IT IS TIME FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been at the forefront in the call for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Posting our first article on the subject in 2015, in our “Roadtrip with a Handgun” series, we have  remained a strong proponent of national concealed handgun carry, and have since published two dozen articles on the subject; our latest posted on November 30, 2018.We were very pleased when the Republican controlled House at long last passed their version of national handgun carry. But that was almost one year ago. The House bill is titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38. The House immediately sent the bill to the Senate for consideration. But, there has been no action on it to date. It has been sitting idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee ever since. That is unacceptable. More, this inaction is unconscionable. Millions of American gun owners want it, need it, and have the right to have it.We cannot wait because once the Democratic Party majority takes over control of the House on January 3, 2019, we will likely never again see it. The measure would have to be brought up once again, in the new Congress. It would then have to be voted on, and passed by the full House, and that won’t happen—not with a substantial Democratic Party House majority.The Democratic Party leadership that will define the measures to be taken up and voted upon by the full House has no desire to strengthen the Second Amendment. That is not part of the leadership’s agenda. Indeed, the goal of the Party leadership, for decades, has been, on that score—unlike its policy position on illegal aliens and border protection, where it flip-flopped—remarkably consistent. The aim of the Party leadership is to weaken the Second Amendment to the point that the fundamental right set forth in the Amendment ceases to have practical effect.It is therefore imperative for the Senate to bring the House version of the bill it has been sitting on for close to a year, to the Floor of the Senate for a vote by a full complement of Senators. The Senate will hopefully then pass the bill, and get the bill onto the desk of the U.S. President Trump, for his signature, before it adjourns. There is still time. But, the Senate must act now, without further delay.

National Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Be a Good Thing; a Rational, Positive Step Forward.

A few readers of our articles have argued against passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, asserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—as one of our fundamental, unalienable, and natural rights—rests beyond the lawful control of Government to regulate. If so, this would mean that present federal, State, and local Government regulation of the exercise of the right is facially invalid, and unlawful.The concern expressed is understandable. The Arbalest Quarrel has not been unmindful of the issue whether Government can legitimately regulate our fundamental, natural, enumerated rights at all, and if it can, then the extent to which Government can regulate these rights.The tension between Governmental power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the people, on the other, was, in fact, a focus of attention for the founders of the Republic, and a dilemma. They came to an understanding, if guardedly and grudgingly by some, that, for the fledgling Republic to exist and persist through time, it would be necessary to establish a strong national government. But, having thrown off the yoke of oppression created by one autocratic rule—that of King George III—the founders, who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, had no desire to draft conditions, albeit unintentionally, that would allow for imposition of yet another such rule—and this one of their own making.The answer, for the framers of the Constitution, referred to as antifederalists, was to place an express Bill of Rights into the Constitution, to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The antifederalists saw inclusion of a Bill of Rights as necessary to curb a tendency of a national Government to exercise and accumulate ever more power at the expense of the people to whom that Government was, after all, designed and expected to serve.The federalists were opposed to this idea, but not because they were against securing fundamental rights and liberties for the people. Rather, they felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant, as the power and authority of a central Government would be express and limited. Everything else—rights, liberties, powers—would reside in the respective States and in the people. Further, the federalists felt that, by placing emphasis on a formal Bill of Rights, this would obscure the need for creating an effective and efficient Government that could provide both national security and strength, and, at once, promote liberty. But, we have seen how this has played out, 200+ years later. And, it isn’t good. Thankfully, the antifederalists’ demand for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevailed over the federalists’ objections against such inclusion.The federal Government has indeed, through time, become very effective and efficient in amassing unbridled power, along with securing, for itself, extraordinary levels and layers of secrecy, even as the American citizenry, conversely, has lost its own fundamental right to be free from unlawful Governmental searches and seizures. Indeed, there likely now exists a Government within a Government, an ominous, parallel Shadow Government, separate and apart from the apparent, ostensibly “open” Government the public sees.This Shadow Government likely siphons off billions of taxpayer dollars annually, using that money to advance its own illegitimate goals; money that serves its own interests, not those of the American people; hence, the concern of many citizens against any Government regulation of fundamental, enumerated, unalienable, and natural rights, including the right of the people to keep and bear arms, else Government inevitably, inexorably, and insidiously encroach upon and systematically and oppressively control the lives and actions of its own people.But, is there any statement in the Constitution prohibiting Government regulation of fundamental rights, as some readers assert? Let’s look at a few clauses.

