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

MULTIPART ESSAY SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-SIX

QUOTATION FROM NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

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

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

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

To say the Bruen rulings directed primarily to New York’s Handgun Law were not to Hochul’s liking, nor to the liking of her friends in the State Legislature in Albany, is an understatement.Hochul was apoplectic with rage—or perhaps not. And, if not, she must, at least, appear so: feigning all sorts of righteous indignation during her Press conferences or when distributing her official Press Releases.Hochul had expected an adverse decision from the High Court, surely, and was undoubtedly prepared for it, but she had to set the stage for what would come after, the imposition of a new set of highly restrictive handgun licensing measures, building on all that came before.Those amendments were already written—the Legislature must have drafted the amendments well in advance of the publication of the Bruen decision, given the breadth of detail in them and the scale of them—well before the Bruen rulings came down. They only needed to be finalized.To that end, Hochul’s temper tantrum directed to the Court upon publication of Bruen was obviously meant to pave the way for legislation designed to cohere with related contemporaneous Anti-Second Amendment legislation, apart from, but complementing, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) and operating seamlessly with it.The Press Release, dated June 6, 2022, on the Governor’s website, sports the headline: “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers.” The “Ten-Bill Package” includes:“Legislation S.9458/A.10503 Bars Purchase of Semiautomatic Rifles by Anyone Under Age 21 by Requiring a LicenseLegislation S.9407-B/A.10497 Prohibits Purchase of Body Armor with Exception of Those in Specified ProfessionsLegislation S.9113-A./A.10502 Expands List of People Who Can File Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Requires Law Enforcement to File ERPOs Under Specified Set of CircumstancesPackage Also Strengthens Crime Reporting; Closes ‘Other Gun’ Loophole; Requires Microstamping of New Semiautomatic Pistols; Eliminates Grandfathering of High-Capacity Feeding Devices; Requires Social Media Companies to Improve Response to and Reporting of Hateful Content.”Approximately one month later, on July 1, 2022, scarcely one week after the publication of the Bruen decision, i.e., on June 23, 2022, and again, on the Governor’s official website, and, under the bold, brash, impertinent headline, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision,” Hochul lays out a series of amendments to the Handgun Law itself, ostensibly responding to the Bruen rulings:“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting.”Again, given the depth and breadth of these amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, this new package of amendments, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” MUST HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION OF THE COURT’S OPINION IN BRUEN.At most, the Hochul Administration and Albany had merely to tidy up some of the provisions in the CCIA—perhaps striking the words, ‘PROPER CAUSE,’ from the Handgun Law if the High Court were to demand that much from Kathy Hochul’s Government—which Governor Hochul and Albany did. And that assumes, of course, that Hochul didn’t receive an advance copy of the decision from leakers at the Court. Hochul was probably kept apprised about what to expect from Bruen (probably from the same people on the Court that illegally released a draft of the Dobbs decision).On the matter of “PROPER CAUSE,” the Court ruled that, since the words were tied inextricably to the requirement that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must demonstrate “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry, apart from and above basic self-defense, when in the public domain, the New York Handgun Law, apropos of concealed carry, was inherently illegal and unconstitutional.This was a mere annoyance. The Hochul Government could dispense with it and concoct ways around it, making the Handgun Law no less severe than before Bruen. Kathy Hochul didn’t try to hide that from the Press or from the Court.After all, Hochul used the phrase in one of her Press Releases, “LANDMARK LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE TO STRENGTHEN GUN LAWS.” See supra. And she rationalized that message of defiance directed at the Court, by adding that her Government had designed these amendments “TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS.”Did Hochul presume the High Court did not wish to protect New Yorkers? The phrase is not only troubling but also insulting. Yet it plays into a running narrative that MORE GUNS ON THE STREET EQUALS MORE CRIME ON THE STREETS—A platitude held by Progressives, but false.How many average, responsible, rational, law-abiding gun owners have turned to crime, and further, how much of this presumed bad seed committed a crime with a gun? Hardly or nary a one, notwithstanding there are millions of Americans who lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense. See the article on Gun Facts.By striking ‘PROPER CAUSE’ from New York’s Handgun Law, and then repurposing the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement along with a host of other ludicrous Anti-Second Amendment laws, the Government could and has accomplished much the same thing: DISCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING, CONFOUNDING APPLICANTS WHO SEEK A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE.The Hochul Government had scripted its entire response to Bruen. It would be ready to play out with the official publication of the case. And, on the very day, it was published and through successive days and weeks, Hochul would never miss a beat. She would constantly harangue and berate both the rulings of the Court and, unforgivably, the Justices themselves.The Hochul Government would make the High Court out to be the Antagonist in a play, and the State, with the Government, as Protagonist Hero.Hochul would present herself as the Defender of New York residents, desiring only to protect and serve the residents of New York against an uncaring U.S. Supreme Court.How incredibly presumptuous of Hochul and those behind the scenes, in her Administration, and in Albany, working on her behalf to make the High Court into an Evildoer and “Fall Guy.”Once the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went to work, wasting no time in publicly slamming both the Court and its decision.But would the public buy it? Could the public be so easily manipulated? Some obviously would, most, from her perspective, hopefully. Hochul knew that, in her messaging, she was addressing not merely New York, but the Country at large, and the Biden Administration, and many in Congress too, her compatriots.But to say her words and conduct toward the Court are disrespectful and that her response to the Bruen rulings amounts to evasion, not compliance, is to trivialize the seriousness of the actions of this Governor.Necessary as it was to set the groundwork for defiance of the High Court, Hochul was playing a dangerous game. She could not do this unless she felt she could rely on powerful interests both seen and unseen that would have her back on this.For, the Governor’s actions border on contempt of Court, and all the worse was it that she would vent with unrestrained, unconscionable fury against the Highest Court of the Land; railing against a Court exercising its own proper, legitimate Article III authority under the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the meaning of the Bill of Rights which was and is within the Court’s prerogative, alone, not that of Congress, nor that of the President, nor that of the Executive or Legislative components of State Governments.Hochul didn’t care, and she didn’t mince words. She called the Court’s rulings not only “reckless” but “reprehensible.” See the article in Spectrum Local News.The word, ‘RECKLESS’ means ‘THOUGHTLESS.’The word, ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ means ‘DISGRACEFUL.’In other words, Kathy Hochul tells the Court that it is worthy of her contempt toward it and she would not abide by the Court’s rulings. At most, she would give lip service to it. And that is what both she and Albany did.Upon the conclusion of the oral argument, on November 3, 2021, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the New York State Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, wasted no time in concocting a scheme to waylay the rulings that they knew were coming down the pike. And as a precursor to that she stated in no uncertain terms, in her Press Briefings—clearly directed to the Court—what she intended to do, castigating the Court for daring to involve itself in New York law.The amendments to the State’s Handgun Law (referred to, as a package, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA)), are the visible manifestation of the disdain she displayed toward the Court, in her Press Releases.On July 1, 2022, about one month after signing the CCIA into law, Governor Hochul, in a provocative move proclaimed the New York Government would not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, and in fact would defy the Court, continuing the process laid down by her predecessors of eradicating exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York.The Headline of her Press Release, posted on the Governor’s official website, on that date, set forth in bold San Serif typeface, proclaimed:“Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision.”Hochul’s defiance and contemptuous attitude toward the High Court could not have been on more audacious display. The CCIA exemplifies her brashness and brazenness.These are the highlights of the CCIA that appear on her website that she has reiterated during the period of time since the publication of the case as challenges to the CCIA were filed immediately.“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting”Anticipating the Hochul Government might attempt to turn broad swaths of the State, especially, Manhattan Island, into a massive Gun-Free zone, and to forestall that, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, opined:“Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places. far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. . . . Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.” [Case Documentation omitted]What did Hochul do? She and Albany concocted an elaborate nightmare of new requirements for those individuals applying for a concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA.And, notwithstanding, the High Court’s warning to the Hochul Government, the Governor, and Albany proceeded to transform much of New York into a massive “SENSITIVE PLACE” Jurisdiction anyway—in direct defiance of the High Court’s warning.Manhattan Island, which Justice Thomas specifically warned the Government about, would become a huge “SENSITIVE PLACE” restricted zone anyway.The Government had spent substantial time on this, transforming the State into a confusing patchwork quilt of SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.Most curiously, the very words, SENSITIVE PLACE,’ never before appeared in the Handgun Law prior to Bruen. That would change.Here the New York Government was deliberately using that phrase to antagonize the Court, making the ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ prohibition a major fixture of the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT.”Were Kathy Hochul and Albany taunting the Court by choosing to utilize the very terminology the Court had expressed concern over but had not ruled explicitly against using?Prior to the effective date of September 1, 2022, the date when the CCIA took effect, there was no mention of ‘Sensitive Place’ in Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)), which reads:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”Once the CCIA took effect, the expression, ‘Sensitive Place’ suddenly appears and, for those new holders of “Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses,” and for those renewing their licenses, Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)) presently sets, forth:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”And where are these“Sensitive Place” restricted areas? A new provision of the New York Penal Code, Penal Code, 265.01-e, recites them.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e(2) provides,“2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;(c) any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship;(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos, provided that for the purposes of this section a “public park” shall not include (i) any privately held land within a public park not dedicated to public use or (ii) the forest preserve as defined in subdivision six of section 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law;(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; provided that for the purposes of this section, nothing shall prohibit the activity permitted under subdivisions seven-c, seven-d, and seven-e of section 265.20 of this article where such activity occurs at a summer camp in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations;(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;(o) any establishment holding an active license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;(q) any location being used as a polling place;(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.Police officers and other designated categories are exempted.”Failure to abide by the ‘Sensitive Place’ Restriction requirement is a Class E Felony, as specified under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-d (1)”“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent.”But Note: Subsequent to Plaintiff Appellants’ Motion for a Stay pending Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, granted the Motion in Part. In a short opinion, the Court stated, in pertinent part, in Antonyuk vs. Hochul , 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 36240 (2nd Cir, December 7, 2022): “Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors . . . we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. . . . To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is granted.”Governor Kathy Hochul’s displeasure with the Bruen decision and anger toward the Court Majority was expected, was never a secret, and, so, isn’t at all surprising.  Yet, her hostility toward the Court, amounting to a rabid denunciation of the rulings and of the Justices themselves, is of another order of magnitude, and cannot be condoned, and ought not to be tolerated.The New York Government has detested the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms for well over a century (actually for substantially longer (see author’s comments supra and infra)).Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Majority Opinion in Bruen, made the point, tacitly, at the outset of the Court’s argument, when discussing the State’s long-standing efforts to constrain, through overzealous regulation, the carrying of handguns.“New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to ‘have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license . . . issued to him by a police magistrate.’ 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129-130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242-243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character”  and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.”

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

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

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

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

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

UNDER THE PRETEXT OF KEEPING THE RESIDENTS OF HER STATE SAFE, NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN RULINGS

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany designed amendments to the State Handgun Law to avoid compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Bruen and thus avoid the categorical dictates of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. There is no question about this, no tenable away around this. To believe otherwise is a delusion.Hochul makes the case herself. There are numerous accounts detailing this: Press accounts and Press Releases abound. Consider one example: In August 2023, Hochul said this, as presented on the Governor's website:“‘In response to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down New York's century-old concealed carry law, we took swift and thoughtful action to keep New Yorkers safe,’ . . . . ‘I refuse to surrender my right as Governor to protect New Yorkers from gun violence or any other form of harm. In New York State, we will continue leading the way forward and implementing common sense gun safety legislation.’”In other words, Governor Kathy Hochul, in her role as Tyrant Nanny of New York, keeping her wayward children, residents of New York, and citizens of the United States, safe and sound from all those dangerous, nasty firearms, will ignore the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, etched in stone in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and will defy the Article III authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.Hochul had unconscionably harsh words for the High Court, calling the Bruen decision “reckless and reprehensible.” See the article in NCPR.One thing motivates Governor Hochul’s actions and others like her who have, through the passing years, decades, and centuries, enacted laws to cut the Bill of Rights to ribbons:INCOMPARABLE LUST FOR POWER, INORDINATE WEALTH, AND SELF-AGGRANDIZEMENT—ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COMMON MAN. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO.The history of civilization illustrates an unfathomable and unquenchable desire of sociopathic/psychopathic individuals to wield control over their respective tribe, nation, or empire, or other political, social, economic, and juridical structure.These ill-begotten men desire to thrust their will, their reality, onto everyone else.The Articles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of this Nation—of this Nation alone—were drafted with the aim to at least forestall, if not, prevent the perpetuation of this theme from happening here: the urge to dominate and rule.Of course, the presence of power-hungry misfits in the world is nothing new.Some who have succeeded in wielding control over the life, well-being, and happiness of the populace create the illusion they exercise power by virtue of Divine Right. Through time that odd idea becomes embedded in the public psyche. The public comes to accept this and accepts, too, that the rule over others by Divine Right is in the natural order of things, that it has always been thus.Rule by Divine Right—the wielding of near absolute power over others—is sometimes disguised.In our Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, the sociopaths, and psychopaths who lust for power, wealth, for personal aggrandizement and who have the wherewithal, knack, and tenacity to bend the mechanisms of power to their will, to their liking, must resort to deceptive messaging to woo the public, to lull them into dull complacency to accept the messaging conveyed to them by the deceivers and fabricators to mislead them into thinking that curtailment of their God-Given Rights is for their own good. But the truth is other than what is conveyed to the public.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a check on the power of Tyrants. These Rights, especially the first two Rights are the final fail-safe to keep would-be Tyrants in check.The First Amendment codifies, inter alia, the right of Free Speech, i.e., the Right to Dissent; the Right to Personal Autonomy; the Right of the Individual TO BE and to Remain Individual, against public pressure, at the behest of the Tyrant to compel compliance to his edicts. Those edicts demand uniformity of thought, of conduct, of action. The idea is to force submission of one’s will to the will of the State, the Greater Society, the “Hive,” the Tyrant.The Right of the people to keep and bear arms is the vehicle through which the Individual prevents the Tyrant from forcing submission. This was meant to be so. Americans, millions of individuals, discrete souls, retain sovereignty over the Tyrant by force of arms and thus prevent usurpation of their will to that of the Tyrant.The Tyrant knows this. Many in our Country do not. They are denied THE TRUTH. Each American should know the TRUTH:The preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right to be exercised by the common man, serves as a counterweight to the usurpation of the sovereign power of the people over the power of the Tyrant. The Tyrant seeks to restrict and constrict this right as the Tyrant cannot continue to wield power and cannot accrue more power at the expense of the people so long as they are armed. Thus——The common man cannot be controlled, corralled, nor subjugated so long as he bears arms. That he does so constitutes a threat to the Tyrant. The Tyrant knows this even if the polity does not, and the Tyrant utilizes the organs of a corrupt Press to prevent the people from recognizing the slow disintegration of their basic, core Rights, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and not by Government.Corruption of  Government proceeds from corruption existent in the Tyrant himself. Corruption of Government and concomitant corruption of every facet of society and of our institutions are recognized in decay, in the destabilization of society, and in the demoralization and degradation of the common man who resides within it. The physical manifestation of destruction is mirrored in the corrupt soul of the Tyrant. On a macro level, one sees this in the immolation of a once great Nation, and of its institutions, culture, ethos, and people.On the micro level one sees this corruption in the immolation of major cities and in the degradation of the lives of the people who reside in them, run by a host of petty tyrants.The salient purpose of armed Self-Defense is to prevent the onset of Tyranny of Government. If you, the reader, don’t see this, take a look at the Second Treatise of Government by the English Philosopher, John Locke. Our Constitution is constructed from the well-reasoned political philosophical remarks of John Locke.Do you need further proof: Take a look, once again, at the U.S. Supreme Court cases District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald vs. City of Chicago.The Tyrant knows that the exercise of the right to armed self-defense must be constrained else he cannot wield and maintain power and control over the commonalty, but he doesn’t say this. The Tyrant makes a different argument, directed to denizens of a free Republic.The argument against the exercise of the right to armed self-defense in this Country is that the Second Amendment is archaic and that the proliferation of guns in this Country causes “Gun Violence.”More recently, consistent with absurd political dogma, the Tyrant claims that the roots of the Second Amendment are racist. And a seditious Press echoes those sentiments.But then, ask yourself: Where is this disorder, this violence manifested? Is it in the actions of tens of millions of average, rational, responsible, American citizens—the commonalty that happens to possess firearms?When was the last time you heard that the common rational, responsible gun owner committed a crime through the use of a firearm or through the use of any other implement? When was the last you heard of an average gun owner who went on a shooting spree? How many of those occur in our Country anyway? How might they be prevented? Has not an armed citizen, in the midst of a “mass shooting, often prevented many deaths because he was able to stop the killer? If more people were armed, would they not be able to secure their life and that of others?Where does this so-called “Gun Violence” emanate and predominate?Is not the escalation of  “Criminal Violence” in the Country and especially in the major urban areas, the deliberate result of Government policy that allows the criminal element and the occasional lunatic to run amok?Why should curtailment of the basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from Government’s failure, oft deliberate, TO CONSTRAIN THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of society: the foul, drug-addled lunatic; the monstrous, murderous gang member; and the opportunistic criminal—all of whom are devoid of empathy for the innocent person.Why should curtailment of a basic natural law right to armed self-defense proceed from instituting strict control over the natural law right of THE HIGHEST COMMON DENOMINATOR: tens of millions of average Americans?And, if those tens of millions of average Americans were to surrender their firearms to the Tyrant, how might that prevent the criminal and lunatic from engaging in less mayhem? Might not that encourage more illicit behavior and leave the common man absolutely defenseless, dependent completely on the goodwill of the Tyrant to dispel threat?But isn’t that really the point of disarming the citizenry: to leave the common man, the sole sovereign over Government, defenseless, powerless against the Tyrant, lest the common man rises up against the usurper?The New York Handgun Law and related laws as codified in the Consolidated Laws of New York, illustrate the Tyrant’s irrationality, arrogance, and lust for power over the citizens of the Country, residents of New York. But in the Gun Law and in other laws peppered throughout the breadth and depth of the Laws of New York, one sees, if one but reflects on those laws, a raw fear exposed. The Tyrant fears the common man.New York’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act, was enacted in 1911. It was predicated on fear of the common man—at the time, those were construed as new Italian immigrants to New York.The Sullivan Act was grounded on a lie at the outset: based on the idea that Italians were by nature, criminals, and their conduct in public had to be forcibly restrained lest they commit untold crimes throughout the State. This meant keeping firearms out of the hands of Italians. The form of the argument may have seemed valid to many. The premises were false, laughably so.The idea of converting a fundamental, unalienable right into a privilege is mystifying and disconcerting.Did the New York Government issue handgun licenses to Italians, recent naturalized citizens, residing in New York? One must wonder. If the idea behind the Sullivan Act, seemingly content neutral on its face, was to keep Italians from exercising their right, as citizens, to keep and bear arms, the law makes perfect sense.Yet the Sullivan Act came to be, and it survived, and thrived.The Sullivan Act requires all individuals who seek to carry a handgun in public to first obtain a handgun license from the Government to lawfully exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.So then, the New York Government insists on inserting itself between the natural law right to armed self-defense, as codified in the Second Amendment, and one's exercise of that right, free of Government interference.The Handgun Law expanded exponentially to include further restraints, to encompass many more groups of people—the common man en masse—and to make the acquisition of a handgun carry license more expensive, time-consuming, and frustrating. That was the point.Many New Yorkers conceded defeat. They threw in the towel. They gave up the effort to obtain a license. The Handgun Law worked THAT well.Through time, the Handgun Licensing Statute became more elaborate. It developed into a cumbersome Handgun Licensing Regime. The challenges were many. But none succeeded in toppling the unconstitutional construct. And, then came the Heller case.The U.S. Supreme Court had for years stood idly by while State Government Tyrants and the Tyrant Federal Government road roughshod over the absolute right of the people to armed self-defense.In the 21^st Century, some Justices on the High Court had had enough. It was clear that Two Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and the Legislative, and many State Governments, including the District of Columbia, were not going to adhere to the strictures of the Bill of Rights, especially the dictates of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito set matters aright.With the indomitability of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and assisted by two able Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and, having convinced or perhaps cajoled the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to climb on board, the Court agree to review a case where the District of Columbia had enacted a law banning, outright, civilian citizen possession of handguns for self-defense, in the District.Since the District of Columbia law was predicated on the notion that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right, not adhering to the individual, an erroneous notion, the Court Majority held clearly, concisely, and categorically that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—one unconnected with association with a militia. And, having enunciated the clear, plain meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment, the High Court struck down the D.C. law.The anti-Second Amendment States were appalled and argued that Heller applied only to the Federal Government. That led to another challenge, this time from Plaintiff gun owners in Illinois, who argued that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal force to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Majority Opinion said, the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies with equal efficacy to the States through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment.Further challenges to States that refused to adhere to the rulings of Heller and McDonald went unreviewed by the Court, until a good ten years after McDonald.The High Court agreed to hear r a challenge to New York’s Handgun Law in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. vs. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020)—the first major assault on the Sullivan Act to be heard by the High Court. In that case, Petitioner holders of valid restrictive handgun premise licenses sought to be able to transport their handguns to target ranges outside the City. The Rules of the City of New York forbade that.the narrow issue in the City of New York case dealt with the Second Amendment rights of holders of highly restrictive New York premise licenses. Yet, the case implicated broad Second Amendment questions impacting Heller and McDonald.Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, feared a decision on the merits of that case would open up a serious challenge to the core and mainstay of the State’s Sullivan Act, pertaining to the carrying of handguns in public.He could not, must not, allow a decision on the merits that would render the Sullivan Act vulnerable to further challenges that might eventually lead to the decimation of Handgun Licensing in New York.The Cuomo Administration weathered the storm by amending the State’s Gun Law. Those amendments required the City of New York to amend its own Gun Rules, pertaining to the transportation of handguns outside the home, by holders of New York City handgun premise licenses.The amendments satisfied Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice  Brett Kavanaugh. Those two votes, together with the votes of the liberal wing of the Court, sufficed to avoid the substantive merits of the case from review.With changes made to both the State Handgun Law and to New York City’s Handgun Licensing Regulations, the High Court dismissed the case, ruling the Plaintiffs’ claims moot.Associate Justice Alito thought otherwise. In his dissent, he argued there was no legal justification for a finding of mootness. Justice Alito laid out his arguments comprehensively and convincingly.Justice Kavanaugh without addressing the mootness matter, mentioned, in a separate Concurring Opinion,“I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”Kavanaugh’s point came to fruition with Bruen, two years later, and in a major way, vexatious to the liberal wing of the Court, and likely so to the Chief Justice as well, and, no less so, the gravest fear of Governor Cuomo.But the conservative wing—now with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the Bench—would no longer be constrained by foes of the Second Amendment who would erase the exercise of the right altogether if they had their way. Vindication of the Heller and McDonald rulings was at hand.The Hochul Government and Kathy Hochul, especially, weren’t pleased.If the City of New York case gave her predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo, a trifling headache, the Bruen case gave Hochul and Albany a full-on migraine.Bruen involved a challenge to the core of the State’s Handgun Law: the Constitutionality of predicating issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses on demonstration of “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”Bruen struck down “Proper Cause.” And that required Hochul and the State Legislature in Albany to strike the phrase from the Handgun Law. There was no way around that.But Hochul and Albany had no intention of complying with a ruling that would tear the guts out of a handgun Law that existed for well over a century and that, through time, grew increasingly elaborate and more oppressive.So Governor Hochul and Albany brushed the rulings aside, concocting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) of 2022 that gives lip service to Bruen and is, at once, consistent with the State’s end goal to transform the State, eventually, into one massive “Gun Free Zone.” Likely Hochul and Albany were working on the CCIA once the oral argument had concluded on November 3, 2021, having anticipated the High Court intended to shred the core of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government was prepared. The High Court issued its decision on June 23, 2022. Ten days later the State Senate enacted the “CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT” (CCIA). Hochul signed it into law on the same day, July 3, 2022.That word, ‘Improvement,’ as it appears in the title of the Act is incongruous, even incoherent. For what is it the Act improves? Certainly not the right of the American citizen, residing and/or working in New York, and the Act did not comply with the Bruen rulings.The CCIA was a cleverly, cunningly drawn evasion tactic that strengthened the Handgun Law, consistent with an age-old plan.This plan, this agenda, involved the methodical, evisceration of gun rights—a plan going back over a century ago. The Hochul Government did not design the CCIA to comply with the rulings, except on a superficial level. The Court did not like the words, “PROPER CAUSE,” so the Government would strike those words from the Sullivan Act.Since the Hochul Government still had to contend with the salient ruling that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is not confined to one’s home but extends to the public arena, the State would slither around the ruling. That was the intent of the Hochul Government, and the CCIA well reflected that intention. They did that through the creation of a new construct: “SENSITIVE PLACE” restrictions, and through a bold reconfiguration of an old one, “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”Through the CCIA Hochul and her cohorts in Albany laid bare their objective: Erosion of the civilian citizen’s right to armed self-defense outside the home, notwithstanding the import of the Bruen decision: recognition of the right to armed self-defense outside the home, no less than inside it.The CCIA was to take effect on September 1, 2022. The Act's challengers wouldn’t wait for that to happen.The ink had not yet dried on the CCIA document Kathy Hochul signed when the Plaintiffs came forward to challenge the amendments to the Gun Law. There would be others—most of them in New York, but several across the Country as well, challenging similar Gun Laws, the language of which is contrary to the Bruen rulings.Several New York cases, including the main one, i.e., Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, presently sit on review at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.Fully briefed, the Court conducted oral hearings for each of them, on March 20, 2023. Expect final orders during the summer months.

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

As we stated supra, two provisions of the CCIA stand out as they serve as the basis of the State’s defiance of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings: “SENSITIVE PLACE” and “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.”The “Sensitive Place” provision is new. There is no correlation with it in the prior version of the Law or in any previous version, hearkening back to the commencement of handgun licensing in 1911 with the enactment of the Sullivan Act. Much has been said about the “Sensitive Place” provision and challenges to the CCIA invariably point to it.The “Good Moral Character” requirement, on the other hand, is not new.Little is said about it in the prior version of the Handgun Law. And, apart from mentioning it in Bruen, the High Court had nothing to say about it.As applied to applications for restrictive handgun premise licenses—and a multi-tiered Handgun structure remains in the New York Gun Law—there is no change from the prior Law.However, as applied to applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, the State Legislature added substantial and significant provisions—a massive transformation from what had existed before.A major distinction between the two provisions, “Sensitive Place” and “Good Moral Character,” needs to be mentioned and discussed before we proceed to a comprehensive analysis of the latter provision.

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

“Sensitive Place” restrictions affect holders of State concealed handgun carry licenses only, not those holders of highly restrictive premise handgun licenses —a point seemingly trivial. It isn’t.A holder of a premise license cannot lawfully utilize a handgun for self-defense outside the home or place of business, notwithstanding instances of dire threats to life presenting themselves outside the home or one’s place of business.The lawful use of a handgun for self-defense begins and ends within the confines of the walls of the structure.As if to emphasize the point, the holder of a home or business license, who wishes to transport his handgun outside the home, lawfully, must keep the handgun in a handgun case, not in a holster on his person. Ammunition must be kept in the case as well and separate from the handgun itself.This means that, if the holder of a restricted premise license were confronted by a deadly threat while out in public, the handgun won’t be readily accessible. And that is the point. And that is concerning for two reasons.First, a handgun case is easily identifiable as such.If the licensee is in a subway, say, on the way to a New York City target range, a determined and highly aggressive thief can strongarm the case away from the owner.In that event, the owner must immediately notify the NYPD of the fact of the theft, and he will likely be required to surrender his premise handgun license during the investigation. If the police fail to recover the handgun, the owner will likely be denied issuance of a replacement license, which is a condition precedent to lawful receipt of a new handgun. And to add insult to injury, the owner will likely be blamed for the theft having occurred. The police report will indicate that the owner had lost possession of the case, suggesting that, if the owner had been deficient in protecting the property, and, perhaps, should haven’t taken the handgun outside the home or place of business in the first instance.Second, if the licensee were threatened with violence to self and were able to access the handgun and successfully avert a tragedy to self by incapacitating the aggressor by shooting him, the licensee would lose his license. There is no question about that.Worse, the licensee would be prosecuted for misuse of the handgun.Worst of all, the aggressor would likely be charged with criminal assault and wrongful possession of a handgun, for the premise license doesn’t lawfully allow the licensee to wield a handgun in public. As if to emphasize this point, Governor Hochul made patently clear that Bruen doesn’t authorize a person to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In other words, New York remains a Handgun Licensing State Par Excellence among Anti-Second Amendment fanatics.Further, if the aggressor died of his wounds, the licensee would be indicted for manslaughter or murder. That outcome isn’t merely likely. It is certain and inevitable.Under New York Law self-defense may be a perfect defense to a charge of manslaughter or murder if one didn’t initiate the aggressive act, but “armed” self-defense isn’t if the person appealing to it happens to use a handgun in the absence of a valid State issued concealed handgun carry license.This is true even if the perpetrator himself is armed and threatens to kill the innocent person.The idea that an innocent person cannot defend him or herself but for use of a handgun and would suffer indictment for unlawful homicide notwithstanding, is ludicrous. But that is the nature of New York law.Isn’t that the tacit point of a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? And isn’t that the central point of the Bruen rulings?Raw abhorrence of firearms precludes rational debate over the right to armed self-defense in the face of imminent violent assault against self.In fact, even if the licensee does hold a valid concealed handgun carry license, that may not protect him from a charge of manslaughter or murder. The best that can be said about this is that at least the licensee is alive when he would otherwise be dead. But the ramifications of armed self-defense reflect the sad truth about living and working in New York.The Hochul Government’s aversion toward firearms and civilian citizen gun ownership is so strong that the New York Government begrudges the issuance of handgun licenses at all.And it gets worse. Of late, even where a handgun isn’t employed in self-defense, any use of self-defense that results in harm or death to an assailant may still result in a felony indictment. Recall the recent incident involving a retired Marine whom Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, brought a charge of manslaughter against. See, e.g., the article in Reuters. Even as violent crime escalates around the Country, especially in the major cities run by Democrat-Party administrations, the right to self-defense, armed or not, is under assault.The irony of an increasingly dangerous society, a wary, tentative police force post-Floyd George, and the incessant Government attack on Americans who would logically wish to carry a handgun for self-defense—since it is the most effective means available to defend one’s life—is both a disheartening and disorienting fact of life for those living or working in New York and in similar jurisdictions across the Country. That is what they must contend with.As if reading the minds of New Yorkers, the Hochul Government issued a reminder (actually a warning) to all New York residents, on June 24, 2022, one day after the Bruen decision came out, that New Yorkers should take care not to carry a handgun in public without a valid concealed handgun carry license, that Bruen hasn’t changed anything.“Governor Kathy Hochul today issued a reminder to gun owners that the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision to strike down New York's concealed carry law does not mean New York State's licensure processes and rules do not need to be followed. It does not automatically give current residential permit owners the ability to carry guns outside the home. Gun owners are required by law to follow current restrictions.” Hochul made these remarks on June 24, 2023, one day after the publication of the Bruen decision.Hochul would have known that most of the amendments to the Handgun Law were already drafted and coming down the pike, momentarily. That meant the nuances and peculiarities of multi-tier Gun licensing Statutes would remain.And that raises the question, post-Bruen: Why would a person seek to acquire a restricted New York handgun premise license in lieu of a concealed handgun carry license? After all, didn’t the elimination of the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement make the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license easier? Not really.Sure, the Hochul Government struck “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” from the Sullivan Act. But she remains stubborn and undeterred.Hochul continues to place roadblocks in the path of those individuals who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense. A plethora of sensitive place restrictions on lawful carry and use of a handgun for self-defense now plague holders of concealed handgun carry licenses: both new applications and renewals.The inclusion of the “Sensitive Place” provision and the “Good Moral Character” requirement in the CCIA operate essentially as stand-ins for “Proper Cause.”If the Hochul Government must acknowledge the right to armed self-defense outside the home no less than inside it, then the New York Government will place a plethora of obstacles in the path of those whom the State issues licenses to carry.The holder of such a license now finds himself constrained in the act of lawful carrying of a handgun and, therefore, constrained from lawfully using a handgun for self-defense in places that heretofore had no such restrictions.New York State, and New York City, especially, has become a patchwork quilt of places where the carrying of a handgun for self-defense—and therefore the use of it for self-defense—is illegal, notwithstanding the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Pre-Bruen, the only place restrictions pertained to were school zones and Federal and State Government buildings. The licensee knew that and avoided carrying a handgun in those areas and buildings. Now, the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license must play a child’s game of  “Hopscotch”—kept mentally off-balance not precisely aware whether he and his handgun and the concealed handgun license he carries, are situated in a prohibited “Sensitive Place.” Did he miss a marker? What if he has to walk through or drive through a designated “Sensitive Place” to arrive at his destination? Must he detour around the area?The concealed handgun carry licensee must also keep in mind that “Sensitive Locations” are subject to revision. New restricted areas may be listed, and he must keep assiduously abreast of all amendments to those“Sensitive Place” restrictions.So then, “full carry” UNRESTRICTED handgun licenses no longer exist in New York. Under the CCIA, such “full carry” licenses, are constrained by numerous rigidly enforced place restrictions—which the Government may add to at any time.New York UNRESTRICTED “FULL CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES are for all intents and purposes now reduced to RESTRICTED “LIMITED CARRY” CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES, most notably, on Manhattan Island.

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

The “Good Moral Character” requirement operates differently from the State’s “Sensitive Place” provision.The idea behind amendments to “Good Moral Character” as applied to applications for New York concealed handgun carry licenses is to dissuade an applicant from going through the hurdles of obtaining one.That is a strong inducement for the applicant to forego attempting to acquire such a license, opting instead for a restrictive premise license. That is why the Hochul Government has maintained the confounding multi-tiered handgun licensing structure post-Bruen.While there would appear, at first glance, no rational reason for a person to opt for a HIGHLY RESTRICTED New York premise handgun license Post-Bruen, the Hochul Government there are more than enough hurdles in place, making the acquisition of a RESTRICTED concealed handgun carry license no assured proposition, and the detailed information the CCIA mandates might cause a conscientious person to wish to refrain from divulging substantial details of his private life to the Government. In that case, a person might wish to forego the intricate, confusing, and intrusive process to obtain a concealed carry license and accept, instead, a New York premise handgun license.

