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.

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER ATTACK IN THE U.S.

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?In the countries of the EU, it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.Forget about those Countries of the British Commonwealth and the EU. They are lost.But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.The Neoliberal Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Neo-Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But so long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense, i.e., the natural law right of a person to defend him or herself against predatory attack whether from predatory four-legged beast, two-legged beast, or predatory Government.Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And so, it remains.And, as the forces that crush have garnered more sophisticated weapons to destroy body, mind, and spirit, so, too, have the commonalty of the United States acquired the weaponry and technology necessary to repel attack.Through the years, we have written extensively on this. See e.g., article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen.”See also article in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.In a world moving closer and closer to Armageddon, in the form of transnational tyranny, and as CCP China and western neoliberal Globalist overseers carve up the world between them, the U.S. as a free Constitutional Republic cannot long remain separate and apart from the emergence of a one-world neofeudalistic governmental empire unless the American people assert their sovereign authority over Government. This should not be difficult but, through time, it has become so, for many Americans. Why is that? It is for these major reasons, among others:

• Consolidation of information organs into one massive organ of propaganda, targeting the public on an industrial scale;
• Incessant, noxious surveillance of the movements of the mass population; 
• Consolidation of federal police, military, intelligence apparatuses into one uniform command structure;
• Merging of Federal Executive and Legislative Branch functions; and attempts to merge the Judicial Branch into the fold; and
• Governmental Social Engineering and Psychological Conditioning Campaigns aimed at confusing, and demoralizing, and inducing fear and hysteria in the polity.

Thus, the forces that crush slowly whittle away at the integrity of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation and slowly soften the resolve of vast swaths of the polity that would otherwise enable the polity to ably resist both the inexorable march toward tyranny and usurpation of the peoples’ sovereignty over Government.The founders of our Nation fought against one tyranny, a long time ago, and, despite insurmountable odds against the British empire—through the titular monarchic head, King George III, and via the true head of Government, the Bank of England, run by the Rothschild banking family—won their freedom from despotism.The Rothschild clan and their henchmen have, through the ensuing years, decades, and centuries, fought to take back what they had lost to what they perceived as merely a ragtag band of colonists.With the aid of technology and advances in the art and science of mass social engineering and psychological conditioning, their despicable efforts have been made appreciably easier. And these Obstructors and Destructors have made vast strides in corrupting the Nation from within, eschewing use of military, at least for the moment; operating surreptitiously; slyly; always in the shadows.In a feudalistic nation that America is becoming, devolving into, the common man—today’s serf—counts for naught.How does one come to see this, to know this? He does so by realizing that the average citizen can no longer, as a matter of natural law right, exercise that natural law right of armed self-defense or, for that matter, self-defense at all. Armed self-defense is not a privilege to be bestowed on one by the grace of Government. It is a natural law right bestowed on and in man by the Divine Creator. It is a right intrinsic to one's very Being. See recent Arbalest Quarrel article published on June 16, 2022, when we discuss this matter at length.The natural law right of self-defense, armed or not, is under attack by a tyrannical Government and by a compliant, obedient legacy Press. This failure to recognize the natural personal right of self-defense and, indeed, to attack the very idea of it, is not happenstance. It is consistent with anti-natural law philosophy as long promoted by and that is a mainstay of the UN, the EU, and of the Council of Europe and which the Biden Administration wholeheartedly complies with, adheres to and endorses, as is clear from the Administration's words and policies. It would be futile to look for any mention of a personal right of self-defense, let alone any mention of a personal right of armed self-defense in the writings of the UN, EU, and Council of Europe. There is none. See Arbalest Quarrel articles on this, especially, our article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen,” cited supra; article of February 23, 2022, titled, “Martial Law in Canada; Can it happen in the United States?”; and article posted on March 4, 2022, and article posted on May 1, 2020.A transnationalist, post-nation-state world view—manifesting as a unified global technocratic, corporatist, neofeudalistic empire embracing the world, where the populations of the world are reduced to servitude and must comport with uniform and rigid standards of thought and conduct—is