procedures in other jurisdictions would have to file their own challenges. This would necessitate another appeal, by another petitioner, to the High Court, requesting review of another “may issue” procedure of that other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction, assuming relief from a lower court is not forthcoming.The ensuing problems for Americans who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms are endless and intractable. And the Court is not likely to take up a similar issue, leaving forever open the right of armed self-defense.But the most critical point to be made is one that no one else, to our knowledge has even considered. It is  that—The right of the people to keep and bear arms tacitly embraces the right of self-defense which entails the right of personal autonomy——the quintessential right upon which the sanctity and inviolability of one’s own Soul depends.The framers of the Constitution took that most basic of natural rights to be self-evident true. They took this fact to be so obvious that express mention of it was deemed unnecessary—even by the Antifederalist framers who demanded that several of the salient natural rights be codified.Thus, the Second Amendment expressly asserts and emphasizes only the need for the people to always be armed and at the ready to secure a free State, against incursion of tyranny of Government. It is for this reason that the people remain armed that the sanctity of their Selfhood can be free from Government intrusion and free from Government impediment: untouched, unsoiled, untrampled, undiminished.Having successfully fought off one tyrannical government, the founders of the Republic had dire concerns of any strong centralized government. Even with the checks and balances of the Federal Government they constructed, they knew that this Government, too, had within the seeds of it, the danger of tyranny—an unavoidable fact of the worst of human nature. An armed citizenry was the ultimate preventive medicine against that.But, if armed defense is contained and constrained within the confines of one’s home, then the implicit message is that no American has the unalienable right to employ defensive arms against tyranny of Government, for the structures of Government power exist outside one’s home.And containment of the Second Amendment and the panoply of other Rights of the Bill of Rights is just how Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists presently running the show in Government and throughout the Country intend to keep it at least for the time being, until such time as they consolidate enough control and power to erase all of it.___________________________________

DON’T EXPECT BRUEN TO BE THE DECISIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ONE’S SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT AS HELLER AND MCDONALD PROVIDED

PART EIGHT

The issue before the High Court, as reformulated, in Bruen, requires the Court only to determine whether the City’s rules for granting concealed carry handgun licenses are arbitrary and capricious.The Court thus leaves undecided the principal issue that the Petitioner wanted the Court to review, namely whether the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the confines of one’s home, making clear what the Heller Court didn’t rule on: the expansiveness of armed self-defense—beyond the confines of the home—as the founders of a free Republic understood the natural right.After all, what is one to make of saying a person has a right to armed self-defense in some places but not others, other than to reaffirm the right of Government to continue to place unconstitutional restrictions the on exercise of the right of armed self-defense. The idea is absurd on its face, and negatively implicates the very notion of self-defense, armed or otherwise.Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could write concurring opinions taking the Court to task for not ruling on the most important issue, whether armed self-defense extends everywhere; and probably will do this if one or the other Justice is not assigned to draft the majority opinion. But a concurrence would amount to dicta only, not a Court ruling.The High Court will most likely confine its ruling, or rulings, to addressing New York City’s “may issue” procedure, which is the way Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had the issue restructured and that is what the Respondents wanted.This smacks of a “cop-out.” And we have seen this before, in the Court’s handling of the previous New York City Gun Transport case. That is what the Respondent City had in fact requested in oral argument. If the City gets that much, then they essentially win, and anti-Second Amendment advocates will breathe a collective sigh of relief. For, the salient issue, as to whether the right of the people to carry firearms for self-defense outside one’s home, which Heller didn’t address and, in fact, painfully avoided—as Roberts and Kennedy likely insisted upon—remained unexamined.And, this would be just as Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court would want to continue to leave it, as this would keep the perceived “damage” ofHeller and McDonald within rigid, narrowly defined contours.Anti-Second Amendment Courts and governments will continue operating as they have been operating all along: pretending Heller and McDonald never existed, and continually pressing for more and more repugnant, restrictive, repressive firearms' laws. And as those seminal Second Amendment cases have routinely been ignored, now one would add Bruen.This must have vexed Justice Scalia. The Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, compelled Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to soften the impact of Heller, which, at its core made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests well beyond the lawful ability of Government to abrogate. But tension would remain between the categorical natural right of the people to own and possess firearms and the desire of State Governments to exercise their own police powers to constrain and restrict the right to the point that the right would cease to exist. And, the Federal Government, for its part, would have its own reason to erase the idea of a right of the people to keep and bear arms that rests beyond the lawful power of that Federal Government to erase, modify, abrogate, dismiss, or simply ignore. For an armed citizenry would, in its very existence threaten tyranny. And that is something the Federal Government has always been uneasy with, and all the more so now, with Counterrevolutionary Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists hell-bent on disassembling a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state that it may be successfully merged into a supra-national, transnational governmental construct.Did the late Justice Antonin Scalia surmise this? Did he see this coming? Did he attempt to prevent it? And did powerful, ruthless forces, beholding to no nation and to no set of laws recognize this, and initiate plans to prevent anyone and anything that might thwart their plans for a new political, social, economic, financial, cultural, and juridical governmental construct: a new world order. In such a scheme the concept of the nation-state is archaic, serving no functional purpose. And the idea of a people as sole sovereign ruling body over Government is particularly dangerous and abhorrent. _________________________________

THE HELLER CASE ILLUSTRATES THE TENSION AT WORK TODAY IN AMERICA, BETWEEN TRUE PATRIOTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE THE NATION AS A FREE REPUBLIC AND THE TRAITORS INTENT ON DEMOLISHING ALL OF IT