INDIVIDUALS PURSUING A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE MUST BE WILLING TO WAIVE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND PRIVACY, ALLOWING THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT TO INTRUDE MERCILESSLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIFE

For the individual undeterred in his quest to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, he must willingly accept Government interference with his fundamental right to privacy and autonomy.Application of this bolstered “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” provision has a chilling effect on the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause and on tacit Freedom of Association, and on the Fourth Amendment right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An Applicant must now waive those rights if he wishes to pursue the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license.“GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” also butts up against one’s right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment—the very reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the“PROPER CAUSE” requirement.As applied to applicants for either highly restricted or restrictive premise handgun licenses only, the 2023 version of New York’s Handgun Law does not change anything. The CCIA reads as the prior version of the Gun Law read:NY CLS Penal §400.00(1):“Eligibility. 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. No license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant (a) twenty-one years of age or older, provided, however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States army, navy, marine corps, air force or coast guard, or the national guard of the state of New York, no such age restriction shall apply; (b) of good moral character, which, for the purposes of this article, shall mean having the essential character, temperament and judgement necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others (c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense or who is not the subject of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued upon the alleged commission of a felony or serious offense; (d) who is not a fugitive from justice; (e) who is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802; (f) who being an a noncitizen (i) is not illegally or unlawfully in the United States or (ii) has not been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2); (g) who has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (h) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has not renounced his or her citizenship; (i) who has stated whether he or she has ever suffered any mental illness; (j) who has not been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of an office of the department of mental hygiene pursuant to article nine or fifteen of the mental hygiene law, article seven hundred thirty or section 330.20 of the criminal procedure law or substantially similar laws of any other state, section four hundred two or five hundred eight of the correction law, section 322.2 or 353.4 of the family court act, has not been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to article ten of the mental hygiene law, or has not been the subject of a report made pursuant to section 9.46 of the mental hygiene law; (k) who has not had a license revoked or who is not under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of section 530.14 of the criminal procedure law or section eight hundred forty-two-a of the family court act.”The above requirements apply to the issuance of all New York handgun licenses: the highly restrictive premise home or business license and the concealed handgun “full carry” license.Note that the requirements set forth in the aforesaid section of the Handgun Law mirror the requirements of Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, but also, in some instances, as illustrated in the State law, go well beyond what counts as a disability under Federal law. But understand——

FEDERAL LAW DISQUALIFIERS FOR POSSESSING A FIREARM DO NOT INCLUDE A GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT. NEW YORK LAW DOES.

The requirement is both inherently vague and markedly, nakedly subjective.How does a licensing officer determine an applicant has “the essential character, temperament, and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others”? If the individual falls into a Federal disability—for example, the individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental asylum, has a felony conviction, or having served in the military, has received a dishonorable discharge—the licensing officer will point to the disability and likely add the applicant lacks the necessary character to be trusted with possession of a handgun or with the possession of any firearm. But then, a claim of lack of proper character and temperament adds nothing to a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. THE REQUIREMENT IS REDUNDANT.But, if the licensing officer does not specify a disability in the notice of denial apart from the assertion that, in the licensing officer’s opinion, the applicant lacks proper character and temperament, then, in the absence of a factual basis for such a finding, other than mere recitation of subjective, personal opinion, a Court of competent jurisdiction would likely find the decision to be arbitrary and capricious.But an applicant would have to go through the lengthy, arduous, and costly process of filing a New York “ARTICLE 78” action, challenging the licensing officer’s decision, to obtain relief from a Notice of Denial to Issue a License.That has always been a problem with the use of a Character requirement in the Handgun Law. But, prior to the enactment of the CCIA, the requirement never posed a viable problem.The licensing officer wouldn’t point to the absence of proper character and temperament EXCEPT if the denial were grounded on an objective disability. Recitation of the disability would suffice to deny the issuance of a handgun license. But, of itself, recitation of lack of proper character would not suffice to support a notice of denial to issue a handgun license. Lack of Good Moral Character was, heretofore, in New York, neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to obtaining a license.The Licensing Officer might append his Notice of Denial with a finding that the applicant lacks proper temperament and character, but its inclusion would not add anything portentous to the Notice of Denial.An Article 78 judicial action challenging the Notice of Denial would address the license officer’s litany of disabilities—discrete and specific matters. For, it would be on the basis of the disabilities that character objectively comes into play. Still, one might make the case that severe mental illness, severe enough to require institutionalization is not of itself demonstrative of “BAD MORAL CHARACTER,” any more than a person having a serious heart condition, or cancer, should be considered to have “BAD MORAL CHARACTER” due to illness.Where a person has committed a serious crime due to mental illness (for example, a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity), a case may or not be made out that such a person has “BAD MORAL CHARACTER.” It is a gray area. But, in any event, the New York licensing officer would refuse to issue a handgun license to that person. The issue of “GOOD” or “BAD” MORAL CHARACTER is really irrelevant in that case.Moreover, by itself, the issue of “CHARACTER” counts for nothing. And yet, for those individuals now applying for a concealed handgun carry license, this elusive and illusive provision becomes a new highly ramped-up basis to deny issuance of a handgun license. It is even more subjective, and just as arbitrary, as New York’s old “Proper Cause” requirement.Like the multi-tier structure of handgun licensing, the inclusion of a character requirement in the Handgun Law has itself developed into a complex multi-tier structure.The requirement for those applying for a concealed handgun carry license, the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement established for application for a highly restricted handgun carry license is now merely the first step in a two-step process to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, that the applicant has the proper character to be issued a concealed handgun carry license.Post-CCIA, NY CLS Penal §400.00(1)(o):“for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”It isn’t clear whether only one, or two, or all five requirements listed above all fall into the sphere of “Good Moral Character” and we must wend our way through the thicket to get a handle on this.To begin, it is odd to require more than one standard of proper character in the State’s Handgun Law.Logically, if a person cannot be deemed to have sufficient good character to possess a handgun at all, what does it mean and why should it matter to require more of one’s character to carry a handgun in public?Surely, if a “Character” requirement is going to be posited at all, then it follows that a person either has the proper character and temperament to possess a handgun or does not. This is not to suggest that a person should be required to demonstrate special Character traits. Indeed a person can have bad character, but, unless he is a blatant threat to others, a licensing authority should not wield one’s Character as a sword against him.The problem here rests with the Government licensing of handguns. The multi-tier handgun scheme that New York has constructed around which the Government creates ridiculous requirements to justify, or rationalize, the need for such a tiered structure, only makes the entire notion of “CHARACTER” more ridiculous. But, to employ a “CHARACTER” provision in a licensing scheme at all is just “nuts.”Government creates handgun licensing schemes and then interjects requirements that beg the question of whether Government should be in the game of licensing exercise of a fundamental right at all.Sure, a person requires a license to practice law or to practice medicine, but, while a person does enjoy a basic (we would argue an unenumerated Ninth Amendment) right to make a living, and, in fact, has a duty to provide for himself and for his family, so as not to be a burden on himself and on society, a person does not have a Constitutional right to practice law or medicine.And the professions, not the Government, regulate whether one has the proper character to practice law or medicine, anyway. If a professional Board sitting on review of a person’s character does not believe a candidate has the proper character, the Board will not allow a person to sit for the Bar Exam or, in the case of the medical profession, to sit for the Medical Licensing Examinations. These exams are necessary conditions precedent to acquire a State License to practice law or medicine.But the inclusion of a “Good Moral Character” requirement as a condition precedent to obtaining a license to exercise the fundamental right to armed self-defense is bizarre, and, in practice, application of the requirement adds nothing substantive, definitive, or even rational to the process. Application of the requirement merely reflects the personal bias of the licensing authority.And there never was anything substantive about it. It is just a makeweight, and wholly subjective.The Federal grounds for disqualification are sufficient,* as they are, for the most part, objective and tend to preclude the insinuation of personal bias, conscious or not, into the process of adducing whether one can or cannot possess a firearm. The instant background check undertaken at a firearms dealer is enough.The mindset of the Hochul Government is crucial in analyzing and evaluating these new requirements in the CCIA.We will delve into this in the next article, beginning with whether New York makes use of this thing, in other State Statutes. It does. And we will take a look at how other States that have such a provision, utilize it, and lay out our arguments in support of the remarks made herein that there is no justification for employment of “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” in New York’s Handgun Law.____________________________________*We must stress, consistent with prior statements made in previous articles, that our position is that, despite the seeming contradiction, the natural law right to armed self-defense is absolute.

But does this mean that all individuals should possess a firearm if they wish? The term ‘absolute,’ means ‘unqualified,’ and ‘without restriction.’ This logically entails the proposition that the natural law right to armed self-defense is an unqualified right of man, hence a right, without restriction.

But refer back to the word, ‘should,’ in the afore-referenced question, “Should all individuals possess a firearm if they wish? Further to the point, should there be some limitation on who possesses a firearm?

The word ‘should’ changes a proposition into a normative, moral statement that does not readily fall into the basic “true”/“false” paradigm. Our position is that pragmatic considerations require tough choices when it comes to who “should” “be allowed” to possess a firearm. That ultimately means some people, for pragmatic reasons, “should not” be permitted to possess guns.

Murderous psychopaths and psychotic maniacs fall into categories of individuals who should not possess firearms because their use of firearms is not limited to self-defense or for such benign purposes as hunting, target practice, or sport, such as skeet or trap-shooting, or Olympic events. And, recall the codification of the natural law right to armed self-defense (subsumed into “self-defense”/“self-preservation”) as the core predicate of the right, eliminating, then, use of firearms to commit murder or to threaten murder or other violence.

Federal Law also prohibits “illegal aliens” from possessing firearms. And that is right and proper. The United States is a Nation State, with physical geographical borders, comprised of citizens, whose allegiance, whether they accept it or not, is to the Nation—its Constitution, history, heritage, culture, ethos, and core ethical values.

By definition, an ‘illegal alien,’ is a person who intentionally defies our National geographical Integrity, our Constitutional integrity, and our Laws. His allegiance is not to our Country, nor to our Constitution. Therefore he, like a murderer, is a threat to our natural law right to self-defense, and therefore is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and, from a normative perspective, “ought” rightfully to be prohibited from possessing a firearm.

“Mental Defectives” are another category of individuals that are not in a position to be trusted with a gun as a very young child, as they pose a threat to others if they have access to a firearm. And as for those members of the armed forces who have been dishonorably discharged, they have brought dishonor on their Nation and on themselves and have demonstrated an inability to be trusted with a firearm, as, by definition, they pose a danger to the Nation, People, and Constitution.

But how far should these pragmatic bases to deny possession of firearms extend? The Government itself exists to preserve and protect the Constitution and provide for the common welfare of the citizens.

But Government is naturally inclined—given the power it wields—to subvert those ends, usurping the sovereignty of the American people.

The Biden Administration has disdainfully, unabashedly usurped the sovereignty of the American people and has deliberately, and maliciously failed to faithfully serve and protect the Nation, and has intentionally, malevolently, and spitefully, ignored enforcement of the Laws of the Land. And the Administration has gone further yet: coldly, callously, designing and implementing policy for the purpose of subverting and sabotaging the Laws of the Land.

It is not by accident this Administration has deliberately thwarted the citizenry's exercise of their Bill of Rights. The Administration has designed and implemented policy systematically designed to weaken the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The Biden Administration is hell-bent determined to dismantle the institutions of our Country, to destroy our history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical values, fully embracing a Tyranny to thrust upon the Nation. And Democrat Party-controlled State Governments across the Country have taken the policy positions and messaging of the Biden Administration to heart: zealously following in the Administration’s footsteps, designing and implementing similar policies, all with the aim of destabilizing society, destroying the economy, demoralizing the people, and promoting all matter of vices against God, Country, and People.

It is but an understatement to assert that neither the Federal Government nor many State Governments are the best arbiter to decide how or whether the natural law right to armed self-defense is to be exercised.

As we see most clearly today, Government tends, through time, to institute more and more restrictions on who may “lawfully” possess firearms, and places ever more draconian restrictions on the types, kinds, and quantity of firearms and ammunition one may possess, and on the component parts and paraphernalia a person may “lawfully” keep.

The Arbalest Quarrel has discussed this notion of ‘Tyranny’ in some depth, in previous articles and we will have much more to say about it and will do so in future articles. We will also deal at length with the notion of ‘absoluteness’ of our natural law rights and lay out further how that concept can be seen to cohere with a seeming logical inconsistency of ‘limitation’ placed on absoluteness in the exercise of natural law rights, utilizing “pragmatic realism” and “normative principles” to secure the Bill of Rights for all time, notwithstanding the strong desire and goal of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalist Empire Builders that insist the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights is archaic, unworkable, and, therefore, must eventually be eliminated, as part of their major overhaul of this Nation’s  Constitution.

___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IT IS HIGH TIME THE HIGH COURT DEALT WITH GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES HEAD-ON

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FOUR

“MAY ISSUE” VERSUS “SHALL ISSUE” A HANDGUN LICENSE ISN’T OF SALIENT IMPORTANCE. GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING, PER SE, IS.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “May Issue” concealed handgun carry license “Proper Cause” requirement in New York on June 23, 2022, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That much is known among both friends and foes of the Second Amendment alike. And the Democrat Party legislative machinery in Albany, at the behest of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, did strike “Proper Cause” from the State’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act.But a comprehensive set of amendments to the Law did nothing to weaken the import of the Act.Hochul and Albany simply rejiggered it, leading immediately, and unsurprisingly, to a new round of challenges.But what accounts for this brazenness of the New York Government? And why is it fair to say the recent set of Amendments to New York’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act) is no less in conflict with the right codified in the Second Amendment, after Bruen, than before the Bruen decision?As we argue, the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 (“CCIA”), negatively impact not only the Second and Fourteenth Amendments but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights as well.Moreover, for holders of valid New York concealed carry licenses prior to Bruen, the Amendments to the Handgun Law do not secure acquiring a renewal of their concealed handgun carry license any easier, but create new hurdles for those licensees, no less so than for new applications for concealed carry licenses.And, for those individuals who do acquire a valid New York concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA, its usefulness is jeopardized.Prior to Bruen, the State had established two tiers of concealed handgun carry licenses: Restricted and Unrestricted. That distinction no longer exists. The CCIA collapses the two tiers. Henceforth, all concealed handgun carry licenses are now, in effect, “Restricted.”What is going on here? How has the New York Government come about?One must dig deep into Bruen for an answer, and that analysis must extend to Heller and McDonald. For the three landmark Second Amendment cases operate in tandem.

THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS EXPLOITED WEAKNESSES IN THE BRUEN DECISION

The New York Government has exploited weaknesses in the rulings and reasoning of Bruen and in the parent Heller and McDonald cases.Consistent with our prior analyses, we continue to delve deeply into U.S. Gun Law.In this and subsequent articles, we unpack and decipher the language of the three seminal 21^st Century Second Amendment cases to gain an understanding of the weaknesses and flaws that have allowed State Government foes of the Second Amendment to flaunt the High Court rulings.Sometimes these Government schemes demonstrate adroitness and cunning. At other times the schemes show ineptitude, appearing crude and amateurish. No matter. Foes of the Second Amendment illustrate, through their actions, unmitigated Government contempt for theArticle III power of the Third Branch of Government, a marked disdain for the natural law right to armed self-defense, and outright hatred toward Americans who exhibit a marked intention to keep and bear arms, consistent with the right guaranteed to them by eternal, immutable Divine Law, albeit contrary to transitory, ever-changing international norms.  High Court rulings do not and cannot transform innate and open hostility toward the Second Amendment, harbored by and exhibited by the legacy Press; a plethora of native Anti-Second Amendment interest groups; the Biden Administration and its toady functionaries; Democrat Party-Controlled State Governments; International Marxist-Communist, and Neoliberal Globalist influences; the fixtures of the EU and UN; the Nation's Political liberals, Progressives, and Radicals among the polity; and international-sponsored NGOs.Reason doesn't factor into the equation. Those forces hostile to the very existence of the Second Amendment remain so. The hostility is attributed to and engendered by the agenda of the Globalist Billionaire Class the goal of which is to bring to fruition a neo-feudalistic corporatist Globalist economic, and financial empire, around which a one-world socio-political Government is to be constructed, through which the Hoi Polloi of the world, amorphous billions, are to be ruled with an iron fist, keeping them corralled and constrained.Constitutions of individual nation-states, especially those of the U.S. that embrace God-Given natural law, beyond the lawful authority of any Government to tamper with, are antithetical to The Globalist end-game. And, so, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are deemed both dangerous and irrelevant.Yet, the salient job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to preserve the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution by interpreting the plain meaning of it as drafted, and, in so doing, constrain malevolent or opportunistic forces that would manipulate the Constitution to serve an agenda at odds with it, whose unstated goal, as has become increasingly apparent, amounts to the wholesale destruction of a free Republic and the Nation’s sovereign people. It need hardly be said, let alone argued, that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not and ought not to be determined by popular opinion. Inferring the plain meaning of the Constitution, the decisions of the Court are not to be shunted aside due to the fervor of the moment. In any event, public opinion is fickle; easily manipulated. The public, much of it, is easily roused to anger. Now a mob, it is whipped into a frenetic, frenzied rage through the launching of industry-wide propaganda campaigns— elaborate psychological conditioning programs, blanketing the entire Nation. It is in this climate of induced fear and rage toward firearms and toward those of us who intend to exercise our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal right to armed self-defense that the U.S. Supreme Court operates and must navigate in and through, never losing sight of one axiomatic principle enunciated by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, over two centuries ago in the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). All first-year law students come to know this case.

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

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

See also, the article, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, on the High Court's website:

“When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: ‘We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.’” This suggests the High Court should never be tentative, circuitous, or vague in its opinions, especially when dealing with the Bill of Rights.Alas, that normative commandment is less objective practice and more unattainable goal. The elusiveness of it is due more likely to stormy conditions in the Court itself, among the Justices, that require them,  at times, to pull their punches.

THE PROBLEM WITH BRUEN RESTS NOT WITH THE RULINGS BUT WITH A  LACK OF CLARITY DUE POSSIBLY TO THE MACHINATIONS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE (?)

The problems attendant to Bruen rest not with the rulings themselves, but with abstruseness; a lack of clarity. The authors of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, could have closed the loopholes. They didn’t.But the fault does not lie with the late, eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Heller Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion.The fault, more likely than not, rests with Chief Justice Roberts. Conscious of the political headwinds, and desirous to establish a modicum of common ground between the two wings of the Court, he likely had demanded watered-down versions of the Majority Opinions.Were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas given free rein, they would have denied to State Government actors and their compliant Courts, an escape route, however narrow, allowing these foes of the Second Amendment to concoct mechanisms to skirt the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen rulings and reasoning that supports those rulings.

A CONUNDRUM RESTS AT THE HEART OF BRUEN AND HELLER AND MCDONALD

On a few major findings, the three landmark cases were patently clear.Heller held firmly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, and the Federal Government is prevented from disturbing that right. McDonald made clear the rulings and reasoning of Heller applied with equal force to the States. Bruen made clear the individual right to armed self-defense isn’t confined to one’s home but extends to the public domain.At each step, the three LandmarkSecond Amendment cases strengthened, in turn, an aspect of the plain meaning of the natural law right to armed self-defense, drawing upon and building upon and then clarifying a central plank of the predecessor case.The foes of these Landmark cases contested findings of law and fact. The arguments invariably began with a false premise: that the U.S. Supreme Court has impermissibly expanded the right embodied in the Second Amendment. The High Court did no such thing. It expanded nothing.The High Court simply laid out what exists in the language of the Second Amendment but that some State Governments fail to recognize or know but fail to acknowledge. And, in their actions, these Governments contort and distort, and inexorably weaken the clear, concise, and categorical meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment.The central thesis of the latest Landmark case, Bruen is this:

WHETHER AT HOME, OR IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE’S LIFE WITH THE FUNCTIONALLY BEST MEANS AVAILABLE, A FIREARM, A FACT TRUE CENTURIES AGO, AND NO LESS TRUE TODAY.

And, yet there exists a conundrum, a problem, a painful shard embedded in the heart of Bruen—a  carryover from Heller—that begs for resolution in a fourth Second Amendment case that likely is coming down the pike: Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, another New York case.That case is the progeny of an earlier case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen—the first major challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, amenable to the allegations made attacking the legality and Constitutionality of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, dismissed the case without prejudice, tacitly, but unsubtly, encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk to refile the case.New York Governor Hochul, apparently oblivious to the fact that the dismissal of Antonyuk vs. Bruen did not mean the Court found the CCIA Constitutional, pompously reported the District Court’s action as a win. She should have saved her breath. She would have looked less the fool.The Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, promptly filed a new complaint, and five other holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses joined him as Party Plaintiffs. During the litigation of the case, the Parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay enforcement of the CCIA, and the District Court granted the Motion.The Hochul Government appealed the Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court’s granting of the stay, and the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. In an unconventional request for a response from the Government to the Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Hochul Government filed its opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA case—eventually, recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli—and the High Court, in deference to the Second Circuit, did lift the stay, permitting the Government to enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit rules on the Preliminary Injunction.Having received what it wanted from the High Court and knowing or suspecting the core of the CCIA would likely be overturned on appeal of a final Order of the Second Circuit, the Hochul Government would have every reason to dawdle.The High Court, aware of this, cautioned the Government against this, in its Order, stating that that the Government must proceed apace with the case, and explicitly asserting that Plaintiffs can appeal to the High Court if the Government deliberately drags its feet.Yet, months later, the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, still sits at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A TENSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INTENT OF THOSE STATE GOVERNMENTS, THAT ABHOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, TO OPERATE IN DEFIANCE OF THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME

State Governments—like New York and others—that abhor exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment—will continue to enact Statutes spurning the High Court’s rulings until the Court deals with this conundrum.The central premise of Bruen is that the right to armed self-defense, inherent in the language of the Second Amendment, is not bounded in space or time.A person need not, then, present a reason to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. Self-defense is reason enough, and that reason is presumed in a person’s application for a carry license.It was the presumption of “May Issue” jurisdictions that an applicant for a handgun carry license must show the need for a handgun carry license that the U.S. Supreme Court attacked head-on.Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:  “New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standard. All of these ‘proper cause’ analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save  for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668, 431 U.S. App. D.C. 62 (CADC 2017).” [Bruen, Majority Opinion]Justice Thomas says Appellate Courts have upheld “May Issue” in six which include New York and the District of Columbia. What Justice Thomas doesn’t say but suggests is that “May Issue” is henceforth unconstitutional in all those jurisdictions because those jurisdictions embrace a“Proper Cause” schema even if the precise phrase, ‘Proper Cause,’ isn’t used in those “May Issue” in the handgun laws of those jurisdictions.Moreover, insofar as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in those jurisdictions have heretofore held “May Issue” Gun Laws Constitutional, the holdings of those Courts are henceforth overruled to the extent they conflict with Bruen. That means the reasoning in conjunction with and supporting those holdings is to be given no effect.A showing of “Extraordinary Need” is the mainstay of “Proper Cause”/“May Issue.” But, as to what had heretofore constituted this “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” was never defined in New York Statute. So, then, what is this thing, “Proper Cause?” How does New York define ‘Proper Cause’ since the Legislature never defined it?“No New York statute defines ‘proper cause.’ But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980). This ‘special need’ standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence ‘of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.’ In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199, 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department’s requirement of “‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5-03(b))).’”It was, then, left up to the various Licensing Authorities in New York to construct operational rules for “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”The expression, ‘Proper Cause,’ means ‘Special Need.’ And the expression, ‘Special Need’ means that an applicant for a concealed carry license must establish a reason for carrying beyond simple ‘self-defense.’A demand that a prospective concealed carry licensee convince the licensing authority that his need arises from an “Extraordinary Need,” i.e., a need beyond that faced by most people is what New York and similar “May Issue” jurisdictions demand. And it is this the U.S. Supreme Court finds both incongruous and repugnant under both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.Justice Thomas points out that “May Issue”/“Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need”—all allude to the fact that the Government licensing authority may exercise discretion in issuing a handgun license. This wasn’t a feature of New York’s Handgun Law Licensing Statute when the State Legislature enacted the Sullivan Act in 1911. “Magistrate” (i.e., Government Authority) discretion in issuing a carry license came about a couple of years later.“In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character” and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.” [Bruen, Majority Opinion] Through the passing years and decades, New York added more requirements, further constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The history of New York’s Sullivan Act illustrates a consistent and systematic course of action by foes of the Second Amendment to frustrate efforts by those individuals who desire to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense.  Eventually, as the trend toward ever more elaborate, convoluted, and oppressive amendments continued, the Handgun Law came to embrace several categories or tiers of handgun licensing and became increasingly difficult to decipher.New York’s Courts stamped their imprimatur on these Government actions, opining disingenuously, ludicrously that New York Law did indeed recognize a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but that exercise of that right required the acquisition of a license, and applicants had no right to demand a license of the Government. The Courts stated the obvious—that issuance of a license is a privilege, not a right, and one the New York Government reserved, to itself, the right to bestow or not, and to rescind once bestowed, as a matter of right.Americans who resided or worked in New York had had enough and challenged the legality and constitutionality of the State’s handgun law.  The process of obtaining a New York concealed handgun carry license is especially difficult demonstrating the Government’s callousness toward gun owners and its utter disdain for those civilian citizens who deign to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.“A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’ §§400.00(1)(a)-(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to ‘have and carry’ a concealed ‘pistol or revolver.’ §400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that ‘proper cause exists’ to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a ‘restricted’ license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438-439, 663 N. E. 2d 316, 316-317, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996); Babernitz v. Police Dept. of City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696-698, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).” [Bruen Majority Opinion]Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that demonstration of “extraordinary need” for carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, heretofore inextricably tied to “Proper Cause”/“May Issue”,  is unconstitutional. The Court articulated this point clearly and categorically. But, having taken this action, the Court stopped. It did not take the next logical step. It did not deal with the issue of “May Issue” Handgun Licensing itself.And that is why Bruen leaves us with a disheartening quandary; a diluted, seemingly equivocal opinion, as also occurred in Heller. The Hochul Government recognized this as a weakness in Bruen, and her Government ran with it.This must have frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion, along with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion.No doubt the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Majority Opinion in the parent Heller case would register his own frustration and indignation at repeated attempts by some on the High Court, to inhibit the citizenry’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The basic problem with the Bruen decision, and the source of the quandary, goes to the High Court’s handling of “May Issue” licensing.The Justices must have known that lukewarm handling of “May Issue” would provide the Hochul Government with a loophole—just enough, perhaps—to allow the Government to slither around the fundamental right of the people to armed self-defense at home and in the public arena.Drilling down the problem with“May Issue,” we proceed to the legitimacy of handgun licensing itself.

IS STATE GOVERNMENT “MAY ISSUE” HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL?