incompatible with the precepts of Individualism, upon which the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic is grounded. Thus, the Biden Administration, as the Obama and the Bush Administrations before it, must be circumspect and devious in devising and implementing policies and initiatives that are antithetical to the strictures of the United States Constitution, and, especially, those of the Bill of Rights—that component of the Nation's Constitution upon which the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood and personal autonomy is predicated and guaranteed, and upon which the sole sovereignty of the American people over Government is promised and upon which that sovereignty rests.But as the Rothschild henchmen in control of the levers of the Federal Government and of the Press and of the multinational corporations have sown the seeds of our Nation’s destruction—even impacting the States, through the efforts, and money, and organizational acumen of the Henchman in Chief, George Soros, who has, alone, done much damage sowing the seeds of our Nation’s destruction down to the regional and even local levels—there will come a time, which is rapidly approaching, where the puppet-masters, through their legions of pawns, will make known and transparent, the elaborate plans and machinations heretofore prepared in secret, feeling, perhaps concluding, that stealth and concealment is no longer necessary and, in fact, is no longer possible.Consider the circumstances surrounding the prosecution—more to the point, the persecution—of a young American Patriot, Kyle Rittenhouse. Here is a man who sought merely to protect a small corner of society from destruction; such instability, and violence, and destruction that the Neoliberal Globalist Billionaires and Neo-Marxist internationalist Obstructors and Corrupters of our society concocted, funded, organized, and promoted; and then, through command of their "attack dogs," an assortment of dangerous, fanatical, and deranged agitators, unleashed on American society to create fear, and chaos. And, of course, the Kenosha police stood on the sidelines, but they did so because they wanted to let radical Marxist psychopaths tear down the City?  No! Their training and instincts would be to protect the City and its residents from riots spawned by the Government lackeys of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet masters who needed a pretext for a controlled political riot, consistent with their aim to destabilize society and to demoralize the polity. Fox News laid this all out. See Fox News Commentator, Tucker Carlson, explaining the circumstances that led to the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the news account titled, "Tucker Carlson: Why did the people in charge let Kenosha be destroyed?" The news story was published on November 17, 2021.Carlson says, in pertinent part:“So it's worth pausing for a moment to ask, how did we get here? Well, here's one summary that caught our eye. Today, a Hill staffer called Billy Gribbin summed it up in the following way, 'We're waiting to see if riots break out because of media lies about a case from a riot that happened because of media lies.'Well, that's nicely put and it's totally true. The August 2020 riot in Kenosha wasn't really a riot in the way that we understand riots. It was an outbreak of political violence. It began three days after the Democratic convention. That was the context for it. It was, in fact, one of many riots that summer across the country, all of which were explicitly supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party. We're not making this up. Look it up. What was the point of these riots? Big picture, the point was to unseat Donald Trump. In the specific case of Kenosha, we know exactly the chain of events that led to where we are today. A man called Jacob Blake was shot by the police. Immediately, the media and the Democratic politicians they serve lied about what happened. So they told us that a cop shot Jacob Blake in the back for no apparent reason – and by the way, Jacob Blake was unarmed, he was helpless, they just pulled him out of a lineup and shot him because that's what America is like.Based on the first false stories from the news media told intentionally, our leaders suggested that these riots in Kenosha were somehow justified and then allowed them to continue. So this is what Kenosha looked like the night that Kyle Rittenhouse arrived to help defend local businesses. You can't allow that because if you do allow that, people get killed – as they did. But local police, you should know, did virtually nothing to stop any of the things you just saw. From the very top of the power structure, the state of Wisconsin, the word was let it happen. Various scenes of vandalism, looting, arson and riotingWell that's not a civil rights protest, that's not people fighting back against oppression, systemic racism. That's just people destroying things they didn't build. That's people wrecking our civilization. In no normal country would that be allowed, it would be put down immediately with force. That's why we have police. “The governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, turned down an offer from Washington to send federal officers in order to help get Kenosha under control, to save the city. That was a shockingly irresponsible decision, it was an immoral decision. But Tony Evers still defends it, 'I have no regrets.'” Really? That's because he doesn't live in Kenosha. Downtown Kenosha burned. It will never be rebuilt. Talk about a city that doesn't deserve any of this. Kenosha is just a town of 100,000 people, many of them Hispanic, if that even matters. But it's true, they're not rich people who live there.Kenosha is far past its prime. It was part of the industrial base that built this country that built the modern world. Now it's suffering even more than it was before the riots because a bunch of entitled antisocial lunatics broke things for no reason. Because our leaders allowed them. A city official estimates the damage from last summer's riots at about $50 million. That's a lot in Kenosha, in fact it's about more than half the entire municipal budget for the city of Kenosha.”  