PART NINE

In the last paragraph of the Heller majority opinion, one sees the results of the demand placed on Justice Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy compelled Scalia to expressly assert the right of States to exert control over the right of the people to keep and bear arms.There is manifest tension here between the right and of the individual to retain sole and absolute possession and control over and enjoyment of use in his firearms as his personal property and the State's opposition to the individual's absolute authority over his personal property rights in his firearms. The State insists on placing constraints on the exercise of the citizen's control over his own firearms, and the citizen insists on repulsing the State. Scalia was forced to make allowance for Government to constrain what is an irrefutable, absolute right. He was compelled to throw a bone to the Anti-Second Amendment Marxists and Globalists by making explicit the reference to “gun violence, they insisted on.But one also sees Scalia’s intention to have the last word, both alluding to and denying that the Second Amendment will not be made extinct—at least not on Scalia’s watch. The pity that this eminent, jurist, who had demonstrated true reverence for our Nation’s Bill of Rights would have no hand in penning an opinion in Bruen. That Justice Scalia is no longer with us, Americans are all the worst without him.For the danger of tyranny of Government is most acute today, and there is no greater need for an armed citizenry today, to thwart tyranny. And Justice Scalia knew this well. He ended the Heller majority opinion with these words: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.  The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns [citation omitted]. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.  These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.  That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Unfortunately for us Americans, the Second Amendment could very well go extinct given the current unhealthy climate in this Country, deliberately worsened through Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist provocation, driving the Country to a Civil War.Retired Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer responded directly to Justice Scalia’s closing remarks in Heller. They caustically remonstrated against him, provoking him by asserting erroneously and absurdly that, to call the right of the people to keep and bear arms an individual right, is to have the Court create a right that doesn’t exist in the Bill of Rights. Really?And, Stevens and Breyer further insulted the late Justice by remarking that it is for Government to define the rights that the people have through the policy choices that Government makes. Justice Stevens and Breyer invoked the tired erroneous claim that whatever right to keep and bear arms exists in the Second Amendment,that right is a collective right, which is to say, a Government sanctioned privilege. In so saying they rebuked Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito, casually dismissing out-of-hand, the salient, paramount holding of Heller.In their joined Dissent, Stevens and Breyer write,“Untiltoday, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia.  The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.  Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a ‘law-abiding, responsible citize[n]’ the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is ‘off the table.’    Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.”“I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the ‘breaking point’ envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.” Note, that Breyer, who still serves on the High Court, asserts his fear, in Heller, that the Court might actually proclaim that armed self-defense does exist outside the realm of one’s home.If Justice Scalia were still alive and serving on the Court, he would indeed make clear, in Bruen, that the right of armed self-defense outside the home is within the core meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. But, with Scalia gone, the Bruen case—that would have become the third seminal Second Amendment case—creating a triumphant Second Amendment Triumvirate of seminal cases, sanctifying the Bill of Rights, will not be.The Destroyers, Destructors, and Defilers of our Republic will continue pressing to wear down the American psyche and spirit.The Bruen rulings will likely amount to little more than a bee sting to the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, having little negative impact on New York, and no impact on Anti-Second Amendment Governments across the Nation and no discernible impact on Anti-Second Amendment forces in the Federal Government.The “atypicality” requirement will remain. Just the procedures in granting concealed handgun carry licenses in New York City would change.And nothing would change for other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions as they will retain their own “atypicality” requirements unless those procedures are successfully challenged in their own Courts of competent jurisdiction.All the problems attendant to the Federal and State Governments’ refusal to recognize the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will remain unscathed.And, from what we gather coming out of Biden’s maw and that of the illustrious Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, of late, the seeming impenetrable castle walls assiduously built by the Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning, remain under siege, and in danger of successful breach at the first opportunity._____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ABSURDITY OF BIDEN’S CALL FOR NATIONAL UNITY

As this article goes to post on the Arbalest Quarrel, we are only a few hours away from the beginning of the New Year. We would like to say that this New Year, 2021, would see President Trump sworn in on January 20, 2021, for his second term in Office, where he would work further on behalf of the Nation to cement his “America First” Legacy for future generations of Americans to come.As we say, we would like to see this, but it is becoming increasingly evident that we won’t see this even though we should see this.If one but looks at mountains of evidence of elections fraud it has become increasingly apparent to everyone, but the most obtuse among us, that Trump did indeed win the election. But the ruthless, powerful, well-organized, inordinately wealthy and eternally secretive and insufferable neoliberal globalist elites have, with the assistance of the media and Press that they control and with the active assistance of the courts that they oversee, clamped down hard on all attempts to bring this evidence out into the light of day to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, the sanctity of the Constitution and the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. If anyone harbors doubt about the truth of this conclusion, one need only look at the recent actions of the highest law enforcement official in the Land, Attorney General William Barr, and of the action of the highest Court in the Land, the U.S. Supreme Court.On December 1, 2020, The Associated Press reported Barr as saying that “the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”Let’s take a closer look at this remark. It suggests the Justice Department did find evidence of voter fraud, but Barr refuses to elaborate on the nature of that evidence; how that evidence was gathered; who did the investigating, and the extent of the investigation. And Barr says nothing about releasing a report on that investigation. Moreover, even if it were true that such evidence that was uncovered would not change the outcome of the election, that still begs the question as to the integrity of the 2020 election.Barr’s assertion is nothing more than an oblique attempt to hide from public scrutiny a matter the importance of which goes to the future of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State. The seditious Press was satisfied with Barr's action. It would be. Not one to investigate the matter of wholesale elections fraud itself, and having taken an active role in ridiculing evidence of fraud, the seditious Press certainly wouldn't take kindly to a DOJ and FBI investigation that put the lie to the Press narrative. Shortly, after Barr made his 0ffhand remark to the AP, Barr submitted his resignation as AG. One cannot  but wonder: Was Barr threatened, compromised? His perfunctory remarks to the AP are wholly out of character. Barr is not the sort of person who would willingly surrender on a matter of such monumental importance — a thing that decidedly and decisively impacts the future of our Country; indeed, a thing that portends the end of our Country as a free Constitutional Republic if it is Biden who in fact takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021, and not Donald Trump.Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. Here we have three perspicacious Justices—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—silently going along with Roberts, who must have made clear to the three junior Associate Justices that under no circumstance must the Texas case, Texas vs. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ____ (December 11, 2020) be entertained. Yet, who but the U.S. Supreme Court could allow a State versus State case to proceed?Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in clear terms:“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”In a brief, perfunctory Order, the Court Majority dismissed the case,  asserting that Texas does not have standing to sue. Really?For the Supreme Court to  assert that Texas did not have standing to bring action against another State on the matter of how a state conducts its elections, the Court cavalierly skirted the underlying question at stake: whether the matter in which Pennsylvania conducted the election for the United States President did in fact unconstitutionally negatively impact how Texas and other States conduct their own election. The framers of the Constitution made certain that the Constitution would give, indeed must give, to the Highest Court in the Land original jurisdiction in a State versus State lawsuit precisely because no lower Federal or State Court could ever have the authority to hear a legal dispute between one sovereign State and another sovereign State.And so, we have the prospect that the Great Pretender, Joseph Biden, the Manchurian Candidate and the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ Candidate for U.S. President will become the U.S. President, and thereupon make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. In administering the Oath of Office to Joseph Biden, Americans will bear witness to the final touch of farce. We may be seeing John Roberts, himself, as having played an active role in the takeover of our Nation, an elaborate hoax, the greatest tragedy to ever beset our Nation as the elevation of the Grand Imposter, Joe Biden, to the highest elected Office in the Land will mark the nadir of the United States. The U.S. will become a Dictatorship, where a consortium of ruthless powerful individuals and groups behind the scenes, along with Xi Jinping's Communist China, operating as the true rulers, utilizing their puppets, Biden and Harris and lesser Government figures, to institute a radical transformation of the Nation, an “inverted totalitarian regime,” to be immersed in and absorbed into a one world system of governance.