Is the practice of “May Issue” handgun licensing constitutional? This is the source of our inquiry here. It is a question that the U.S. Supreme Court must at some point contend with. We hope it does so, and in short order, in the next major Second Amendment case to come before it.In Bruen, the Court Majority doesn’t deal head-on with the matter of the legitimacy, legality, and Constitutionality of Government “May Issue” Licensing of firearms generally and with handguns particularly. The Court touches upon it, tentatively acknowledging the problem, noting that very few States, including New York, and the District of Columbia, are “May Issue” jurisdictions, but does not pursue it. This, to our mind, is a major failing of the case.That failing, a major and pervasive one, and one longstanding, going back fifteen years to Heller, has provided jurisdictions like New York, and others, with a path through which they not only are able to salvage draconian handgun licensing schemes but to strengthen them—all this despite the prominence and impact of Heller and Bruen that would seem at first glance to have closed all loopholes, demanding compliance.It is curious that obtaining a New York “restricted” handgun license for, say, hunting or target practice, is a relatively easy endeavor, at least in comparison to the hoops a person has had to jump through to acquire a concealed handgun “FULL CARRY” License. New York may be construed as a “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdiction apropos of restricted home or business premise licenses. In other words, so long as the applicant does not fall under a disability established in Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, (and the State embellishes those, making it even more difficult to overcome the disability provisions set forth in the Penal Code), the State licensing authority would issue a restricted handgun premise license. Generally, if the applicant did not meet the State's stringent “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” requirement, sufficient to acquire a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, the licensing authority would inquire of the applicant if he would accept a highly restrictive handgun premise license in its stead. That would, at least, avoid the need for the applicant to go through substantial time, effort, and expense necessary to reapply for a premise handgun license. And THAT would be the extent of the New York Government's concession to a person who wishes to exercise his right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment. The only requirement for one to obtain a limited use premise license is that a person isn’t under a disability which would entail automatic denial from legally possessing a firearm at all.Acceding to issue HIGHLY RESTRICTED, LIMITED USE HANDGUN LICENSES amounts to a booby prize. To this day, notwithstanding the Bruen rulings, New York remains a “MAY ISSUE” jurisdiction.The New York State Legislature has made the acquisition of a concealed carry license an extraordinarily difficult endeavor traditionally, and so it remains today. New York disincentivizes the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses post-Bruen, as it has done pre-Bruen. The process is lengthy, costly, and time-consuming. That doesn’t bother Associate Justice Steven Breyer. He feels acquisition of a handgun carry license should remain difficult, the reason articulated predicated on the prevalence of violent crime in society.He reminds the target audience of a connection between handguns and violent crimes that he and other foes of the Second Amendment invariably draw:“Consider, for one thing, that different types of firearms may pose different risks and serve different purposes. The Court has previously observed that handguns, the type of firearm at issue here, ‘are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). But handguns are also the most popular weapon chosen by perpetrators of violent crimes. In 2018, 64.4% of firearm homicides and 91.8% of nonfatal firearm assaults were committed with a handgun. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, G. Kena & J. Truman, Trends and Patterns in Firearm Violence, 1993-2018, pp. 5-6 (Apr. 2022).” [Breyer, Dissenting Opinion in Bruen]What is interesting about this argument—one routinely made by foes of the notion of civilian citizen armed self-defense—is the implication derived therefrom.The implication is that the lowest common denominator of society—inhabited by the common criminal opportunist, the psychopathic killer, and the psychotic maniac (all of whom Democrat-Party-Controlled Governments allow to run amok), and at times, here and there, the atypical, careless, irresponsible, but otherwise law-abiding, rational adult—should dictate firearms’ policy negatively impacting exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense for the rest of us: tens of millions of the common people, i.e., responsible, sane, trustworthy, law-abiding Americans. Who are these Americans? Roughly a third of the Country, over 80 million Americans. See, e.g., American Gun Facts.There are proven ways to deal with the lowest common denominator of society. Get them off the streets and into prisons or institutions for the criminally insane. But those Americans who consider themselves “Liberals” or “Progressives” and who are, as a group, antagonistic toward the very notion of a natural law right to armed self-defense, focus their energies on curbing or curtailing the right to armed self-defense of the vast commonalty—using a sledgehammer rather than a surgical knife to deal with violent crime posed by a small but virulent element of society.This suggests that intractable violent crime is but a pretext for the accomplishment of a goal: disarming the citizen. One wonders: Is it a pervasive violent crime that motivates Anti-Second Amendment sentiment among those who seek to eliminate the exercise of the right to armed self-defense, or is it something else, something much different: the threat that the armed citizenry poses to an Authoritarian Government? Is it not the latter, rather than the former that motivates and drives the Government to disarm the American public en masse?Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, discussed tyranny but there is nothing in that discussion to cement as a rationale for the “individual right to keep and bear arms” holding—what Justice Scalia points out to be the key point of the Second Amendment for the framers of the Constitution—that the Second Amendment is the final “fail-safe” to prevent or, at least, to forestall the onset of tyranny. Rather, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to a notion of armed self-defense against the criminal element. Thus, the Heller rulings operate as a counterweight to the dissenting opinions' arguments that guns should be removed from civilian citizens precisely because they are often utilized by criminals and lunatics, suggesting erroneously, that the way to prevent Gun Violence from thousands of psychopathic criminals and psychotic maniacs, whom the political and progressive elements in society are loathed to deal effectively with, is to remove guns from the hands of everyone else: approximately a third of the Nation, one hundred million law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens. But then, it is this armed citizenry—upward of one hundred million Americans—whom the Anti-Second Amendment contingent of the Country and one-world-government proponents are really targeting.Tyranny is what the world empire builders have sought for decades and what they intend to accomplish, for that is what a world government means. And the armed citizenry—that which is nonexistent in CCP China and Russia, the EU and in the British Commonwealth Nations, and in almost every other nation or political grouping of nations on Earth, save for Switzerland and Israel—is the one definitive preventive medicine to Tyranny. Our Constitution’s framers knew that. They fought a war over it. And, but for the force of arms, this Nation today would still, more likely than not, still be under British rule, a part of the British Commonwealth.  With the truth of this as a given, all talk of “Gun Violence” is to be perceived as a deflection—a “dodge,” irrelevant. True “Criminal Violence”—if there is any import to the expression equates with “Tyranny.” Armed self-defense against predatory animal and man is understood and need not be stated.The Second Amendment directs one’s attention to the threat to a free people as a whole—a dire threat, posed by Predatory Government. Justice Scalia undoubtedly recognized it. And, in Heller, he surmised that future scholars of U.S. case law would see in the Heller decision that the case is a doctrinal essay on the rationale for the Second Amendment, and, thus, for the central holding—the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, qua the armed citizenry, as necessary for the security of a Free State: Tyranny Thwarted only through the continued existence of the armed American citizenry.It is that idea that is both repugnant to and frightening too and therefore intolerable to those forces both within this Country and outside it, who understand, in these three cases, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, a direct assault on their goals and initiatives. Those goals and initiatives are directed at eliminating, not safeguarding, preserving, and strengthening the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to armed self-defense.This natural law right to armed self-defense is tied to the right of free speech, i.e., the right of the individual TO BE individual: the natural law right of the individual to dissent from Government dictates and mob rule and societal pressures that compel uniformity in thought and conduct; that demand obedience; demand the surrender of one’s will to the will of the “Greater Society,” to the will of “The Hive.”  Those forces that crush entire nations and populations into submission view the U.S. Supreme Court’s 21^st Century Second Amendment rulings in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen, as an unacceptable and intolerable assault on what they wish to achieve: a Neoliberal Globalist empire. These forces perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as anachronistic, antagonistic, and antithetical to that goal. Individual thought and an armed citizenry cannot coexist in such a reality. Thus, the goals and policy initiatives in vogue today are employed to drive a wedge between the American people and their history and heritage, culture, and ethos. The aims of these forces are directed at eliminating, not preserving and strengthening, the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to dissent and to armed self-defense. The New York Government has long resided in the camp of these Globalist, world empire builders.The New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul—and before her, Andrew Cuomo—is virulently opposed to civilian citizens carrying handguns in the public domain for personal defense.The New York Government, with the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, weathered the previous challenge to the Sullivan Act and New York City handgun rules, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020), but that case dealt only with the constitutionality of certain restrictions on the use of a restricted New York City premise license. The State and the City modified the Handgun Statute and the City modified the Rules of the City of New York to avoid a possible attack on the core of the Sullivan Act, involving the carrying of a handgun concealed in New York. The core of the Sullivan Act, though could not be avoided in Bruen. For, the legitimacy, the legality, the constitutionality of the core of the Sullivan Act was at issue.The Hochul Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany attempted an end-run around Bruen by complying with a superficial aspect of the Bruen holding. The High Court held that,“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”So, then, if the High Court found “Proper Cause” to be problematic, the Government would strike the words, “Proper Cause” from the Sullivan Act—which turned out to be a superficial genuflection. The Hochul Government thereupon bolstered the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Gun Law that the High Court mentioned in a cursory fashion in Bruen but did not remonstrate against because “Good Moral Character” had not functioned as anything more than a makeweight. It did not factor substantively into the equation whether the New York Handgun Licensing Authority would issue a person a concealed handgun carry license. What does that mean? How does the Licensing Authority process an application for a concealed handgun carry license in New York? The process of issuing a concealed carry license in New York, prior to Bruen, involved a two-step process. First, the licensing official determined whether the applicant falls under a disability that precludes that person from possessing a firearm at all.If the applicant falls into a category of disability as set forth in the “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” Section of Federal Law, Title 18, Part I (“Crimes”) Chapter 44 (“Firearms”), then that person is incapable of legally possessing any firearm.18 USCS § 922 sets forth:“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) who is a fugitive from justice;(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8) who is subject to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; [and](n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”In the letter of denial, the licensing officer will state the basis for denial and add that in the License Officer’s judgment the individual does not satisfy the “Good Moral Character” requirement. The words, “Good Moral Character” do not add anything pertinent to the letter of denial. For, whether mentioned or not, the applicant cannot lawfully possess a firearm under federal law, once the licensing officer sets forth the ground or grounds of federal disability and/or the State's own grounds, which build on the Federal grounds of disability. For example, the New York Handgun Licensing Officer in New York City, i.e., the NYPD License Division, has routinely denied the issuance of handgun license, whether for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license or a restricted premise license if a person has an arrest record, even without conviction and even if the arrest or arrest and conviction occurred while the applicant was a juvenile, and the arrest or conviction record would likely be under seal, or if the individual has a history of mental illness whether or not the applicant had been institutionalized.It should be noted the NYPD License Division, for one, always denied a person’s application for any kind of handgun license if the individual had an arrest record, even sans conviction, although the denial in that circumstance could often—depending on the nature of the prior arrest or arrests, but not invariably—be overcome through an Administrative Hearing.Assuming the applicant did not fall into an 18 USCS § 922(g) or (n) category and the applicant did not seem, to the licensing officer, to have an “objective” flaw such as an arrest record, or history of mental illness, AND the applicant sought a concealed carry license, the officer would proceed to the second step, to ascertain whether that person satisfied the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement. This, traditionally, was difficult for the average applicant to satisfy, as noted, supra.Since the U.S. Supreme Court saw no Constitutional flaw in the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Handgun Law—and as the Plaintiffs in Bruen did not, apparently object to it—the High Court did not find fault with it either, apart from mentioning it in the Bruen Majority Opinion. It was never seen as an issue demanding resolution.The Hochul Government immediately perceived the “Good Moral Character” as a useful mechanism to maintain the “May Issue” prerogative and jumped on it.After the publication of the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government went to work to transform the “Good Moral Character” Requirement into a de facto “Proper Cause”  requirement. It did this by demanding that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license comply with a host of new requirements that had not heretofore existed in the Handgun Law.Now, under the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “current through 2023,” NY CLS Penal § 400.00(1),“. . . for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”Requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) are problematic on grounds of legality and constitutionality, and vagueness. Each one is a potential stumbling block—and this is by design.We will delve into each of these in a forthcoming article. In our analysis, we will also attempt to discern the reasoning behind each.But, for now, concerning the new “Good Moral Character” requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v), let it suffice to say that, since these requirements were not mandated before the Bruen decision, there is no legitimate rationale for mandating them now other than to maintain “May Issue” through the creation of a new set of hurdles to replace the loss of the “Proper Cause” requirement.These points are important. If true, this would strongly suggest, as applied to New York, that the mere act of striking the words ‘Proper Cause’ from New York’s Handgun Law doesn’t alter the subjective nature of the “May Issue” standard through which a New York licensing authority may, in its discretion, deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That discretion continues to exist under the CCIA.The Legislature in Albany basically transformed the “Good Moral Character” requirement that, prior to Bruen, was essentially redundant—which is why Plaintiffs did not claim fault with it—into a new “Proper Cause” requirement with a litany of new subjective criteria that a New York handgun licensing authority has as its disposal to confound the applicant and through which that licensing authority can effectively deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Although the Hochul Government was astute enough to refrain from tying this bolstered “Good Moral Character” with “Extraordinary Need,”  “May Issue” a concealed handgun carry license remains. And that is problematic.The CCIA “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive Place” restriction provisions are two principal bases of challenge that have generated, to date, at least two dozen lawsuits in New York. Again, this could have been avoided. Apart from finding New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement Unconstitutional, Justices Thomas and Alito, along with Trump’s nominees, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett might have made an unequivocal pronouncement that “May Issue” handgun licensing statutes are per se illegal and unconstitutional because “May Issue” jurisdictions allow for improper use of Government discretion. But they forbore doing so.That failure led to the enactment of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act and gave New York handgun licensing authorities the tools to continue to deny an applicant, not under a disability, from exercising his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Justices must have been aware of the problem, and they must have seen this coming. They probably realized the New York Government would recognize the weakness in the High Court’s rulings just as they did. In fact, Justice Thomas, alluded to the problem, when, he said, as we iterated, supra,“New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. [Bruen Majority Opinion].So, “MAY ISSUE”/“PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” lives on—unconditional, unalloyed, absolute Government Discretion to continue to refuse to issue concealed handgun carry licenses, contrary to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the public domain as well as in one's home.Did Chief Justice Roberts tie the hands of Justices Thomas and Alito in Bruen, just as both he and Justice Kennedy tied the hands of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in the Heller case?Unfettered Government discretion reduces an intrinsic, unalienable, right into a mere privilege: To be bestowed on one or not at the whim of Government, and just as easily rescinded, if once bestowed.New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul and her Democrat Party supporters in the State Legislature in Albany have taken advantage of the weaknesses and vagaries in Bruen, to launch a scheme to keep the core structural scheme of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government concocted a set of unconstitutional amendments to the Sullivan Act, referred to, collectively, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Together with a series of other oppressive Anti-Second Amendment Statutes, the State’s Gun Law is as potent and as noxious, and as illegal as it was prior to Bruen. And so, a flurry of new lawsuits ensued.The essence of the problem here isn’t ‘May Issue’ versus ‘Shall Issue’ a handgun carry license. The essence of the problem rests with the very act of requiring a license to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance.There is something deeply disturbing and discordant with State Government requiring licensing as a condition precedent to exercising a fundamental, unalienable right.Drilling down to the bedrock, the question is:  “Is the Act of Government Handgun Licensing Legal and Constitutional, at all?” The majority of States recognize inherent Constitutional problems with licensing, and as of January 2023, most States have established “permitless carry.”The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable right is legal and Constitutional. The Court alluded to it fifteen years ago in Heller, and once again in Bruen, last year, but that is as far as the Court went, as far as it was willing to go.But that doesn’t mean the Court condones Government firearms licensing regimes. And so, the legitimacy of State Government handgun licensing remains an open question. And jurisdictions like New York have taken advantage of the Court's failure to take firm and categorical action on this.,The tentativeness of the High Court to address this issue directly and the seeming elusiveness of the conjecture have led some jurisdictions to infer, erroneously, that gun licensing is a legitimate prerogative of the State. It is not, but that doesn’t stop foes of the Second Amendment from making the claim, anyway. And New York has made such a claim.In the New York’s “Brief in Opposition to Emergency Application for Relief and to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction” in Antonyuk versus Nigrelli, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Letitia James, Attorney General, representing the New York Government, made the blanket statement,“Indeed, this Court in Bruen endorsed shall-issue licensing regimes [citing Bruen at 2138 n.9; and Kavanaugh’s concurring at 2161-62.”But is that true? What DID the Court really say?Footnote 9 of Bruen reads, verbatim:“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].’ Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’ Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151, 89 S. Ct. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”Letitia James is wrong. Moreover, her remarks are insulting.The High Court HAS NOT endorsed the notion that Government licensing of handguns is Constitutional. To the contrary, the Court acknowledges only that licensing regimes in 43 “Shall Issue” Jurisdictions will be tolerated so long as they do not offend the core of the Second Amendment right. And even there, the Court said, “we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes.”That IS NOT an endorsement of licensing. Furthermore, the Court’s remarks, in dicta, categorically exclude “May Issue” regimes such as New York, which led to the Court’s review of New York’s licensing regime in Bruen, in the first place.Justice Kavanaugh’s remark on page 2162 of Bruen, which James also cites, reiterates the points appearing in FN 9 of the Majority Opinion.A complete analysis of the three seminal Second Amendment cases requires a perusal of Justice Scalia’s remarks in Heller.Scalia made clear that concessions made to State regulation of the Second Amendment do not mean the Court acknowledges an unbridled State right to license the exercise of a fundamental right.Scalia said this:“Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement ‘in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license.’  App. 59a.  The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District ‘may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one's house.’ . . . Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with . . . licensing’ and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’  Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.  We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance  of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”Keep in mind the last sentence: “We . . . do not address the licensing requirement.” In other words, the issue of the constitutionality of handgun licensing, per se, remains unsettled. It is certainly important, in fact vital. By pointing to it, Scalia suggests the issue will be taken up at a later time. That time is now.The Court cannot continue to evade the central issue: Is State Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable, right Constitutional? This issue must be addressed and must be addressed soon, and it must be addressed clearly, comprehensively, and emphatically.Foes of the Second Amendment in the States and in the Federal Government are pressing ahead with their agenda aimed at eliminating the exercise of the right to armed self-defense before the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.It no longer behooves the U.S. Supreme Court to simply review this or that provision of a State handgun law. Doing so does not get to the heart of the matter. It only results, as we have seen, in countless more brazen attempts by State Governments to intrude on one’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against animals, predatory men, and, worst of all, the predatory, tyrannical Government.The Founders of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution, did not envision the kind of wholesale unconscionable intrusion into the sovereign citizens’ exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms that Americans witness and suffer today. And they certainly wouldn't endorse this idea of Government licensing prior to exercising a fundamental right, that is prevalent in many jurisdictions.These unconstitutional, unconscionable actions by State actors must stop here and must stop now.The case Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Government and the Second Circuit are presently sitting on, in defiance of Justice Samuel Alito’s admonishment to the Government to avoid delay, is likely, at some point, to be reviewed by the High Court.If or when the Court does so, it should not quibble or equivocate any longer on the salient issue of the day but should deal directly with the constitutionality of handgun licensing.That is the only way to impede the inexorable erosion of our Nation’s most important Right—the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—in the absence of which preservation of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible, and Tyranny in all its horror is inevitable and unavoidable.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTONYUK VS. NIGRELLI (ANTONYUK II): IS THIS CASE DESTINED TO BE THE FOURTH SEMINAL U.S. SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS?

******************************

IMPORTANT NOTE TO OUR READERS: THE ARTICLE  POSTED YESTERDAY UNDER THE TITLE, "THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS," HAS UNDERGONE A SUBSTANTIAL REWRITE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT, THAT WE FELT IT BEST TO POST THIS NEW ONE AS A DISTINCT ARTICLE, AND WITH AND UNDER A NEW BANNER. WE HAVE KEPT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, AS POSTED, TO BE FAIR TO ALL OUR READERS. YOU MAY WISH TO COMPARE THE TWO. BUT, IF YOU FIND DISCREPANCIES IN POINTS MADE, BE ADVISED THAT THIS INSTANT ARTICLE CONTROLS. IT REPRESENTS OUR SOLE POSITION AND PERSPECTIVE ON THE MATTERS DISCUSSED. THANK YOU.

******************************

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

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

PART ONE{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But, of the two, the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration, wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.__________________________________________

A TREMENDOUS CLASH IS AT HAND BETWEEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS IN BRUEN AND THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT’S REPUDIATION OF BRUEN

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherOnce the U.S. Supreme Court published the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government, anticipating the decision, was prepared for it. It had been prepared for the Bruen decision for months. The State Senate in Albany quickly enacted amendments to its Gun Law, designed to operate in defiance of the rulings and to further constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and Governor Hochul immediately signed the amendments into law. Holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees reviewed the amendments as quickly as Hochul had signed them into law. They were not amused. And they were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of those lengthy amendments to the New York Gun Law, which, as a body, were referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The Plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a short “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the“Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court is of course well versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court is well aware of the Second Circuit’s curt reversal of the lower Court’s decision.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, here, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff New York State Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means, at first glance, at least, that the Second Circuit won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA Constitutional when it isn’t. But this is unlikely. We explain why in a subsequent article.One thing is clear. The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit—one through weak argument, and the second through a lame judicial order—have admitted they detest the Second Amendment, and are contemptuous of both the rulings in Bruen. And, further, that Governor Hochul, to her everlasting shame, expressed her personal disdain for the Court Majority that issued the rulings, thereby exhibiting her defiance of the U.S. Constitution, her contempt for the Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic, and her loathing of the people who happen to cherish their God-Given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, unmodifiable, and eternal, and absolute right to armed self-defense.But let Hochul rant and rave. The New York State Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball, now.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow for the enforcement of an unconstitutional Gun Law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request,” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by late afternoon, Tuesday, January 3, 2023. ___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE, AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART THREE

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse and vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. But, the Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. The High Court didn’t rule on its efficacy of it here, but it served its purpose.As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The High Court didn't rule on the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” thereby tacitly accepting jurisdiction to handle the matter set forth in the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief. And the High Court sent a clear message to the New York Government and, by extension, a silent message to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as well.The stakes are high, for everyone, Plaintiff New York Concealed Handgun Carry Licensees and Defendant New York Government Officials and Officers, and the matters involved impact the entire Nation, both the American People and other State Governments, and the Federal Government, too. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although, as we pointed out, supra, the Defendant New Y0rk Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order” demanding a response, unusual as this “request” is, it would be remiss of the Government to ignore this request. The issuance of even a seemingly benign request, any item coming from the U.S. Supreme Court is to be taken seriously, and in some cases, as here, cause for alarm. And Hochul's Government would be wise to respond to it, even if it isn't required to do so, as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line even if it doesn’t appear at the moment to be in jeopardy. It most definitely is.Whether the Government responds or not, however, various scenarios play out. We start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game of kowtowing to the New York Government any longer, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation because, obviously, there isn't one to be made.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings. The Second Circuit could not rationally explain how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So, it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that there is no tenable basis for the High Court to entertain an interlocutory order here. Indeed, the Plaintiffs probably struggled to find a jurisdictional basis. The best thing, apparently the only thing, the Plaintiffs could come up with was the “All Writs Act” which is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court’s attention. But it worked. The High Court wasn't going to stand on ceremony here. And, some credible basis could be made, if the High Court wished to deal with the applicability of the “All Writs Act,” jurisprudentially and jurisdictionally, as the application of it has expanded exponentially through time (so why not here?), the issues are so compelling that the High Court cut to the chase. The implication of the importance of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is clear from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order qua “request” at all, on an interim, interlocutory matter. The New York Government and the Second Circuit felt smug. They both knew or would have, at least, surmised that the Plaintiffs would file their Application for Relief from the Second Circuit's Order, but both apparently, believed, erroneously, that the High Court would reject the Plaintiffs’ Application out of hand. They were wrong if they held such notions.The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak Order.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do that.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit. So the Government is obliged to respond.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, sua sponte, i.e., on its own motion, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits. Perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court, at the moment, at least, wishes to be tactful, and diplomatic. And, so, the Government is tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as at least a tacit demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely, ipso facto, reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is, then, just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.”The Government, from years of experience, would have reason to expect the Second Circuit would kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions, even as the lower Federal District Court made clear it was no longer going to play that game. This came as a surprise to Hochul. And she continually misconstrues the District Court's intent, refusing to acknowledge that the Court's orders mean what they say. This became blatantly clear in Hochul's remarks to the public after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I), inferring, wrongly, that the dismissal of the case, without prejudice, constituted an outright win for the Government. Hochul apparently failed to peruse, or, otherwise, she dismissed the reasoning of the Court. The Court made abundantly clear that the major, substantive portions of the CCIA are patently illegal, inconsistent with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and inconsistent with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. No matter. The District Court dismissed the case. And for Kathy Hochul that is ALL THAT MATTERED to Hochul. Had she spent a little time reflecting on the content of the Opinion, she would know the Court had dismissed the case due to a standing issue of one of the Party Plaintiffs, and that matter could be rectified by simply filing a new case setting out the same allegations. Thus, the District Court tacitly encouraged the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, in the Plaintiffs' capacity as an injured individual, to file a new case against the New York Government. And Ivan Antonyuk did just that. That case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli (Antonyuk II), has come to bite Hochul, like an angry tiger, on her behind, and that tiger is not letting go.It is one thing for Governor Hochul to expect the New York Courts to kowtow to the New York Government on Second Amendment matters, as it has consistently done through the many years and decades. And the Second Circuit has done so, and the District Court has not, even if Hochul wishes to delude herself to think otherwise OR otherwise expect, as, at the moment, has panned out, that the higher U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will override the lower U.S. District Court's rulings. But, it is quite another thing entirely to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do the same, to kowtow to the Government, knowing that Justice Sotomayor, along with a couple of other Associate Justices, is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, sharing the same ideology, abhorring the Second Amendment no less so than the New York State Government and the Second Circuit, and will therefore keep the High Court Conservative wing in check. No! Where, as here, the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court is threatened, the Justices will band together to preserve the sanctity of the High Court. That was true up to the present time. But with Biden's nominee to the High Court, now confirmed and sitting on the High Court, Ketanju Brown Jackson, it may very well be that a long-standing venerable institution is in danger of losing its integrity upon which it has heretofore remained a truly independent Branch of Government.Therefore, as for the matter at hand, Justice Sotomayor is not about to take action in a manner blatantly inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen rulings, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends, ideologically, to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment.Thus, the Parties to the action here will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. The Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. Nonetheless, the New York Government ought to respond and, it is our prediction, will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court that will take a non-response as yet one more personal slight, adding to a plethora of previous indignities that the miscreant, Kathy Hochul, showered on the Court.   As this article goes to posting, at the end of the business day, January 3, 2023, the New York Government has filed its response to Justice Sotomayor's “request,” pulled up from the U.S. Supreme Court docket. The filing is viewable as a PDF.AQ will study it shortly. Given the short time that the Government had available to it, to respond to Justice Sotomayor's, “request,”  the Government has probably reiterated the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA, and will hope for the best. What happens now?We consider the possibilities in depth, in the next article.______________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL IS CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND HARD PLACE AND SHE HAS NO ONE TO BLAME FOR THIS BUT HERSELF

SUBPART FOUR

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors.” ~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherNow that New York Governor Kathy Hochul has responded to Justice Sotomayor’s “Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023,” which has just been filed, viewable on the SCOTUS docket, the question is, what happens now? What will the U.S. Supreme Court do?This much we surmise:Justice Sotomayor will act, but she won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter, and it will resolve the matter.The High Court will review and analyze both the Plaintiffs' Application for Relief, previously filed, and titled, “Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit”, and the Defendant New York Government's Response to the Plaintffs' Application for Relief, titled, “Brief For Respondents In Opposition To Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.” In rendering its decision, the High Court will likely utilize New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a Preliminary Injunction (PI) is warranted or not.Applying New York’s own test, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. The case will then be returned to the Second Circuit for the ultimate resolution of the PI.AQ anticipates that the High Court will waste little time on this, and will render a decision within the next few days or within a week or two at the latest.Likely the High Court will find the District Court’s ruling, granting the Plaintiffs’ PI, warranted and will order the Second Circuit to stay execution of the CCIA while the Second Circuit hashes out the substantive merits of the case.One might think the Second Circuit would find against the Plaintiffs, on the merits, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction. But will it do this? Suppose it does. What then? Plaintiffs will immediately appeal the adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And the U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up. There is no doubt about that. The U.S. Supreme Court would take the case up because Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli directly affects the High Court’s earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That is something neither the New York Hochul Government, nor the Second Circuit would want. For, the High Court would find that the CCIA, either in full or in substantial part, does not comply with the High Court’sBruen rulings. The High Court would thereupon strike the CCIA down.This would place Hochul Government in a much worse position than it was in when theBruen rulings first came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while machinating to further constrain and constrict the exercise of the citizen’s right to armed self-defense. But Hochul thought she knew better. She didn’t. Instead, she stuck her foot well down her throat, and there it remains.And, once the High Court finds theCCIA unconstitutional, it could go one step further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. This is something it avoided in NYSRPA vs. Bruen. But, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the High Court, the gloves are off. The Court could and will take the Hochul Government to task. Strategically, then, to assist the Government, the Second Circuit would do well to find for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of theCCIA. The Hochul Government wouldn’t dare appeal a seemingly adverse decision. That would be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others. Ultimately New York will have to revert to the original Gun Law, in substantial part, albeit without the “Proper Cause” requirement and without the other mischief it devised in constructing the CCIA. The Government will be compelled to issue a lot more concealed handgun carry licenses. It would be a bitter pill for the Government to swallow. But, at least, the Hochul Government will be able to keep intact some semblance of the State handgun licensing scheme, which it desires to preserve at all costs.Can Hochul do anything else, if not juridically, then politically to constrain New Yorkers from exercising their Second Amendment right? She can rant and rave to the Press, of course, which she will do anyway, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Joe Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights are now both defunct. This would lead to armed conflict throughout the Country. That is a dead certainty. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many of the brainwashed legions of Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions of Americans, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from overturning the American Revolution of 1776.History, morality, and law would all be on the side of America’s Patriots to take up arms against forces intent on thrusting a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution on the Nation.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it—and there is none—irrefutably points to immoral and unlawful tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly guilty of this: launching tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely like a true Bill of Rights to secure freedom and liberty for common Canadians, but even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament. But he has learned from his earlier mistakes. He has since insinuated martial law in Canada incrementally, insidiously, beginning with a total ban on civilian possession of handguns. Further actions against liberty and freedom will be forthcoming. Wait and see. So much for Canada. And lots of luck with that, you Canadians!But for us, Americans, we should focus on Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli. Where is that case headed in the immediate future?The High Court will issue its order, sending the case back to the Second Circuit, but likely reaffirming the District Court’s grant of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the case. That is our prediction. And that benefits Plaintiffs from the get-go. Time is on their side. However long the Second Circuit takes, the CCIA will remain suspended. We also predict as we stated, supra, that the Second Circuit will affirm the District Court’s findings on the Plaintiffs’ PI and convert it to a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, in full or in substantial part. The Second Circuit will take that seemingly paradoxical action to salvage for the Hochul Government what it can of New York’s concealed handgun licensing structure. Otherwise, if the Second Circuit were to find against the Plaintiffs, overturning the PI, ruling the CCIA constitutional, that would serve as a final appealable order just begging for the High Court's review of the case on the substantive merits with disastrous consequences for Hochul’s Government. So, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from. And Hochul herself can’t do a damn thing about it except beat her chest, screech, and howl to the winds. And, she has only herself to blame for this. She should not have toyed with the Bruen rulings, nor should she have poured salt on an open wound, contemptuously deriding the Court for its rulings, in the process, as she openly defied the Court.So, then, the Plaintiffs are in a strong position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will also moan and thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country in the next couple of years? Not likely. Not that it wouldn’t love to do just that.But, for all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, in the first two years of its reign, reversing Trump’s triumphs, as he has strengthened our Nation, and has secured it from threats posed by obvious foes and by dubious friends, the Biden Administration would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on an industry-wide scale. What argument could the Biden Administration rationally conjure up? Can it rationally claim national security concerns, demanding that stringent measures be taken against those gun-toting “MAGA” Americans, and claiming a desire to protect the public from this thing, “Gun Violence,” even as the Government allows, even encourages, psychopathic criminals and lunatics to run amok, preying at will on innocent Americans?Spouting endless harangues against guns and the tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Americans are inured to that. It is nothing more than water rolling off a duck’s back. But, to demand that average Americans forsake their firearms or face the wrath of the Federal Government is something else again. That is a recipe for civil war, the likes of which this Nation hasn’t seen since the War between the Blue and Gray. And it is the Federal Government itself that would bear sole responsibility for lighting that powder keg, unleashing a new horror on the Country for which History would forever justifiably excoriate.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS CLEAR, AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, BUT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND NEW YORK GOVERNOR HOCHUL HAVE OTHER PLANS

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

MULTI SERIES

PART TWENTY

SUBPART ONE OF PART TWENTY

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTATION}“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their arms.” ~Samuel Adams, American Statesman and Founding FatherThe importance of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen cannot be overstated. These cases, together, establish the Court’s recognition of, one, the immutable, eternal right of the people to keep and bear arms, two, that this right shall not be infringed, and, three, that the armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free State.The existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible without a well-armed citizenry.To understand where we are, at the start of a new year, we must retrace our steps back to 2020.Biden and the Democrat Party will up the ante in their attack on the Second Amendment. That is indisputable.In 2022, this assault on the right to armed self-defense against the predatory beast, predatory man, and, worst of all, predatory Government, became manifest.In early February 2021, we pointed out, in our article, titled, “The Biden Plan for the Political and Social Remaking of the American Landscape,” that——“During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.” This is unheard of.For comparison, we pointed to a news report published in February 2021, positing that,“President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”Apparently, Biden and the puppet masters who control him would waste no time reversing the gains Trump had made in setting the Nation back on course, consistent with the aims of the founders of our Nation: To maintain a strong and independent, sovereign Nation-State, and free Constitutional Republic.The Neoliberal Globalists have reverted to their agenda, set in motion by George Bush and Barack Obama, aimed at dismantling a free Republic and eliminating the exercise of Americans’ natural law rights through which the citizenry maintains its lawful sovereign authority over the Nation and Federal Government, and over its own destiny.Also, in that February 2021 article, the reporter pointed out that——“The twin issues of ‘guns’ and ‘gun violence’ will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning assault weapons’ and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting ‘white supremacists’ and right-wing ‘domestic terrorists’ and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on ‘guns.’”Our remarks and those in the news article were prescient.In June 2022, due to Congressional Democrats and scurrilous Congressional Republicans, Biden “signed into law into law the first major federal gun reform in three decades, days after a decision he condemned by the Supreme Court expanding firearm owners’ rights.” See the article in Reuters.Dutifully, compliantly obeying the orders of his Administrative nursemaids and caretakers, who themselves take orders from shadowy, sinister forces from on high, the Biden puppet also took aim at the millions of civilian citizens who own and possess semiautomatic weaponry and components of the weapons.But what is especially important here is a remark Biden conveyed to the Press, as reported by Reuters, in that same June 2022 article.“‘The Supreme Court has made some terrible decisions.’” The demented fool probably didn’t know what specific U.S. Supreme Court cases his caretakers ordered him to refer to. No matter. All Americans should know. And America’s Patriots do know.One was Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health. Dobbs. The other was NYSRPA vs. Bruen. Both decisions are important. But the latter is much more important. The latter case pertains directly to the security of a free State. The former does not.NYSRPA vs. Bruen is the latest in a Supreme Court jurisprudential “trilogy” of seminal Second Amendment cases. Yet, the Biden Administration and some State Governments have openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court, and, worse, have openly demonstrated visible contempt for the High Court.At both the Federal Level and State Levels, powerful malevolent and malignant forces have directed their assault on America’s Second Amendment. Biden and New York Governor Kathy Hochul are the public faces behind shadowy orchestrators, passing along orders surreptitiously to their puppets.Our Free Constitutional Republic is in dire jeopardy.New York State Government and actions of other States since Bruen demonstrate all the fervor, ferocity, and audacity of those State governments to go their own way, blatantly disregarding Bruen as they disregarded Heller and McDonald. This has resulted in a plethora of new litigation against the States by Americans who desire only to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.This points to a tremendous disconnect between the Country Americans know and love, and an alien, monstrous non-nation the Biden Administration and many States, in league with the Biden Administration wish to thrust on Americans, against their will.The number of cases filed and progression of post-Bruen case law decisions in New York, alone, point to Americans’ adoration of the natural law right to armed self-defense and to the extraordinary lengths they will go to compel rogue States to adhere to both the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and to those U.S. Supreme Court rulings cementing the Second Amendment in the American psyche.The High Court directed its Bruen rulings to New York’s “May Issue” gun law language, apropos of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement. But the Court’s rulings apply to other States with similar language in their Gun Laws.As one might expect, holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licensees were the first out of the gate, in any jurisdiction, to challenge the constitutionality of amendments to the New York Gun Law, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). The Bruen decision came down on June 23, 2022. Hochul signed the CCIA into law on July 1, 2022. And Plaintiffs filed their case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I) on July 11, 2022.Since then, both Antonyuk I and a plethora of other cases wended their way through New York’s Federal Courts. But none are more important than that first case, as it is the first one to make its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the first one to receive a response from the U.S. Supreme Court since its rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.After the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Antonyuk I, without prejudice, Plaintiff Ivan Antonyuk and other holders of valid New York handgun carry licenses filed a new case, on September 20, 2022 (Antonyuk II). That case was recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Hochul. And, after the Court dismissed Hochul out as a Party Defendant, and, after a new Superintendent of the New York State Police, Steven Nigrelli, took over from the previous Superintendent of the New York State Police, Kevin Bruen, the Plaintiffs’ recaptioned the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, staying the execution of Hochul’s CCIA on November 7, 2022.One day later, coincidentally, the date of the Midterm Elections, November 8, 2022, the New York Government filed its Motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals, seeking relief from the PI, and the Second Circuit granted the relief the Government sought, on November 15, 2022, staying the PI, allowing execution of the CCIA during the pendency of the merits of the PI. Four days later, the Plaintiffs, NY concealed handgun carry licensees filed their own response to the lifting of the Stay.After the Second Circuit issued its ruling reversing the District’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction. The Second Circuit modified its order minimally. The PI remained, stayed. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on December 14, 2022, for details.The plaintiffs appealed the Second Circuit’s ruling, requesting relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.As pointed out by John Crump, in an article posted on Ammoland on December 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, on December 27, 2022, demanded a response from the Second Circuit.Justice Sotomayor issued a terse “request.” Note: the term ‘request’ means the High Court isn’t ordering Hochul’s Government to respond to the Plaintiff’s Application for Relief, but a “request,” having been made, obviously encourages the Government to respond.Sotomayor’s directive reads:“Response to application (22A557) requested by Justice Sotomayor, due by 4 p.m. (EST), Tuesday, January 3, 2023.”Sotomayor’s Order is in reference to the Plaintiffs’ filing of December 21, 2022, titled,“Emergency Application For Immediate Administrative Relief And To Vacate Stay Of Preliminary Injunction Issued By The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit.”In their filing, the Plaintiffs assert,“Without providing any analysis or explanation, the Second Circuit has stayed a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district court in New York that was carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted as retaliation against New York gun owners for having prevailed in this Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). The district court’s injunction was supported by a detailed 184-page opinion, meticulously tailored to follow this Court’s framework established in Bruen. In contrast, the Second Circuit’s stay pending appeal was issued based only on a single conclusory assertion, yet with the effect of indefinitely suspending the protections afforded New Yorkers by the Second Amendment and affirmed by this Court in Bruen. The Second Circuit’s stay should be vacated in order to uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms, as well as to vindicate the authority of this Court over the circuit courts. This Court’s Opinion in Bruen was issued on June 23, 2022. Only hours later, New York Governor Hochul promised to ‘fight back’:We just received some disturbing news . . . the Supreme Court . . . has stripped away the State of New York’s right and responsibility to protect its citizens . . . with a decision . . . which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation. . . . This decision is not just reckless, it’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want, and we should have the right of . . . what we want to do in terms of gun laws in our state. . . . [O]ur governor has a moral responsibility to do what we can . . . because of what is going on, the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone up to the Supreme Court. . . . We’ve been ready for this . . . We’ve been working with a team of legal experts . . . I’m prepared to call the legislature back into session. . . . We are not going to cede our rights that easily, despite the best efforts of the politicized Supreme Court. . . . No longer can we strike the balance. . . Shocking. They have taken away our rights. . . . This is New York. We don’t back down. We fight back. . . . I’m prepared to go back to muskets. . . . We’re just getting started here. Just eight days later on July 1, 2022, the New York Legislature responded to Governor Hochul’s call to defy this Court’s authority and resist Bruen’s protection of Second Amendment rights, enacting the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). After extensive briefing, a hearing, and oral argument, the district court enjoined portions of the CCIA in a 184-page opinion. Shortly thereafter the Second Circuit, without providing any reasoning or analysis, granted New York’s request first for a temporary administrative stay, and then a stay pending appeal, allowing New York’s repudiation of Bruen back into effect without so much as a brief explanation.”The key to the Plaintiffs’ argument supporting relief from the Second Circuit’s perfunctory decision is the lack of reasoning of the Second Circuit for overriding the District Court’s analysis of the “Four-Factor” test, and the High Court is requesting the Government, and, obliquely, the Second Circuit itself, for an explanation of its reasoning behind the lifting of the PI stay of execution of the CCIA.In its comprehensive Opinion, the District Court determined the Plaintiff Handgun Licensees proved that awarding the PI is warranted.The U.S. Supreme Court be versed in the District Court’s comprehensive rulings, supporting its granting of Plaintiffs’ PI. And the High Court would be versed in the Second Circuit’s reversal of the lower Court’s curt decision, dismissive of the District Court’s findings.The U.S. Supreme Court’s unusual “request,” directed to the New York Government, is also aimed at the Second Circuit. The High Court is asking the Government, essentially a surrogate for the Second Circuit, to explain why the District Court’s comprehensive, logical, rational opinion, supporting its granting of the Preliminary Injunction, should be considered erroneous.Since the Second Circuit’s reversal of the District Court’s well-reasoned opinion granting the PI, is cryptic or, otherwise, meaningless, the U.S. Supreme Court has asked the Government to step in and explain why the U.S. District Court’s granting of the PI, staying enforcement of the CCIA should not be reinstated.This request mirrors the Plaintiffs’ Application to the Second Circuit, requesting an explanation for its curt reversal of the District Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ PI, sans any reason for lifting the Stay of the CCIA, imposed by the District Court.See our article titled, “New York’s Gun Law: A History Of & Present Status Of The Antonyuk Case,” posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, posted on December 28, 2022.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA because,

• The Plaintiff handgun licensees are likely to succeed on the merits.
• The Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay of the CCIA.
• The Government is unlikely to incur substantial injury through a stay of enforcement of the CCIA during the review of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the New York Government.
• The public interest is so great and so grave that enforcement of the Government’s CCIA should be stayed pending the resolution of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction.