Only Fox News bothered to delve into the circumstances of the riot. The seditious legacy Press, on the other hand, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, along with major Cable News organizations including CNN and MSNBC never did bother to ask why the Police had allowed rampant disorder to occur in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It wasn't the fault of the police. The fault rests solely on the State Government and specifically on the Governor, who, after the fact, brazenly. incomprehensibly asserted that he has 'no regrets.'The Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, a Democrat, ordered the police to stand down and refrained from accepting assistance that the Government in Washington, D.C.,Evers not only allowed a City in Wisconsin to burn and allowed residents of the City to be terrorized. He condoned it. In fact, he enabled it. He wanted this to happen.A rational person must therefore conclude that it wasn't mere incompetence that led to the destruction of a City. It was a deliberate act on the part of Government to allow for this; to enable this; to want this to happen, as Governor Evers was aware of the imminence of the danger to citizens and to businesses in Kenosha.So, it was left to an armed citizen to take upon himself the responsibility that the police, whose duty, and obligation it was to preserve and protect public order in the community, had instead consciously, deleteriously, and unconscionably relinquished, surrendering meekly, abjectly to a psychopathic and psychotic mob.For his troubles—this American Horatius, guarding "The Bridge" in Kenosha, Wisconsin—Kyle Rittenhouse, was charged with several felony counts; the most serious involved his shooting of the psychotic animal, Joseph Rosenbaum. Video evidence alone made clear beyond a reasonable doubt to the public and to the jurors who sat in judgment of Kyle's actions, a case for justifiable homicide, grounded on the legal right of self-defense—a long held in law and well-recognized—defense to threat against one's life, and an absolute defense, when the individual asserting the right is not the aggressor. And, despite the imbecilic prosecution of Kyle in which the prosecutors sought to treat Kyle, inter alia, as the aggressor, rather than the victim, the jury saw through the prosecution's ruse and wouldn't buy into it. The incident occurred back in 2020.Yet, the puppet-masters demanded the head of Kyle Rittenhouse because Rosenbaum and others were, consciously or not, tearing down the fabric of American society in furtherance of the nightmarish Soros/Rothschild goal to destroy the Nation. For, once that was accomplished, the remains of the United States may be merged effortlessly and seamlessly into a greater neoliberal international world order a.k.a. new world order a.k.a. the Soros “Open Society.” The puppet-masters had to make an example of Kyle Rittenhouse. When the puppet-masters order the destruction of Towns and Cities in America, those who attempt to defend against the destruction of those American Towns and Cities are the criminals—not the psychopathic and psychotic destroyers of the Towns and Cities—for they are the tools of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet-masters, doing the bidding of them and for them. None of those rioters were ever charged with a crime, and Wisconsin' s Governor was never called out for greasing the skids, enabling for the riot to happen. Only Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with a crime: several crimes, in fact, including the worst of crimes: murder. Defense of self against psychotics and psychopaths intent on killing one count for nothing against a charge of murder, when those psychopaths and psychotics are working on behalf of Government, that itself is the progenitor of destruction of America. It is a topsy-turvy Country, indeed, that we live in when it is innocent 21st Century American Patriots that are the one treated as the scourge of society, rather than the actual would-be destroyers of it.Fortunately, for both Kyle Rittenhouse and for the rest of us, a jury of his peers did not buy into the moronic insult. The jury realized the right of armed self-defense for them, no less than for the man on trial, realizing that all Americans were on trial here. The message is plain: self-defense is not considered a legal defense against a charge of homicide when the perpetrators of violence and the aggressors in a confrontation are treated as the non-aggressive victims, and the true victim is, himself, treated as the violent aggressor.The incident here occurred in 2020. The trial—itself a travesty—demanded by the Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters—should never have taken place and would never have taken place if the rotten weeds that Soros had planted at the local and regional levels had not taken root. See Arbalest Quarrel article on the Kyle Rittenhouse case, published on November 19, 2021.More recently, an innocent man, a naturalized citizen from the Dominican Republic, Jose