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution states in part that Government is “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .”  This clause would appear to be an express limitation on Government regulation, certainly of the enumerated rights, as set forth in the first eight Amendments, apart from the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth  and Tenth. If so, the “necessary and proper clause” does restrain federal Government regulation of the Second Amendment and of other fundamental, enumerated rights of the people.

The “Supremacy Clause”

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .”  The “supremacy clause” is essentially an assertion of federal preemption. The idea alluded to is that the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties are the Law of the Land and are subordinated to no other laws. But, contrary to some views expressed, the supremacy clause is not an assertion of the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, beyond the power of Congress to regulate. In fact, at least some antifederalists were much concerned about it, fearing the clause would give the federal Government too much power over the States. Yet, it may also be argued, that the supremacy clause implies that the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are—since an express part of the Constitution, along with the Articles—well beyond the power of the federal Government to lawfully regulate. In that respect, the supremacy clause serves to contain and restrain Government regulation of the citizenry’s fundamental, enumerated rights.

The “Commerce Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution sets forth the power of Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  National concealed handgun carry reciprocity does implicate interstate commerce, but whether Congressional power to regulate the carrying of a firearm across State lines amounts to an over-extension of the commerce power, at the expense of the States, will require further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Will Happen When National Concealed Handgun Carry is Passed by the Senate and Signed into Law by the President?

Were the Senate to pass national concealed handgun carry reciprocity and the President sign it into law, it would be an odd thing, indeed, yet possible to see antigun groups and some pro-Second Amendment groups both opposing the law. Yet, both sides could do so, albeit each for its own reasons, both claiming Congress had gone beyond its authority to regulate firearms’ possession.Be that as it may, however this might play out, the Arbalest Quarrel feels that, given the myriad antigun laws already enacted, there would be far more to gain from having this one, at this moment in time, than not. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity would at least serve as a significantly pro-Second Amendment federal law to counter the plethora of State and Federal laws that aren’t. Still, we understand and respect such misgivings some pro-Second Amendment people may have on the matter._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

ATTENTION ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS: NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS IN JEOPARDY.

Concealed handgun carry reciprocity is about to die. It is about to die through deliberate inaction or callous indifference of the U.S. Senate. But we have a small window of opportunity: 21 days left to achieve the goal that has eluded us for years. It seemed assured of being accomplished by the Republican controlled 115^th Congress but, it wasn’t.Congress still has time to act before the end of the year, but that does nothing to explain why Congress failed to get this done. It certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS FAIL TO FULFILL PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN PROMISE?

The House of Representatives and the Senate did introduce several national handgun carry reciprocity bills in the last two years. One such bill was 115 H.R. 38, titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill's synopsis reads: “AN ACT to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.” The measure was voted on by the full House, and the Republican controlled House passed the bill, on December 6, 2017, by recorded roll call vote: 231 to 198. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against passage of the bill. Only 6 of 184 Democrats voted for passage of the bill. Contrariwise, the vast majority of House Republicans, 225, voted for passage of the bill; and 14 voted against passage.One day later, on December 7, 2017, the bill was sent to and received by the Senate, where it was read twice, in accordance with Senate protocol, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for action. And, then we heard—Nothing! Dead Silence!The bill apparently fell into a deep, dark abyss.Senator Mitch McConnell, who, as Senate Majority Leader, has ultimate authority for determining what bills are voted on by the full Senate, said and did nothing to get the Judiciary Committee to act so that the bill could be voted on by the full Senate.Why didn’t the Judiciary Committee act on this? They certainly could have, but didn’t. And, why didn’t Senator Mitch McConnell urge the Judiciary Committee to action, so the full Senate would have had the opportunity to vote for passage of national concealed handgun carry legislation? We don’t know. He could have seen to this, but didn’t. Senate Republicans who can answer these questions, aren’t saying.Much about this, we don’t know. It is deeply perplexing.