That the Second Circuit lifted the stay not only allows enforcement of the CCIA, before the merits of the case are decided but disturbingly suggests the Second Circuit will ultimately find for the Government. This means the Second Circuit likely won’t issue a permanent injunction against enforcement of the CCIA but will find the CCIA constitutional when it isn’t.The New York Government, and, by extension, the Second Circuit, albeit tacitly, must now admit they both detest the Second Amendment, and they are contemptuous of Bruen.Both the Government and the Second Circuit are behind the eight-ball.The U.S. Supreme Court knows there is no logical and legal reason to allow the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law. And the High Court is nudging the Government to admit that fact.The Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s unusual directive, as it is a “request” not an order. But, obviously, Justice Sotomayor has encouraged the Government to respond, as failure to respond serves as a silent affirmation of the unconstitutionality of the CCIA.We consider in our next article the options open to the Government and the ramifications of their action, or non-action, in our next article. The New York Government’s response—if there is one—must be filed by Tuesday, January 3, 2023.___________________________________

THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT MUST EXPLAIN ITSELF TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: THE FATE OF MILLIONS OF NEW YORK GUN OWNERS HANGS IN THE BALANCE AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING

SUBPART TWO

{INTRODUCTORY QUOTE}“It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights.”“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to first external or internal invader.”~ Two Quotes from  Samuel Adams, American Statesman, and Founding FatherThe Plaintiff holders of New York handgun carry licenses requested clarification of the Second Circuit’s terse, vacuous, perfunctory order that overturned the U.S. District Court’s granting of their Preliminary Injunction, staying enforcement of the Government’s Concealed Carry License Improvement Act (CCIA).Concerned with an unsatisfactory order lacking any decipherable explanation for its decision staying the Preliminary Injunction, allowing enforcement of Hochul’s amendments to New York’s Gun Law during the pendency of Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, the Plaintiffs brought their grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.The High Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief. The Government has precious little time to offer a response, although it need not do so. The Second Circuit has provided the New York Government until 4.00 PM, Tuesday, January 3, 2023, to issue its response if it wishes to do so.The procedural tool the Plaintiffs used to secure U.S. Supreme Court intervention here is called the “All Writs Act,” codified in 28 USCS § 1291. And the application of it is often a tortuous mess. As one legal writer said of the “All Writs Act,”“The prevailing doctrinal landscape is principally a product of two mid-twentieth-century judicial innovations: (1) the collateral order doctrine, which expands the meaning of the term ‘final decision’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; and (2) appellate mandamus, which allows the federal courts of appeals to review interlocutory orders by issuing writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, The current system has been subject to much criticism: ‘hopelessly complicated,’  ‘legal gymnastics,’ ‘dazzling in its complexity,’ ‘unconscionable intricacy’ with ‘overlapping exceptions, each less lucid than the next,’ ‘an unacceptable morass,’ ‘dizzying,’ ‘tortured,’ ‘a jurisprudence of unbelievable impenetrability,’ ‘helter-skelter,’ ‘a crazy quilt, ‘a near-chaotic state of affairs,’ a ‘Serbonian Bog,’ and ‘sorely in need of limiting principles.’ In the face of such criticism, the prevailing doctrine on appellate jurisdiction has proven to be surprisingly immune from reform.” “Reinventing Appellate Jurisdiction,” 48 B.C. L. Rev. 1237, November 2007, by Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law, University of Cincinnati, College of Law, J.D. Yale Law School.” The stakes are high. You can bet that Justice Sotomayor’s Order placed a damper on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day Holiday festivities. And Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, and her staff of lawyers could not have been any happier.Although the Government need not respond to Justice Sotomayor’s directive as it is only a “request” for a response, not an “order,” it is still a cause for alarm. And the Government would be wise to respond to it as the New York Handgun license scheme licensing in place for well over one hundred years is on the line.Whether the Government responds or not, various scenarios play out. John Crump has pointed to a couple of possible scenarios. See, once again, his article in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. We expand on those, and we start with these three observations:First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York realized the CCIA was not only blatantly unconstitutional but, as it is the Government’s response to the NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the CCIA operates as a blatant slap in the face to the High Court.Second, Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany basically told the U.S. Supreme Court to go to Hell. And while the District Court had no intention of playing that game any longer, kowtowing to the New York Government, the Second Circuit did so, lifting the PI Stay, but with an inadequate explanation.Third, The persistent problem for both the New York Government and the Second Circuit, is that the District Court’s findings were not wrong, which is why the District Court granted the PI. That fact also explains why the Second Circuit issued a perfunctory order, not dealing directly with the District Court’s findings.  resulted in the Plaintiffs’ appeal of an interlocutory order directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Circuit could not justify rationally how the District Court’s application of the “Four-Factor” test was erroneous, but it didn’t want to rule against the Government. So it issued a lame order.The Government and the Second Circuit might have expected the Plaintiffs would appeal the adverse action of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it probably felt the High Court would not accept the Plaintiffs’ application, inferring that use of the All Writs Act is a wild stab at getting the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a jurisdictional basis that doesn’t apply here.Perhaps that is why the Government and the Second Circuit felt smug, believing, erroneously, that the High Court would not grant the All Writs Act, compelling the New York Government to make its case for staying the PI. But the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule on the application of the All Writs Act. It did an end run around it, simply “requesting,”—inviting, but not demanding—the New York Government to respond to the Plaintiffs’ Application for Relief from the Second Circuit’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction. That the High Court has at least invited the Government to respond is bad enough for the Government.What will Hochul’s Government do?The Government need not do anything. The High Court isn’t demanding a response from the Government. It only “requests” a response.Suppose the Government refrains from responding to Justice Sotomayor’s “request,” and takes its chances, relying on the decision of the Second Circuit that reversed the District Court, allowing enforcement of the CCIA during pendency —essentially doubling down on the Second Circuit’s weak determination.This would not bode well for the Government. The High Court could have remained aloof. It could have rebuffed the Plaintiffs’ application for relief from the Second Circuit’s Order. In that event, the Court High Court would have denied the Application outright. The CCIA would remain in force, and the PI stayed during the pendency. But the High Court didn’t do this.In requesting a response from the Government, the High Court had, in a non-positive way, manifested an interest in the Plaintiffs’ arguments, suggesting that the Plaintiffs’ arguments, supporting its Application for relief from the Second Circuit’s decision staying the PI, have merit.But then, why didn’t the High Court formally take the case up and issue an interlocutory order reversing the Second Circuit’s decision, affirming the District’s decision, and granting the PI? In that event, enforcement of the CCIA would be stayed, pending resolution of the merits, after which the losing party, having in hand a final order, could appeal a final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court for a full hearing of the Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli case, on the merits.The Government is nonetheless tactically compelled to respond. It must take the High Court’s “request” as a demand for a response, and for good reason.For, if the Government fails to respond, the High Court will likely reverse the Second Circuit’s decision. The Government is just asking for trouble by cavalierly failing to respond to the “request.” The Government may from years of experience, expect that the Second Circuit will kowtow to it, rubber-stamping the most outrageous Government actions. But, it is another thing again to expect the U.S. Supreme Court to do so, even if Justice Sotomayor is a diehard liberal-wing Justice, who abhors the Second Amendment no less than the New York State Government. Justice Sotomayor is not about to take an action inconsistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, even if she, along with a few other Justices, tends to be sympathetic to the Government's position on the Second Amendment. Thus, the Parties will be placed in the same position they were in before the Second Circuit’s action. Thus, the Second Circuit will be compelled to review the merits of the PI with enforcement of the CCIA stayed during the pendency of a decision on the merits of the case. This is why the New York Government must respond and will respond to Justice Sotomayor's “request.”  It must respond or incur the wrath of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, given the short time available to it, now imminent as this article goes to publication, the Government will probably simply reiterate the points made in its original response to the District Court’s decision, granting the PI, staying enforcement of the Government’s CCIA. What happens then?Justice Sotomayor won’t act on her own. Likely, she can’t act on her own. The entire Court must resolve the matter.And, utilizing New York’s own “Four-Factor” standard, devised by the New York Federal Courts to ascertain if a PI should be granted or not, the High Court will determine whether to lift the stay or retain the stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of a final decision on the PI. In either event, the case will be returned to the Second Circuit for ultimate resolution.If the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, which is doubtful, given the Court’s animosity toward the Second Amendment as illustrated in its decision on the District Court’s granting of the Preliminary Injunction, the Second Circuit will deny the preliminary injunction, and rule the CCIA constitutional. With the denial of a preliminary injunction, the decision will have the effect of a final judgment on the merits. The Second Circuit will have determined that the CCIA is constitutional. The Plaintiffs will return to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a formal review of the case on the merits.And the U.S. Supreme Court will take the case up. There is no doubt about that. Since the case directly affects its earlier decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the Court will determine whether the CCIA complies with the High Court’s Bruen rulings or doesn’t. Unless the composition of the High Court changes, the Court will find the CCIA unconstitutional in full or in part. Likely the result will bode ill for the Government. The entire concealed handgun carry license scheme will now be on the line. And the decision will result in severely weakening if not upending the entire New York handgun licensing scheme.This places the Hochul Government in a worse position than it was when the Bruen rulings came down on June 23, 2022. She should not have toyed with the High Court, pretending to comply with the Court’s Bruen rulings, all the while constricting the exercise of the right to armed self-defense ever tighter.The Second Circuit would know this from the get-go. Rightfully fearing reversal of an appeal if it denies the preliminary injunction, effectively finding the CCIA Constitutional, the Second Circuit may throw in the towel. In that event, the Court will grant the Preliminary Injunction, finding it meets the New York “Four-Factor” standard, and thence convert it into a Permanent Injunction. That means the CCIA will remain unenforceable forever. Thus, even if the Constitutionality of it isn’t decided, the net effect is to reduce its impact to nullity.What happens then? The Government can appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. It won’t do that. For if it did so, the High Court will take the appeal up and affirm the decision of the Second Circuit.The High Court may even go one step further, holding the CCIA unconstitutional. Conceivably the High Court could go two steps further, finding the entire New York concealed handgun carry licensing structure unconstitutional. Looking at the Government’s attitude toward the Court, as exemplified by its actions, the Court could take the Hochul Government to task. That is possible.Therefore, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs, issuing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA, the Hochul Government won’t dare appeal a decision. That would result be disastrous not only for New York, but for many other jurisdictions around the Country, including New Jersey, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington State, among others.The best that Hochul can hope for, and the Biden Administration, too, is that, in the next two years, they have an opportunity to get seat another Anti-Bill of Rights person on the High Court. Don’t be surprised to see Biden nominating his Attorney General, Merrick Garland to a seat. Democrats have waited a long time, and they have never forgiven Trump, nor McConnell for denying Garland a Confirmation Hearing which would have seen him on the Court anyway. If that had occurred, Bruen would never have been decided favorably. More likely, the High Court likely would never have reviewed the Bruen case. And Heller and McDonald would be in jeopardy of being overturned. And with the loss of Heller and McDonald, the Country would be that much closer to seeing the end of days for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry.Can Hochul do anything else, politically, since she is foreclosed from doing anything more juridically? She can rant and rave in the Press, and she can take her complaint to the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Biden. But what the Hell can Biden do for her? Not a damn thing unless his Administration is prepared to declare martial law, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court is now defunct. This happens in Banana Republics. It doesn’t happen in honest-to-God Constitutional Republics. This would lead to armed conflict. The Administrative State, although powerful, isn’t omnipotent even if it thinks it is and even if many Americans think so, too.For, here, in our Country, unlike in the EU, in the Commonwealth Nations, or in CCP China, Americans are well-armed, tens of millions, and Americans have substantial ammunition to prevent a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution from prevailing. That fact isn’t to be taken lightly by this Nation's rogue Federal Government and by rogue State Governments like that of New York. And Americans would have a good case, morally, historically, and legally, for taking up arms against those forces intent on entertaining a Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist  Counterrevolution.A declaration of martial law where no legitimate reason exists for invoking it manifestly demonstrates tyranny of Government.The Biden Administration would be openly admitting this through its actions: Tyranny of Government in the form of an illegal oligarchic conspiratorial takeover of the Government against the American people.Recall that Justin Trudeau declared martial law in Canada, for a short time. Canada has nothing remotely that can honestly be considered a true Bill of Rights, and even that jackass was forced to back down, given a backlash in the Canadian Parliament.So where is Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli headed?The High Court will issue its order, and it will shoot down the Second Circuit. That is our prediction. It means the CCIA will remain unenforceable during the pendency of the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, and the PI will remain effective. And neither the Second Circuit nor Hochul can do a damn thing about it except beat their chest, screech, and wail to the winds.But, even if the High Court affirms the decision of the Second Circuit or, through its inaction, remains silent on the Second Circuit’s decision, allowing the decision to stand, the Hochul Government is, ultimately, in a quagmire it cannot extricate itself from.If the Second Circuit finds against the Plaintiffs on the merits, the Plaintiffs will appeal an adverse decision to the High Court. And the Court will take up the case. There is no question about that. And, the CCIA will be struck down, as it is untenable. It contradicts the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the Bruen rulings. And once the CCIA is struck down, that will severely damage the entire handgun licensing structure of New York, as the illegality of the entire structure, and the illegal machinations of the Government that created it will be crystal clear.And, if the Second Circuit finds for the Plaintiffs and issues a permanent injunction against the Government on enforcement of the CCIA, that will effectively strike the death knell for the CCIA, setting the stage for the eventual dismantling of the entire handgun licensing structure as it was untenable, legally, historically, and morally, at its inception, as the Sullivan Act, 112 years ago.The Government can appeal from a Second Circuit Court ruling against it, but it won’t do that. It has nothing to gain, and it has everything to lose were it to do so. For, the last thing New York needs is a fourth seminal Second Amendment case that not only effectively destroys the entire handgun licensing structure of the State but will effectively be disastrous for all other jurisdictions that have draconian “may issue” concealed handgun carry license laws in place.Either way, we see the Plaintiffs in a good position here to secure and strengthen the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment even if that isn’t immediately evident.The Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists both here and abroad will thrash about in impotent rage as the Republic may yet survive. The question is: Will the Biden Administration dare impose martial law on the Country?For all the myriad ways that the Biden Administration has deliberately weakened this Country, the Government would be out of its mind to attempt confiscation of arms and ammunition on a wide scale, claiming that national security concerns demand that stringent measures be taken against these gun-toting “MAGA” Americans. Spouting harangues against guns and tens of millions of Americans who cherish their natural law right to keep and bear arms is one thing. Demanding Americans to forsake their firearms is something else again.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART NINETEEN

SUBPART ONE OF PART NINETEEN

A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF RUINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART A

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

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

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART B

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

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

• The likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.

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

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

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

• Substantial injury to the nonmoving party. 

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

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

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

“TRIGGERS” ANYONE?

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

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

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

“A HEIGHTENED RISK OF GUNFIRE”?

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

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

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

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

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

IN SUMMARY

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

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART EIGHTEEN

THE NEW YORK HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION'S PROBLEMS ARE OF ITS OWN MAKING. IT WOULD RATHER SPEND ITS ENERGIES AND TAX-PAYER MONIES  FIGHTING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, RATHER THAN FIGHTING CRIME. NEW YORKERS CAN EXPECT MUCH MORE OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, FOUR YEARS OF IT.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its third seminal case law rulings, following Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010. The three cases, taken together, hold the right of armed self-defense is a natural law right embodied in the Second Amendment.These three cases don’t sit well with State and local jurisdictions that abhor both guns and the notion of the right of civilian citizens to keep and bear them. And they have weaseled around the Heller and McDonald cases for over a decade—well before Bruen.Bruen arose as a direct challenge to one of the most restrictive Gun Law regimes in the Nation: codified in N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00 et. seq. The foundation of New York’s Gun Law is its draconian licensing requirement. All handgun licensing interposes the Government between the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government that intrudes upon the exercise of that right.New York’s handgun licensing scheme is among the most intrusive in the Country.Prior to Bruen, a person who sought to carry a handgun had to demonstrate “proper cause” to do so. But the State Government held armed self-defense against a visible threat in public as de facto insufficient “proper cause” justification for issuance of a license to carry.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the right of armed self-defense applies equally outside the home and in it. This ruling isn’t a Court based legal fiction, as Anti-Second Amendment proponents maintain. The right of armed self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment.The Court in Bruen, and in Heller before it, simply illuminated and elucidated upon what the language of the Second Amendment asserts. It did not make new law.The Court thereupon struck down New York’s “may issue” “proper cause” requirement for those people applying for a concealed handgun carry license. Armed self-defense is de jure sufficient reason to carry, and it is presumptive in any application for a license. Therefore the applicant need not be required to expressly assert it.To be sure, New York Federal and State Courts never directly attacked the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms because that was irrefutable natural law, cemented in the U.S. Constitution. And, if the Courts harbored the belief that the right, though fundamental, applied only to one’s service in a militia, the Heller case settled the matter, cadit quaestio.Even so, New York Courts routinely affirmed licensing officials’ denial of handgun carry licenses. The Courts reasoned that, even if a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, the person must have a valid handgun license to exercise the right, and acquiring one is a privilege, not a right, a privilege bestowed upon one by the grace of the State, and a privilege easily revoked. And, because the license serves as a condition precedent to exercising the right, the New York Government effectively created a proverbial “Catch 22.”Thus, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions could continue to offend the Second Amendment guarantee while pretending to pay homage to it.New York’s handgun licensing scheme interferes with the exercise of a natural law right on an elementary level. There’s no doubt about that. That fact is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and irrefutable.The Court simply tinkered gingerly around the edges.But, by failing to strike down the New York handgun licensing, as unconstitutional, it remains rigid, unscathed.Justices Thomas and Alito knew that the Bruen rulings were faulty, that the rulings did not go far enough, and they could not have been happy about that.They would have struck down the entirety of the licensing structure if given a free hand, but Chief Justice Roberts, and possibly Justice Kavanaugh, too, likely prevented them from doing so if they were to obtain their votes.In Heller, the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, had to make concessions to Roberts and to Associate Justice Kennedy to get their votes.Now, in Bruen, Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions once again. That meant they must leave Government licensing of handguns alone.And that was all that New York Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany needed to know. It gave them the edge they needed to slither around the Bruen rulings.The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government machine did strike the words, “Proper Cause,” from State Statute, but that meant nothing. They simply inserted “Proper Cause” into the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the State’s Gun Law. And the High Court in Bruen never struck down that latter requirement from the Gun Law.The “Good Moral Character” Requirement had hitherto existed as an unnecessary appendage to New York Gun Law, affixed to a licensing official’s denial of an application for any kind of handgun license.A licensing officer might for example refer to a person’s past arrest record in denying issuance. In the denial letter, the licensing officer would point to the arrest record as the basis for refusal, adding the redundant phrase that such past arrest record shows the applicant lacks Good Moral Character to possess a handgun.In the package of amendments, referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or “CCIA,” the Hochul Administration’s “Good Moral Character” Requirement serves now as the salient basis for denying one a handgun license of any kind: restricted premise or unrestricted carry license.The applicant for a New York handgun license must now produce a volume of information, demonstrating his internal thought processes, especially his political and social ones.Given the depth and breadth of the Amendments to the Gun Law, the Hochul Government likely had the amendments prepared well in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings—their passage in the Senate and Hochul’s signing them into law operating as a mere formality, taking place scarcely a week after the Court came down with its decision.The challenges to those amendments came just as hurriedly.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the original suit filed against enforcement of the CCIA, without prejudice. But the Court had dismissed the case for administrative, not substantive failings, in the lawsuit. The Court made clear its concern with the law, tacitly encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, holder of a valid New York handgun carry license, to refile his complaint.Hochul, as the scurrilous politician she is, took the dismissal as a win and said in a statement on her website that the Court agreed with the constitutionality of the CCIA. It did not.The original Plaintiff, Antonyuk, along with several other holders of New York handgun carry licenses filed a new lawsuit.This time, they named Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, along with several other New York officials, including the Attorney General of the State.And this time the same U.S. District Court that heard and dismissed the original suit, granted the Plaintiffs a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).Hochul was furious and her Attorney General immediately filed an emergency appeal of the District Court’s order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Not unexpectedly, the Second Circuit did not act on the Appeal, probably because the Midterm Elections were around the corner, and the Court may have wished to wait to see whether Hochul was elected Governor although that should not factor into their decision.The Midterms are now over, and, whether Hochul won the election by hook or crook, she is York’s Governor, and the residents of the State must suffer her for at least four years. And that means, among other things, that she will fervently defend New York’s amendments to its Gun Law. And she has plenty of time to do so. And that raises the question:What will the Second Circuit do? Will it overturn the TRO or allow it to continue? If the TRO were the only matter before the Court, the Second Circuit would remand the case to the District Court that had issued it.The Second Circuit could issue its order keeping the stay in place while the District Court decides the substantive issues. That would benefit the Plaintiffs. Time would be on their side because Hochul could not lawfully enforce the CCIA during discovery and trial, however long that takes. Or the Second Circuit could lift the stay. That would benefit Hochul, as she would be free to enforce the CCIA while the District Court hears the Constitutional challenges to it. That would benefit Hochul and her Administration. They would likely prolong a final resolution of the case as the District Court had made known its antipathy toward the CCIA in lengthy Court opinions.But, as Hochul’s appeal of the TRO order remains still to be acted on by the Second Circuit, the District Court that ordered a TRO against Hochul’s enforcement of the CCIA had recently ruled on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on September 2022. The case is Antonyuk vs. Hochul, (Antonyuk II), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. November 7, 2022)Contributing Ammoland writer John Crump wrote about this in his article posted on Ammoland, on November 7, 2022.The District Court’s impetus for this new ruling on a Preliminary Injunction though might render the TRO moot.Why did the District Court rule on the Preliminary Injunction before the Second Circuit ruled on the TRO?This might be due to the actions of Hochul’s Government, itself.In a caustic, strident, YouTube video, a new Acting Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, replacing Kevin Bruen, threatened New York gun owners. The District Court wasn’t amused. In its comprehensive detailed opinion, the Court commented on Nigrelli’s outburst, saying this:“. . . unlike Superintendent Kevin Bruen in Antonyuk I, here Defendant Nigrelli has been shown to have threatened a ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement of the CCIA. On August 31, 2022, Defendant Nigrelli stated as follows in a YouTube video:‘We ensured that the lawful, responsible gun owners have the tools now to remain compliant with the law. For those who choose to violate this law . . . Governor, it's an easy message. I don't have to spell it out more than this. We'll have zero tolerance. If you violate this law, you will be arrested. Simple as that. Because the New York State Troopers are standing ready to do our job to ensure . . .  all laws are enforced.’Of course, here, Defendant Nigrelli did not limit his YouTube message to Plaintiffs. . . . However, five of the six Plaintiffs were members of the specific group of citizens (concealed-carry license holders) in New York State that was orally and visibly threatened by Defendant Nigrelli on August 31, 2022. The fact that the oral and visible threat occurred by video rather than in person fails to serve as a material distinction here, in the Court's view. For example, the fact that Nigrelli did not personally know yet of Defendant Mann's existence (as he does now) appears of little consequence, given that Defendant Nigrelli's 3,500 State Troopers were ‘standing ready’ to investigate and discover the violators. Indeed, the fact that the threat occurred by video actually increases the potency of it, due to its ability to be replayed. And Plaintiff Mann heard the message. It is difficult to see how one could fairly say that Defendant Nigrelli did not expressly direct his threat, in part, at Plaintiff Mann. In this way, Defendant Nigrelli's statement on August 31, 2022, was more than (as the State Defendants argue) a ‘generalized statement[] made . . . in the press.’ Rather, his statement specifically referenced arrest and was made in a YouTube video aimed specifically at license holders such as Plaintiff Mann who were considering violating Sections 4 or 5 of the CCIA.  As a result, the Court finds that Defendant Nigrelli has been charged with, and/or has assumed, the specific duty to enforce the CCIA.Finally, the Court finds that these threats of arrest and prosecution, or even mere citation and/or seizure of his handgun, are enough to show that Plaintiff Mann faces a credible threat of enforcement of Section 4 of the CCIA, which is fairly traceable to Defendants Hilton, Oakes and Nigrelli [Court documents and Case Citations omitted].”The Court opined that the Government’s message is demonstrative of the Plaintiffs’ concern they would be arrested for carrying a handgun in public—this notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiffs currently hold valid New York handgun carry licenses.The CCIA severely restricts where holders of New York handgun licenses can carry licenses.The Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction in substantial part, introduces a new wrinkle in what has grown into a complicated legal matter, and all due to Kathy Hochul’s stubborn refusal to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, along with her contemptuous attitude toward law-abiding American citizens who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural law right of armed self-defense.Hochul’s team will file a response to the District Court’s November 7, 2022, Preliminary Injunction ruling. No doubt the AG’s Office is working on it at this moment, and it will submit it to the Second Circuit in a few days.Hochul may ask the Second Circuit to suspend a ruling on the TRO in view of the District Court’s new ruling on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.The Second Circuit may itself, on its own motion, sua sponte, suspend a ruling on the TRO or, render the TRO matter given the District Court’s ruling on the Preliminary Injunction.The District Court ruling may have the effect of a final order on the merits. If so, this means the Second Circuit itself might render a final decision on at least a portion of the substantive merits of the issues on the constitutionality of the CCIA.If the Second Circuit affirms the Preliminary Injunction and, further, treats it like a Permanent Injunction that will render those portions of the CCIA affected by the Injunction permanently unenforceable.At that point, the administration's options will be limited. Hochul’s Government could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but she likely wouldn’t do that. Of course, the High Court need not hear the case. The problem is that it probably would, and that would be dangerous for both New York and all Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions.The Court could grant review and use the opportunity to strike down the entirety of the New York handgun licensing structure. The Court would likely be in the frame of mind to do so, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the Court.The Hochul Administration could also ask for an en banc Second Circuit Court hearing. That means the entire Second Circuit would be empaneled to hear the case. Hochul would prefer that option, as the safest strategy. But the Second Circuit need not grant her a hearing of the full Bench. As with the U.S. Supreme Court, an appellant cannot demand a hearing of the full Bench, as a matter of right.There are more wrinkles in this Post-Bruen morass than on a Shar Pei.We’ll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.The natural law right of armed self-defense is coming to an ultimate showdown. At present that showdown is being fought in the Courts. Hopefully, it will not have to be fought in the streets. It need not come to that. Let us all hope it doesn’t.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL FILES APPEAL OF TRO: WHAT WILL THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT DO?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART SEVENTEEN

Just as we anticipated and pointed out in our article posted on both AQ and in Ammoland Shooting Sports news, on October 10, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s Government wasted no time filing her “Emergency Motion Pending Appeal” with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' request for a TRO staying execution of Hochul’s CCIA in Antonyuk vs. Hochul.Hochul’s Attorney General, Letitia James, filed the Motion along with the Governor’s “Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal And An Administrative Stay Pending Resolution Of The Motion,” on October 10, 2022.Apart from the AG’s Press Release of October 6, 2022, coming immediately after the District Court granted a stay of the CCIA, there was a blackout of news coverage on this.Hochul’s AG, James, must have worked around the clock to get Hochul’s motion filed in hopes of protecting the CCIA in the run-up to the Midterm Elections.Upon the filing of the Motion to lift the stay, the AG released a succinct Press Release, detailing the aspects of the CCIA under assault, which Hochul intends to enforce:“The CCIA was passed during an extraordinary session of the Legislature and enacted earlier this summer in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The law strengthens requirements for concealed carry permits, prohibits guns in sensitive places, requires individuals with concealed carry permits to request a property owner’s consent to carry on their premises, enhances safe storage requirements, requires social media review ahead of certain gun purchases, and requires background checks on all ammunition purchases.”The curious thing about this entire episode is the notable absence of Press Coverage, apart from two terse, self-serving Press releases from the AG’s Office. Is this a news blackout? It is! Doesn’t The New York Times think the District Court’s award of a TRO meets the requirement of the Paper’s motto: “All the News Fit to Print”? It doesn’t.The legal ramifications of the TRO are bad enough but the political fall-out is even more compelling, concerning, and disconcerting for Hochul, especially with her Governorship on the line.Congressman Zeldin is breathing down her neck. A staunch supporter of the Second Amendment is in striking distance, closer than anyone thought possible, as the New York Post points out in its October 10, 2022, article, “Polls show Lee Zeldin on track to win — if voters learn the stakes.” Hochul’s image makers want to make the New York Gubernatorial Race about abortion. But the pressing issue is rampant, escalating violent crime in New York City, extending throughout New York. The Governor is either unable or unwilling to deal with that.Hochul never talks about “Criminal Violence.” She only talks about “Gun Violence.” Sounds simple, and, for some, logical: no guns, no “gun violence.” But, what about criminal violence? Doesn't that remain?Hochul’s policy is one-sided: disarm the public, and her CCIA does that.But what about criminal violence? How about removing psychopaths and lunatics from the streets? It is these elements that are responsible for the havoc and chaos and harm to or loss of innocent life.This flotsam and jetsam may use guns, if available, sure; or other items such as knives, blunt objects, and arms and legs and maws. See the FBI statistics report and the breakdown provided by Joslyn Law Firm Report.And New York's cashless bail policy doesn’t help, as the Zeldin Media Center aptly points out.And it doesn’t help that NYC prosecutors routinely drop serious charges against perpetrators of violence. See the article in The New America. And, of course, it is easy to attack the law-abiding citizen.Doing so kills two birds with one stone. Disarm the citizenry so it doesn’t pose a threat to the Tyrant, and create the pretense of promoting public safety. That once was true, but no longer.Now the Hochul Government is beset with a vexing problem: the award of a TRO against enforcement of Hochul’s CCIA.The awarding of a TRO is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. That a U.S. District Court granted it here, means the District Court finds that the principal provisions of the CCIA are unconstitutional and unconscionable. But Hochul should have seen this coming. She didn't or simply hoped the District Court wouldn't award a TRO. After all, the Federal Courts have hitherto deferred to Government actions targeting New York gun owners.They once did, but no longer, certainly not since NYSRPA vs. Bruen.And Hochul should have gotten a clue when the District Court pointed to the unconstitutionality and outright rapaciousness of the CCIA in the previous case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen when the Court dismissed the case without prejudice due to a technical legal matter.The Court’s lengthy opinion in the first case left no doubt that it encouraged the Plaintiff, Antonyuk, to file a new case. The Court spent considerable ink in explaining, one, why the CCIA is unconstitutional and intolerable and two, how Antonyuk can overcome the standing issue.This is a problem for Hochul. It is one thing when an American citizen and resident of New York argues that the State Government has violated his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, consistent with his God-Given natural law right to armed self-defense. That has come to be expected. Hochul doesn’t give a damn about that. It is ho-hum, nothing new. It has happened many times before, going back to 1911 when the State first imposed handgun licensing on New Yorkers, with enactment of the Sullivan Act. And the New York Government has slowly, methodically, inexorably whittled away at the God-Given right of armed self-defense ever since.But it is quite another thing when a Federal Court agrees with the citizen and, more, not only admonishes the Government but excoriates the Government for creating a law that denies a law-abiding citizen the ability to effectively secure his life, health, well-being, and safety with a firearm.The Court’s reaction to the CCIA is damning to the Government’s narrative that it had long assumed the public and the courts would take as axiomatic: that denying a law-abiding citizen the right to armed self-defense is constitutional precisely because doing so promotes public safety. Both propositions are false.Heretofore New York’s Federal Courts have deferred to the Government’s immolation of the Second Amendment guarantee, even acknowledging that armed self-defense is nothing but a privilege, conditioned on the acquisition of a license to engage in that privilege of armed self-defense; and that constraints on the exercise of the privilege are acceptable because a greater good is obtained: public safety.This in a nutshell is the salient tenet of the American Collectivist ethical system of utilitarian consequentialism.The Heller, McDonald, and Bruen rulings upended the idea that the fundamental, unalienable right of armed self-defense is reducible to a mere Governmental privilege. And in controverting that idea, the High Court also uprooted the entire normative ethical system of utilitarianism that denies the existence of natural law rights beyond the power of the Government to modify, dismiss, abrogate, or ignore.But, in failing to strike a State’s handgun licensing statute, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed renegade State Governments to perpetuate the practice of denying the exercise of a natural law right—the most important natural law right—survival of Self, upon which the sanctity and inviolability of one’s being depends. And jurisdictions like New York took advantage of that failure.Collectivism repudiates the idea of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. The individual counts for nothing. Only the sanctity of “the hive” is important along with the Queen Bee. In human society, the “Queen Bee” includes the few “Elect Elites” of society.Of course, people like Governor Hochul don’t describe the ravaging of the natural law right of armed self-defense in such stark terms, but, their actions bear out they care nothing for the well-being of the common man.But, at least one New York Federal Court in New York has rethought the foundation of Second Circuit law in light of the Bruen rulings, recognizes the flaw, and has done something about it.Presumptive deference to State Government actions denying the right of armed self-defense in New York is becoming a dead letter, erstwhile blackletter law. Let’s see if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agrees with the District Court’s granting of the TRO, and keeps the TRO in place, suspending enforcement of the CCIA until the District Court has had an opportunity to resolve Antonyuk vs. Hochul on the merits and has entered final judgment in the case. It should.NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S ARGUMENT TO DISSOLVE THE TRO IN THE ANTONYUK CASE AND ALLOW ENFORCEMENT OF THE CCIAIn the Government's Memorandum, Letitia James, on behalf of Governor Hochul, cites several cases to buttress the Governor’s argument. But those arguments all boil down to one thing: a presumptive legal prerogative of the State that, through time, has devolved into a vacuous rhetorical political talking point, a mere platitude: “public safety.”Letitia James writes,“The serious risk of irreparable harm to public safety and the possibility of regulatory chaos necessitates an immediate appeal. As the data confirm, more guns carried in more places by more people result in more crime, violence, and homicide. In addition, state and local officials have spent significant resources implementing the CCIA and informing New Yorkers about the new law, only to have the Order sow confusion among the public, licensing officials, and law enforcement. The purpose of interim relief is to preserve the status quo, not to create turmoil during the pendency of litigation.”In other words, James is saying: guns are the root of all evil; the CCIA helps eradicate that root; the public good is best served by CCIA enforcement.That’s the gist of the argument, which begs the question why would a District Court not see this? That it did not, the Hochul Government presumes that the District Court is wrong, and she expects the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to rectify the matter, in her favor.So convinced is the Government in its own infallibility, that it doesn’t try to convince the Federal Circuit Court that the District Court’s TRO is legally insupportable. The Government simply assumes the TRO is insupportable and that the Circuit Court should recognize this as plain and self-evident. The AG, on behalf of Governor Hochul, says,“The serious risk of irreparable harm to public safety and the possibility of regulatory chaos necessitates an immediate appeal. As the data confirm, more guns carried in more places by more people result in more crime, violence, and homicide. In addition, state and local officials have spent significant resources implementing the CCIA and informing New Yorkers about the new law, only to have the Order sow confusion among the public, licensing officials, and law enforcement. The purpose of interim relief is to preserve the status quo, not to create turmoil during the pendency of litigation. Second, the Order should be stayed pending this appeal.”The conclusion is presupposed in the premise. Letitia James says,“The [TRO] Order bears the hallmarks of an appealable preliminary injunction, and a stay pending appeal is necessary given the overwhelming balance of equities in favor of appellants and plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”But, the District Court explained through rigorous argument that it was the Plaintiffs, not the Defendant Government Officials, who had established a likelihood of success on the merits. And that is a critical requirement that must be met before a Court can legally issue a TRO. And the District Court has determined the weight of hardship accrues to the Plaintiffs if the TRO is dissolved. For if the TRO is lifted, then the Plaintiffs would be subject to arrest and slapped with a serious misdemeanor or felony for carrying a handgun for self-defense in an area where, prior to the enactment of the CCIA, it was lawful to carry if one had a valid handgun license, which Plaintiffs presently have. The Hochul Government doesn't see this or otherwise simply chooses to ignore it, such contempt it has for gun owners. And The Government claims the TRO, an interlocutory order, is a final appealable order to be treated as an injunction. It isn't. Further, the Government claims it is likely to win on the merits. It can't legally make that claim because, once again, the TRO is an interlocutory order. The claim isn't appealable unless the TRO can be treated as an injunction. The Government here hasn't proffered a cogent argument to support a finding for the Second Circuit to treat the TRO as an injunction. The Government's assertions bespeak arrogance. The Second Circuit should keep the TRO stay in place and remand the case to the District Court to resolve the substantive issues through discovery and trial. And, in the end, the District Court will either issue a preliminary or permanent injunction or, if the Government can prove with the weight of evidence that the CCIA is constitutional, the Court can order enforcement of it. Once the trial has concluded, and the District Court has entered its order, that order becomes a final judgment entry. At that point, the party against whom judgment is entered can appeal that final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for final resolution of the case, after which the losing Party can then appeal the judgment of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court, which the High Court may or may not agree to review.___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE IRONY OF THE HANDGUN TRAINING MANDATE IN NEW YORK’S AMENDED GUN LAW