Alba, was immediately arrested for killing a vicious predator, a creature with a lengthy rap sheet, Austin Simon.Alba, like Rittenhouse, had successfully defended his life against predatory attack from an unrepentant, serial criminal. See, e.g., article in the New York Post. For his trouble, having had the audacity to defend himself against a psychopath and surviving the vicious attack, found himself, oddly and absurdly, on Riker’s Island, courtesy of a Soros backed and funded prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney.One cannot but wonder: if the tables were turned, and the psychopath, Austin Simon had killed Jose Alba, would Bragg have sent Simon immediately to Rikers Island? Judging by Bragg’s performance to date, protecting predators, which would never have happened. See article titled, “Self-defense is Now Murder,” in the Daily Sentinel.See also Tucker Carlson’s news coverage and video on Fox News.Bragg’s audacious attack on a citizen who defended himself with a knife makes patently clear that the incessant attack by the legacy Press, by the Democrat Party-controlled Congress, and by the Harris-Biden Administration about “guns” isn’t really about guns at all. The public is recognizing an assault on the natural law right of self-defense itself against predatory man, predatory beast, and, most importantly—for survival of a free Republic—predatory Government. If a man has a lawful, Constitutional right to repel tyranny, that fact vindicates the right of self-defense. But a tyrant can never allow for that, hence the attack on the natural law right of self-defense.Had Alba defended his life with a firearm, rather than a knife, the Manhattan DA’s handling of the case would not have been different. But Bragg and the Press would have inserted the issue of guns into the narrative if they could. In the Alba case, they couldn’t do that, even though in some instances, the seditious legacy Press does interject discussion of guns even if doing so is discordant.But the fact that an instance of self-defense occurred, via knife, and not a firearm in this instance is telling. It points to the fact that Government, be it Federal, State, or municipal—when under the thumb of the ultra-wealthy and powerful Neoliberal Globalists and wild and rabid Neo-Marxists, in league with the Globalists, as they happen to share the common goal of dismantling a free Republic—does not recognize the sanctity of Selfhood, the right of a person to be free from Government intrusion on one's autonomy of Personhood. What better evidence of this invasive, arrogant assault on the inviolability of body, mind, spirit, and soul, than for Government to usurp for itself an individual's natural law right of personal defense and doing so without reference to firearms as a factor in the story's telling. Might the Press not wish to talk now about banning knives? Great Britain has done so because the Nation has already banned guns; so, the next weapon to ban from the commonalty, lest the common people have the mind to rebel against tyranny, must need be the "knife." See article by Thomas Xavier, writing about UK Knife prohibitions and restrictions, citing to the UK website, reciting UK "Knife laws", a draconian over-the-top response—but, more likely, simply a pretext—to "rising knife crime" in the UK.So, knives are the next in a natural progression to keep the public defenseless and fearful in the UK and, just as likely in the U.S. down the road as well, if or when guns are banned. This would require the American public to look only to the Government for succor and safety—succor and safety that is always in short supply in Government and doled out sparingly, in major part to keep the public in a constant state of fear and tension. It isn't a pleasant scenario for the British, and certainly would not be a pleasant scenario for Americans. Neither a ban on guns nor knives should a Country, namely the U.S., conceived in freedom and liberty, wish to emulate of the British subject. But we are moving inexorably and rapidly in that horrible direction. The actions of the Soros installed Alvin Bragg as Manhattan District Attorney, in audaciously arresting Jose Alba, and initially charging him with murder for defending himself against a threat to his life by a psychopathic serial criminal— and the bizarre Courtroom arguments of Kenosha County District Attorney, Thomas Binger, charging Kyle Rittenhouse with serious felonies, including, inter alia, first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless homicide and prosecuting him for those crimes, despite incontrovertible video evidence supporting a finding of justifiable homicide on the basis of self-defense—are scenarios both pointing to a disturbing development and trend  in our Nation's jurisprudence.Americans are witnessing confounding but irrefutable evidence of Government antipathy toward the sanctity and inviolability of one's Selfhood—too prevalent and too conspicuous to ignore or to perfunctorily dismiss.The recognition that the State doesn't recognize one's natural law right of self-defense logically entails the proposition that the State no longer recognizes and will not acknowledge that one's life is truly one's own. The actions of the Kenosha and Manhattan District Attorneys point to this outrageous and deeply troubling revision of centuries of American jurisprudence and clear renunciation of the central tenet of the Bill of Rights: In America, one's life belongs to the State by tacit State edict, not to oneself, by grace of the Divine Creator. This means that it is the State, and the State alone, not the individual who decides whether one lives