BUT, THIS MUCH WE DO KNOW—

Senator Mitch McConnell can get things done when he wants to. Senator Mitch McConnell was able to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This wasn’t easy, given the strenuous pushback by Senate Democrats. And the Senator should be commended for his zealous, unflagging effort in that regard. He should be just as zealous in getting national concealed handgun legislation through the full Senate. He certainly could have done so. For some reason, he chose not to. Yet, he still has time to get this done before the 116^th Congress begins its first term, on January 3, 2019, because, at that point, it would be futile. The House will seat a Democratic Party majority; and the Democratic Party leadership's agenda will include the drafting of bills to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not to strengthen that basic, fundamental, natural, and unalienable rightThe 2016 general election earned us President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. National Right-to-Carry was in our grasp. The timing couldn’t have been better. This is what law-abiding gun owners wanted, and NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment organizations campaigned vigorously for it. Our once-in-a-lifetime real hope for National Right-to-Carry is now slipping through our fingers.The Senate had over a year to act on the bill, from late 2017, when it first received the bill from the House. But the Senate failed to act.

CAN’T THE SENATE SIMPLY PASS THE BILL NEXT YEAR AND SEND IT ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS SIGNATURE IN 2019?

NO! IT CANNOT! All pending bills die.“At the end of a two-year session, Congress adjourns 'sine die' or 'without day' and not reconvene until a new Congress starts some time the next January.After that, the slate is wiped clean; there is no business pending. All of the ‘H.R.’ and ‘S.’ numbered titles that have been discussed and debated for the past two years will be archived. When Congress reconvenes, the process starts all over again.” When Congress reconvenes in 2019, House Republicans can reintroduce concealed handgun carry reciprocity but with a Democratic Party House of Representatives majority, the bill would never pass. So, whatever the Senate does in 2019, won’t matter because both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before a bill is sent to the President for his signature, at which point, a bill then becomes the Law of the Land, in accordance with Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

TIME TO PASS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS OF THE ESSENCE!

There is no time to waste. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on December 14, 2018. If the Senate fails to pass the bill by emergency roll call vote, we will have lost the only real opportunity to see concealed handgun carry reciprocity through to fruition.And, keep in mind: the Senate’s failure to act on national handgun carry places extreme pressure on President Trump who made this issue one of the signature issues of his campaign for U.S. President. Failure to accomplish this goal can well lead to Trump’s defeat in the general U.S. Presidential election of 2020. We must place the Senate’s feet to the fire.” This is where you can help!

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

IMMEDIATELY CALL:U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121TELL THEM THIS:“The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill.”You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows:The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888We must put pressure on those who can get this matter accomplished.Making a few important phone calls will only take a few minutes of your time. It is quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.What you do can make a difference and you will be proud to have taken an active part in protecting our natural, fundamental, unalienable, and sacred right to safeguard our lives and the lives of those closest to us, with the best means available: a firearm.If you chose to do nothing, you will only have yourself to blame.THIS IS OUR LAST REAL SHOT AT PASSAGE OF SIGNIFICANT PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION!DON’T HESITATE TO TAKE THE SHOT. YOU WILL REGRET IT BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST!__________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL TRAGEDY MAKES THE CASE FOR ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, the mainstream Press, echoing the sentiments of antigun activists and antigun legislators, focused the public’s attention on two subjects: guns and mental illness. Antigun activists argue that guns and mental illness are both intractable. Mix the two like a cocktail and you have a recipe for disaster. That, as maintained by antigun activists, accurately explains the cause of the mass shooting incident at the Parkland, Florida High School. But does it?In an editorial, appearing in The New York Times on February 24, 2018, titled, “I Can’t Stop Mass Shooters,” by Amy Barnhorst, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, admitted the conundrum. The author writes, “Each mass shooting reignites a debate about what causes this type of violence and how it can be prevented. Those who oppose further restrictions on gun ownership often set their sights on the mental health care system. Shouldn’t psychiatrists be able to identify as dangerous someone like Nikolas Cruz. . . ? And can’t we just stop unstable young men like him from buying firearms? It’s much harder than it sounds.”The author has no answer other than the perfunctory, putting “some distance between these young men and their guns.” But, would that prevent mass violence? Clearly, it would not even if this seems plausible to some. Signs of mental illness in a person do not automatically mean a person has violent tendencies. Conversely, those individuals who not fall within one or more listed categories in the latest version of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (“DSM-5”)—the Psychiatrist’s Bible—may have violent tendencies.