Anyone who possesses a handgun, or any functional firearm, should be familiar with its operation and, ideally, proficient in its use. Few gun owners would object to that, and few would argue the responsibility to obtain understanding and proficiency of use rests with the individual, not the “nanny state” to require it.Yet, a burning question, asked rarely, if ever, but one that needs to be asked and answered is this: Should the State mandate handgun training when the individual undertakes that responsibility upon himself, where that responsibility properly belongs anyway, and where State handgun training is, then, time-consuming, unduly expensive, and clearly redundant?In that normative question rests a pressing legal one:“Does the State have the legal right to require handgun training and, if so, from where does that purported legal right to mandate handgun training derive?”There is nothing in the natural law right of armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that expressly says or alludes to a training requirement as a condition precedent to one exercising the right to bear arms, as a natural law right accruing to the individual. But is this assertion, true? Granted, it requires explication and qualification:The phrase “well-regulated” in the Second Amendment does mean “well-trained,” but only in the context of the prefatory “militia” clause, where it appears, not in the salient, independent clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” where no mention is made of it.The late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller pointed this out. And Justice Alito, writing for the majority, in McDonald, reiterated and expanded upon it.An important distinction rests between the right of the people to keep and bear arms in matters of a life-threatening personal confrontation and the right of the people to keep and bear arms as “a failsafe” to thwart tyranny.And as for the matter of tyranny, the Heller majority discusses it, but in passing.Justice Scalia, who penned the Heller opinion, was undoubtedly acutely aware of making too much of the fundamental right of the common people to take up arms against a tyrannical government, in the seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case of the 21st Century that, he knew, would draw incredulity and ire from many quarters, not least of all among some of his brethren, given the magnitude of the rulings.That Scalia mentioned tyranny, at all, especially given its trajectory in our Nation in the 21st Century, he may have felt it enough to allude to tyranny as an imminent threat to the continuation of our free Constitutional Republic, and prudently left the matter of discussion at that, going no further.But, one legal scholar, discussing Heller, who, as an academician, not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, who need not be mindful of the potential backlash, elaborated on the singular import of tyranny as separate from the natural law right of self-defense. He writes:“The natural right of self-defense applies not only to defense of the individual, but also to the defense of society against tyranny. There was little disagreement on this understanding at the time of the founding. As Hamilton put it, ‘if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government.’ It was universally agreed that the well-regulated militia consisted of the entire general populace, which was to be armed and trained in the use of arms. Indeed, that the people be well trained in the use of arms was central to the founders’ understanding of the Second Amendment and was considered the basic source of their liberty. As Madison put it, ‘if the people [of Europe] were armed and organized into militia, ‘the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.’” “The Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance And Novel Textual Questions About The Second Amendment, 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 471 (Spring 2012) by Owen McGovern.One can extrapolate from Heller and McDonald, that, when the Tyrant mandates arms training as a precursor to bearing arms, it isn’t done with the aim to create, in the commonalty, a force capable of deposing the Tyrant. That would be nonsensical.The Tyrant seeks to disarm the populace, not embolden it. Otherwise, the common man might displace the Tyrant.Mandating handgun training in jurisdictions such as New York is to inhibit the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense. Training, along with other mandates, takes time and money. The Government's goal here is to dissuade the would-be gun owner, not ease his burden of acquiring a concealed handgun carry license.Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court majority in Heller, McDonald, and  Bruen, allows the despots and despoilers in Government to betray the intent of its rulings.But the Court, knowledgeable of the irascibility and intransigence of forces hostile to the American citizenry’s fundamental, immutable, and unalienable rights, still provides these forces with loopholes, albeit reluctantly, to get around its rulings.Consider: immediately after the Heller rulings, the City of Chicago sought to ignore those rulings, claiming Heller applies to the Federal Government only, not to the States.Justice Alito, writing for the majority, refuted that idea, and then gave the City of Chicago the means to defy the Court, notwithstanding. How and why is that?Alito recognized the inherent dilemma the Court was in, and, perhaps, anticipating that Chicago would try to negate the impact of McDonald, was, nonetheless, compelled to acknowledge that,“This history of intrusive regulation is not surprising given that the very text of the Second Amendment calls out for regulation, and the ability to respond to the social ills associated with dangerous weapons goes to the very core of the States’ police powers. Our precedent is crystal-clear on this latter point.”This was all the City of Chicago needed to hear.The City mandated handgun training, arguing that doing so is within its power to regulate firearms, as Alito acknowledged. And the City thereupon promptly banned the means to obtain that training in Chicago. This impossible situation, not surprisingly, led to a Court challenge.In Ezel “II,” the Seventh Circuit, opined,“In Ezell I, we held that Chicago’s ban on firing ranges could not be reconciled with the Second Amendment and ordered the district court to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement. 651 F.3d at 710-11. . . . Chicago responded to our decision by promulgating a host of new regulations governing firing ranges, including zoning restrictions, licensing and operating rules, construction standards, and environmental requirements. (Firing ranges operated by law enforcement and private-security firms are exempt from the regulatory scheme; there are currently 11 of these located throughout the city.) The plaintiffs returned to court arguing that many of the new regulations violate the Second Amendment.In the face of this second round of litigation, the City amended the regulatory scheme four times. . . repealing or revising some of the new rules.”Since the Seventh Circuit precluded the City of Chicago from banning gun ranges outright, the City came up with another ploy. It cunningly established zoning restrictions, i.e., “sensitive places,” where gun ranges cannot lawfully operate.Does this sound familiar? Does this bring to mind New York’s new “Sensitive Location” restriction? It should.Likely taking its cue from Chicago, New York created a new Penal law section, NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e, that prohibits the carrying of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun in any “sensitive location”—applicable to a multitude of areas where a person holding a valid concealed handgun carry license could, once upon a time, not so long ago, lawfully carry a handgun, but now can no longer do so.And, like Chicago, New York now institutes mandatory handgun training as a condition precedent to obtaining a license to carry a handgun in public even though it never had mandated such training for holders of concealed handgun carry licensees before. And that raises a question as to the State’s rationale for it.Curiously, the Bruen majority opinion never dealt with the training issue. Reference to training appears only once: in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion. But that is dicta. It isn’t a Court ruling. And Kavanaugh simply notes this.So, then, is State mandated handgun training lawful? Probably so, as evidenced in Heller and more specifically in McDonald.Be that as it may, the application of a State’s police powers to over-regulate civilian citizen use of firearms ostensibly to promote public safety is a hard sell when the public faces the ravages of violent crime.The New York public now finds itself betwixt the proverbial rock and a hard place: at once bereft of a tenable means to protect itself, given a new spate of ponderous gun laws it must contend with, and a government ever apathetic to its needs for “public safety,” even as it incessantly, deceitfully proclaims its desire to promote it.Thus, Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right are compelled to file yet again, ever again, another round of lawsuits: a tedious, expensive, eternal process. And this will continue if unthinking sorts among the polity continue to vote the same unprincipled rogues and prevaricators into public office.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

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

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

NEWS ALERT AND CALL FOR ACTION: ALL NEW YORK GUN OWNERS

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

MULTISERIES

SUPPLEMENTAL

NEWS ALERT AND CALL TO ACTION FOR ALL NEW YORK PRESENT HOLDERS OF VALID CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES AND APPLICANTS:

YOUR NATURAL LAW RIGHT OF ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS AT RISK

Effective September 4, 2022, all New York State Gun licensees and prospective Licensees are subject to changes in the Gun Law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00.BEWARE and BE AWARE of these changes and what they mean to you as a gun owner in New York!

THE CHANGES TO THE GUN LAW ARE SUBSTANTIAL IN NUMBER, BROAD IN SCOPE, AND ELABORATE IN DETAIL

These changes affect not only the Gun Law but related laws running throughout the New York Penal Code and they are all tied together in an intricate, inextricable knot.The impact of these laws on your right to armed self-defense is both immediate and dire.The New York Government wasted no time in getting the changes to New York’s Gun Law enacted for fast implementation.CONSIDER——The U.S. Supreme Court officially released the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022.New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the amendments to the Gun law into law on the same day the Legislature passed them, July 1, 2022.Yet not two weeks had elapsed between the official release of Bruen and the enactment of changes to the Gun Law.It is quite a remarkable feat by the New York Government in such a short period; too remarkable to be believed, given the breadth and complexity of the amendments to the Gun Law, the speed at which the work was completed, voted on, passed by the State Senate, and signed into law by the Governor.Hochul must have had substantial advanced notice of the decision, after the oral argument in November 2021, when the Justices were working on their draft opinions.With ample time available to them, a host of Anti-Second Amendment forces, including attorneys, political consultants, and Executive Branch and Legislative staff working for Kathy Hochul and the State Legislators in Albany, must have worked fervently in concert.They had time enough to concoct a scheme to circumvent the Court’s carefully drawn rulings, protecting the core of New York’s Gun Law, in effect since 1911, and all the while pretending to comply with the High Court’s rulings.The amendments to the Gun Law, that the Government devised, are as ingenious as they are diabolical.The amendments collectively, are titled, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”).ASK YOURSELF——Is the word, ‘IMPROVEMENT,’ as it appears in the CCIA, truly an improvement on New York’s Gun Law? It is surely an odd choice of verbiage.The term ‘improvement’ suggests advances to the Gun Law that operate to benefit someone or something.In what way is the CCIA an improvement over the prior Gun Law and who do they benefit and whose interests does the CCIA truly serve?The short answer to that is this——It certainly doesn’t improve the plight of those seeking to get, for the first time, a New York concealed handgun carry license; nor does the CCIA benefit those who hold a valid concealed handgun license and who seek to renew that license when the license is due for renewal.If it is you who intends to apply for the first time or who already holds a valid license to carry a handgun, the CCIA doesn’t enhance your chances of securing a license. Or, if you hold a license, it doesn’t enhance your ability to exercise your Second Amendment natural law right of armed self-defense outside the home. Rather, it serves the New York Government’s interests to ensure that your chances of securing a handgun carry license for the first time are no greater than they were before the enactment of the CCIA and, in fact, worse. And all handgun carry licenses now operate as “restricted”, not “unrestricted” carry licenses.The term ‘improvement,’ as it appears in the CCIA, is slippery and evasive; deliberately so.The Government doesn’t want average, law-abiding, responsible civilian citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense, and never did. And the CCIA makes getting a license as difficult as ever. For the few licenses that the licensing authority issues, there are severe constraints on using a handgun for self-defense—much more so than in the past.The CCIA, no less than its progenitor, the original Sullivan Act, that mandated gun licensing well over a century ago, in 1911, places obstacles in the path of anyone who desires to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, especially those who desire to carry a handgun for self-defense in the public arena.The CCIA is the product of Anti-Second Amendment zealots and fanatics. The Bruen rulings mean nothing to them.How bad is the CCIA? It is worse than you can imagine. It all boils down to this:If you believe the New York State Government enacted the CCIA to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, you are sorely mistaken. It doesn’t!If you believe the CCIA now makes it easier for you to get an unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license because the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” Gun Law requirement, you are naïve. It won’t!And if you are one of the few seemingly lucky ones to gain a valid concealed handgun carry license, don’t think you can thereupon use your handgun for self-defense outside the home. A careful analysis of the law shows that you can’t! The CCIA renders a concealed handgun carry license essentially useless.The State Legislature in Albany that passed the CCIA and New York Governor Kathy Hochul who signed it into law have hoodwinked the public into believing a concealed handgun carry license is now much more than it is when, in fact, it is much less than it ever was.There are steps we can take to compel Kathy Hochul and the New York State Legislature to comply with Bruen.The Arbalest Quarrel has contacted exceptional attorneys; specialists on the Second Amendment and experts on New York Gun laws, who stand ready to sue in Federal District Court to compel the New York Government to comply with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.You can help us compel Kathy Hochul and the State Legislature to adhere to the Supreme Court rulings in Bruen.To get the ball rolling, two things need to occur—ONE: The lawsuit requires funding.Even a few dollars contributions will help. Please contact Ammoland Shooting Sports News. We will coordinate efforts with them.TWO: We need at least one individual who presently holds a valid New York concealed handgun carry license, or who intends shortly to apply for one, in whose name the attorneys will sue the New York Government, specifically, the New York Police Superintendent, Kevin P. Bruen, in federal District Court. Since the dunderheads in the New York Government, Kathy Hochul, and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislators in Albany failed to heed the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, it is necessary to take further Federal Court action against them. We won't go away.Americans must stop Governor Kathy Hochul’s abominable attack on the Second Amendment.Hochul and other Anti-Second Amendment zealots think they are untouchable and indestructible. They aren't, but they act as if they are.They think they can continue to trash the U.S. Constitution, deny Americans their natural law right of armed self-defense, and treat American citizens like wayward children whom they can boss around as they wish. They can't unless we let them. Their actions are morally reprehensible and legally indefensible.Kathy Hochul is wrong, and the Legislature in Albany is wrong. It is our natural law rights that are immutable, untouchable, and indestructible. Governor Hochul and the Legislature in Albany aren’t. Their actions are morally and legally The American citizenry is sovereign over Nation and Government, not Government officials and legislators. But Anti-Second Amendment people wish to turn this around. And they will do so if the armed citizenry ceases to exist.This is a battle we cannot afford to lose. But it will take money, energy, time, and fortitude to turn things around.Nothing is more sacred to nor more central to the preservation of our Republic than the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And nothing is worth more preserving than the right of the people to keep and bear arms: for ourselves; for our children; and for the memory of those who fought and died to defend our Great Nation—going back to the American Revolution.The U.S. Supreme Court has given the American people ammunition with its rulings in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen. But the greater effort rests on the American citizenry itself to use the ammunition the High Court has given us.Anti-Second Amendment forces have acted with impunity against the Constitution, the High Court, and the American people, and they will continue to do so until we have lost everything of value: our Country, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties—unless we make clear to them they cannot get away with this.Now is not the time to sit back in our chairs, idly. We must meet these destructive forces head-on. To hesitate is to capitulate. And to capitulate is to lose everything.Once lost, our Country, Constitution, and natural law rights are gone forever.We are all in this together. We must all do our active part. And all of us need to help each other in this gargantuan effort. No other endeavor is more important.Please help us preserve our most sacred right of armed self-defense against predatory men and predatory Government.At the very least, if you are a citizen living in New York, please be sure to cast your vote for Lee Zeldin for Governor of New York, in the upcoming November Midterm elections. And please contact Zeldin's campaign, telling him he must be forceful in addressing Hochul's virulent attack on the Second Amendment and on the failure of her Administration to tackle the crime problem and the faulty, criminal justice system in New York City. To let lunatics and psychopaths run amok in New York, terrorizing innocent citizens at random, and at the same time curtailing a citizen's right to armed self-defense, in clear defiance of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, is abhorrent to the conscience. No sane person would allow this. And yet, Democrats have such a stranglehold on New York, that insanity reigns in the City and the State. This has to stop!  If you have questions for AQ regarding this alert, we will be happy to answer them and will do so expeditiously. Please forward your queries to Ammoland in the care of AQ.In future segments, AQ will explain specifically how New York’s CCIA impairs the Second Amendment and conflicts with the Bruen rulings.The CCIA is venomous, and in ways you cannot imagine. It enrages us. It will enrage you, too.We have analyzed much of Bruen already and laid out our analysis for you in the last several articles posted here on the Arbalest Quarrel. And Ammoland Shooting Sports News has kindly reposted much of our work. But there is more in the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen case and in New York's response to it we must still work through, and much work is, at the moment, in various stages of completion. We will continue to provide you with our analysis in forthcoming articles, published right here on AQ, and in Ammoland.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

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

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY THE PEOPLE REMAIN AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

MULTISERIES

PART TWELVE

HELLER, MCDONALD, AND BRUEN ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY

New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Anti-Second Amendment Legislators in Albany were in a bind. The U.S. Supreme officially published its decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen on June 23, 2022. Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled State Legislature in Albany had reason enough to expect, and every reason to fear, that Bruen would be a momentous decision—and for Hochul and the Democrat Party Legislators in Albany—a disastrous decision, directly and potentially fatally, impacting the State’s century-old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, long since codified in the State’s Penal Code, NY CLS Penal § 400.00, et. seq. It would take Hochul and the Legislators, and their respective lawyers considerable time to concoct a scheme that would salvage the Sullivan Act, creating the illusion—if ultimately unconvincingly—of complying with the High Court’s rulings. The Anti-Second Amendment Hochul Administration and the Legislators in Albany had nothing but contempt for the High Court. Hochul, herself, did not so much as try to hide this. On the Governor’s website, the public sees this announcement:“ ‘While the Supreme Court's appalling decision to strike down New York State's concealed carry law has potentially vast and far-reaching implications, it does not activate any immediate changes to State gun license and permit laws, nor does it allow residential permit owners to carry their weapons outside their homes. . . . “As the case returns to lower court, we encourage responsible gun owners to continue to follow their current restrictions, and always put safety first. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the safety of our communities, we are prepared to fight. And the Lieutenant Governor, Antonio Delgado, added this to Governor Hochul’ statement.“‘Yesterday, the Supreme Court sent us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence by striking down a NY law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. While the implications are not immediate, New York is committed to taking action and enacting a new set of laws that will work around this ruling. . . . If the Supreme Court and federal government won't act to keep our children safe, then New York will.’” Id.Hochul likely had received abundant advance notice of the content of the Bruen decision “on the QT,”  judging by how quickly her Government came out with a comprehensive set of amendments to the State’s Gun Law. The Arbalest Quarrel has taken an in-depth look at the Bruen decision along with the Hochul Government’s response to it. There is a lot of material to digest, and we will continue to do this as nothing—absolutely nothing—is more critical to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, than the right of the people to keep and bear arms.All the rambunctious talk of “the need to get rid of guns” for the sake of public safety and public order for everyone serves as deflection. The message translates as: “constraining law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms for self-defense. The argument presented for doing so is specious on its face and, worse, it is corrosive of the fundamental truth that tyranny looms in the absence of an armed citizenry. Tyranny of Government looms in New York. And, as New York is a microcosm of the Nation, what transpires there has a ripple effect across the Nation: crime is rampant and intractable; the criminal justice system casts a blind eyed to the safety of the public, and the public is denied the right to defend itself against the danger presented. It is a recipe for societal collapse. The U.S. Supreme Court could see this even if the New York Government does not. The Court could not compel the New York Government to protect its citizens, but it could require New York to adhere to the core principles of the Bill of Rights. That means New York cannot lawfully prevent the citizen from protecting itself. The Bill of Rights boils down to these Divine absolutes: the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; and the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and incontrovertible natural law right of survival against aggression, howsoever that aggression manifests itself: from predatory creature, or predatory man, or a predatory Government.Yet, as violent crime goes unchecked, and the criminal justice system itself remains constrained, the Hochul Government provides excuses. Yet, as to the matter of armed self-defense, the Hochul Government has much to say.It couldn’t dismiss U.S. Supreme Court rulings out-of-hand without admitting that it cares not for the Article 3 authority of the Court. So it came up with a workaround to salvage the Sullivan Act. It was as ingenious as it was diabolical. The Government pretends to give free rein to the law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed for self-protection. And a seditious Press and the Hochul Government denounce the U.S. Supreme Court for turning New York into a “wild west.”  The Press and the Hochul Government should reflect on that a bit. New York City and other jurisdictions, including those several on the west coast, and jurisdictions inland, including Minneapolis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and many others, are already in the throes of the “wild west.” In the name of the new secular religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and with Soros's money raining down on jurisdictions that support his Dystopian Nightmare of the “Open Society,” Cities across the Country are collapsing. Incompetence can’t alone explain this. It has to be deliberate.The degradation of society invariably follows in the wake of and must therefore be construed as a function of systematic denigration of the Second Amendment by governments in all of those jurisdictions. Congress and the Biden Administration have done little if anything to prevent wholescale annihilation of the exercise of armed self-defense, and much to promote it.And so it is left to the province of the U.S. Supreme Court to reinvigorate the Bill of Rights that the Federal Government and those of many States and cities have disdainfully ignored or actively dismantled.

DOWN MEMORY LANE: THE VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS

The U.S. Supreme Court had done with playing games with New York and with all other State Governments that had heretofore played fast and loose with the natural law right of armed self-defense. New York and other similar Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions had withstood the impact of Heller and McDonald through feats of judicial legerdemain. And New York itself had weathered the storm of the predecessor to the Bruen case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. the City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020); often referred to informally as the “New York City Gun Transport” case.In both NYSRPA vs. Bruen and NYSPRA vs the City of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court began to zero in on a long-standing nemesis to the Second Amendment, New York, just as it had zeroed in on the District of Columbia and on Illinois, several years earlier. All three of these jurisdictions were notorious for systematically treating the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the bane of Collectivist orthodoxy that seeks to Government absolute control over the thoughts and actions of the masses. And that requires suppression of basic freedoms and liberties—most notably that of speech, privacy, and the right to armed self-defense.The U.S. Supreme Court was one remaining Branch of the Federal Government that had had enough of the immolation of basic natural law rights: most concerning to some Justices on the Court: armed self-defense.If Congress and the U.S. President would not take concrete steps to preserve the natural law right of armed self-defense, several Justices on the High Court would do so. And, after years of noncompliance to High Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, two Associate Justices, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, would not be denied any longer. NYSRPA vs. the City of New York provided an opportunity to prevent the New York Government from continuously weakening the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Court’s rulings would course through the rest of the Country, impacting those States that had enacted similar unconscionable, unconstitutional constraints on the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment.

NYSPRA vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK: DECISION ON THE MERITS AVOIDED

In the Gun Transport case, Petitioners challenged a New York City rule preventing holders of restricted handgun premise licenses from transporting their firearms outside the confines of the City.  Petitioners claimed the rule violated the Second Amendment and sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected Petitioners’ claim and they took the case up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The liberal wing of the Court, and likely Chief Justice John Roberts as well, were not keen on reviewing the case. They had no desire to take up any Second Amendment case they felt would serve, from their ideological perspective, of expanding the people's exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Of course, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch—Trump’s first nominee to the High Court, after the untimely death and, some would add, dubious circumstances surrounding that death—do not view Second Amendment cases as irrational or unreasonable attempts by Americans to expand the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, these Justices perceive Second Amendment challenges to Government actions constraining the exercise of a natural law right as opportunities to preclude the Government from constraining the exercise of a supernal right. It is the unconstitutional actions of the Government that demand adjudication by the High Court—a task that should be unnecessary and would be unnecessary if the States and the Federal Government would acknowledge the Bill of Rights instead of continually frustrating Americans’ exercise of their fundamental, unalienable rights.Although the Gun Transport case wasn’t the ideal case to adjudicate, as many others had wended their way to the Court years before, yet could not garner enough votes for review, this case was the best that could be achieved at the time.The Petitioners sought to have the case decided on the merits. They argued that, notwithstanding that they held a restrictive premise handgun license, they still had a fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm to a target range outside the City limits. Had the case been decided on the merits, the Court could have taken the opportunity to rule restrictive handgun carry licenses as presumptively unlawful. The liberal wing and Chief Justice Roberts would have none of that, and, likely, Roberts cajoled the newest member of the High Court, at that time, Brett Kavanaugh, to vote with him to forsake the opportunity the case gave them.The case didn’t just bother several members of the Court, it concerned Andrew Cuomo and other Anti-Second Amendment politicians who had made it their life’s work to make New York a veritable Gun-Free jurisdiction. And, Cuomo saw an escape route, and most of the Justices saw a pretext to avoid dealing with the case on the merits.Since the issue in the Gun Transport case pertained only to holders of restricted handgun licenses who, under New York law, could not lawfully carry a handgun outside one’s home for self-defense, there was the concern that the Court could come embroiled with the issue of armed self-defense outside the home. If so, that would impinge on the Sullivan Act itself. Neither the liberal wing of the High Court nor the Chief Justice, John Roberts wanted to deal with this. And Andrew Cuomo, the Governor at the time, and a virulent hater of the Second Amendment intended to do all in his power to prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing a case that could very expand the right of all law-abiding civilian citizens in New York to carry a concealed handgun in the public realm for self-defense, thus imperiling the century-old Sullivan Act at its core. Better, then, Cuomo realized, simply to redraft the State Gun Law and the Rules of the City of New York, to allow a holder of a restricted premise license to carry a handgun outside the environs of the City, albeit, in a locked container, with ammunition separated from the firearm. This would still preclude the use of the handgun for self-defense in public if the need arose, and the Sullivan Act would remain intact. Cuomo and the other Anti-Second Amendment zealot power brokers don’t like to weaken their own gun laws, but they could do so here, as it wouldn’t have a disastrous impact on the core of the Gun Law—inhibiting the vast majority of law-abiding New Yorkers from lawfully relying on a firearm for self-defense.New York City changed its Rules and the State reconfigured the law to avoid a direct threat to the Sullivan Act. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. And there is nothing to prevent the New York Government from countermanding the law once the High Court dismisses it. The Petitioners made these points and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch concurred, but they were two votes shy of reviewing the case on the merits. So, for a time, at least, the Sullivan Act was spared direct confrontation. The reprieve for Anti-Second Amendment zealots, both in New York, and elsewhere, was short-lived. Everything changed with Bruen.

NYSRPA vs. BRUEN: DECISION ON THE MERITS UNAVOIDABLE

Unlike the NYC Gun Transport case, the constitutionality of armed self-defense outside the confines of one’s home was now squarely before the High Court. Reconfiguring New York law to avoid a showdown was out of the question. There was no way the Hochul Government could finesse the Gun Law to avoid a High Court review of the case on the merits. And with three certain votes in favor of striking down the Sullivan Act, and with both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh compelled to add a fourth and fifth vote, the High Court had a majority, necessary to defeat the Liberal wing of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts would look more the fool for siding with the liberal wing now, even if he likely wanted to. For to do so would be demonstrably inconsistent with his pro-Second Amendment votes in Heller and McDonald, and, as Chief Justice, he would prefer not to be situated with the losing side on any occasion, but certainly not on a case of this magnitude.And Kavanaugh would be compelled to side with the majority as he said as much in his concurring opinion in the NYC Gun Transport case. He made clear the Court would have ample opportunity to hear a Second Amendment case on the merits in the future, which he would support, and that day had come, even if he would prefer not to see it.Hochul and Albany were therefore on their own to devise a strategy to salvage the Sullivan Act. And, it would have to come after the fact once the case was decided on the merits. And since Bruen dealt squarely with State law, as it no longer had anything to do with New York City Rules, Mayor Adams would have done well to keep his mouth shut. He didn’t. Ever the lackey, under the thumb of Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, and discerning that it would be best for him not to disappoint Kathy Hochul, he would do what was expected of him; and that meant concurring with whatever the Governor had in mind. His own Press Release reflected that. On the official NYC website, Adams echoed the sentiments of both Hochul and of the State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins. In so doing, Adams made clear and indisputable, if ever there were any doubt, that he vehemently disapproves of the civilian citizen's right to armed self-defense. He declared, “Put simply, this Supreme Court ruling will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence. We have been preparing for this decision and will continue to do everything possible to work with our federal, state, and local partners to protect our city. Those efforts will include a comprehensive review of our approach to defining ‘sensitive locations’ where carrying a gun is banned, and reviewing our application process to ensure that only those who are fully qualified can obtain a carry license. We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West. One thing is certain: We will do whatever is in our power, using every resource available to ensure that the gains we’ve seen during this administration are not undone, to make certain New Yorkers are not put in further danger of gun violence. This decision may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence, but we will do everything we can to dam it.” See also the article posted on the website, Reason, on November 10, 2021, a week after the Oral Argument in Bruen.“Before he was elected mayor of New York City . . . , Eric Adams raised some eyebrows by saying he would carry a handgun to protect himself and any houses of worship he might visit. While those remarks were controversial, the real scandal is that ordinary New Yorkers cannot legally carry guns for self-defense—a privilege that Adams takes for granted as a former police officer.That double standard came into focus last week, when the Supreme Court considered a constitutional challenge to New York's carry permit law. Unlike the vast majority of states, which allow residents to carry guns in public if they meet a short list of objective criteria, New York gives local officials broad discretion to decide whether an applicant has ‘proper cause’ to exercise a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking on behalf of the law's opponents, emphasized that applicants cannot pass the state's amorphous test by expressing a general desire to protect themselves against criminal assault. ‘In order to exercise a constitutional right that New York is willing to concede extends outside the home,’ he noted, ‘you have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community.’That situation, Clement said, ‘describes a privilege’ rather than ‘a constitutional right.’ Most of the justices seemed inclined to agree.”Six Justices did agree—two of them, Roberts and Kavanaugh, likely reluctantly—the flipside of what occurred a couple of years earlier, where it was 6 to 3 that voted against the NYSRPA and individual gun owners in the disastrous “Gun Transport” case.

A SCHEME IS HATCHED!

Hochul and the Democrats in Albany, with their band of attorneys, conceived and executed a plan to salvage the Sullivan Act, which meant, by logical implication, sabotaging the Bruen holdings, albeit without appearing overtly that they were doing just that. Hochul and the other conspirators in her Government had ample time to plot a way around Bruen, notwithstanding the clarity and conciseness of the case, delivered in the first sentence of the Opinion. Obviously, someone alerted Hochul as to what to expect. Could it have been the same law clerk who had presumptuously and illegally released an early copy of the Dobbs decision to the Press? In aPress Release, dated May 3, 2022, printed in full by the Washington Examiner, the Chief Justice said he has “directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.” Did the Chief Justice find the leaker? If so, he hasn’t reported it, which belies the sense of importance that he says he had placed upon it. See the article in the Federalist concerning it:“More than 100 days have passed since the infamous leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Americans are still no closer to finding out the identity of the leaker than the day the draft decision was published.”Deception and contrivance and false reporting and hiding findings seem to be the modus operandi of this Federal Government.But, concerning the Second Amendment—the importance the founders of the Republic, the framers of the Constitution, had placed on it is a matter always front in center. It is a matter as important to a tyrant who is as wary of the armed citizenry as the armed citizenry is wary of the tyrant. The matter of firearms is not a topic easily dismissed or swept under the rug. Tangible weapons in the hands of criminals and in the hands of a tyrant’s standing army—that may be used or have been used, or continue to be used, or will be used against the people—require arms in the hands of the people to counter the threat.Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party controlling majority in Albany see the law-abiding citizenry as a greater threat to themselves than the criminal element that is tearing down the community they are sworn to protect but do not. It is their design then, through their policies, to destroy society, just as on a National level it is the aim of the Democrat Party-controlled Congress and the Biden Administration to do the same to the Country. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court places a damper on both. It impacts New York immediately and directly, but it has a ripple effect across the Nation. Hochul and Albany meant to throw a wrench into the Bruen rulings.The scheme wasn’t perfect, and it really fooled no one—certainly not anyone who spends sufficient time to pour over the elaborate contrivance. But, it was the best they could muster, given the clear exposition of Bruen.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court majority, opined:“In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary, law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense. We too agree, and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”The holding was concise, unambiguous, and categorical. But would it suffice to prevent a New York Government, that had a long tradition of constraining the natural law right of armed self-defense, from devising an end run around the holding, while ostensibly complying with the dictates of it? Apparently, in anticipation of just that possibility—and with Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett in agreement, and with two others, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, in tow, if only reluctantly—Justice Thomas set forth an additional holding in the second paragraph of the opinion. He wrote, in pertinent part:“The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. . . . Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.”It would seem clear enough at least to a casual observer that the U.S. Supreme Court had covered two critical bases—seemingly sufficient to forestall Kathy Hochul and her compatriots in Albany from circumventing Bruen.Boiled down to its essence the Court’s first two holdings set forth in the first two paragraphs of the Opinion, established the following:

• The right of a law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun for self-defense exists beyond the confines of one’s home as well as in it; and
• New York’s Gun Law, requiring a person to justify a special need to carry a handgun for armed self-defense outside the home, is unconstitutional.