JOE BIDEN, THE GREAT UNIFIER?

Joe Biden’s call for “unity” is as nonsensical and as farcical as anything else that comes out of his mouth.Likely, Biden never came up with the idea for he lacks both intellect and imagination. But a vast coterie of Democrat Party handlers, speech writers, political consultants, acting coaches, and image makers apparently thought it would be good thing to utilize; something to wrap this listless, inept, empty vessel in, at once proclaiming this stooge to be a savior that he would deign, or dare, to save Americans from themselves.Have him yap long enough and often enough about unity, cooperation, solidarity, and togetherness and perhaps the American public will warm up to him, come around to accept him as a leader of the Nation, as the leader of the Nation: the Great Unifier, the Grand Unifier, the High Lord muck-a-muck of Civility and Propriety in contrast to that awful Disuniter—that brusque, uncouth, Racist, Misogynist a.k.a. Donald Trump.The mega billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites of the world must take Americans for fools; either that, or they take Americans for complete idiots.Don’t they realize the word ‘unity,’ apropos of a Nation’s people, only makes sense in the context OF A NATION, which, under a Biden Presidency would be a shaky and murky proposition at best. The Billionaire Globalists, along with the Marxist unionists, the Globalist elites’ foot soldiers, want none of that. Their goal is to merge our Nation with those of other western nations into a single world, transnational union—encompassing geographical regions, spread out across the Earth—comprising billions of people, a heterogeneous glob that shares neither common values and culture, nor unifying traditions and histories.If one can sensibly talk of a grand unity at all, it is something the destroyers of our Nation want; what it is the mega-Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists and the rabid, Globalist Marxists and Anarchists both want; and what it is both are intent on delivering to Americans: A Collectivist vision of the world finally realized, a veritable nightmare in which the populations of the developed countries are dragged down to the level of third world countries. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”—perceived by the Globalist elite and by the Marxists as a veritable obscenity agenda to be recast as and transmogrified into “Make America.”Both billionaire neoliberal globalists and trans-global Marxists and Anarchists find common ground on that score, if little else. But their goal of a one world order requires the demolishing of a free Constitutional Republic.The puppet masters’ marionettes, Biden and Harris, will happily assist them in this task, no less so than had Barack Obama, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton before Biden and Harris.But the Collectivist vision of a one world government is not what most Americans want, and it certainly isn’t something they need. It is decidedly and decisively what most of us don’t want and what anyone of us would need about as much as the plague sent to us courtesy of the Chinese Communist Government.The Collectivist vision of a one world government is wholly inconsistent with what our free Constitutional Republic demands: preservation of the Nation’s Constitution, grounded on the tenets of Individualism; an independent sovereign Nation-State where the American people themselves are the ultimate sovereign authority.How can two mutually exclusive visions of political and social reality cohere? Quite simply, they can’t. Still, there are some who talk glowingly of a unifying American spirit that seemingly transcends differing visions of the Nation, of the world, and of reality. But sober reflection demonstrates how preposterous such an idea is.Back in March 2020 the former Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. In that Op-Ed Jindal acknowledged the deep divide in America but claimed a unifying American spirit, reflected in his pronouncement, “there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise.”Jindal wrote in significant part,“America’s current political polarization seems to favor candidates like Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders, who mobilize their respective bases. The most committed conservative and progressive activists find common ground in their celebration of partisanship. They see fierce competition between principled partisans in the marketplace of ideas as benefiting the nation.Despite their deep ideological differences, they share a grudging respect for their political combatants, preferring them to be ‘cold or hot,’ in contrast with their ‘lukewarm’ fellow partisans. These activists view bipartisan compromises—from the Clinton-era crime and welfare reforms to the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare expansion—as capitulations.Yet Mr. Biden’s decisive victory in South Carolina suggests there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise. He may be wrong about many policies, but he’s right to try to include the other side and to denounce the growing hostility across ideological and partisan divides. Bipartisanship is built on recognizing differences, but also on recognizing that what unites Americans is stronger than what divides us.It is built on humility—on the recognition that the other side has value. Conservatives dedicated to limited government should be grateful for liberals ensuring society considers the needs of the poor. Liberals dedicated to powerful and expansive government should be grateful for conservatives ensuring that society generates prosperity and protects individual liberty.”Bobby Jindal ends his Op-Ed asserting,“A driving force behind today’s polarization is a combination of arrogance and insecurity. Liberals talk confidently of the coming demographic wave—growing numbers of female, young, college-educated, minority, urban and secular voters they believe guarantee them a majority sooner or later. They are impatient for conservatives to convert or die. Many conservatives view their plans as blessed by divine providence. Yet both sides act with a desperate urgency that belies their stated confidence, as if losing the next election could permanently endanger their beliefs.The path to civility requires both parties to display the humble belief that the other side consists of good, patriotic Americans with valuable insights, as well as the confident determination that their own beliefs are enduring and can eventually emerge victorious. That may prove a winning message for Mr. Biden.”Well, if this were Biden’s message it certainly isn’t a winning one.Sure, a few Americans might have viewed Jindal’s March 2020 article, at the time of posting, as conveying a message of hope and yearning for reconciliation.But jump ahead to the post 2020 election—an election result that, on its face, is so statistically anomalous and one that is so laden with criminal fraud and deceit, as to understandably generate and provoke anger and resentment in a vast majority of Americans as they see a free Republic literally wrenched from them.In retrospect, Jindal’s Op-Ed comes across as quaint and flowery, wistful, naïve, and syrupy at best, and, at worst, a thing trite, banal, nonsensical, even