FROM AN EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT, DISPOSSESSING CIVILIANS OF THEIR GUNS WILL DO NOTHING TO CIRCUMVENT VIOLENT CRIME.

“The reality is that mass shootings are very rare and that neither mental illness nor mass shootings are a significant cause of gun violence. Individuals with a serious mental illness only account for approximately 4 percent of all violent crime in the United States, the majority of which is not committed with a firearm. Furthermore, individuals having no history of mental illness committed a number of these mass shootings. With mental illness representing such a small fraction of gun violence, gun-control efforts focused solely on the mentally ill are ‘unlikely to significantly reduce overall rates of gun violence in the United States.’” “The New York Safe Act: A Thoughtful Approach To Gun Control, Or A Politically Expedient Response To The Public's Fear Of The Mentally Ill?”, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 16, 43-44 (2015), by Matthew Gamsin, J.D. Candidate, 2015, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.Despite this evidence, antigun activists nonetheless vehemently call for general bans on the sale of semiautomatic “assault weapons” and are specifically targeting those individuals deemed to have mental illness, which may very well raise due process and equal protection issues for millions of Americans. Were these steps taken, violence would still ensue. Consider:“On April 15, 2013, two homemade bombs detonated 12 seconds and 210 yards (190 m) apart at 2:49 p.m., near the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs.  On April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released images of two suspects, who were later identified as Kyrgyz-American brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” “The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States on April 19, 1995. Perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.” “Eight people were killed and almost a dozen injured when a 29-year-old man in a rented pickup truck drove down a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Center Tuesday in Manhattan, New York City. The suspect was identified by two law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov. He's from Uzbekistan in Central Asia but had been living in the US since 2010, sources said.” Whether these killers were mentally ill in a clinical sense or “normal,” they did not need a firearm to create havoc.Of course, antigun activists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream Press and in Congress argue that civilized Countries place restrictions on civilian access to guns and that doing so would constrain a killer’s access to one lethal instrumentality. Still, antigun activists must contend with the legal ramifications of attempting to curtail civilian access to firearms in a Country where the citizenry's rights and liberties, codified in a Bill of Rights, cannot be so easily dismissed.

INDISCRIMINATELY DISPOSSESSING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THEIR GUNS WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN THE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT HELLER CASE, HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT CONNECTED TO SERVICE IN A MILITIA. FURTHER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT EMBODIES  ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. AND FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE, CIVILIAN DEFENSE OF ARMS IS PRESSING BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE POLICE ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON EACH PERSON.

Antigun activists retort that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an American citizen to own and possess an “assault weapon.” But, is that true?First, the concept of ‘assault weapon’ is a legal fiction that encompasses a wide range of weaponry. On examination it becomes clear that antigun proponents and activists are not merely targeting some semiautomatic weapons; they are targeting all semiautomatic weapons. The legal issue is whether semiautomatic weapons in common use—which include firearms defined as 'assault weapons'—fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this. But, that does not mean Government, State or Federal, may presume semiautomatic weapons, especially those firearms referred to as “assault weapons,” do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Second, a corollary to the basic, unfettered, natural right codified in the Second Amendment is that American citizens have a right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Antigun activists argue that armed self-defense is unnecessary because it is the duty of the police to safeguard the lives and well-being of the citizenry. But do police departments, as government entities, really have that duty? They do not!“No inquiry is more central to constitutional jurisprudence than the effort to delineate the duties of government. The courts' approach to this complex subject has been dominated by reliance on a simple distinction between affirmative and negative responsibilities. Government is held solely to what courts characterize as a negative obligation: to refrain from acts that deprive citizens of protected rights. Obligations that courts conceive to be affirmative—duties to act, to provide, or to protect—are not enforceable constitutional rights. “The Negative Constitution, A Critique,” 88 Mich. L. Rev. 2271 (August 1990) by Susan Bandes, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of law.The safeguarding of one's life is then a personal responsibility, not a police responsibility. Broward County residents, especially those high school students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, should have learned that lesson well. Many, obviously, have not as they--at the behest of their silent benefactors and choreographers of their political strategies, the antigun groups--act against their own best interests. They lash out at NRA, the very organization that serves them by protecting their sacred right of armed self-defense; and they call for civilian disarmament leaving them worse off. The duty of the Police is merely to safeguard, in some nebulous sense, the well-being of a community as a whole, not the lives of the individuals who live in it. But, then, since Government has no affirmative duty to provide armed protection for each citizen, Government cannot, in good faith, deny the citizen the natural right of armed defense owed to one's self. If the public is to take away anything from the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy, it is this:The Broward County Sheriff’s Department and the first responders from the Coral Springs Police Department did an abysmal job. By the time the Coral Springs Police SWAT team arrived, it was too late. Lives had been lost. An investigation unfolds, but it means nothing; for, whatever the outcome, police departments do not have and never did have an affirmative duty to protect individuals within a community. They are immune from suit. This is not supposition. It is law.“Thus . . . a claim that police officers failed to protect a particular individual from injury by nongovernmental actors is generally not cognizable; a successful claim would require sufficient prior contacts between police and the individual to indicate a specific undertaking or promise by the police to provide protection and detrimental reliance by the individual. Absent such facts, there is generally no liability for failure to enforce laws and regulations intended to benefit the community as a whole, failure to provide police or fire protection, or failure to inspect." Affirmative Duties, Systemic Harms, and the Due Process Clause, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 982, 999-1000 (February, 1996), by Barbara E. Armacost, Professor of Law, University of Virginia.The first and last line of adequate defense both inside the home and outside it is, as it always was, as the framers of our Constitution knew full well and as they provided for: armed self-defense.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