The implication of the first holding is that the right of armed self-defense, unconstrained by place, time, or circumstance, follows from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment for there is nothing in the language of the Second Amendment to suggest an American’s right of armed self-defense is limited.The implication of the second holding is that a showing of special need to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense. A claim of simple self-defense is sufficient and that simple claim need not be stated, for it is logically implied in the language of the Second Amendment. To require one to assert self-defense to justify the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license would be redundant.Did Justice Thomas, et. al., adequately cover their bases? Apparently, they didn’t realize just how cunning Hochul and  Albany could be, and how advanced notice of the decision gave her Government ample time to defuse the import of the holdings.Even with the Court’s acute legal minds and an unshakeable desire and resolve to preserve the citizen’s natural law right of armed self-defense—a right both fundamental and immutable, unalienable and eternal—Justices Thomas and Alito, in particular, might not have foreseen the lengths to which Kathy Hochul’s Government was prepared to go to protect a 100 plus old Gun Law, the Sullivan Act of 1911, and the diabolical cleverness of the Government’s scheme to override Bruen even as her Government created the illusion of complying with it, by striking the phrase, “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act. She could work around that and has done so. The “Good Moral Character,” of little importance given the “proper cause” requirement, has been re-engineered to function much like the “proper cause” requirement.Thus, it may well be that Justices Thomas and Alito did know or did suspect that New York would disobey the rulings of the Third Branch of Government. For, did they not have firsthand knowledge of how lower State and Federal Courts, including those of New York had hitherto disobeyed the clear rulings of Heller and McDonald?That Bruen was needed at all to rectify the matter of prolific disobedience to Heller and McDonald serves as proof of the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment State Governments as well as the tenacity of the Biden Administration and the Democrat-Party Controlled Congress, at the Federal level, to arrogantly dismiss the U.S. Constitution out-of-hand, even as it pretends to cohere to it, with its ludicrous claims of adhering to the Rule of Law and of claiming it is a steadfast defender of Democracy.It is interesting to behold that Democrats like to throw out terminology without ever bothering to define what they mean by it as if expressions like the ‘Rule of Law’ and ‘Democracy’ are self-explanatory. They aren’t. But, by referring to these phrases, ad nauseum, and positing undying faith and passion in them, Democrats presume the American public will take them at their word, reflexively, like a sneeze or cough, as if they care deeply about the well-being of the Nation and the American people. They don’t. And that is exemplified by policies systematically designed to wreck the economy, demoralize the citizenry, weaken the Nation militarily and geopolitically, dismantle our institutions, and shatter the cohesiveness and stability of society. Nothing better exemplifies the danger wrought by the Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution, who pretend to be Defenders of both, than the inexorable disintegration of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, especially that of the Second Amendment.Consider——The Heller case of 2008 reaffirmed what all rational minds know: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. That the prefatory “militia clause” might mean the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right flies in the face of the very purpose of the Bill of Rights. Apart from the dictates of the Tenth Amendment, referencing the doctrine of federalism underlying the relationship of the Federal Government to the States, the first Nine Amendments of the Bill of Rights codify the natural law rights of the individual and the Second Amendment is no exception.The militia clause—a dependent clause under the rules of English grammar—is not a thing that can, or does, stand-alone, for dependent clauses are not complete sentences: they don’t convey a complete thought.* The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion in Heller, explained the prefatory, dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State,” does not assert a limitation on the independent clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Rather, the prefatory clause provides a rationale for the independent clause that follows. Justice Scalia explained that the drafters of the Second Amendment knew that nothing less than a well-armed citizenry would serve as the best deterrent to tyranny emerging in the Federal Government. This was of great concern, especially to the Antifederalists, among the framers. They were justifiably wary of establishing a strong central government with its own standing army. Thus, an independent citizen army, unbeholden to a federal government, would have both the means and the frame of mind to deter tyranny if such should come to pass.Oddly, many academicians today ignore this or dismiss this. They argue that the Constitution’s framers could not have intended to create, in the Second Amendment, a mechanism through which the commonalty could overthrow their own Government. Therefore, any right to keep and bear arms had to be tied to a militia—but one that was constrained by the Federal Government itself. One academician says that the Federalists, among the framers of the Constitution—those who supported a strong centralized Government and a strong standing arming—intended for armed citizens, as part of a militia, to function under federal control. Can that be true? They write,“In the eyes of the Federalists, the past had proven that the militia, to be effective, had to be federalized. The discipline of militia members, in particular, was of paramount concern.  Federal authority over the militia would also create uniformity in arms and training. But of the two means of military power recognized by the document, a standing army and a militia, both were put under federal control.” Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” “The Inconvenient Militia Clause Of The Second Amendment: Why The Supreme Court Declines To Resolve The Debate Over The Right To Bear Arms,” 16 St. John's J.L. Comm. 41(Winter, 2002), by Robert Hardaway, Professor of Law at the University of Denver College of Law; and Elizabeth Gormley and Bryan Taylor, graduates of University College of Law 2001The writers go on to say, in support of the idea the Second Amendment must, on logical as well as legal grounds, only be construed as conferring a collective right to keep and bear arms:“One of the most commonly made arguments by the broad individual rights advocates is that the Second Amendment embodies some sort of right of insurrection. This is a difficult argument to sustain given the numerous, and sometimes explicit, provisions against insurrection in the Constitution. Perhaps the most obvious constitutional prohibition against insurrection is the treason clause which forbids making war against the United States. Armed insurrection obviously is making war on the United States. Therefore, far from embodying a right of insurrection, the Constitution explicitly criminalizes the act. Further, the militia clauses themselves deny any right of insurrection. One of the constitutional functions of the militia is to suppress insurrection. It strains credulity to believe that the same institution would be empowered with the right to engage in insurrection and the duty to suppress them. As one writer expresses, the Constitution cannot view the militia both as a means by which government can suppress insurrection and as an instrument for insurrection against the government. It must be one or the other. ‘The Militia Clauses make clear which one it is.’ Lastly, the militia was intended to implement the guarantee clause. This provision reflects Madison's desire to expressly guarantee the ‘tranquility of the states against internal as well as external dangers.’ The primary concern underlying the provision was to secure the ability to put down insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion. Taken together, these clauses ‘make it overwhelmingly clear that the Constitution was framed to forbid, prevent, and punish insurrection against its own laws - as, indeed, any constitution that claims legitimate authority must do.’ To assert a constitutional right of insurrection is fundamentally illogical. The Constitution could not embrace the means of its own destruction. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, ‘it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination . . . it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.’ The right of insurrection inheres intrinsically in all people, regardless of the government under which they live; it does not derive its sanction from a disputed interpretation of an amendment with an altogether different purpose.’” Id.It might be noted that the afore referenced law review article came out seven years before the Heller decision. AQ mentions this not to suggest that, perhaps, the writers would admit they were wrong in their thesis. Rather AQ mentions this because the writers would likely maintain they are correct and it's the U.S. Supreme Court authors of the majority opinion who are wrong. The entire thesis begins with the assumption that the antecedent dependent militia clause controls the import of the following independent clause and serves as a defining limitation of the right of that clause, i.e., that the people to keep and bear arms operates only as long as one serves in a State militia; and, as the notion of a 'state militia' has essentially been superseded by 'state national guard units.' The writers say, in that regard: “Of course, today, militias as such, are under firm State and/or Federal control. These militias have transformed into ‘national guards.’” The import of these assertions is not to be taken lightly. For, the writers allude to the idea that, since militias don't exist any longer, at least as they like to understand the meaning of the term, 'militia,' the Second Amendment is essentially nugatory, which means that it serves no function and, so, should be repealed. This is also the thesis of retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, and that of Justice Steven Breyer as well, although Breyer did well to refrain from mentioning that position in his dissenting opinion in Bruen. But there is more at stake here. The argument made has disturbing implications impacting the relationship between the American people and the Federal Government. The writers of the afore referenced article claim that the framers of the U.S. Constitution could not and would not under any circumstance conceive of a situation where the citizenry would have the right and obligation to dismantle the Federal Government.The argument made begs the salient question, of whether “insurrection” qua revolt or rebellion against tyranny is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when penning the Second Amendment. After all, didn’t these men once take up arms against a Tyrant, the British Empire? The writers of the above article would rather not deal with the implications of their own thesis and the attendant, and very serious consequences of that thesis. They merely dismiss out of hand that there could exist any moral, and legal, justification for the American people taking it upon themselves to dismantle an unjust Federal Government, i.e., a tyrannical Government, and bringing the servants of that tyranny to justice. These writers, so careful in positing an argument against what they refer to as insurrection, slither around how it is, or whether, the American people could rightly, legally, dismantle a Government that no longer serves the interests of the American people, and, in fact, operates contrary to the interests of the American people. But, let us here take a closer look at that thesis and consider the legal and logical consequences of it. We begin by asking——  Would the founders of our Republic be so naïve as to believe that the “Federal Government” they were devising could not itself—even with their best efforts to constrain a powerful, centralized Government—one day devolve into tyranny? And, if so, would not the American people have a right and obligation, then, to take up arms against that tyranny just as they had once taken up arms against tyranny? The Federalists, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who supported a strong centralized Government, would certainly be well aware of the threat to life, and liberty, and well-being of the American people, as were the Antifederalists who emphasized their concern and who emphatically demanded inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution to prevent such an event occurring. And the Federalists relented realizing the obvious truth. The Antifederalists would not leave it as a matter of faith that Government servants would adhere to the express limitations on the exercise of Governmental power set forth in the Articles of the Constitution.It hardly takes much imagination to recognize that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution would be appalled, indeed horrified, to observe the powers that Government now wields—powers that go well beyond the strictures permitted by the Constitution, and this Federal Government doesn't deny it; in fact, perfunctorily acknowledges it and operates with abandon. And our Government is well on the road to tyranny if it hasn't already swung over into it.So, yes, the founders of the Republic did recognize and would agree that the American people would have a right to revolt against a tyrant. To argue otherwise is to infer that the people do not have a right to rebel against tyranny. The writers of the afore referenced law review article must have known the logical implications of their argument but felt it better not to acknowledge the flaw in their reasoning. It is one that Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito made clear in Heller:Of course, Americans have the moral and the legal right—a sacred right and duty—to rebel against tyranny.But then, if the American people have both a right and a duty to revolt against tyranny, is that not to say that a Government that turns against its own people, has committed unforgivable violence against its people—a cardinal transgression against the Divine Creator as well. For tyranny of Government manifests as oppression and subjugation of a people and that destroys the sanctity and inviolability of the Human Soul. And that, in turn, amounts to sin against the Creator.Such violence, therefore, amounts to treason against the people. Is not the crime of high treason a two-way street, then? If Americans who rebel against a just and fair Government are justifiably, rightly to be roundly condemned and deemed traitors, and if they are to suffer the consequences merited for their egregious crime, is it not also so that an unjust Government that betrays its people should not be similarly deemed traitor against the people, and rightly rebuked for it? And would not that just rebuke include the dismantling of that Government and trial and punishment of those servants of the people who have—through their treachery and licentious betrayal of Oath to Country, and to Constitution, and to People—brought the Nation to ruin, and brought Constitution and people to harm? And ought not those disloyal servants suffer severely for their crimes, lest to forgo punishment serve to condone it. And if a Government is not to be considered a traitor to its own people, is that not to say the people are less to be regarded than the Government? But, in our Nation, it is the people who are Sovereign over Nation and Government and it is not the case that Government is Sovereign over Nation and people. If so, and if one remark that high treason is to be regarded as a crime against the sovereign, then wherefore is the argument to be made that no action of the Federal Government toward its people shall work as treason against them? What then is to be made of the assertion that the American people are sole Sovereign over the Government of the United States and that Government owes its existence and continued presence only by the will and consent of the Governed—the people who had created that Government to serve them. How is it that the servant, owing its existence and its duty to the people—the one true Sovereign—should entertain for itself that the people serve Government and the Government can do with the people as it pleases, even to oppress and subjugate them. Of what use is an electoral process at that point? To whom is it that the people can turn to as their elected representatives when those representatives are all of the same cloth—united against the people? Of what greater urgency and need exists then for armed revolt?Is not the tyranny of Government against its people, treachery of Government toward its people? If so, is not ‘tyranny’ then but equivalent to the term ‘treachery of Government’ and should not the term ‘traitor’ not apply with equal and bold force to that Government, any less so than to a person who would revolt against a just Government? Is not a “tyrant” but a “traitor’ to the people—certainly a people whom the founders pointedly ascribe the term “Sovereign” to, whom they could not and did not ascribe that term to when speaking of a tyrant who was Sovereign, namely, the King of England?Tyrants of course are the last sorts that would acknowledge that they are tyrants and would continue to deny that even as they are led to the gallows. Is it any wonder that tyrants such as those in the Biden Administration and in some State Governments would be oblivious to their own acts of treason against the people? Is it not curious that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, would proclaim that Americans who belong to “militias”—bands of armed citizens who are not connected with the “national guard”—are the greatest threat to the Nation? But is it not they, some of these servants of the people, rather than we, the People, who are the greater and graver threat to the Nation—to the Security of a free State?As can be seen through dissenting opinions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, these Justices do not recognize the right of the people, as individuals, to keep and bear arms. Given the opportunity, these three cases would be overturned, marking the quickest reversal of U.S. Supreme Court thought in American jurisprudential history.At the State level, too, people like Kathy Hochul and those in control of the State Senate and Assembly in Albany, view the armed citizen as a graver threat to the State than common criminals and even well-armed and well-funded international criminal cartels. Strange that, but true nonetheless. Otherwise, her Government would have taken measures to bring these psychopaths and lunatics to justice. They don't! Ant that is telling. Thus, it is no surprise to see Hochul and Albany caustically attacking the High Court, with affected pieties, and insincere demonstrations of acquiescence to the Supreme Court's rulings. Who, indeed, has dangerous impulses here?Is it so beyond the pale for Americans to demand their right to armed self-defense against predatory creature, predatory man, and predatory Government? The High Court rightly admonishes Government actors who do not abide by the Constitution. The Court rightly ruled against the New York Government.Here, in New York, we see a Governor who claims by the power she exerts—as did her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—justification to exert that power, as she pleases. It is all circular reasoning, albeit with real-world, not mere academic consequences. Hochul fails to recognize that she is expected to serve the interests of the people of New York, consistent with the State and Federal Constitutions. Affected pieties don't serve as an adequate substitution for serving the interests of the people of the State.Kathy Hochul’s Government, like several others, ignored Heller. And they were prepared to ignore McDonald too, until the High Court made clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States, no less so than to the Federal Government, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. In New York, it is the Hochul Administration and the controlling Democrat Party Legislature in Albany that is acting the part of an unfettered out-of-control Tyrant.With the attitude of a tyrant—the Hochul Government and Legislature—behave with customary indignation at any authority that would dare dictate to them. But, the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that, dictating to the New York Government, that its Gun Law is inconsistent with the import of the Second Amendment, having found Petitioner’s case to have merit. Hochul and Albany aren't concerned about armed civilian citizens per se. Rather, they are concerned about what that armed self-defense represents: a threat to the Government itself. The New York Government has long abided lawlessness in New York, such coming from the criminal element. That lawlessness the Government will tolerate, perhaps even encourage. That criminal element poses no tenable threat to the Government. It is something the Government understands for that Government, too, like the omnipresent and ferocious and voracious criminal element, has become a law unto itself, unbeholden to New York's own Constitution and to its laws and to the Constitution and Laws of the United States Government. It has become lawless. A Government that refuses to recognize that it is the people whom it exists to serve, and not the other way around is a danger to the people and must be taken to task. The U.S. Supreme Court has done so. And New York isn't alone in its distrust of and its disdain for the common people.Somewhere in the last 250 years of our Nation’s existence, Governments at all levels forgot the fact of and the meaning of the American Revolution.Government tyranny has become the very thing the people must fight against. The Federal Government and many of the State Governments do not represent the will of the people, and care not at all for their needs; not anymore. These Governments, ironically, defer to the foreign dictators whom our Founders fought a successful war against. Back then, it was the mighty British Empire funded by the fabulously wealthy Rothschild financial clan. Today, it is much the same threat, albeit now restructured, reconstituted, as one even more powerful: the European Union and various supra-national constructs like the United Nations whom we are told do not wield any authority, but only advice. How is it then that the Biden Administration adheres to the pacts and tracts and treaties emanating from the United Nations that our Nation never signed, nor even discussed?The money behind these monstrous global entities belongs now, as in the past, to the powerful Rothschild family. The Rothschild clan and other mega-billionaires are working together to complete a transnational neo-feudalistic empire spanning the world, to replace all present western nation-states. The world of the 21st Century is shapingThe Rothschild family and its minions have extended their reach—through the vehicle of the central banking system—throughout the world. A world comprising two powers: a western neo-feudal empire and CCP China. A strong, vigorous, independent sovereign United States doesn't factor in that equation. It is in the process of disassembling.New York is its own little fiefdom—a Baron that owes allegiance to a Lord that doesn’t even reside in our Country.The purpose of  New York’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, was designed then as now, to constrain, and—as can be seen through further attempts by the Government, through time, to constrict and restrict the right of the law-abiding civilian citizens of New York to keep and bear arms ever further—eventually to curtail the exercise of the right, altogether. In her Press Release, upon official publication of the Bruen case decision, Governor Hochul made clear a passion to constrain the inherent right of armed self-defense, regardless of the rulings of the High Court. In both her tone and in the content of her messaging, Hochul conveyed a contemptuous attitude toward the High Court and made no attempt to disguise her contempt of the Court. Likely she is taking her talking points from others who pay for her campaign, and those who formulate her policies. She is essentially a messenger, and she is paid handsomely for doing the work of her benefactors, just as Biden takes his share of wealth from a shadowy network of benefactors. He has no compunction against selling out the Country. He has had plenty of decades of practice; nor does he mind mouthing platitudes, if he understands at all what it is he is asked to recite. So he informs the public that all is well and that he means well and everything will be just fine. He doesn't believe that he is capable of coherent thought any longer anyway. And the propagandists that feed him and his Administrators their lines, don't sound convincing, and it is not necessary that they do sound convincing to the public. The Federal Government is long past caring what the polity thinks anyway. It is only necessary that they obey. Meanwhile, the Country goes to Hell in a Handbasket.Further litigation and armed revolt are to be avoided. New York has an opportunity, through the electoral process, to throw out the petty tyrants, and vote into office people who respect the Constitution and the fundamental natural law rights of man. A vote for Lee Zeldin for Governor of New York is the most obvious way and the easiest way to turn the State back to its historical roots. So many people in New York and throughout the Country have been so conditioned to deny the truth before their eyes that they continue to reflexively vote into Office the same tyrants who do nothing to promote the well-being of the people and society. The Country was well on its way to recovering its security under Trump: economically, geopolitically, militarily, and societally. But the airwaves are now filled with negativity and our own tax dollars are being used against us. Americans must wake up to the truth and confront the lies and liars head-on. It just takes a little common sense and a leap of faith.It is far easier and much less time-consuming and expensive to prevent a petty tyrant from serving in Office in the first place than it is to attempt to remove a tyrant after the fact. California provides several textbook examples of what is to be avoided. New York should learn from this. How much more damage can New Yorkers be expected to take? How is it that so many people have taken leave of their senses—always believing that a better, safer, New York is just around the corner even as the truth illustrates something else entirely? And the not picture isn't an attractive one. And it won't become any more attractive if people keep electing the wrong people to Office. At some point, even the electoral process may well be denied to the citizenry. New Yorkers already have a good taste of Kathy Hochul and her brand of politics and politicking. It is no different than that of Andrew Cuomo. She shares the same set of beliefs; she conveys the same messaging, and she is backed by the same Globalist money. It isn't the average New Yorker that informs her policies and decisions. On crime, the right to armed self-defense, on abortion, Hochul packages her policies as candy; telling the voting public what she thinks the public would like to hear, but not what the public needs to hear. Between Kathy Hochul and Lee Zeldin, there is a world of difference. Each New York resident should ask: which world would he or she prefer to live in? ___________________________________ *Every child learns this, or, at one time, had learned this. That was before the lunatics took control of public education and proclaimed the dogmas of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” “Critical Race Theory,” and “Transgender Doctrine,” more important to the structural formation of young minds than developing a child’s own critical thinking processes, by teaching the core traditional subjects, like “reading, writing, and arithmetic,” and those subjects that instill in our youth a love of and an appreciation for our history, heritage, and ethical system of justice through which our Nation can continue to survive and thrive: a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

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

MULTISERIES

PART ELEVEN

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

Any State that would denigrate the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a throwback to monarchical tyranny—the very thing the founders of our Republic fought against. New York is one such State of the Union that operates as a throwback to monarchical tyranny.How did this animosity toward the Second Amendment come to pass in New York? Truth to tell, it had been so for a very long time.New York has fought against recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for over one hundred years. And the State is all the worse for it. Even as New York ostensibly extols concern for democracy and claims regard for the oppressed in society, it arguably harbors a scarcely disguised bias against the common man. New York’s Sullivan Act, the progenitor of the present oppressive and repressive Gun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), effective September 2, 2022, has a legacy of iniquity behind it:“An ethnic bias lurked behind this act. There had long been an association in New York of Italians and crime, and, starting in 1903, the police routinely denied Italians permits for the carrying of pistols. In 1905 the state legitimated this bias by outlawing the possession of firearms in any public place by the foreign born (New York State 1905). The police wanted more authority to prevent the carrying of concealed handguns. Even with the existing weak legislation, the police seized 10,567 handguns between 1907 and 1910, or seven a day. The assassination attempt against Mayor William J. Gaynor in 1910 riveted the city's attention and brought renewed calls for the regulation of handguns. . . .A new Democratic member of the state senate from New York City, Timothy D. Sullivan, immediately proposed legislation regulating the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms throughout the state. That ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, one of Tammany Hall's most prominent figures, would promote such legislation seems a sure indication of its popularity. The only hostile testimony came, not surprisingly, from gun manufacturers and sellers. The bill received broad support from the cultural and economic elite of New York, which saw it as a necessary part of the civilizing process. The Senate passed the Sullivan Act by a vote of 37 to 5 and the House by 123 to 7, and Governor John A. Dix signed it into law on May 29, 1911 (Weller 1962). The Sullivan Act reinforced older legislation on weapons other than firearms (slingshots and such) and limitations on the ownership and carrying of firearms by aliens and minors. The Sullivan Act instituted three additions to existing firearms acts: it added pistols to section 1897 of the criminal code, making it a felony to carry concealed weapons; required residents of cities to get a permit to carry concealable firearms—though failure to do so only constituted a misdemeanor; and required those who sold pistols to first examine a permit and to keep a record of the sale recording the purchaser and firearm. In an effort to contain the spread of the ‘$ 5 specials,’ the cost of these permits was fixed at $ 10. The bill also retained the prohibition of firearm possession by aliens (New York State 1911). Based on letters and editorials in the leading newspapers, the public reaction was overwhelmingly positive.” ~“Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview,” 28 Crime & Just. 137 (2001), by Michael A. Bellesiles, Professor of History, Emory University.As if the Sullivan Act, as originally drafted and enacted, wasn’t bad enough, through time it became worse. Just two years after Sullivan was enacted, the Legislature amended it “in 1913 to provide the proper-cause standard for the issuance of public carry licenses throughout New York.” ~“The Constitutional ‘Terra Incognita’ Of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 909 (2015), by Brian Enright, J.D. Candidate, University of Illinois College of Law.Until Bruen came down, ruling that New York’s “proper cause” requirement is unconstitutional, the inclusion of “proper cause” in New York’s gun law precluded issuance of a handgun carry license to a license applicant in the absence of a convincing showing of it. The expression, ‘proper cause,’ is not defined in the Sullivan Act itself. The Judiciary was left to fill in the gap. As explained by the Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel, “The text of the Sullivan Act simply requires that a person have ‘proper cause’ to possess a carry permit. In New York City, lawful self-defense is not a ‘proper cause’ unless a person has a ‘special need’ that is different from the rest of the community, a standard that was first upheld in a 1980 decision, Klenosky vs. N.Y.C. Police Department, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). Aff’d, 421 N.E.2d 503 (N.Y. 1981).” ~“Gun control and the second amendment: developments and controversies in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and Mcdonald v. Chicago: Article: The Great Gun Control War Of The Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today,” 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527 (October 2012), David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. The law remained on the books, uninterrupted, for one hundred and ten years after enactment.New York’s “proper cause” requirement became a “cause célèbre” of Anti-Second Amendment proponents who abhor the notion of civilian citizens carrying firearms in public, as the application of it has effectively precluded the vast majority of people who sought to carry a handgun for self-defense from doing so. The inanity and insanity of New York’s “proper cause” requirement reverberated and rippled up to the present time, culminating in the Bruen case. The New York Government’s arrogant insistence on it provoked the ire of Justice Thomas, et. al.  Yet, New Yorkers who cherish the unalienable, natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms, didn’t wait for a chance to defeat “proper cause” through the Bruen case. They saw an opening after the High Court came out with the McDonald decision in 2010—which followed its sister, the Heller case in 2008.  The insidiousness of the insertion of a “proper-cause” requirement in the Sullivan Act cannot be overstated. For over one hundred and ten years—New York did not recognize a right of armed self-defense outside an interior dwelling—i.e., outside one’s home, or place of business. To this day, the New York Government refuses to acknowledge or recognize a right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, notwithstanding that the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, deleted the “proper cause” requirement in response to the Bruen case decision, effective, shortly, on September 2, 2022.To understand what is transpiring here it is necessary to step back and take a close look at the New York case Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), forKachalsky is critical to understanding the modus operandi of New York Gun Law both Pre-Bruen, since 1912, when “proper cause” was added to the Sullivan Act, and defended in the and Post-Bruen, when the Hochul Government developed a workaround to maintain the import of “proper cause” sans the verbiage. Kachalsky, citing for support the earlier 1980 Kenosky case, referred to supra, dealt directly with the “proper cause” requirement, shooting down any suggestion that the State’s “proper cause” requirement is somehow unconstitutional.

KACHALSKY

In Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Plaintiff Petitioner Kachalsky, a citizen who resides in Westchester County, and several other individuals similarly situated, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Respondent Cacace, the Police Licensing officer for denying Plaintiffs’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. The Plaintiffs specifically challenged the constitutionality of “proper cause,” the vehicle through which the handgun licensing authority denied issuance of an unrestricted handgun carry license to the Plaintiffs.The District Court explained the facts as follows:“In May 2008, Plaintiff Kachalsky applied for a full-carry permit to be able to carry a concealed handgun while in public. In his application, Kachalsky asserted that he believed he satisfied Section 400.00(2)(f)'s ‘proper cause’ requirement because he was a U.S. citizen and therefore entitled to ‘the right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment, [stating] ‘we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others,’ and he was ‘a law-abiding citizen’ who had neither ‘been convicted of a crime’ nor ‘assaulted or threatened to assault another person.’ Upon reviewing Kachalsky's application and completing a corresponding investigation, the Department of Public Safety recommended that the permit be denied. The application, investigation file, and recommendation were forwarded to Defendant Cacace, who, acting as licensing officer, reviewed those materials and issued a decision and order, dated October 8, 2008, denying Kachalsky's application. Cacace observed that Kachalsky failed to state ‘any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public,’ and that ‘based upon all the facts and circumstances of this application, it is my opinion that proper cause does not exist for the issuance of an unrestricted 'full carry' pistol license.’” [references to pleadings redacted]In finding for the Police Licensing Officer, against Plaintiffs, the Court said, “To establish proper cause to obtain a license without any restrictions—the full-carry license that Plaintiffs seek in this case—an applicant must; demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ There is a substantial body of law instructing licensing officials on the application of this standard. Unlike a license for target shooting or hunting, ‘[a] generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property does not constitute ‘proper cause.’”  Good moral character plus a simple desire to carry a weapon is not enough. Nor is living or being employed in a ‘high crime area.’” [citations omitted].The reader should note the District Court in Kachalsky opined that a showing of “good moral character,” while necessary to obtain a carry license in New York, isn’t sufficient to warrant issuance of a carry license. This is a salient point. And AQ will come back to this when we discuss “good moral character” in depth. Suffice it to say, at this time, having struck out “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), the Hochul Government has bolstered the “good moral character,” requirement, essentially refabricating and reframing it to do double-duty, operating like the old “proper cause” requirement to drastically cut the number of individuals who, although under no Federal law disability to own an possess firearms, would still be denied exercise of their fundamental right.Governor Hochul and Albany have altered “good moral character” to make it a challenging obstacle to overcome. The “good moral character” remains as vague as ever, but the Hochul Government has mandated that new applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, and renewals as well, must include information that casts a bright light on one’s personal political, social, and religious beliefs. With this information, the licensing official can ostensibly deduce psychological aspects of one's character as well as his ideological and socio-philosophical leanings. To ask for such information is unconscionable and unconstitutional. An applicant is thus faced with a dilemma, a veritable, proverbial Hobson choice.Most everyone today has some sort of social media account and has commented on websites or has created a website of one’s own. The information conveyed on these sites can likely touch upon personal sensitive financial and medical information. On these websites, one's hopes, wishes, prayers, fears, and reveries may be laid bare. Government and employers, gaining access to this rich body of data, have used it to deny employment, or to fire a person from employment. And the Federal Government is soaking up petabytes of information on individuals. One can only wonder at the amount of data that the NSA is compiling on everyone and everything and storing in its colossal information holding tanks in Bluffdale, Utah. See, e.g., Fox News article and article in The Guardian. Most all records are electronically digitalized and available on the world wide web. If an applicant provides this information to a Government handgun licensing official, such information may become part of a Government public record. This information will certainly become the basis to deny a person a concealed handgun carry license if, for example, the licensing officer happens to disagree with one’s political, social, or religious viewpoints and leanings. And the information will likely be forwarded to police authorities throughout the State and to the Federal authorities as well, including, DOJ, DHS, and the FBI, organizations that have a very dim view of individuals who are deemed “social and political conservatives.” This is not a theoretical concern or “conspiratorial musing.” It is real, as recent events confirm.Especially concerning and disconcerting is that such private information will make its way to the DOJ/FBI and CIA, where an individual can be scrutinized and marked for special treatment. Our Federal Government's Departments, Bureaus, and Agencies are slowly and inexorably taking on the characteristics of horrific secret police and intelligence gathering organizations reminiscent of the Third Reich's Gestapo/Kripo police organizations and of the secretive Sicherheitsdienst-SD (Security Service of the SS); and of the secret police of the interior ministry of the Stalin Government, the NKVD. One is reminded of Senator Chuck Schumer's remark, as reported in The Federalist, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It is an idiotic assertion to be sure, but more so because Schumer comes across as a fawning jackass for the intelligence community; boasting of its power; conveying to the public his admiration of it,  rather than acknowledging that it has gotten out of hand and needs to be controlled. In that regard, isn't Congress supposed to monitor and control the police and intelligence apparatuses of the Nation? After all, Congress created these things. It has ultimate oversight authority over them. Yet, rather than keeping these things on a tight leash, Schumer would allow these creatures to run amok, or worse, admits that Congress can't do a damn thing to control them. And, instead of attempting to do so, he would rather stand stupified, in utter awe of them.And then there is the illustrious Attorney General.The DOJ/FBI, through statements and actions of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has made plain that those Americans who happen to have a “conservative” political and social mindset are construed as exhibiting deviant thought and behavior. So the DOJ/FBI treats such American citizens as “Domestic Terrorists,” or certainly as potential “Domestic Terrorists”—and a “Domestic Terrorist”  or one who is deemed by the “woke police” to have the wrong psychological attributes, i.e., one who doesn't accept the new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and who isn't a proponent of the rules-based neoliberal international order isn't the sort of person that a handgun licensing authority would deign to issue an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license too, anyway. In fact, why should any proper thinking civilized human being want a gun anyway? Aren't those people who cherish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and who desire to exercise that right a throwback to a time long since past and best laid to rest? Wouldn't that be nice, or so the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists would have Americans believe? And, if they can seduce enough Americans, perhaps then, they can dispense with the muddy problem, and one fraught with considerable peril, of attempting to remove hundreds of millions of firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition from over one hundred million Americans. 

THE CATCH-22 OF HANDGUN LICENSING IN NEW YORK

The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government sees guns as troublesome and gun owners as inherently troubled individuals, and New York's Gun Law, as conceived, and implemented conveys that idea. Succinctly stated it is this: “You can have a concealed handgun carry license if you don't want one because you are sane to not want one, and all you have to do to obtain one is to file an application to get one, and then you can carry a handgun. But, then, if you do file an application for a handgun carry license that must mean to us that you do want one, which is apparent through your filing an application to obtain one. But, then, you must be insane and must therefore be denied one because the State cannot abide a person carrying a handgun who is insane.”