insulting.In fact, Jindal apparently realized the flaws in his earlier Op-Ed, for, in August 2020, he recalibrated his remarks. Gone was any message of hope and trust for a better future for our Country. Jindal saw things as they truly are, as manifesting uncomfortably in front of him. He wrote,“Rather than making the traditional move to the center after he secured the nomination, Mr. Biden has continued to move left. He seems more worried about persuading Mr. Sanders’s supporters to turn out than convincing Mr. Trump’s voters to consider a moderate alternative.Mr. Biden embraced identity politics by promising to name a female running mate. Anticipating a sweep of Congress, Democrats have announced their support for abolishing the Senate filibuster and pay-as-you-go rules. Democrats covet these new powers for the majority not to pursue moderate bipartisan policies. They would likely try to expand the courts, grant statehood to the District of Columbia, restrict gun ownership, give unions more power, and ease immigration restrictions and their enforcement.”How much further have we come since Jindal’s August 2020 Op-Ed, on the cusp of a new year, January 1, 2021. In Biden’s staged remarks, and in the selection of his Cabinet, we are witnessing the marshalling of forces to finally cement complete and lasting victory for the adherents of the Counter-revolution: the neoliberal Globalist elites and the transnational Marxists and Anarchists.Newfangled and singularly bizarre concepts of identity politics, critical race theory, intersectionality—mindless neologisms, concocted by and perpetuated by Marxists, all with the blessing of billionaire Globalist elites—have become Biden’s guiding principles, as perceived in Biden’s cabinet selection.In the Collectivist vision of the world, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” imperative, which embraces the notion of “America First,” has no place. Well beyond New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disdainful remark, delivered in a 2018 speech, that “America was never that great,”—alluding to and mocking Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan and at once contemptuous of our Nation’s traditions, history, heritage, and core values—we now have in Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, the neocon Anthony Blinken who, in a Biden Administration, is a man who eschews the notion of “America First,” whose foreign policy methodology marks a return to multilateral consensus building with western world leaders, all of whom acquiesce to a belligerent Communist China.If Biden does in fact ascend to the U.S. Presidency on January 20, 2021, and that appears to be more and more certain now, those Americans who adhere to their sacred values, traditions, and heritage, must not succumb to the idea that, come 2022, they will hold onto the Senate and retake the House, and that, in 2024, they will have an opportunity to revive a free Constitutional Republic along with their sacred, natural rights by reelection of Donald Trump as U.S. President. That is wishful thinking in the extreme.A Biden/Harris Presidency will move quickly to reverse all Trump’s gains and will plow ahead on many fronts to dismantle our Constitution, and our Nation-State. A free Constitutional Republic is breathing its last.We, Americans, stand to lose everything that truly defines us as Americans, as the concept of ‘American’ would be understood by our founding fathers; not as Neoliberal Globalist power brokers and Globalist Marxists and Anarchists twist and warp the concept out of any semblance of coherent, historical meaning and context.Once lost—our sacred rights and freedoms, our individuality, our existence as a true sovereign, independent Nation—those things that we cherish most are not coming back. The Globalist elites and their Marxist and Anarchist foot soldiers will see to it that they don’t._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SAVAGING OF AMERICA: FORGET ABOUT BIDEN; IT’S GOING TO BE TRUMP VERSUS HARRIS

MOBOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY

PART ONE

Marcus Antonius spoke, thus, “And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,With Hate by his side come hot from hell,Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voiceCry, “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war, That this this foul deed shall smell above the earth With Carrion men, groaning for burial. Citation from Shakespeare’s historical play, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1War is upon us. Make no mistake about it. Be prepared to arm up. The survival of our Republic is at stake!The sad thing is very few people will acknowledge this, even as some do embrace it, want it, even demand it. Many deny it, scoff at the idea of it, but most everyone, at some level, feels it.All that we Americans have seen and heard in the last few months compels our acceptance of it, the hard, cold realization of it; and what it means for us.But is this a modern American “civil war”—a race war—a clash between purported do-gooders demanding an accounting for people of color and privileged white oppressors, as the hordes of mindless Radicals endlessly shout and as a seditious Press echoes?No! this is not a “race war” and never was, and calling it so, doesn’t make it so.This is mere artifice, a stratagem concocted by the Nation’s Destructor Antagonists—the discontented Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists who have lost patience with the American electorate—an electorate that threw a wrench in their plans for world domination; an electorate that audaciously voted into Office an outsider, a businessman, who sought merely to return the Country to its rightful heirs: the American citizenry.The Antagonist Destructors of our Nation see this and won’t allow it; won’t permit President Trump to serve a second term in Office. They plan to defeat Trump in the coming election by chicanery and unlawful acts if they can; by brute force if they cannot. They haven’t disguised their intentions. They really cannot. This is their last chance and they know it.They have brainwashed many; hoodwinked many others. The Nation is in their grasp: November 3, 2020 is the date set for the Governmental coup d’état.These ruthless forces both here and abroad have embraced a strategy to destroy the U.S. Constitution itself, the very fabric of our Nation. Once accomplished they will go to work immediately to disassemble a free Constitutional Republic.They will do so by executive fiat. They will rewrite our Constitution; eradicate our God-given sacred rights and liberties; open our borders to tens of millions of the world’s dregs; bankrupt our Nation; subject our citizenry to conformity in thought and uniformity in behavior; reduce the populace to dependency on Government largess for its existence. They will erase our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian Ethic: all of it must go. Our Nation, in the form the founders bequeathed to us, will effectively cease to exist.And these Antagonists, these would-be Destructors, will proceed forthwith, with blinding speed once they have taken over the reins of Government. They have legions of stooges and toadies to assist them—those who have assisted them since Day One of the Trump Presidency.