Call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives.  Tell them this: “if you want my support, then vote for national handgun carry reciprocity now.”PHONE U.S. SENATE: (202) 224-3121;PHONE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IT’S TIME FOR NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY TO SECURE THE CITIZEN’S RIGHT OF ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” (115 H.R. 38) amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And, rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But, there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?What is the U.S. Senate waiting for?Every day that goes by innocent lives are lost and crimes that could be avoided go undeterred because of restrictive gun laws. Although States like California, New York, and New Jersey have enacted laws allowing for issuance of concealed carry licenses (CCWs), in practice it is extremely difficult for most law-abiding citizens—and virtually impossible for many law-abiding citizens—who reside in any one of those States, or in other States with similar restrictive gun laws, to obtain a CCW. And none of those States recognizes a valid CCW issued in any other State.Having access to a firearm does save innocent lives. There are countless stories of law-abiding citizens who would have been seriously injured or who would have lost their lives if they did not have access to a firearm. U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Alexander Borrego, serves as a recent example of a man who, being armed, was able to thwart an attack on his life and that of his family. But, the lack of a national handgun carry reciprocity law means that lawful use of a handgun for self-defense is subject to severe jurisdictional constraints.It is not uncommon for an otherwise law-abiding citizen, who holds a valid CCW from one State, to face arrest, indictment on misdemeanor or felony charges, and incarceration if convicted, for having carried a handgun into another State that does not recognize that citizen’s CCW.Many American citizens have suffered calamity as a result. There are many examples. Elizabeth Anne Enderli, a decorated military veteran, and holder of a valid CCW from Texas, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when she carried her handgun into New York. Brian Fletcher, a volunteer emergency electrical storm repairman and holder of a valid CCW from North Carolina, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when he carried his handgun into New Jersey. And, Shaneen Allen, a single mother of two, and holder of a valid CCW from Pennsylvania, was arrested for unlawful handgun possession when she, too, carried her handgun into New Jersey. Law-abiding citizens who hold a valid CCW from their home State should not be restricted to their use of a handgun for self-defense only to their home State, but, they often are; and the personal costs are dire when a citizen steps foot into a jurisdiction that does not recognize the validity of that citizen’s CCW. But, why should this be?The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment, as made clear in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Heller case. The Heller case also held that defensive arms is an individual right, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Yet, antigun proponents are reluctant to recognize the Heller rulings. They blithely disregard Heller, urging Americans to forfeit the right the founders of our Nation saw reason to sanctify in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.Antigun proponents argue that carrying a handgun for self-defense is a threat to public safety. Public safety is a common trope that antigun proponents appeal to when defending illegal gun laws such as the New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—sets of restrictive firearms’ laws that are inherently incompatible with the Second Amendment. But, that doesn’t stop antigun proponents from promoting them and promoting even more outrageous schemes.One self-described antigun extremist, Marc Jampole, political blogger, exclaims, in his article, “Gun Control Leads to a Civil Society”: “rights change over time. . . . Often we give up one set of rights to gain another one, or some people gain rights at the expense of others. . . . At this point in time, only extremists (like me) want to outlaw private ownership of guns. What mainstream organizations and elected officials are asking for is to restrict the absolute right to own and carry a gun—for the safety of society.”So, the safety and well-being