_________________

“There Was Only One Catch And That Was Catch-22, Which Specified That A Concern For One's Safety In The Face Of Dangers That Were Real And Immediate Was The Process Of A Rational Mind. Orr Was Crazy And Could Be Grounded. All He Had To Do Was Ask; And As Soon As He Did, He Would No Longer Be Crazy And Would Have To Fly More Missions. Orr Would Be Crazy To Fly More Missions And Sane If He Didn't, But If He Was Sane He Had To Fly Them. If He Flew Them He Was Crazy And Didn't Have To; But If He Didn't Want To He Was Sane And Had To. Yossarian Was Moved Very Deeply By The Absolute Simplicity Of This Clause Of Catch-22 And Let Out A Respectful Whistle.‘That's Some Catch, That Catch-22,’ He Observed.‘It's The Best There Is,’ Doc Daneeka Agreed.” ~From the novel, “Catch 22,” by Joseph Heller, first published in 1961

_________________

Of course, a person ostensibly willingly divulging a wealth of personal information to a police licensing officer, which, under the Governor's newly reconfigured, convoluted, consecrated  “good moral character” requirement, one must do, makes the work of police investigation of compiling dossiers on everyone in New York, substantially less time-consuming and expensive. The applicant does the “dirty work” for the police. He or she is forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with little chance at best, anyway, of receiving the coveted prize: an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license by which one might be able to adequately defend life and limb in the concrete jungle that New York has degenerated to.There is no upside to any of this for the average citizen, and there is certainly no upside in the release of vast stores of personal data, highlighting one's personal thoughts, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies to the State Government.In the end, the applicant is left in a worse situation than before the filing. He or she is denied a concealed handgun carry license, and the State Government has a veritable cornucopia of personal data on a person as there is nothing in the amendments to the Sullivan Act that require a licensing officer to destroy the information obtained after the officer denies the application. The Government holds onto that information, and can, thereafter, use it to keep tabs on the individual and for extrajudicial, nefarious purposes that a person can only guess at. And, if the applicant refuses to divulge such information, what then? The handgun licensing authority will immediately refuse issuance of a concealed handgun carry license on the ground of failure of the applicant to comply with Sullivan Act requirements that the applicant divulge personal social media information and any other data the officer, in his discretion, demands so that the officer can properly assess one's personal, psychological makeup.Hence, the applicant is placed in an impossible situation—the proverbial Hobson Choice—i.e. no tenable choice at all. After September 2, 2022, when the amendments to the Sullivan Act take effect, the Hochul Government will start to use “good moral character” like the “proper cause” requirement before it, a veritable brick wall. The new requirement will operate much like and as well as the old requirement: to deny to the vast majority of individuals seeking a valid unrestricted New York State concealed handgun carry license the ability to lawfully carry a handgun in the State.This is in keeping with New York Government tradition that does not recognize armed self-defense outside the home or place of business, as a fundamental natural law right. Nothing changes. And it is consistent with New York Governor Hochul's Press Release, released on the day the U.S. Supreme Court officially released the Bruen decision. New York would go through the pretense of complying with the High Court's rulings, but, in practice, the amendments to the Sullivan Act are designed to make it difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license, and, in fact, the amendments make it more difficult, not less so, for the average citizen to obtain one. And, for those individuals who presently have a valid New York City or State concealed handgun carry license, the amendments place renewals of existing licenses on an equal footing with first-time applicants. A pro forma exercise for renewal applicants is a thing of the past. The application process for a concealed handgun carry license begins anew for everyone. And that raises another issue: the operational rules, implementing the amendments to the Gun Law have yet to be finalized. In fact, one might ask if the Government bureaucrats have even drafted them yet. That is a big if! So, where does that leave current handgun licensees in the interim, whose licenses for renewal are imminent?The simple fact is this: The New York Government will defeat any attempt by those who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right of armed self-defense outside the home. At the very least, the changes to New York’s Sullivan Act will create as many obstacles as it can get away with to frustrate those applicants who seek to carry a handgun outside the home or place of business. Thus, in New York, the Bruen decision will do little to assuage difficulty in obtaining a concealed handgun carry license.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE STRUCK DOWN NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME

How do Governor Hochul and the Legislature in Albany get away with this? They are able to do so because the main mechanism of defeating the Second Amendment remains unscathed. New York, like several other jurisdictions around the Country is a handgun licensing jurisdiction. The average civilian citizen cannot lawfully possess a handgun anywhere in New York unless one secures a valid license from the appropriate licensing authority in New York. That is the source of the present problem in New York.The High Court did not go far enough. The Court did not strike down, as unconstitutional, the licensing of handguns. Handgun licensing regimes are inherently incompatible with the Second Amendment guarantee. No other fundamental right requires the acquisition of a license before an American may lawfully exercise a natural law right. One doesn't need a license to exercise his right of free speech or to practice religion or to associate with those people or groups one wishes to associate with. It would be bizarre to require a Government issued license before one might lawfully do so. Similarly, to acknowledge a right of the people to keep and bear arms and at one and the same time to recognize the licensing of handguns as a privilege and a condition precedent to the exercise of the basic, unalienable right is inconsistent with the very nature of natural law, God-given rights. These rights exist intrinsically in the person. They are not priviliges bestowed on one by the grace of the State. They are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and eternal. That the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that licensing of handguns or any firearm a condition precedent to exercise of a fundamental natural law right is a major flaw of the Bruen case, as it was a major flaw of Heller and McDonald before it. None of these seminal Second Amendment cases dealt head-on with this. And jurisdictions like New York will continue to use licensing of handguns and other firearms as a difficult obstacle to overcome or, for most people, an impenetrable barrier, preventing one from exercising the basic, natural law right of armed self-defense.  Licensing of handguns, operating as a condition precedent to the exercise of a fundamental, unalienable, natural law right, is legally indefensible. And the practice is irreconcilable with basic principles of elementary logic. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must have been aware of this fatal flaw in the Bruen decision. One must wonder: Did Justices Thomas and Alito concede the constitutionality of handgun licensing to obtain Roberts’ vote and that of Kavanaugh? Was that the price Justices Thomas and Alito had to pay to obtain the acquiescence of Roberts and Kavanaugh? If so, that brings disturbingly to mind the price the three Associate Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—had to pay to get Roberts and Kennedy on board, in the Heller case. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had to openly acknowledge the right of State Governments to continue to impinge upon the core of the Second Amendment. But doing so guaranteed continued Court action as Governments would always find ways to frustrate the citizen’s exercise of armed self-defense, and citizens, for their part, would find it necessary to continue to file lawsuits against unconscionable, unconstitutional Government action—an expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and physically and psychologically tiring, exhausting ordeal. And a favorable outcome for the would-be gun owners can never be assured.Of course, State Governments know all this, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany certainly know this. Letters have already been sent to Government officials around the Country, contesting the “good moral character” requirement. For, these jurisdictions are using “good moral character” as they had heretofore utilized  “proper cause,” as an effective means to deny a person a coveted handgun carry license. And lawsuits are being prepared. And, once again, ever again, Americans face the same frustrations, when it comes to the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Litigation is to be avoided if possible. There is a better way; more effective; substantially less time-consuming; and certainly more cost-effective. In New York, voters have a chance this November to overturn the present oppressive and repressive handgun licensing regime and  their oppressive, unresponsive Government. They can accomplish this by electing, as the new Governor of New York, Lee Zeldin. Unlike the present Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, Lee Zeldin is a true and fervent advocate of one’s right of armed self-defense. And he is also something that Kathy Hochul is not. He is a law and order Candidate for New York Governor. Lee Zeldin would also take definite steps—rather than rely on the same tiresome words and the same lame excuses to rationalize an inability or, worse, a clear lack of will—to come to grips with the intractable, horrific crime problem plaguing and engulfing New York, especially the City of New York.Many New Yorkers understand this. Will political independents and a sufficient number of Democrats take a leap of faith and vote for people who have their best interests at heart this November? Will they forbear from voting for people who say they care about the well-being of New York and of the residents in it, but, through their actions, make clear they do not?Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and Democrat Party Legislators in Albany do not represent the interests of New Yorkers. They represent the interests of a small group of billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” and Neo-Marxist cultists. And the aims of these people are not the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, as becomes more evident with each passing day, its destruction.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

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

MULTISERIES

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

NEW YORK OPENLY DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN DECISION

PART NINE

PREFACE TO DEEP ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK’S RESPONSE TO BRUEN DECISION

The Arbalest Quarrel (“AQ”) has, in the last few weeks, spent, and will continue to spend, considerable time on the recent case NYSRPA vs. Bruen, for a few important reasons.

FIRST: THE BRUEN RULINGS ARE VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case decided by the High Court in twelve years and it is the most important U.S. Supreme Court case to be decided this term, October 2021 through October 2022.Not even the recent “abortion” case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization comes close to the import of Bruen. And there is a simple reason for that: There is no fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of abortion even as Congressional Democrats, along with the Biden Administration and proponents for it, in the Country at large, insist otherwise. The High Court made that point clear, in its decision released on June 24, 2022, overturning Roe vs. Wade.Contrariwise, armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government is a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law right even as those same Democrats chime in that it is not. And the High Court made that point clear, too, in its decision released one day before Dobbs, on June 23, 2022. In Bruen, the High Court reaffirmed and clarified its decisions in Heller and McDonald, and pointedly held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the boundaries of one’s home into the public sphere. That means the natural law right of self-defense, generally, and armed self-defense, particularly, isn’t limited in space and time. To hold otherwise is empirically wrong and even nonsensical. Because a firearm provides a person with the best means of defending one’s life, the right of armed self-defense, as subsumed in the natural law right of self-defense/personal survival can't be lawfully proscribed by Government. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court’s Majority, in Bruen, made this point emphatic: “. . . confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself. . .’ [adding] ‘Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps ‘most acute’ in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it.”Nothing is more essential to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and to the maintenance of the sovereignty of the American people over the Nation and its Government than the natural law right of armed self-defense.Bruen therefore demands our close attention and scrutiny.

SECOND, NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” GUN LAW REQUIREMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IT IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

Bruen came to the U.S. Supreme Court as a challenge to the core of New York’s handgun law. Therefore, New York’s response to the Bruen decision will be scrutinized by two groups of Americans: those who support and cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and who wish both to preserve and to strengthen that fundamental, unalienable right; and those who do not, and who desire to constrain exercise of this essential natural law right.This latter group that seeks to dismantle our free Constitutional Republic cannot do so for soever as long as an armed citizenry exists. Therefore, they seek de jure or de facto repeal of the right. This isn’t hyperbole. Retired Associate Justice John Paul Steven demonstrated his animosity toward an American armed citizenry in a combined Stevens-Breyer dissent to Heller. And, after he retired from the Court, this U.S. Supreme Court Justice went further. Stevens called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment—something he dared not suggest while serving as a Justice—for the duty of a Justice is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not tear it down. But the repeal of the Second Amendment is something Justice Stevens profoundly felt. See, e.g.,John Paul Stevens Op-Ed in the New York times, titled, “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment,” published on March 27, 2018. 

THIRD, AN ARMED CITIZENRY IS VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT: THE DISRUPTION OF IT IS MEANT TO T

Our free Republic cannot continue to exist in the absence of America’s citizen army. Those who exercise the right know this as axiomatic. And those powerful forces that seek to destroy the Republic also know this to be self-evident true. But, apart from a few individuals—and most notoriously, John Paul Stevens—few people do not boldly pronounce this. Instead, the legacy Press proclaims disarming the public is all about ensuring public safety, public order, and public harmony, adding as an afterthought, that constraining the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ostensibly for the good of society, does not mean erasing it. But the appeal to public safety is mere deflection. Yet many Americans fall into the trap—all too willing to sacrifice their natural law rights, believing erroneously that this is for the good of society. It is absolute control over the commonalty of this Country that the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists want and intend to attain. The continuation of an armed citizenry is inconsistent with that goal. That can't come about as long as an armed citizenry exists in the Nation. 

FOURTH, THE BRUEN CASE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE TOO MANY STATES AND COURTS REFUSED TO COHERE TO THE STRICTURES OF HELLER AND MCDONALD

The Bruen decision is one more salvo in a continuing war for the soul of the Nation. The Hochul Government, for one, has openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court. Why has Hochul done this?The “why” is obvious. Kathy Hochul, who once received an “A” rating from NRA, now works for the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” who fund her bid for Governor in 2022. These are the same wealthy and powerful people who had continuously funded her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo’s campaign. See article in the New York Post. The notion of an armed citizenry is incompatible with the goal of the interests of those people who are funding her campaign. These people are Globalists. They seek an end to our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State. They perceive the Bill of Rights as inconsistent with their goal of a one-world government devoid of nation-states and devoid of citizen armies. So, Kathy Hochul no longer supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But in classic politician-fashion Hochul doesn’t acknowledge the inconsistency in her position, nor does she allude, much less assert, to what and to whom she now owes allegiance. Rather, she maintains her position has “evolved.” 

THE BRUEN CASE DEMANDS THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION LEST THE PUBLIC LOSE BOTH THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHT AND THEIR COUNTRY

How is it that Hochul and the New York State Legislature continue to offend the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court?The “how” unlike the “why” is not obvious and demands thorough attention.The “how” unlike the “why,” apropos of the changes to New York’s gun law, isn’t obvious and it is not easy to understand. It demands explication so Americans who cherish the right of the people to keep and be armed understand what it is they are up against. A new round of lawsuits has recently been filed. This, unfortunately, is a disturbingly familiar pattern-scenario—costly, time-consuming, and wearying on Americans. AQ’s contribution comprises a series of articles to explicate New York’s Gun Law considering Bruen and to provide both first-time prospective New York handgun licensees and those applicants seeking renewals of existing handgun licenses, a roadmap as to what to expect and how to proceed. In that vein, one should keep in mind that, although the Hochul Government has signed new amendments into law, those amendments aren’t operational rules. The City of New York and the Counties, and the State Police must work out what those rules are, to implement the changes in the Gun Law. To that end AQ looks at what Heller, McDonald, and Bruen require apropos of what the New York Government has done to create further obstacles for New Yorkers. A complete treatment requires not only an exploration of the recent New York amendments to its Gun Law in specific response to Bruen, but also a consideration of a panoply of recent changes to and additions to the Gun Law and to the entirety of New York’s elaborate handgun licensing regime that goes back to the Safe Act of 2013, and even before that—to the Sullivan Act of 1911, the progenitor of handgun licensing in New York. Given the present urgency, AQ will spend its energy reviewing both the recent amendments to the Gun licensing regime apropos of Bruen, and amendments to New York’s handgun regime Pre-Bruen that complement the Post-Bruen changes. A full discussion must include a consideration of New York’s recent “Red Flag” law that Hochul and Albany have incorporated into the Post-Bruen amendments, and which further endangers a citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

WHAT IS BRUEN ALL ABOUT?

AQ has heretofore laid out the basics of Bruen. In an earlier segment (Part 2) of our analysis, we pointed out: There are two key components to the Bruen Majority Opinion. One key component involves the test Federal, and State Courts must employ when they review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.The second involves the matter of “proper cause” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and was the central topic at oral argument in Bruen, held on February 2022.AQ now deals with those two key component parts in depth, turning first to the “proper cause” aspect of the Bruen ruling, which we get to in the next segment of our Post-Bruen case series analysis._______________________________________________

PROPER CAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS IN NEW YORK GUN LAW BUT ITS REPLACEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 2^ND, LEAVES NEW YORKERS WORSE OFF THAN UNDER THE PRESENT GUN LAW

PART TEN

The “proper cause” issue is what Governor Kathy Hochul’s Administration, along with the New York State Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, had to contend with, once the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” requirement of the Gun Law, as unconstitutional. Hochul made clear in her statements to the Press that New York would not buckle under to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her remarks are both seditious and provocative. The Governor’s remarks are seditious because the amendments to the Gun Law demonstrate the State’s disregard for the Court’s rulings, even as Hochul claims to adhere to them. She has made clear, on the official Governor's website, that there will be no immediate changes to gun policies and the permitting process.  The Governor’s remarks are also disrespectful and presumptuous. See these remarks as well as published on the Governor's official website. Hochul’s Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature, and their respective teams of lawyers, meticulously crafted a set of amendments to the New York handgun law. The amendments they crafted serve not only to preserve the law—the Sullivan Act of 1911, long since codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq.—but, as with the New York Safe Act of 2013, the amendments bolster New York’s stringent gun laws. The amendments exemplify Hochul’s resolve to defeat the impact of the Bruen rulings, notwithstanding the elimination of the “proper cause” requirement and make acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license even more difficult than it had been since the Legislature enacted a “proper cause” requirement. In a feat of legerdemain, the drafters toughened, did not ease, the standard for obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Clearly, Hochul doesn’t want to make acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses an easy procedure. To frustrate that process, her Government wishes to continue to offer a restricted license as a “booby prize.” Yet, even in that, an applicant will find that obtaining a restricted handgun license is no longer a sure thing either.The amendments to New York’s Sullivan Act negatively impact all categories of handgun licenses, restrictive and unrestrictive. Thus, the stringent character of New York’s Gun Licensing regime remains intact.  To fully comprehend and appreciate how the State maneuvered around Bruen, pulling a switcheroo on both the U.S. Supreme Court and those who may have thought it easy now to obtain an unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license, we peruse the language of the handgun law, comparing the law as it presently exists and the changes to it, effective September 2, 2022.

THE NEW YORK GUN LAW IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

One first notices that New York’s Gun Law is confounding and mystifying. There is a dizzying array of handgun licenses. The full array of handgun licenses is set forth in NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) of New York’s Penal Code. It is titled, “Types of Licenses,” and it reads:“A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession; . . . .” You would think that the three seminal Second Amendment case holdings, Heller, McDonald, and now, Bruen, would have swept away NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) but for NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) (f)—a handgun license to “have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession.” But, surprisingly, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) remains in its entirety, thus demonstrating the Anti-Second Amendment fervor of New York’s Governor and that of the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature. If the Hochul Government had sought to cohere to the Bruen rulings, she would have called upon the Legislature in Albany to draft the Gun Law to eliminate handgun license categories as redundant, except for the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license category, and she would have liberalized the standard in acquiring an unrestricted handgun carry license. After all, why would a person wish to acquire only a restrictive handgun premise license since the U.S. Supreme Court held the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the home?Yet, Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany had other ideas, and the multi-tiered hierarchical handgun licensing structure remains intact.

THE TAKEAWAY

That the whole of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) still exists after Bruen, demonstrates not only the tenacity and stubbornness of Anti-Second Amendment politicians to thwart both the Bill of Rights and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but their ingenuity and cunning in subverting the rulings of the High Court. The amendments to NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) make acquisition of a handgun license tortuous and as difficult to come by as before Bruen.In the next segment, AQ explains how New York’s Anti-Second Amendment Government has exploited a seeming loophole in Bruen to defeat compliance with the Court’s ruling on “proper cause.”_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH TO PRESERVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE GREATER EFFORT RESTS, AS IT ALWAYS HAS, WITH THE PEOPLE

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

MULTISERIES

PART EIGHT (REWORKED)

IT HAS BEEN A LONG HARD BATTLE TO SECURE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND YET MORE BATTLES REMAIN TO BE FOUGHT

Bruen has been an arduous, time-consuming, expensive, uphill battle for New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their natural law right of armed self-defense. It will continue to be so. Bruen hasn’t changed a damn thing—at least in New York—and matters will remain the same until or unless New Yorkers say they have had enough of the specious nonsense spouted from the New York Governor, Kathy Hochul and others like her. She is cut from the same cloth as her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo. They claim they care about the life and well-being of New Yorkers, even as innocent residents fear for their safety and well-being, as they have good reason to do. But they simply don’t care, And New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, is no different. They are on the same page, each a carbon copy of the other, especially in matters involving their singular abhorrence of guns and antipathy toward the civilian citizen owning and possessing them. That fact is engrained in their brains. They won’t change. Those New Yorkers who continue to elect to office the same politicians who continue to harp on the evils of guns, and who continue to defy the plain meaning of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, are doing themselves, and all other residents in New York, a disservice. These politicians, Kathy Hochul and Eric Adams, aren't wise and New York isn't safe. And, unfortunately, New York isn't alone. Politicians and Courts in other jurisdictions will pay lip service to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen, just as they have paid lip service to the rulings in Heller and McDonald, for over a decade.New York politicians, and politicians in several other jurisdictions, with the same mindset, have handcuffed the police. Yet, at one and the same time, they continue to prevent members of the public from obtaining access to the best means available for protecting themselves, a handgun. Yet, all the while, they exclaim, disingenuously, a concern for “gun violence,” that plagues their cities.But “gun violence” is simply a species of general “criminal violence.” New York’s Hochul and Adams deliberately mislead the public into believing that “gun violence” is the only source of violence committed against innocent people, or, otherwise, that “gun violence” is the only kind of violence in the community that matters. They stubbornly refuse to accept the obvious.  Criminals will always find a way to obtain guns illegally or will use other means if guns are not readily available to them, and that guns in the hands of average, innocent, rational, and responsible Americans do a better job of preventing the commission of violent crimes than do fewer guns in the hands of those Americans. And to those Anti-Second Amendment zealots who contend that guns have no place in a civilized society, one need only point out that no society, today, is truly civilized. Predatory animal, and predatory man, and predatory government are ever with us. In a million years man may truly become “civilized.” And, at that point, the presence or absence of firearms will be irrelevant. But, until that time, the innocent man will require effective means to protect his life and well-being. And, to date, only a firearm provides that. Denying the omnipresent need for a firearm in the hands of the innocent man does not make that fact go away. It only welcomes violence against that innocent man by predator animal on four legs, predator animal on two legs, or, worst of all, predatory Government, a monster with multiple heads—the Hydra beast, a thing most tenacious, wildly destructive, and difficult to control, let alone kill.

ABSURD BELIEFS HAVE ODD STAYING POWER WHEN CONSTANTLY REPEATED

Anti-Second Amendment proponents continually go on about how guns are the source of violence and those that possess them are prone to violence, be whoever they are and wherever situated. That is patently ridiculous. Yet that message is stated insistently and emphatically by Anti-Second Amendment politicians. It is echoed loudly and incessantly by a compliant, sympathetic legacy Press. And it is further exploited by many in the medical community. The message is taken as self-evidently true, without need for proof, even though the claim is patently ridiculous.And New Yorkers know it is hopeless to ask for assistance from Governor Hochul or from the police, especially in a situation where the need is both dire and immediate. See, e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, "Can We, as Individuals, Rely on the Police to Protect Us" and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News. And, police response to emergencies has only gotten worse in this Post-George Floyd era. Even where refunding of community police departments has displaced the defunding the Police the BLM hysteria, the Neo-Marxist "racism" hysteria remains a potent and debilitating force yet to be reckoned with. Police response times along with the general ineffectiveness of community policing, due in great part to demoralization in the police ranks, understandable and justified, remains. Thus the effectiveness of community policing is worse than in the Pre-George Floyd era. It is especially bad in large Democrat Party run municipalities, like NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, LA, San Francisco, just to name a few. These City Governments are hopelessly tied to the Neo-Marxist Racism craze or are held hostage to Marxist cultists and/or  derive funding/guidance/control/advice from one or more of a plethora of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) that have direct or indirect connection to the George Soros "Open Society Initiative. See, e.g., a delineation of these organizations on the website "Jellyfish." The tentacles of this "Open Society" takeover of western civilization are in fact worldwide, as readily acknowledged.With all this in mind, it is important for one to keep fervently in mind that the matter of self-defense remains—especially today—a personal responsibility. Police Departments have no legal duty—contrary to what many erroneously believe—to come to the assistance of anyone anyway. And they never did. The impact of this fact has grown acute and is now transparent to any American who will stop to look. The Arbalest Quarrel has published much content about the doctrine of sovereign immunity apropos of the police.See, especially, as noted, supra, AQ article, titled, “Can We, as Individuals, Rely on the Police to Protect Us?”, published on November 21, 2019; AQ article, titled, “The Government Cannot Protect You! You Must Protect Yourself”, published on July 31, 2020; and AQ article, titled “NYC Mayor Eric Adams Has His Own Armed Protection; What About The Rest Of Us?, published on March 30, 2022.New Yorkers are simply asking—in fact, demanding, as they have every right to do—that the Government not deny to the people exercise of the natural law right of personal armed self-defense. But, in New York it is too much to ask of the Government that the people be allowed to arm themselves in their own defense against predators—as if they should be required to ask Government for such permission, when they should not; when Bruen, in fact, says they need not, as the right of armed self-defense is implicit in the Second Amendment guarantee, as a natural law, Divine Right.For, even with the Divine Creator’s own imprimatur on this—the plain words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—codified in the Second Amendment of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, and even with the U.S. Supreme Court’s strictures, commanding the New York Government, to comply with the fundamental, unalienable natural law right of the people, the NY Government does not acquiesce. It will not relent. It won’t adhere to or even deign to make an iota of concession to the people of New York. This New York Government doubles down on invoking the Sullivan Act. And, with 112 years of existence and further refinement, the Sullivan Act has been cemented in the psyche of the New York Government and in the psyche of the public as well.And so, this emblem of New York Government defiance to God, to the Constitution, and to the people of New York—one Kathy Hochul—declares openly and pompously that the Government of New York, and not the U.S. Supreme Court, will continue to decide what is in the best interests of the people; that the Government not the High Court has the best interests of the people of New York at heart; and that allowing law-abiding, responsible, rational civilian citizens to carry a concealed weapon in New York endangers everyone. This is the height of arrogance and conceit. Thus, the Governor of New York gives carte blanche to psychopaths and lunatics that they may continue to prey on the innocent, with abandon. See recent AQ article on this as posted on our site, and as reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News. But, even in that—allowing law-abiding, responsible, rational civilian citizens to carry a concealed weapon in New York endangers everyone—the Hochul Government is wrong. The Daily Wire blows that myth out of the water. See also article in “Bearing Arms,” and in NSSF. No less than the progressive cable station, CNN, dares mention of a crime wave in Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City. The criminal is, always was, and ever remains the problem. It isn’t “the gun,” and never was “the gun.”  See also article in the NY Post. Bloomberg News tries to spin this massive increase in crime, explaining the crime rates were much worse in the Eighties and early Nineties. But who were the Mayors of NYC at the time? It was the Democrat, Ed Koch, from 1978 through 1989, and it was Democrat David Dinkins, from 1990 until 1993. Crime rates in NYC only began to drop, and to drop dramatically, under Republican Rudy Giuliani, the NYC Mayor from 1994 through December 2001. Giuliani instituted a tough on crime policy, referred to as “Broken Windows.” Crime rates in the Big Apple continued to plummet under the Democrat, Michael Bloomberg, who continued Giuliani’s “Broken Windows” policy. But, once that tough on crime policy was revoked by the Democrat, Bill de Blasio, crime rates began to spike once again and to spiral completely out of control. And, de Blasio, true to form like most politicians, blamed the massive spike in crime in NYC, not on himself and his soft on crime policies, but on the Courts. See NY Post article.The present NYC Mayor, Eric Adams is playing the same “Blame Game” as de Blasio—casting blame on the Courts for crime in the City that continues unchecked.  See CBS News Report here and here, CBS News report. New Yorkers—never a group to exhibit patience—are becoming impatient with Eric Adams. Remember, Eric Adams told the public he wouldn’t continue de Blasio’s lenient on crime policy measures. But, as reported by the Washington Examiner, Adams’ has done just that, notwithstanding the unveiling of his “Blueprint To End Gun Violence,” delivered with great fanfare to the City back in January 2022. But no one hears anything about that anymore. Does anyone really wonder why? Adams “Blueprint to End Gun Violence” was never anything other than a publicity stunt and a poor one at that. And its failure is alluded to in the very title of the Adams’ plan for the City.This thing ‘Gun Violence’ is, like the phrase, ‘assault weapon,’ nothing more than a stratagem, a neologism manufactured for a specific purpose. Leftist propagandists developed it, and the ever obedient and indulgent legacy Press, ran with it. The fabricators of the phrase, ‘Gun Violence,’ have used the phrase to deflect justifiable public criticism, for the massive waves of criminal violence afflicting our Nation, onto “the gun” and away from the Democrats and other Obstructors and Destructors of our free Republic. People like Hochul and Adams attribute the surge of violent crime on “guns” and thereby shift discussion onto an inanimate object and away from themselves. A firearm is a convenient scapegoat. It is incapable of proffering a defense. It cannot point to the fact that it, as an object, not a sentient subject, can neither cause violent crime, nor be the effect of violent crime. But Hochul and Adams attempt, nonetheless, to shunt aside justifiable criticism of them and their administrations. But it is their own incompetence and their own lack of will and foresight to deal with crime head-on, unlike their predecessors Giuliani and Bloomberg had done, that explains the rapidly rising crime rates. But even those Mayors of New York could have gone further to truly bring violent crime to a standstill. They could have taken action to overturn the Sullivan Act. But they would never go so far as that. Disarming the law-abiding New Yorker would never be part of a bold plan to tackle crime at its source: the psychopathic criminal, the violent criminally insane, and the opportunistic hoodlum. See article in “City and State New York.” How these Anti-Second Amendment zealots love to use statistics to deceive the public and to lull it into complacency! Contending with crime, substantively and seriously, won’t happen with the present Administration and Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany. The main problem with New York is that too many members of the public willingly accept their politicians' manipulation of statistical data, urging the public to deny what they readily observe in day-to-day life in New York. And too many of them have become so enamored with and mesmerized by the new religious dogma of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," along with its ludicrous claim of having a lock hold on morality, i.e., of what is right, and proper, and just, that their rational mind is trapped in a hopeless miasma of confusion, subject to its own nightmarish discordant logic.And so, the State Government is, at present, under the thumb of Governor Kathy Hochul and of a Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature that operates with abandon, against the needs and interests of the people of the State.The New York Governor, along with the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, “who vowed to crack down on crime if elected mayor,” but didn’t, are ever bound to their own dogma and to their own psychological and ideological biases. Add to that the fact that they are held hostage to a Radical Left Marxist internationalist base of voters that despises our Country, and to a shadowy network of Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist "ruling elite" enforcers that intend to destroy our Country, and you have a situation ripe for corruption of Government, and stagnation in society, and ultimate decay and dissolution of the Republic.So wrapped up are these politicians in their dogma and personal lust for power, that they fail to understand, or choose to ignore, that their cardinal duty is to provide for the general safety, security, and well-being of the public.  Saying they care are about the well-being of New York and its denizens, doesn't make it so. It is all just a vacuous exercise—the same verbiage delivered drone-like, hypnotically, unconvincingly. These politicians have done nothing beneficial for New York, and everything that disadvantages New York. Their multiple failures bring discredit and shame to all of them. Time for a change in outlook don't you think? The Governor, the Legislature, the City Mayor adamantly refuse to allow New Yorkers to provide for their own defense. And that is worse than shameful. The conscious refusal to even acknowledge the unalienable, immutable right of armed self-defense is reprehensible, indefensible, and unforgivable. And, with the Soros-funded Manhattan DA, Alvin Bragg, who operates more like a zealous Public Defender of the criminal element in the City and much less like a zealous Prosecutor of them, on behalf of the populace, as he is supposed to do, New York is on the road to societal disaster at a rapid pace.If change is to come, then, it will have to come from Republicans and Independents. And the best bet for New York is U.S. Congressman, Lee Zeldin, for Governor, in 2022. If Americans are to secure their unalienable right of armed self-defense, it is best they have Government, Federal and State, that work for them, not against them; that honor their natural law rights, rather than attempt to shred those rights. Might Lee Zeldin take steps to dismantle the apparatus of the Sullivan Act? It would be interesting to see. But will the New York voter give him that chance? Better legislation with the right people in Office than spending exorbitant sums of money, time, and aggravation on endless litigation!How much more threat of violence must progressive/liberal-minded New Yorkers suffer before they come to their senses. How many more innocent lives lost for lack of will to try someone new; to try something new?One would think the public would finally come to its senses after the horror of de Blasio as Mayor of NYC and Cuomo as Governor of the State. Too many New Yorkers have not. How much more danger must New Yorkers contend with before they throw people like Hochul and Adams under the bus, instead of positing themselves there, instead? Too many New Yorkers seem willing to accept deception from politicians, even when that deception and the horrific result of that deception is plainly visible and risible.City residents are stuck with Adams for a long while, three more years. But Governor Hochul, who was never elected Mayor, but became Mayor after Cuomo was hounded out of Office by the Democrat Party machinery that had once supported him, will now face her first Gubernatorial race in November 2022.New Yorkers will have a chance as well, to remake the New York State Assembly and Senate. Hopefully, Republicans and Independents and enough intelligent Democrats will turn the tide. They can in November. They can have a safe and secure State if they have the will and do not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by propaganda, flooding the airwaves. It is all up to the people of New York. Give Lee Zeldin and Alison Esposito a chance to turn things around for New York. New York can become a safe, secure, and thriving State once again._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DOESN’T CARE WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS ABOUT THE STATE'S HANDGUN LICENSING STATUTE

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

NY GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL CONTINUES TO CONSTRAIN THE CIVILIAN CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF ARMED SELF-DEFENSE

PART FIVE

Not content simply to say New York won’t comply with Bruen, the New York Governor’s response to Bruen points to open revolt with the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court officially released its decision in the Bruen case. On that same date a Press Release appeared on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s website. It says much about her position on civilian citizen possession of handguns in public and what she thinks about the Court and its decision in Bruen. It reads as follows:“Good morning, everyone. We just received some very disturbing news from Washington; that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has stripped away the state of New York's right and responsibility to protect its citizens with a decision—which we are still digesting—which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation and our ability to protect our citizens back to the days of our founding fathers. And the language we're reading is shocking.As Governor of the State of New York, my number one priority is to keep New Yorkers safe, but today the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. And it's particularly painful that this came down at this moment. . . . Today, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. Does everyone understand what a concealed weapon means? That you have no forewarning that someone can hide a weapon on them and go into our subways, go into our grocery stores like stores up in Buffalo, New York, where I'm from, go into a school in Parkland or Uvalde.This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm's way. And this is at a time when we're still mourning the loss of lives, as I just mentioned. This decision isn't just reckless, it's reprehensible. It's not what New Yorkers want. We should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state.If the federal government will not have sweeping laws to protect us, then our states and our governors have a moral responsibility to do what we can and have laws that protect our citizens because of what is going on—the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone all the way up to even to the Supreme Court.The law we're talking about has been in place since the early 1900s. And now to have our ability to determine who is eligible for a concealed carry permit—this is not an ordinary permit. This is a special use that you can hide it from people. We have limitations, if it's for a proper cause, someone who's been threatened, someone who needs it for their job as a security guard. We have classifications where it is allowed and has been allowed for over a hundred years.”In tone and content Hochul’s message is astonishing. It is a polemic directed at both present and future handgun license holders in New York. But, more than that, it is a presumptuous and dangerous assault on the Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the sanctity and inviolability of the citizen’s natural law right of armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.In that Press Release, Hochul says she’s “still digesting” the scope of the decision. But is that true? Hardly. New York had prepared its response to Bruen months ago.Consider——On July 2, 2022, seven days after the release of the decision, and a scant two days after she called for an “extraordinary session of the Legislature in Albany . . . to discuss the impacts of the [Bruen]. . . decision overturning New York State law that previously placed ‘proper cause’ restrictions on the issuance of permits for concealed carry firearms in the state,” Hochul signed into law an extensive and elaborate array of amendments to New York’s handgun licensing statute, including amendments to related statutes, that sailed through the State Legislature in Albany. See article on the jdsupra website.The speed of the process—from drafting of amendments, to their introduction in the State Senate and Assembly, then on to assignment to Committee, Committee markups, then passage of the amendments by both the Senate and the Assembly and the forwarding of the amendments to Governor Kathy Hochul for her signature—all in the space of a week is remarkable—too remarkable to be believed. One must infer that Hochul had notice of the decision well in advance of the official release of the case decision—probably at some point after oral argument that took place in November 2022. The amendments were ready to go upon official release of the Bruen decision. Hochul’s signing off on the amendments was, then, a foregone conclusion. The release of the Bruen decision simply served to trigger enactment of the amendments to New York’s handgun licensing Statute.How bad are these amendments? They are worse than one can imagine. Present holders of valid unrestricted and restricted New York concealed handgun carry licenses will find renewing their licenses difficult. And first-time applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses will find the requirements for issuance of them no less confounding and onerous than before Bruen, and much more vexing.How did New York get to this point? Actually, New York had been moving toward this point for quite some time!The progenitor of New York’s modern handgun licensing regime codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq., that took effect on September 1, 1967, is the Sullivan Dangerous Weapons Act of 1911. It was enacted on August 31, 1911. Handgun carry licensing is not of recent vintage, then. The State has required handgun licensing for close to 112 years, and the State’s desire to keep it is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Government, and in the psyche of many residents of the State.New York’s handgun license statute—the Sullivan Act that Kathy Hochul refers to in her Press Release—is a reminder to the State, to the Nation, and to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sullivan Act is here to stay in New York, regardless of anything the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about it. The Sullivan Act has gone through several incarnations since its enactment in 1967—but it always remains true to form—a handgun licensing regime, whose roots are deep and wide. Ostensibly created to deal with incessant crime by constraining the public’s access to handguns, the Sullivan Act failed in that objective, but New York kept it anyway, adding to it through the subsequent years and decades.Indeed, the fairly recent New York Safe Act of 2013 is merely an aspect and extension of it, not distinct from it. And several amendments to the Safe Act have proceeded since—a flurry of them only in the past couple of years. The most recent amendments, springing directly from the Bruen decision, take effect, formally, on Monday September 4, 2022. As the New York State Court of Appeals has explained, the Sullivan Act qua Penal Law § 400.00 “is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State. O’Connor v. Scarpino,” 83 N.Y.2d 919, 638 N.E.2d 950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994). And that means, for the civilian citizen, there is no way to get around it. Handgun licensing is the foundation of New York’s assault on the Second Amendment and that of many other jurisdictions as well.New York’s handgun license statute has gone through several iterations since its enactment in 1967. But the most recent amendments to it, coming on the heels of Bruen, will take effect on September 4, 2022. Section 400.00 plus the Post-Bruen Amendments IS the Sullivan Act brought into the 21^st Century.Back then as now, New York, and other jurisdictions, including California and Illinois, rationalized civilian arms control as necessary to promote “public safety.” And Governor Hochul’s Press Release echoes that sentiment that hearkens back to the turn of the 20^th Century, even as the crime rate in New York in the 21^st Century continues to soar. Continued constraints on civilian access to firearms in defiance of the Second Amendment has become an end in itself although Anti-Second Amendment proponents will rarely, if ever, say that and as many in Government will readily deny it even as they push for further constraints on the exercise of it.“As the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Camperlingo (69 Cal. 466 [1924]), ‘It is clear that, in the exercise of the police power of the state, that is, for public safety or the public welfare generally, such right [to bear arms] may be either regulated or, in proper cases, entirely destroyed.’ The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Biffer v. City of Chicago (278 Ill. 562 [1917]) that ‘the sale of deadly weapons may be absolutely prohibited.’” “Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview,” 28 Crime & Just. 137, by Michael A. Bellesiles, Professor of History, Emory University. The New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and the State Legislature, and the State and Federal District and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are all onboard with this. The average civilian citizen resident of New York has wide chasm to cross to obtain the coveted prize of an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. And that chasm has just become wider.___________________________________

“PUBLIC SAFETY” IS A RUSE TO GET NEW YORKERS ON BOARD WITH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS TO THE LICENSING STATUTE

PART SIX

The lure of “public safety” explains the Sullivan Act’s longevity. Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions refer to it often. Yet, to what extent Governor Kathy Hochul and the Legislature can honestly be said to believe that stringent curbs to civilian citizen possession of firearms does truly promote public safety—given the horrific upward spiral of violent crime in New York, predominantly in New York City, is open to conjecture. But the fact many New Yorkers believe that keeping handguns out of the hands of average, law-abiding, and responsible civilian citizens does contain violent crime, is apparently enough for both the Governor and for the State Legislature in Albany to continue to promote further and severe constraints on civilian citizen armed self-defense. If “Public safety”—whether clever, deceptive Government ruse or honest, albeit erroneous, Government belief—serves as the raison d’être for the handgun licensing regime, then application of “proper cause” is the mechanism that serves to constrain the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding civilian citizen from lawfully possessing a handgun in the public sphere. Armed self-defense thus remains a privilege in New York, notwithstanding the language of the Second Amendment that professes to express armed self-defense as a fundamental, unalienable right of the people.New Yorkers can change handgun carry laws in New York. And it is a simple process to do so as long as the public has the will to do so: simply vote Governor Hochul and those Legislators who hold the same views as she does toward handgun licensing in New York, out-of-office. New Yorkers have an opportunity to do so this November 2022.If New Yorkers demur, then they will continue to suffer. Violent crime will continue to rise, and innocent people will continue to die.A leap of faith is required here. It shouldn’t be difficult, given the irrationality of restrictive gun measures that simply target the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal. But strong beliefs, even irrational ones die hard.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS ABOUT NEW YORK’S HANDGUN CARRY LAW, SHE PRESUMES TO KNOW BETTER THAN THE COURT.