A ONE-DAY CIVIL WAR-(COUNTER-REVOLUTION): NOVEMBER 3, 2020

The nature of the present major conflict facing Americans has aspects of both a civil war and revolution, creating a unique hybrid.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVIL WAR AND A REVOLUTION?

There is a distinction to be drawn between the expression, 'civil war,' and the expression, 'revolution.'“The word revolution is derived from the Latin ‘revolutio’, meaning ‘a turn-around’. Revolution results in a mutational change in organizational structure quite amazingly in a short period of time. Revolution brings about a change in the power too.Revolutions took place through history. It is interesting to note that apart from the change in power, revolution brings about change in cultural and economical situations as well of a country or a region. Socio-political scenario gets completely changed by a revolution.It is interesting to note that the term revolution is used to indicate changes that take place outside the political arena. Culture, philosophy, society and technology have undergone marked transformations by these revolutions.A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state. In short it can be described as a war between factions in the same country. One of the best examples of a civil war is the American Civil War (1861-1865). It is otherwise called the War Between the States that took place as a civil war in the United States of America.It is important to know that the two organized groups that take part in the civil war are normally bent upon creating their own governments and having organized military. The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war.”The American Revolution established freedom from tyranny and the creation of a new Nation-State.The founders of this Nation-State, the framers of the U.S. Constitution determined that the Nation would exist as a free Constitutional Republic. Theirs was no easy task. But they accomplished it. The founders of the new Nation designed a central, “Federal” Government of three co-equal Branches; each Branch keeping the other in check through carefully delineated, demarcated, limited powers.The people would retain sovereignty over Government, not by dint of faith that the servants of the people would not usurp power, but through the realization that these servants of the people would, as is human nature, attempt to do so. To prevent that from happening the founders incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, a Bill of Rights—a codification of fundamental, God-given, natural, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, including, first and foremost, the right of the people to speak their own mind and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus, would unlawful usurpation of power by the servant of the people be kept in check. Our Nation is founded on the tenets of Individualism: a recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and the import of the integrity of Self.Even during the horror of the American Civil War, neither side, not the Union nor Confederacy, questioned the tenets of Individualism; never questioned the veracity and venerableness of the Bill of Rights. It was never in doubt.But, today, though, there are forces that do not accept the tenets of Individualism and forsake the primacy of the Bill of Rights. These are the proponents of the tenets of Collectivism; those who will not suffer individual expression nor abide a sovereign, well-armed citizenry. They believe in uniformity of thought, conformity in behavior. Their model of societal perfection is that of the beehive or the ant colony; order maintained through the destruction of the human spirit. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the differences between Individualism and Collectivism. See, e.g., our article, posted October 6, 2018, titled, “A Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”Today, forces both inside the Nation and outside it, utilizing the vehicle of the Democratic Party, along with the acquiescence of many within the Republican Party, have engineered a counter-revolution.They envision a greatly expanded and expansive Federal Government with vast, virtually unlimited powers. To keep Americans in check they have been outspoken in their call for substantial constraints on free speech and the elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These counter revolutionaries intend to use our Constitution against us. Once in power the Constitution will be erased.Although not carefully distinguished between two military camps—the Blue and the Gray—of the American Civil War, the clash of ideas is very much a bright line: Individualists versus Collectivists, and a mighty physical confrontation may yet emerge.The Collectivists have, to date, failed to unseat the Individualists’ candidate, Donald Trump. Americans elected Donald Trump to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, thereby securing the Nation the founders bequeathed to us through the difficult war they fought and won: the American Revolution. And President Donald Trump has done a commendable job, despite unimaginable obstacles to preserve the Nation in the form the founders gave to us.The Collectivists have one last card to play: one which they had hoped to avoid: the U.S. Presidential election of 2020. The outcome may be the endgame for one side or the other. Or it may very well be the opening salvo of a Modern American Civil War qua Counter-Revolution to undercut the American Revolution.­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________

BIDEN WILL NEVER DEBATE TRUMP, HARRIS WILL

PART TWO

TRYING TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS FAILED ONCE; DEMOCRATS WILL NOT PERMIT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN

“ ‘Clinton’s dream also includes a Western Hemispheric common market, like the European common market that is dissolving in chaos, fear and debt. . . .’ ‘If that is indeed her dream, then she dreams the internationalist dream that would end America.In a 2013 speech to the National Multi-Housing Council [Clinton] said, ‘I mean, politics is like sausage being made. If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.’Which is an excellent example of hypocrisy — a Hillary Clinton trait.American voters don’t want open borders or anything akin to a European Union common market. But Hillary Clinton does.Hillary Clinton would tear America down. She is totally unfit to be president.Donald Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. He’s not politically correct, and he’s not running for saint. He’s running to Make America Great Again. Elect him and he will.”~Pastiche from a story, titled, “Playing us for Fools,” published in the Carteret County News Times, one month before the 2016 Trump versus Clinton U.S. Presidential electionThe forces that seek to crush Americans into submission failed had a wrench thrown into their well-oiled machine. They thought Hillary Clinton could hold her own against Trump in a match-up against him. They were wrong, dead wrong.Do you honestly think these sinister, ruthless forces will make that mistake a second time by allowing Biden—infinitely less mentally sharp than Clinton—to debate Trump? Not a chance!The doddering, confused, senile Cardboard character, Joe Biden, has played his role for these Antagonist Disruptor Destructors of our Nation. He is no longer needed and will soon be dispensed with.Biden has previously stated a desire to serve one-term only, exemplifying his lack of desire in the Presidency. In some dim part of his addled brain, he must have known he is wholly unqualified to lead the Nation.As reported in The Hill, back in December 2019,“Former Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly signaled that he would only serve one term in the White House if elected in 2020 as the top-tier Democratic candidate faces questions about his age. Four people who regularly speak with the 77-year-old Biden told Politico that it is unlikely he would run for reelection in 2024, when he would be in his 80s.‘If Biden is elected,’ an adviser to the campaign told the news outlet, ‘he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.’‘He’s going into this thinking, “I want to find a running mate I can turn things over to after four years, but if that’s not possible or doesn’t happen then I’ll run for reelection.” But he’s not going to publicly make a one-term pledge,’ another adviser reportedly said.”

IS IT JUST AGE THAT HAS INFORMED BIDEN’S DECISION TO SERVE JUST ONE TERM, OR IS IT WEAKNESS IN MIND AND BODY?

Consider: Bernie Sanders is one year older than Biden. The old Socialist is as sharp as a tack and never asserted or even suggested he would serve only one term in Office if elected.Donald Trump, too, was 70 years old when he assumed Office, the oldest person to serve as President on the day of his inauguration as reported by Business Insider. But age has never impacted his physical strength or mental alertness. He has always demonstrated boundless energy and keen mental acuity; a sharp understanding of policy and what it is he wishes to accomplish, in accordance with his duties as President and consistent with his promises to the American people. He never so much as intimated a desire to serve only one term in Office.Trump has weathered a withering stream of vile, vicious, vindictive personal attacks against him, against his staff, even against his family. Through it all he has remained steadfast, never doubting himself, never wilting. To the contrary, he has become stronger, frustrating those who have attempted to aggrieve him, turning their arrows back on them. He has shown his mettle; the true mark of a leader.Can one imagine Biden standing up against the same ceaseless, remorseless violent onslaught? Would Biden not have crumpled years ago; drained, emotionally and physically. Indeed, can one imagine any other politician able to repel the violent personal attacks that President Trump has ably withstood for the past four years and, through it all, still manage to accomplish many of his policy objectives?Biden, in comparison, stands alone as the single figure in American history, coming up with lame excuses to mask his obvious mental and physical infirmities, all the while boasting that he can lead this great Nation. And there is the Press, for example, the Washington Post, always at the ready, to give Biden an assist, writing specious reports to cover his blaring inane remarks, or to attempt to counter justifiable concerns pertaining to his health. See, e.g., a U.S. News.com report The Press says Biden would give Kamala Harris substantial power as his VP if elected President. That is all the more surprising since, as also reported FP Insider Access, the two have had a rocky relationship, which raises the question whether Biden did choose Harris as his running mate or if, more likely, the DNC foisted Harris on him.But don’t be surprised to find Biden stepping down a few weeks before the election, not a few days, or weeks or months into a first term in Office, let alone upon completing one full term. He must. Why? It isn’t that his handlers can’t control Biden. They can. They already have. That is plain, and Biden doesn’t have a problem with that. Still, there is a problem. Biden’s handlers cannot be certain he can defeat Trump, regardless of what the polls say. Certainly not if a dimwit’s obvious dimwittedness becomes apparent as it would during a U.S. Presidential debate, were he to debate. After all, who would be on hand to lend Biden a hand if he were to become befuddled over a moderator’s question or shows his ineptitude in parrying a death-dealing verbal thrust to the heart?So, the Destructors of our Nation are faced with a conundrum. And that dilemma rests with the nature of our Presidential Debates.The public expects them. But only the U.S. Presidential candidate of one Party can debate the candidate, or incumbent, of the other Party.It would look awfully strange to see Biden’s VP, Harris, debating Trump, as Biden’s VP, instead of Biden, himself. It would be unprecedented.Of course, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require Presidential debates. Americans, though, would be annoyed and suspicious, even outraged if denied a debate, especially given the present deeply polarized Nation. A match-up is highly anticipated.In the recent Arbalest Quarrel article, “Debate This,” published on August 6, 2020, we said,“U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.”Biden has shown, during the few times his handlers have allowed him to speak at all, that he has trouble expressing a coherent thought. He would collapse if he had to face Trump one-on-one in a debate.Even with assistance from friendly debate moderators, Trump would eviscerate him, and Biden’s handlers know this. The bottom line: Biden will not debate Trump.

HARRIS WILL RUN AGAINST TRUMP, NOT BIDEN. SO, IT IS HARRIS WHO MUST DEBATE TRUMP, NOT BIDEN.