of the individual is to be sacrificed for the presumed safety of an amorphous society?Dan Pfeiffer, a former aide to Barack Obama, contributor to CNN and antigun proponent, writes in his article, titled, “What to Bring to a Gun Fight," “The Democratic gun control strategy fails because it is defined by this poverty of ambition—the determination never to look beyond fear of political repercussions. . . . We are nibbling around the edges instead of proposing bold, meaningful solutions such as: . . . A national gun buyback program [actually, national gun confiscation] similar to the one Australia instituted after a mass shooting that killed 35 people.”What Pfeiffer fails to mention in his article is that Australia does not recognize a right of self-defense with a firearm. Antigun proponents such as Pfeiffer and Jampole hold views that are decidedly contrary to those of the founders of our Republic and with most Americans. Their views are inconsistent with our Constitution and with U.S. Supreme Court holdings, but that doesn’t seem to concern them. Their singular objective is to disarm the civilian population of our Country—under the pretext of safeguarding it—regardless of the strictures of our Constitution, of our jurisprudence, of our system of laws, and of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases.Antigun proponents attack the natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. With the active and avid assistance of the mainstream media, antigun proponents confound the American public. They use distorted facts, biased reporting, pretentious and dubious moralizing, fallacious reasoning, and empty, deceptive rhetoric.Antigun proponents seek to convince the public that it is in the public’s interest to forfeit the Second Amendment. Indeed, Brett Stephens, Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, audaciously argues for repeal of the Second Amendment, outright. Brett Stephens apparently believes that repeal of the Second Amendment and a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms would better serve society. But, would it?The eradication of guns in the hands of the civilian population would entail the elimination of individual autonomy, the repudiation of individual responsibility, the destruction of individual rights and liberties; and, far from safeguarding life, a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms would endanger the life, safety and well-being of Americans. Antigun proponents perceive the loss of these things as necessary to promote a safe and ordered society. But, their notion of a safe and ordered society is a controlled society.It is loss of Government control over the public that antigun proponents are most concerned about. So, talk of promoting the health, safety, and well-being of society through gun confiscation is mere dissembling. Antigun proponents don't care one whit about the health, safety, and well-being of individual citizens who comprise that society. They speak in terms of promoting the welfare of society as a whole even as the lives of individuals within that society suffer through implementation of their antigun schemes. Maximizing utility for an shapeless mass isn't what the Founders had in mind. It is the well-being of the individual citizen in a Free Republic that is sacrosanct and inviolate, not the well-being of a societal collective. The natural right of armed self-defense, embodied in the Second Amendment, makes that point abundantly clear.Antigun proponents must not dissuade us from advancing our goal to strengthen the Second Amendment. Our goal is at odds with their goal of mass gun confiscation to effectuate Government control of the citizenry. That is why we must see enactment of a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law now. The matter is certainly timely, and President Trump would sign such a bill into law were it to cross his desk. So, then, what are Republicans waiting for? Why are they stalling?The fundamental right of self-defense, and our Constitutionally codified right of defense of arms has saved innocent lives and will continue to save innocent lives. We cannot tolerate  and must not tolerate further Congressional inaction. We must meet the current wave of mainstream Press sentiment and antigun proponent efforts to defeat the individual right of armed self-defense, head-on.Contact your Senator. The phone number to call is: (202) 225-3121. Tell your Senator you want his or her vote on national handgun carry reciprocity now!______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