It is one thing for a Government to rely on an erroneous belief as justification for infringing a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal natural law right of the American people. It is quite another thing to brashly defy the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court, substituting one’s own judgment, and normative beliefs, and personal political and social philosophy, for that of the precepts and stricture of the U.S. Constitution.The U.S. Constitution, as promulgated by men much wiser than Governor Hochul and Anti-Second Amendment Legislators in Albany has, through the test of time, proved its value. This Country, in the space of almost 250 years, has outstripped any other modern Nation, becoming by far the wealthiest, most powerful, most prosperous, any Nation on Earth. The U.S. Constitution, grounded on the precepts of Individualism has enabled this. It is no accident.The prescription for the Nation’s success is simple: Government exists to serve the interests of the American people, and they, not Government, are sovereign over Government and over their own destiny.Indeed, the tacit theme of all three seminal Second Amendment cases—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—is that Government must pay homage to the natural law rights of man.But Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature will have none of that just that. The forces they represent and pay homage to have other plans for Americans. There is no limit to their disdain for the Constitution, their rudeness toward the U.S. Supreme Court, and their contempt for the American people.Through tortuous, guileful legislative legerdemain, the New York Government has enacted an elaborate set of amendments to the State’s handgun licensing Statute, Section 400.00, and to the concealed handgun carry Section of the Statute, especially, NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2)(f).  These amendments serve merely as a pretense of compliance with Bruen, and a poor one at that.But they don’t fool anyone, especially the Court. On inspection, the State’s “Post-Bruen” Amendments to Section 400.00 are excessively harsh, brutal really.   To understand how that is, it helps to understand what the New York handgun licensing Statute looked like prior to Bruen. We delve into that and compare and contrast the original Section 400.00 handgun licensing Statute with the amendments to it in the next article.

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSE STATUTE PRIOR TO BRUEN IS BAD; AFTER BRUEN IT IS WORSE

In the most recent iteration, prior to Bruen, applicants for any New York handgun license—whether restricted or not—had to comply with Section 400.00(a), which denies possession of a handgun to anyone who is under disability as defined in Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C § 922.  New York has adopted that Statute for its own use. Up till now, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license, applicants in the general population had to demonstrate “proper cause,” set forth in, but never defined in, Penal Code Section 400.00(a).The State Legislature has left it up to the licensing authorities of the Counties to specify “proper cause,” and what that is has remained quite nebulous. The whole point of this is to make it difficult for the average person to acquire a carry license. So, few have tried, and most that have tried have failed secured such licenses. Under the New York Constitution’s Home Rule provision, though, New York City is permitted to adopt its own “proper cause” requirements for applicants of concealed handgun carry licenses, and it has done so. These are set forth in 38 RCNY 5-03. They are stringent, but, at least, not inherently nebulous.Individuals who presently hold valid concealed handgun carry licenses in the City, which NYPD License Division has exclusive authority to issue, have, through time, adapted to the NYPD License Division’s “proper cause” requirements. These requirements are aimed at providing a mechanism for the City’s entrepreneurial class to obtain licenses.It suggests an explicit attempt at accommodation of business practices—operating as both cause and effect. The NYPD License Division establishes the requirements for business entrepreneurs to qualify for a concealed handgun carry license, and those entrepreneurs do their best to comply with those requirements. Compliance with those requirements have thus enabled a small number of people, New York City’s entrepreneurial class that happens to handle substantial amounts of cash in the usual course of their business, to obtain a coveted handgun carry license. The NYPD License Division establishes the criteria under which applicants for handgun carry licenses can satisfy requirements, and those business applicants oblige the NYPD. So, it has been for decades. That now goes out the door.Under the requirements for a concealed handgun carry license in New York City and in the rest of the State—that take effect in September—the City’s Rules will not be valid. Be that as it may, at present, the NYPD License Division has yet to revise its Rules for issuance of concealed handgun licenses. But the Division will have to. The City’s Home Rule Charter gives the NYPD License Division substantial leeway to establish its “proper cause” criteria, but the City’s criteria have to be consistent with the intent of the Statute. The present rules are not consistent with the amendments to Section 400.00 that take effect in September.Those entrepreneurs who have business establishments in the City and who have adapted their business procedures to cohere to the NYPD License Divisions procedure will find their pro forma renewal process no longer open to them. They are in jeopardy of losing acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses that heretofore they could rely on as long as their business operations and practices remained consistent through time. Upon renewal of their present license, they must comply with the new requirements or forsake their concealed handgun carry license. We investigate those in the next article, Part Seven of this series._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRUEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEEDED BUT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART FOUR

As we alluded to, in our earlier articles on Bruen, the High Court’s decision is meant to redirect the actions of those jurisdictions that have misread and misapplied Heller.As one reads the Bruen Majority Opinion, and the Concurring Opinions, it becomes clear that the salient purpose of the Court’s Majority is to redirect those jurisdictions toward a proper understanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as explained in Heller and McDonald. Bruen is intended to instill Courts with an appreciation of the proper standard of review to be used when reviewing Courts are called upon to test the constitutionality of government actions that impact the Second Amendment.Too many jurisdictions have, heretofore, intentionally, and stubbornly, or accidentally and carelessly, failed to heed the dictates of the two seminal Second Amendment holdings that impact all Second Amendment cases—Heller and McDonald. Henceforth, in the 21^st Century, this failure to heed Heller and McDonald is not acceptable. The Bruen decision as propounded is meant to correct serious irregularities in the judicial standard those Courts have heretofore employed— “intermediate scrutiny”/ “interest-balancing”—when reviewing the Constitutionality of Government actions impacting the Second Amendment.But truth to tell, this wasn’t the salient reason the High Court took up the case. And, notwithstanding that the conservative wing of the Court reviewed the case at all, this was not by wish of the liberal wing of the Court. It required the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, and his faithful colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well, if the case were to be reviewed at all. In that regard, Bruen is just like Heller. For Heller to be accepted for review, it required the cooperation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Their votes were necessary if the conservative wing—at the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—were to be able to hold, finally, what had always been plain: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is not connected to one’s service in a militia. The dependent clause provides a rationale for the right—a mechanism to forestall tyranny of Government from taking root—but it is not at all to be considered a limitation on the exercise of the right. That would make no sense, on logical grounds alone, for it would reduce the right to a nullity. But, just as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to get both onboard in Heller, so, similarly, Associate Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice and to Justice Kavanaugh to get them onboard in Bruen. Doing so ultimately made for a debilitated Bruen. And, as we explain in our continuing comprehensive exposition, Bruen is a markedly weak case. Bruen is much less than it could have been and much less than it should have been. That is to say, the entire handgun licensing structure of New York should have been struck down. But it wasn't. The Court could have done this in the New York City “gun transport case” if the Court had decided the case on the merits as both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wanted. That didn’t happen. Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court, didn’t want that to happen. And Justice Kavanaugh acquiesced to the wishes of the Chief Justice in that case. Similarly, in Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court might have struck down the handgun licensing structure of New York that had existed for over one hundred years as it is an affront to the natural law right of armed self-defense. But the liberal wing didn’t want that to happen, and Justice Roberts didn’t want to see that happen either. Yet that was the raison d’être why Bruen came before the Court. If but tacitly, Petitioners, nonetheless, sought to strike down the entirety of the handgun licensing regime in New York, as it is an abomination. It was, in its very design, intended to severely hobble those Americans who reside in New York, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. New York intended to inhibit exercise of those citizens who reside in New York of their God-Given natural law right of armed self-defense.Chief Justice Roberts didn’t want to see the handgun licensing structure of New York struck down, and he cajoled Justice Kavanaugh to join him in preventing a holding in Bruen that would see the Court doing just that: striking down the one hundred-and eleven-year-old Sullivan Act—the progenitor of the entire handgun licensing structure of New York—which has only grown more robust and egregious through time. And the liberal wing of the Court certainly didn’t want to see the handgun licensing regime of New York collapsing. For their goal is to see an end to the Second Amendment. The Sullivan Act is consistent with that goal.Bruen, unlike the New York City gun transport case that preceded it, was decided on the merits, but the ruling of the Court—there really was only one ruling—did not do much for Americans who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms unimpeded by Government. To the contrary, it made matters worse—much worse for present holders of New York City concealed handgun carry licenses. Thus, because Justices Thomas and Alito were prevented from striking at the core of New York’s handgun licensing regime, they spent most of their energies laying out the Heller standard for review. If one stops to think about that, the standard of review that Courts are supposed to apply and are supposed to adhere to was never a major issue in the case, and that it existed at all, was only as tangentially related to the key concern: the unconstitutionality of New York’s entire handgun licensing scheme. In other words, if New York Courts had applied the appropriate standard in reviewing Government actions impacting the Second Amendment, as the Courts should have been doing all along, on their own initiative, then Bruen would never have been necessary. The New York Courts would have themselves struck down the New York handgun licensing regime a long time ago, as blatantly unconstitutional, and Petitioners in the Bruen case, and many other American citizens residing in New York, would have, long ago, been able to exercise their right of armed self-defense without Government interfering with their inalienable right to do so. And that in and of itself would have taken care of the notorious crime wave impacting the City of New York, in particular. That New York Courts have failed to do so and that they, in fact, have embraced the unconstitutionality of New York Government harassment of those citizens who simply wish to exercise their right of armed self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so in Bruen, and that would make sense after methodically going through application of the Heller test. Yet, the High Court stopped short of doing that. The Court left the handgun licensing scheme intact. It is our belief that Associate Justices Thomas and Alito would have liked to have been done with it, for the last time, and would have done away with it, but for reluctance on the part of the Chief Justice himself, and, on the part of Justice Kavanaugh as well, apart from the liberal wing of the High Court.  For far too long, all too many Federal and State Courts have mangled Heller and McDonald, wrongly reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right”—a point Justice Thomas made in his comment to the 2015 Friedman case that the Court failed to grant certiorari on, and that he pointed to again in Bruen. Justice Thomas emphasized that the States cannot reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right.” But many State Governments have done just that. And the State and Federal Courts in those jurisdictions had routinely held such Government actions as Constitutional when they were not.More inclined to adopt Dissenting Justice Breyer’s argument and reasoning and that of other liberal wing Justices in Heller and McDonald, rather than the sound judicial reasoning and rulings of the Majority, the lower Courts were legally bound to follow, those Courts had slowly eroded Heller and McDonald. Through time this resulted in the production of a substantial body of case law that has the invidious and insidious effect of striking down Heller and McDonald majority opinion rulings and reasoning. Thus, the lower federal and state Courts replace Majority Opinion Conservative wing rulings, respectful of the Second Amendment, with liberal wing musings, disrespectful of and abhorrent of the Second Amendment, as is plain from a perusal of liberal wing dissenting opinions—a serious injustice, establishing erroneous precedents across the appellate Court landscape. The United States Supreme Court did have many opportunities for more than a decade to redress the Constitutional irregularities of State and municipal Governments. Plenty of cases came to the High Court requesting review, but the liberal wing of the High Court did not want that. Those Justices that detested the Heller and McDonald holdings would have much preferred the de facto, or even de jure, erasing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And they would have been well on their way to the attainment of that goal if Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland had acquired a seat on the High Court. The liberal wing Justices were and are always of one mind on matters impacting the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t want to strengthen, or reinforce, or extend the rulings of Heller and McDonald as a review of those cases would have done if Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy were onboard with that. At the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have done just that But, without the support of Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Kennedy, that wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy most certainly were not prepared to do anything that might strengthen or extend the Heller and McDonald case rulings. It tells a person much about the jurisprudential makeup of the Chief Justice and about Justice Kennedy.So, Heller and McDonald languished. And, the death of Justice Scalia, and Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to seats on the High Court, wouldn’t change the equation. The excruciating painful disembowelment of the two seminal Second Amendment cases was inexorable and inevitable. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were powerless to do anything about it unless they had the votes to prevent this. But, without Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy—and thereafter, Roberts and Kavanaugh—on their side, they didn’t have the votes. This meant that many Americans, in the interim, were systematically denied the right guaranteed to them in the Second Amendment.That all changed with the Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who, it is safe to say, supports a robust Second Amendment, consistent with the framers’ intent. With Barrett onboard, Roberts and Kavanaugh would have to lend their support to the Conservative wing, or they would be found out for the imposters they were and are. But they could not be caught operating as devoted companions of the liberal wing of the Court who seek to make mincemeat of the Bill of Rights. That would never do, especially for the Chief Justice to be in the minority on any decision, and certainly not on one impacting a fundamental right of the American people. Now that the Court did at least somewhat strengthen Heller and McDonald, with the Bruen decision, has this rectified the situation for Americans? Have States begun their slow reassessment of the Second Amendment? Have they begun to treat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a “first-class right” and not a “second-class right”? Perhaps so. Time will tell. Some jurisdictions in fact appear inclined to do so. But, in New York—from where Bruen sprung—not so. Definitely not so! And we will explore why that is in the next several articles on Bruen._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR HOCHUL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE BRUEN DECISION — “IT’S LIKE DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN,” IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF YOGI BERRA

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART TWO

“I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.” ~ Closing paragraph of Part One of Justice Alito’s Concurring Opinion in BruenThere are two key components of Bruen. One involves the test that Federal, and State Courts must employ when they are called upon to review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second involves the matter of “proper cause”/ “may issue” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and that was the central topic of concern at oral argument in Bruen. And Bruen impacts other jurisdictions around the Country that have similar handgun licensing structures. As we all know, the High Court in Bruen struck down the foundation of the New York's concealed handgun carry license regime—the salient constituent of which is the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license component. Few people in New York "are privileged" to hold such valued and rare licenses, as those that have them can rely on handguns for self-defense in the public sphere, i.e., outside the home as well as inside it—a right denied to most all New York residents.First things first. We deal with the test that reviewing Courts must use when reviewing Governmental actions impacting 2A. The U.S. Supreme Court did articulate in Heller the test to be utilized by the Federal and State Courts when reviewing Governmental actions impacting the Second Amendment, but all too many Courts demonstrated a barely disguised antipathy toward it, or otherwise exhibited a tired apathy apropos of it. In either case such jurisdictions resorted to their own case precedent.The appropriate test to be employed—the Heller test—involves a two-step process.The first step is easy or should be easy if a reviewing Court doesn’t make what is a simple matter difficult.A reviewing Court first ascertains whether the Governmental action conflicts with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. This means simply that the Court looks to see if the Governmental action affects the Second Amendment at all. If the Governmental action impacts on the individual right to keep and bear arms, then, the first part of the test is met. The Government action is presumed unconstitutional and the burden to prove that the action is constitutional rests on the Government, not on the individual asserting the right to be exercised—the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Thus, in the second part of the test, the Government must prove that the action is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm’s regulation. If the Government fails to establish historical precedent, then the regulation must be struck down.Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said this:“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”Pay close attention to the phrase, “we reiterate” as utilized by Justice Thomas in the main Majority Opinion and as also utilized by Justice Alito in his Concurring Opinion. In colloquial parlance, the word, ‘reiterate’ means ‘to say something again or several times, typically for emphasis or clarity, and often alluding to a feeling of weariness for having to do so.’ Such is the reason for the term’s appearance in Bruen and such is the profound frustration apparent in the Majority Opinion. By using the word, ‘reiterate,’ in Bruen, the High Court expressed its disdain with the lower Courts for continually failing to heed Heller. This may be due to antipathy, even spite toward the Heller decision. Or it may be due to ignorance, apathy or sloppiness, or philosophical leanings, or stubborn adherence to lower Court precedence. That it happens at all is a dreadful thing—thus the need for Bruen—and, still, we see the Federal Government and State Governments and State and Federal Courts contending with Heller and with McDonald, and intending now to contend with Bruen, as well. How many cases must the U.S. Supreme Court hear before Government gets the message: that the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is a natural law right: fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute?Heller laid out the test and the Majority Opinion stated that fact explicitly. —The point being that the High Court wasn’t positing a new standard of review of Second Amendment cases in Bruen, but it was merely confirming the test as promulgated in Heller that all too many lower Courts had heretofore failed to apply. And in that failure, the lower Courts were jeopardizing the sanctity of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.Justice Thomas, writing for the Court Majority, was telling those lower Federal and State Courts that had heretofore applied a ‘means-test analysis’ in Second Amendment cases—a test also referred to as an ‘interest-balancing approach’ or ‘interest-balancing inquiry,’ or, in Court vernacular, an ‘intermediate scrutiny test’ in testing the Constitutionality of a Governmental action—that those Courts had gotten it all wrong! Those lower Courts were giving their imprimatur to Governmental actions that all was well and good when nothing was well and good with those actions as they infringed the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The Courts should have struck those actions down. They didn’t. And in affirming the constitutional correctness of unconstitutional acts those Courts compounded their sin against the people and against the Divine Creator. For the Divine Creator had bestowed on man and in man the right of self-defense. And the general sacred right of self-defense subsumes armed self-defense, which is but a species of the Divine Right of personal survival of body, mind, and spirit against those people or Government that would dare to destroy or subjugate body, mind, or spirit to another’s will or to the will of the State over the Self.There are several examples of this failure to heed Heller, but the starkest example is Friedman vs. Highland Park, 784 F. 3d, 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert denied, 577 U.S. 1039 (2015). The Friedman case is particularly noteworthy, especially today, because the Court had the opportunity to deal head-on with the issue whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. Had the Court taken that case up, it would have ruled that “assault weapons” do fall within Second Amendment protection, and that would have saved the American people a lot of aggravation and heartache that is at present heaped on them by a treacherous and obstructionist Biden Administration, a treacherous, obstinate Democrat Party-controlled Congress, an obstreperous, perfidious legacy Press, and a painfully passive, acquiescent, obsequious, worthless Republican Party.Of course, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is a fiction. That’s all it ever was. It isn’t a military term of art, and never was a military term of art; and it isn’t and wasn't ever used in the arms industry as such either.Propagandists devised the term for politicians and a seditious Press for its effect on gullible members of the American public who allow the Government and the Press to do their thinking for them—seducing them through emotive words and images to sacrifice their God-Given Rights for nothing but an illusion of or false hope of security if they would but place their faith in the State to protect them, but from what is never made clear. What is clear is that the State wishes to protect itself from the armed citizenry, as it is the end goal of the State to oppress the citizenry, not provide for the citizenry's succor, much less its salvation. For salvation can only come from the Divine Creator anyway, not from the State—a false god, a fake, cardboard god.Propagandists originally meant to ascribe the expression, 'assault weapon,' to some but not all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. But, of late, especially with the latest Texas school shooting incident—with the Biden Administration, riding a wave of public anxiety and anger over public school shootings—the Administration has chosen to exasperate public anxiety rather than allay it, seeking to ban all semiautomatic weapons or placing them under the purview of the NFA and that means under the heavy hand of the ATF. And this is as we at AQ had predicted long ago.But this would all be a non-issue if the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on “assault weapons” in the years following the Heller decision. The Court certainly had the chance to do so in the Friedman case. And, God knows, Justice Thomas for one wanted to deal with this matter, but obviously could not get support from the liberal wing of the Court or from the Chief Justice, John Roberts, or from Justice Kennedy both of whom had no stomach for establishing clearly and categorically the salient reason for the Second Amendment: which is that Government was created to serve the American people, not the other way around.An armed citizenry signals to Government that the people are Sovereign over Government and over their Nation, and that firearms provide the means by which Government must bow to the will and sovereignty of the people, whether Government reluctantly agrees to do so or not.It is a curious thing that the supporters of tyranny constantly complain about the firepower of modern semiautomatic weaponry, emphasizing in a hysterical way that such weapons are designed for the military—the standing army of the Federal Government. To be sure, that weaponry of the American citizen is supposed to be military weaponry, designed for just such a cataclysm: to prevent an unrestrained Government and its standing army, and its militarized police, and its vast intelligence apparatus that seeks to bend the citizenry to its will. The right of the people, and the duty of the people, and the ability of the people to resist Government oppression and subjugation is only feasible where the citizenry is armed, and armed to the hilt, and armed with military weapons. In fact, it is not just the semiautomatic weapons that Americans have a fundamental right to possess then; it is the selective fire weapons and fully automatic personnel weapons that Americans have a God-Given right to wield. Of course, a tyrannical Government would attempt to prevent the citizenry from having access to just that sort of weaponry by which the people might succeed in resisting tyranny. The NFA should be repealed; no question about that. Instead, the Harris-Biden Administration wants to extend its purview over semiautomatic weaponry and, of course, eventually over all weapons. A dire confrontation between the citizenry and the Government is inevitable if the Executive and Legislative Branches do not soon come to their senses and acknowledge that those that serve in those Branches of Government owe their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution as written, and to the American people they have a duty to serve. It is not the American people that must bow down or defer to these Government servants, much less deify them. It is they, the smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous servants of Government that need to be put in their place, and that place may well be the chopping block.______________________________________

THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” TEST CASE: WILL NEW YORK REVERT TO “INTEREST-BALANCING” AFTER BRUEN TO SAFEGUARD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME?

PART THREE

As explained by the Seventh Circuit in Friedman, “The City of Highland Park has an ordinance (§136.005 of the City Code) that prohibits possession of assault weapons or large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” See AQ article published May 1, 2018, for further explication of Government failure to recognize the Constitutionality of civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons, derogatorily and erroneously referred to as “assault weapons.” The High Court in Heller ordered Courts not to utilize interest-balancing when reviewing the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment. That was explicit. The Seventh Circuit used that test anyway and found the ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment. That was hardly surprising. Whenever a reviewing Court uses interest-balancing to test the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment, the Court invariably finds an unconstitutional act to not violate the Constitution. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court dispensed with interest-balancing. When a Court uses that test, it gives the illusion that the Court is truly balancing the interests between the State action and the individual right. But the individual right always loses to the State action. That is inevitable. To add insult to injury, the Seventh Circuit was using the very test that Justice Breyer championed in Heller, and which he referred to again, in Bruen. But Breyer was writing a dissenting opinion in Heller, and he stuck with it in Bruen. A dissenting opinion isn't the Court's holding. But many jurisdictions wanted the dissenting opinion to operate as a holding in Second Amendment cases. And so, they pretend the dissenting opinion in Heller was the majority ruling opinion. It is incredible. Such rulings of lower Courts utilizing a test that the majority in Heller did not countenance and explicitly and emphatically refuted, would rely on that test, interest-balancing, anyway.In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit decided to go with the dissent’s reasoning rather than with the law as propounded by the Majority in Heller. Justice Thomas was justifiably furious. And he took the Seventh Circuit to task, and, by extension, tacitly chastised those members of the High Court who did not want to hear the case. Given its importance to the reasoning and ruling in Bruen we cite at length the comment of Justice Thomas in the Friedman case which the High Court refused to grant hearing on. Justice Thomas said, in substantial and pertinent part—with the late, eminent Justice Scalia joining him, “Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. . . .The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states,  which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits.  The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’  Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’  Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. . . .’ There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right [citations omitted; passim].”

THE HELLER TEST

Justice Thomas spent considerable time in Bruen outlining the Heller test so that there would be no doubt as to the standard of review lower Federal and State Courts must employ when a Government action impinges upon the Second Amendment. He said:“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. . . .”“In Heller, we began with a ‘textual analysis’ focused on the ‘normal and ordinary’ meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’—‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation that does not depend on service in the militia. From there, we assessed whether our initial conclusion was ‘confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. . . .’ We looked to history because ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.’ The Amendment ‘was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found ‘no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.’ We then canvassed the historical record and found yet further confirmation. That history included the ‘analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment’ and ‘how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century,” . . . . When the principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources was illegitimate ‘post enactment legislative history’. . . . We clarified that ‘examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification’ was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. . . .’”This boils down to the following:First, look at the plain meaning of the Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The militia clause sets forth simply a rationale for it—to inhibit the incursion of Tyranny in Government—which therefore emphasizes the need for the American people—as individuals—to keep Tyranny in check through the best means available: force of arms. In fact, this is the only way to keep Tyranny in check. And we see this now. Tyranny now exists in Government. Sadly, there’s no question about it.It is more than mere wish that drives Anti-Second Amendment usurpers to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms. It is abject fear, even panic, which motivates them to openly defy the transparent and categorical meaning of the Second Amendment.Among many Americans who had placed their faith in Government but who hadn't succumbed to Government's new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—upon which the Destroyers of our Nation, and of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people insidiously cloaked their aims to dismantle the Republic so that they may thrust the remains into the “NWO” a.k.a. “Neoliberal World Order” a.k.a. “International World Order,” a.k.a. the “Open Society,”—the truth is becoming known. Even the most obtuse of American sees that the Federal Government and that the Soros-funded State and local Governments are moving this Nation perilously close to destruction and oblivion. And it is much too late for these ruthless creatures that seek the demise of a free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people over Nation and Government to disguise that fact.The Bruen decision establishes the stakes for the American people. It is a zero-sum game. There is no compromise. There can be no compromise with a Tyrant. Americans have a fundamental God-Given unalienable right of armed self-defense against predatory beast, predatory man-beast, and predatory Government, i.e., tyranny. Heller and McDonald made this Truth plain. The Federal Government and many States refused to listen. So, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the right of armed self-defense. Will the Federal Government and the States listen? Judging by what we see from the actions of New York, the State Government intends to do war with Americans. Far from complying with Bruen, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany have no intention of complying with Bruen, any more than New York did with Heller and McDonald. In fact, Bruen makes gun ownership in New York worse, much worse, especially for those that wish to secure an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.The New York Government has told the U.S. Supreme Court plainly "to go to Hell," and they mean the same for those citizens who reside in New York who wish to exercise their God-Given right of armed self-defense. The danger to the security of a free State is currently very much in doubt. That is why we are spending considerable time on Bruen and will continue to do so in the next several installments, leading up to the critical Midterm Elections in November._________________________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SINCE BRUEN: A STEP FORWARD OR A STEP BACKWARD?

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART ONE

TO UNDERSTAND BRUEN, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO UNDERSTAND HELLER, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO; BRUEN DOESN’T REFORM OR REPLACE HELLER, IT BUILDS ON IT.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF BRUEN

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3055, ___ S. Ct.___. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The High Court held that, “Where the State of New York issued public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrated a special need for self-defense, the State’s licensing regime violated the Constitution because the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. A State could not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they had not demonstrated a special need for self-defense.” The Court thereupon reversed and remanded the case for action, consistent with the Court’s ruling.The holding of the Bruen case makes clear that a person has the fundamental right of armed self-defense outside the home no less so than he has the right of armed self-defense inside it. The implication of that holding is far-reaching:

• The language of the Second Amendment logically entails the fundamental right of armed self-defense.

• The carrying of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside the home as well as inside it is protected by the Second Amendment because it reflects the very intent behind the Second Amendment: the natural law right of armed self-defense.

• The Second Amendment is the codification of natural law, not man-made law, and Government and the Courts must adhere to the plain meaning of that natural law right, as codified.

• Demonstration of proper cause, i.e., proof of special need to carry a concealed handgun outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense, both inside the home and outside it. A person doesn't need to demonstrate a special need.

• The right to self-defense inside the home or outside it is governed by the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. One man doesn't need to prove to another or to an agent of Government that he has some especial need for a gun for purpose of self-defense to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense. For, the right of self-defense exists intrinsically in man. If Government fails to recognize and acknowledge this, requiring of one that one demonstrate especial need to purchase from Government a thing that man already owns and what Government, then, has no lawful right to sell to him—a property right that belongs to man and not to the Government—then all the worse for Government and its agents that would compel one to remit payment to Government for something freely given to man by the Divine Creator. The right of armed self-defense is a thing of immense value that Government audaciously and erroneously claims sole ownership of and demands remuneration for when or if Government offers it for sale, which is a rare event indeed and is a thing coveted and a thing hoarded by Government as if Government could ever successfully purloin it from man.

• Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is incompatible with the holdings of the two prior seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, Heller, and McDonald.

• Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is not supported by historical precedent.

• New York concealed handgun carry law is incoherent, and, in its application, lends itself to partiality in treatment, resulting in disparate outcomes among applicants who have similar backgrounds. This invites corruption, at worst, and, at best, frequent errors in judgment by the NYPD Licensing Officers who are given vast decision-making authority.

• The recent amendments to New York’s handgun licensing regime don’t alleviate the vexing legal problems attendant to the previous handgun licensing regime; they exasperate those problems.

• New York’s requirement for a showing of proper cause by a person applying for a New York concealed handgun carry operates as a condition precedent to exercise of a natural law right. This means the applicant, who is not under any Federal Statutory disability, can demand that the Government issue him a concealed handgun carry license as matter of Right. But, in New York the applicant still cannot do this because the issuance of a license remains, in practice, a privilege, not a right. But this flies in the face of Bruen.

• Since, consistent with Bruen, a person, not under disability, has a right to demand issuance of a handgun carry license, as the Constitution mandates this, issuance of a license to carry a handgun for self-defense in the public sphere merges with the Right. Thus, a license to carry a handgun in public is truly redundant. If then, the Government insists on licensing the right, then the applicant, not under disability, is entitled to receive a license on demand so that he can exercise his fundamental and unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

• To refuse an applicant a valid concealed handgun carry license for self-defense outside the home, renders exercise of the Right both legally and logically nugatory and therefore vacuous—which it always had been prior to Bruen and Heller.

• Therefore, if a government insists on maintaining a handgun licensing structure, the act of issuing a license is reduced to a non-discretionary ministerial act and is therefore redundant, i.e., logically unnecessary. But, if the Government intends to maintain handgun licensing as a discretionary act, then any refusal of Government to issue a person a concealed handgun license, after Bruen, operates as an unconstitutional act of Government in naked defiance to the rulings and directives of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• It is the U.S. Supreme Court, alone that has sole authority under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution to say what the law is.

• The New York Government for one, is deliberately ignoring High Court rulings, where the Court has spoken and has stated clearly and categorically, “what the law is.”

New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party controlled State Legislature in Albany, New York, have implemented substantial amendments to the State’s handgun licensing regime that make it harder, not easier, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license. But, to understand how it is and why it is New York’s licensing regime is unconstitutional now as before Bruen, and now even worse than before, we will peruse both Bruen and Heller, at length, looking closely at the test that Courts are obligated to apply and to adhere to when confronted with a challenge to Government action that impacts the very core of the Second Amendment Right. ____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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