If only one Presidential debate is held, Harris will debate Trump. That means Harris will be the Democrat’s nominee for U.S. President, not Biden.The puppet masters will not risk losing an election by allowing Biden on the National and, hence, world stage, making a jackass of himself, for all to see, and, thereby making a true, not merely symbolic “jackass” of the Party. That helps to explain why the puppet masters have scheduled the first debate at the end of September, not the beginning, contrary to what Trump and many Americans wanted and expected.Having a debate scheduled one month prior to the election buys the DNC time for the media image makers to shape the image of Harris they expect the public to buy: an impression that Harris is indeed the pragmatic moderate the script calls for and not the selfish, shallow, callow, opportunist she in fact is: simply a simulacrum of Hillary Clinton. They have only a few weeks to prop this stick figure up, allowing it to take hold on the public, to gel in the public psyche. Harris is giddy with expectation and delight, barely able to contain herself.So, as the days march on, Americans will see less and less of Biden and more and more of Harris, but precious little of both. Little will come out of either one’s mouth; and a sympathetic Press won’t “press” them to discuss their policy prescriptions.And then something untoward will happen to Biden. Expect this.The Democrats and the Billionaire Globalist puppet masters would trust the public won’t be shocked—if a trifle dismayed, and the Radical left positively gleeful—when Harris steps into Biden’s shoes at the last moment even as that moment is unprecedented.But neither one, Biden nor Harris, will do much talking to the Press before the Presidential debates, when it comes to pass that Harris faces off against Trump.It is either that or the DNC will have to conjure up a plausible explanation why there won’t be a Presidential debate at all. That scenario is unlikely. The public would feel cheated, and rightfully so.

HOW WILL THE BIDEN-HARRIS SWITCHEROO TAKE PLACE?

Prior to the debates, the DNC will declare, through the Press, that Biden has suffered a heart attack or a stroke; something or other, health-wise, not altogether implausible. After all Biden has had medical problems beyond incipient dementia and that isn’t a secret. There will be little explanation, and a sympathetic Press won’t probe. But obviously his lack of mental acuity will be the reason for it. Even the Washington Post, the Radical Left newspaper of the centi-billionaire Jeff Bezos speculated that Biden suffers from dementia.It is highly unlikely that a major supporter of the Democrats, and a man obviously “in the know,” Jeff Bezos, would allow his editorial staff to so much as intimate Biden’s unsuitability for the highest public Office in the Land, unless something major was afoot. So, quietly, surreptitiously, his tabloid, the Washington Post, has alerted the public to the possibility of the big switch.The DNC will have to scramble to appoint a VP for Harris. Likely, the DNC already has a VP in the wings: another woman no doubt, and conceivably another woman of color.So, the public will be fed a lie and that lie will suffice, must suffice, to get Biden out of the way before the first scheduled debate lest he make a fool of himself in front of the Nation and the world, and therein scotch the entire scheme of the Globalists and Marxists to take over the Government and the Country—just a few weeks prior to the most important election in modern times.________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

REMARKS OF ARBALEST QUARREL FOUNDER, STEPHEN L'DANRILLI, ON STEPHEN HALBROOK ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2020 NRA PUBLICATION, AMERICA'S 1ST FREEDOM

As a NYPD veteran police officer, and Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle, and shotgun), and Training Counselor, and active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and lifetime resident of New York City, I have dedicated my life to the preservation and strengthening of our cherished Second Amendment. This is no easy task, especially today, as we see constant, concerted, vigorous attacks on the fundamental right of personal defense with firearms.So, it was with more than a little interest I read Stephen Halbrook’s article, “How Does New York City Get Away With This,” published in the August 2020 edition of NRA’s publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom.”Stephen Halbrook is a Second Amendment Constitutional law expert and a prolific writer and author who has argued and won several important Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.In his article he provides a brief history of restrictive handgun licensing in New York City. He correctly observes that “[i]t all started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol even in the home.”  Toward the end of the article, he makes the point that:“Nothing has changed since 1911 when [an Italian-American] Mario Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.” It is of course disturbingly, depressingly, frustratingly true that, indeed, nothing has changed in New York City since 1911, insofar as the City continues to require a valid license to lawfully possess a handgun.Still, in a few important respects, much has changed, and for the worse, since enactment of the unconscionable and unconstitutional Sullivan Act.In the 109 years since handgun licensing began, New York City’s laws have become more extensive, more oppressive and repressive, and confoundingly difficult to understand. These laws are a labyrinthine maze of ambiguity and vagueness, and they are singularly bizarre.Unlike many other States that wisely preempt the field of gun regulation, as failure to do so invariably promotes and leads to confusion and inconsistencies across a State, the York State Government, in Albany, has not preempted the field. The New York Legislature gives local governments wide discretion in establishing their own firearms rules as long as local government enactments don’t conflict with basic State law mandates.Albany traditionally allows, and even encourages, local governments to devise their own, often numerous and extremely stringent, firearms rules. New York City has done so, and with glee, devising an extraordinarily complex and confusing array of rules directed to the ownership and possession of all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and handguns.New York State law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1) sets forth the basic handgun licensing scheme, applicable to all New York jurisdictions, making clear that possession of handguns falls within the province of the police and that,“No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.” NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (3)(a) provides that,“Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.”New York City builds upon State Statute, establishing a mind-numbing set of tiers of handgun licensing, mandating the extent to which New York residents may exercise the privilege, not the right, to possess a handgun for self-defense.The Rules of the City of New York, specifically 38 RCNY 5-01, has established, at the moment, at least, no less than 6 different categories of handgun licenses:

• Premises License—Residence or Business
• Carry Business License
• Limited Carry Business License
• Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License
• Special Carry Business License
• Special Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License