SECOND AMENDMENT HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES—A RIGHT DENIED!

PLACE BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE—ON THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP!

"A right delayed is a right denied." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.Consider the following: Every qualified individual in the United States who passes a background check and handgun safety test shall obtain a permit to carry a handgun for self-protection in every State of the Union and in all United States territories.Is this an empirically impossible situation? Of course not. The United State Supreme Court, held, in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to service in a militia and that the right to keep and bear arms entails the right to use firearms for self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court held, two years later, in the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller apply, as well, to the States.A reasonable person would rightly conclude from these U.S. Supreme Court rulings that the States and the federal Government should now acknowledge the inherent right of qualified American citizens to have access to handguns for self-defense and should recognize, too, that this right does not stop at the doorway of one’s residence. Enactment of national handgun carry legislation would operate as a testament to the import and purport of the Second Amendment as the framers of our Constitution understood and intended it. Such though is not the case.There are forces in this Country and outside it—highly secretive, extraordinarily powerful, exorbitantly wealthy, and extremely ruthless forces—that control the Congressional leadership. These noxious elements operate in the shadows, pulling the strings of those they control in Congress. These secretive, powerful, ruthless forces, lurking in the shadows, uniformly detest the very notion of natural, fundamental rights and liberties that exist beyond their control--rights and liberties that exist inherently in the people. They particularly detest the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Through their puppets in Congress, the forces that seek to crush the American people into submission have placed a multitude of stumbling blocks, obstacles, and snares in the path of those American citizens who would dare exercise their fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms.Thus, Representative, Paul Ryan (R-W), current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Mitch McConnel (R-K), U.S. Senate Majority Leader, demonstrate disdain for the Second Amendment and perfunctorily disregard those who desire to exercise their fundamental, natural right of self-defense through access to the best means to do so—a firearm. These two individuals wield incredible power as they, alone, ultimately determine whether or not action shall proceed on a legislative bill. Representative Ryan has the audacity and perversity to assert that “the timing isn’t right” to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity and, through that blunt assertion, dismisses out-of-hand the singular importance of one's natural right to use firearms in one's own defense--a right codified in the Second Amendment, a right preexistent in the people, as the U.S. Supreme Court majority, in Heller, has made abundantly and categorically clear, especially to those who may have harbored any doubt.What, then, does Representative Ryan's assertion,"the timing isn't right" to proceed on national handgun carry reciprocity, even mean? If the timing isn’t right now, then when? Indeed, is there ever a time that would be right for Representative Ryan to accept the imperative of the Second Amendment? Was there ever a time that the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment was not meant to have effect?There exists a war on the Second Amendment. The war is grounded on a difference in philosophy between those who support the strengthening of the Second Amendment and those who seek de facto repeal of it. Those who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment--to place it on the footing of a sacred, inviolable right as the framers intended--believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. On the other hand, those who seek to defeat the Second Amendment, to defile it, believe not in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, but, rather in the importance of the collective, of  "the hive." These spoilers of the Second Amendment hold to a utilitarian ethical system that subordinates the individual to the purported needs of an amorphous group. As long as the hive remains intact, the harm caused to the individual is deemed acceptable. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, march in lockstep to the same drumbeat as do the majority of House and Senate Democrats. Neither the Democratic Party nor the leadership of the Republican Party can abide by and countenance a strong Second Amendment. For these particular members of Congress an armed citizenry is an anathema for the right exercised is considered inconsistent with and a threat to the national order. For those who happen to doubt the truth of this assertion, they ought to take a close look at what Congress has wrought: decades of restrictive firearms legislation.Since Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it ultimately devolves to Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Mitch McConnell to loosen the stranglehold that existing restrictive federal legislation has on the free exercise of our citizenry’s natural, fundamental right of self-defense that only a firearm can truly provide. But they will have nothing of it.Thus, it is that the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate Majority Leader, alone, determine what bills proceed to a full public hearing, Congressional debate, and Floor vote, and what bills do not. Obviously, Representative Ryan and Senator McConnell do not wish for open and definitive Congressional consideration of bills that serve to strengthen the Second Amendment.But, what possible rational basis would the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader have for refusing to allow open and fervent and critical debate on a matter that overrides every other concern: preserving and strengthening the basic, fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Clearly, they have none, and in their inaction do the American people bear witness to the Republican Party leadership's rancor and disdain toward those citizens who seek to exercise their sacred right under the Second Amendment. This, we know. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) stand, together, in the forefront, as the two pieces of federal legislation that have done more to diminish the right embodied in and codified in the Second Amendment than any other State or Federal legislation to date. Federal antigun legislation proceeds as amendments to and refinements to these two major antigun Acts; and those amendments do nothing but further restrict the citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right of self-defense. Enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity would be the first major piece of firearms legislation since the NFA and GCA, to restore balance. Instead of chipping away at the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, national handgun carry reciprocity legislation would operate to repair the damage caused by the NFA and GCA.From 2011 to date, we have counted 13 bills on national handgun carry reciprocity.Senator John Cornyn has been the most persistent, but none of the bills that he sponsored or bills that other Republicans have sponsored has gained traction. Of note, one Senate Democrat, Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), sponsored a bill on national handgun carry reciprocity and several other Democrats have added their names as cosponsors on a few of the bills sponsored by Republican Senators and Representatives. But, it is really Republicans who have the most interest in this and the most ability to accomplish this. As the Republicans control both Houses of Congress, it is now that action should be taken—must be taken—to strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.The Arbalest Quarrel has provided, below, in tabular format, details on national handgun carry bills introduced in the House and the Senate, in recent years.What the table at once illustrates—through repeated efforts to get a bill passed—is frustration borne by those Congressmen who obviously do wish to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But insurmountable obstacles, created by Republican Party leadership, and, perhaps, through a failure of spirit of rank and file Congressmen to stand up to the Party leadership, prevents effective follow-through. Here, then, are the dismal results of failed attempts, to date, to strengthen the Second Amendment:

TABLE OF NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY BILLS OFFERED BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE

Short Title	Bill Number And Date Introduced	Name of Sponsor AndNumber of Cosponsors and Party Affiliation	Present Status
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 82202/18/2011	SPONSOR: Clifford B. Stearns (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 35 Democrats 211 Republicans246 Total	Amendments Offered and Rejected in November 2011;NO FURTHER ACTION as of November 29, 2011
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011	H.R. 354312/01/2011	SPONSOR: Tim Johnson (R-IL)COSPONSORS: None	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 218803/13/2012	SPONSOR: Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 0 Republicans 3 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012	S. 221303/20/2012	SPONSOR Senator John Thune (R-SD) COSPONSORS: 35 Republicans 0 Democrats 35 Total	Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 57802/06/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 11 Democrats 173 Republicans 184 Total	REFERRED TO COMMITTEE; NO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013	H.R. 295908/01/2013	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 5 Republicans 6 Total	Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014	S. 190801/09/2014	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 24 Republicans 25 Total	Read Twice and Referred to CommitteeNO ACTION
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 40201/16/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Rich Nugent (R-FL) COSPONSORS: 3 Democrats 100 Republicans 103 Total	Submitted to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 92302/12/2015	SPONSOR: Representative Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN) COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 119 Republicans 119 Total	Referred to Committee;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	S. 49802/12/2015	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrat 34 Republicans 35 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee;FAILED
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015	H.R. 98602/13/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 4 Democrats 212 Republicans 216 Total	Referred to Two Committees;FAILED
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	S. 44602/27/2017	SPONSOR: Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)COSPONSORS: 0 Democrats 29 Republicans 29 Total	Read Twice and Referred to Committee; NO ACTION
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017	H.R. 3801/03/2017	SPONSOR: Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) COSPONSORS: 1 Democrats / 83 Republicans 84 Total	Referred to Two Committees; NO ACTION

Apart from numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills introduced since 2011, Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) has introduced a bill, titled the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) (115 H.R. 3576), introduced on July 28, 2017. The bill, if enacted into law, would operate in tandem with national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, to strengthen the Second Amendment.WHAT IS "SAGA"?SAGA is a bill that, according to its sponsor, Representative Collins, as set forth on his website: "Protects Second Amendment rights; limits state authority to regulate rifles and shotguns; voids much of SAFE Act." And, according to the Press Release: “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void."  Would Representative Collins' bill fare any better than any one of the numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills? Well, given Representative Paul Ryan's reluctance to allow a public hearing, debate, and floor vote on previous pro-Second Amendment bills, we expect that Representative Collins' bill would suffer the same fate.Representative Collins' bill could be better drafted and the Arbalest Quarrel is in the process of doing just that. When completed, the Arbalest Quarrel will submit our proposed amendments to Representative Collins. But, given the present negative climate in Washington, D.C., such effort expended on our part, as with effort expended by Representative Collins and other Legislators, to date, may well be futile. Still, it is necessary to persevere. Given this sad state of affairs, it is, as is usually the case, up to the American people to set things right, and compel Congress to act.Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.