New York City’s tiered handgun licensing scheme is not only inconsistent with the Second Amendment, but it also promotes unlawful discrimination under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and invites both abuse by and corruption in the City’s Licensing Division. In fact, the City’s insufferable and puzzling handgun licensing scheme is, from a purely logical standpoint, apart from a legal standpoint, internally inconsistent and incoherent.Premise residence and business handgun licenses place considerable restraints on a licensee’s right of self-defense. Unrestricted handgun carry licenses, on the other hand, are issued only to a select few people who satisfy arbitrary “proper cause,” requirements. Of course, powerful, wealthy, politically-connected “elites” are exceptions, routinely obtaining rare and coveted unrestricted handgun carry licenses, unavailable to the average citizen, residing in the City.And criminals don’t obey handgun licensing rules or any other State law or City code, rule, or regulation pertaining to firearms. So they don’t care what the laws say. And this hasn’t changed.But it is deeply troubling, indeed mind-boggling, to believe New York City’s harsh, brutal, even despotic handgun licensing scheme continues to escape Constitutional scrutiny, a point Stephen Halbrook makes at the outset of his August 2020 NRA article, when he says,“‘Under New York law, it is a crime to possess a firearm’, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. vs. Sanchez-Villar (2004). This ruling was based on the state’s ban on the possession of an unlicensed handgun. This prohibition did not offend the Second Amendment, said this ruling, because ‘the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.’ Later rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—D.C v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010—begged to differ. . . . But the Second Circuit must not have gotten the memo. . . .”Stephen Halbrook makes clear that the New York licensing scheme is unlawful on its face because the very concept of licensing is grounded on the erroneous idea that gun possession is a privilege and not a fundamental right, a notion that is completely at odds with the Second Amendment and with High Court rulings. And I agree with Stephen Halbrook’s assessment.The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the Constitutional flaws inherent in gun licensing schemes over and over again, through the years, commencing with our first series of articles on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian and inane New York Safe Act of 2013.We called the Governor out on New York’s unconstitutional licensing scheme. See, e.g., our April 30, 2014 article where we concluded with this: “To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.” New York City residents have been forced to submit to unconstitutional firearms laws since 1911. New York’s gun control laws were and continue to be enacted to disarm the honest citizen and to discourage personal self-defense.If a person insists on possessing a handgun for self-defense, New York insists on one’s first obtaining permission from the police department to do so, through the acquisition of a license, issued by the police.Yet, the imposition of stringent handgun license requirements is inconsistent with the import of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Redress is necessary. It’s about time.Still, Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots interject that every State requires that a motorist obtain an operator’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public streets, and they ask, “why should gun possession be any different?” But in posing the question, these Anti-Second Amendment activists demonstrate an intention to reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the status of mere privilege, which, in fact, is what a motorist’s license is; merely a privilege to drive an automobile on public roadways. It is logically and legally wrong to view and to treat a fundamental right as a mere privilege.New York attempts to skirt addressing the inherent unconstitutionality of the entire firearms’ licensing scheme through pompous, imbecilic assurances that a person doesn’t need a handgun to defend him or herself because Government, protects a person. That is patently false and, in any event, it is wholly beside the point, as the Arbalest Quarrel made clear in an article posted on our site on November 21, 2019. That article was reprinted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on November 26, 2019, although in a different format with some editing.As we said, under the ‘doctrine of sovereign immunity’ the police are not, as a general rule, legally obligated to protect and guarantee the life and safety of any individual, and they cannot be held legally liable for failing to do so. Courts have routinely so held, including New York Courts. But many Americans fail to realize this because the seditious Press and politicians routinely lie to them.The purpose of a community police department is to protect the society-at-large, nothing more. I had pointed this out 30 years ago, in an article I co-authored with Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel. And that basic doctrine has not changed since.But, very recently, something has changed and drastically.Radical Left State and local governments are no longer even allowing their police departments to provide a modicum of protection for their community. This follows from the unrestrained actions and antics of volatile Marxist and Anarchist groups whom they kowtow to. They have called for the defunding of and disbanding of community police departments across the Country and some jurisdictions have done so. In New York City the Radical Left Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has slashed $1 Billion from the NYPD budget. This comes at a critical time when soaring crime and daily riots demand more funding for police, not less.This is a major change because the average American can, now, no longer depend on the police to provide even general protection to the community.It must be noted, too, that there are attempts by Marxists and Anarchists to rewrite the laws on sovereign immunity, to hold police accountable for harming citizens. But this is not for the purpose of securing more police protection and for making the police more accountable to the law-abiding public at large.To the contrary, the purpose of overturning police sovereign immunity rulings is  to provide the public with less protection and, at once, to allow lawless rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants to engage in attacks on the police and on innocent people without having to fear justifiable retribution for their lawless acts.So, in some ways, matters have changed. Radical Left Governments are leaving communities less safe by preventing the police from promoting law and order, and they are even prevented from protecting themselves as lawlessness occurs all around them, rendering them powerless to engage lawbreakers.The public sees the disturbing results: demoralized officers and less safe communities as police are not permitted to provide communities with even a modicum of safety. This obviously is not for the better.Moreover, even as Radical Left Government leaders restrain and constrain the police, they continue to resist recognition of the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense. These Marxist leaders demonstrate their contempt for the very sanctity of human life, even as they claim disingenuously to care about human life. They don’t care and they never did. Theirs is a recipe for disaster: for a complete breakdown of law and order in society.But a breakdown of society is precisely what these Radical Left Governments want. They wish to tear down the Nation, so they can reconfigure it in a manner completely at odds with the preservation of the free Constitutional Republic our founders gave us.Yet, despite the intentions of the Radical Left Collectivists, they can’t subvert the dictates of natural law. Natural law dictates that the right and responsibility of self-defense rests today, as it always did, on the individual.Americans must not listen to the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians who claim that defunding or eliminating the police is necessary and, who claim, at one and the same time, the necessity for curbing the personal right of armed self-defense as well; that taking these actions will improve society. That is not only false, it is absurd. The seditious Press and Radical Left politicians don’t have, and never did have, the best interests of the Nation or its people at heart. This is now transparent and, given the present state of affairs afflicting our Country, this fact is irrefutable.Although I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I never advocated that everyone should get a gun. I did support and continue to support freedom of choice in owning and possessing firearms. But now, it is time for every law-abiding American citizen to be armed. Learn how to properly use a gun and how to safeguard it.Our Country is at a crossroads. We stand to lose everything near and dear to us if we don’t pay to heed to the threats directed against us, bearing down relentlessly on all of us.It is the responsibility of all citizens to safeguard their own life and safety and that of their families, and to preserve our Republic as the founders intended; to protect it from the insinuation of tyranny that the Radical Left would dare impose on Americans.Stephen L. D'Andrilli________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.