or dies; whether one has a right to life or not; and whether the taking of the life of another is to be declared lawful or not. Thus, the Biden Administration that would at once deny an American citizen's right to use a firearm in one's own defense and would, simultaneously, declare that it is the will of the State to decree whether an unborn child has the right to life, substituting its will for that of the Divine Creator. These are incredibly obtuse and pompous ideas.The Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin takes on clarity and renewed importance in view of the recent Jose Alba case, in New York City. The Alba case in the news draws a narrow focus on self-defense sans guns. The issue transcends the matter of armed self-defense, which is subsumed in the more general God-Given Right of Self-Defense itself. The issue of "Right-to-Life" be it the unborn child or the right of one born are equivalents: THE RIGHT TO BE. The core natural law right and legitimacy of self-defense, THE RIGHT TO SURVIVE IN BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT, is at stake, irrespective of the means. The State/Government has fixated on firearms only because the State/Government as the ultimate, dangerous predator recognizes that it is most threatened itself by the armed citizenry. Unarmed individuals pose little threat to THE TYRANT. Numbers by themselves are of little concern to a Tyrant State/Government backed by a massive standing army, equally massive paramilitary police force, a massive intelligence apparatus, and a massive propaganda/media organ. But one hundred million well-armed citizens pose a clear and present danger to the Tyrant' power and control over the citizenry. This explains the constant media attention spent not only on the armed citizenry but on the nature of the firearms, component parts of firearms, and the kinds and extent of the ammunition held by that armed citizenry. There is constant gibberish over "assault weapons," "weapons of war," "large-capacity magazines," 50 caliber ammunition, armor-piercing ammunition, suppressors, body-armor—anything and everything that the State/Government infers to pose an imminent and existential threat to its own vast power and control over the citizenry. Yet, one should stop and think for a minute that the framers of the Constitution intended the armed citizen to be equipped with personnel "weapons of war" precisely to operate as a counterweight to the State/Government precisely because of the tendency of the State/Government to usurp the sovereignty of the American people and become the master rather than the servant of the people. A free Constitutional Republic has nothing to fear from its citizens. A Tyrant, on the other hand, has everything to fear from its citizens, as well it should fear its citizens, in that eventuality.Is it coincidence this present Federal Government has taken a much more concerted stance against the right of the people to keep and bear arms of late? Should the public not prick up its ears at this disturbing series of Government bravado and action?The aim of the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist push to destroy the Nation from within is insidiously directed to rendering the citizenry helpless while the forces that crush, plot and machinate to devastate the economy, mock America’s Christian faith, and promote societal decay. But total societal collapse cannot occur and will not occur so long as Americans remained armed and armed to the hilt. That is our winning hand: a royal straight flush. And the would-be destroyers of a free Republic know this. A truly free Constitutional Republic as the framers of the Constitution had designed for us need not fear its armed citizenry. In fact, the Federal Government should welcome it, take pride in it. The fact that it does not and openly fears this armed citizenry should tell the citizenry much of where this Government intends to take us. And it is not a good place.The Majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is aware of the dire state of our Republic, and it intends to remind Congress and the Biden Administration and the Corruptors of our Nation that the American people are still sovereign over their Nation and over this Government, and they intend to remain so. The Government and the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists don't want to hear this and they are pushing back, they are pushing back hard; doubling down on their efforts to consolidate as much power as they can prior to the November Midterm elections to weaken a Republican Party sweep of Congress.So it is that, even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms gains support through most members of the U.S. Supreme Court, the pawns of the puppet-masters will continue to thwart the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as long as they can to the extent that they can.One of the puppets, New York Governor Hochul, has made plain that she doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bruen. In fact, New York’s recent enactment of amendments to its concealed handgun carry license structure set forth in Penal Code Section 400.00 now makes it even more difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license than before the Bruen ruling.The Governor’s defiance and that of the New York State Legislature in Albany is so blatant, so arrogant, so odious, so all-encompassing as to draw incredulity but for the fact that it is not merely rumor or extravagant musing. It is all etched in stone—and we lay all of that out for you in our next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.         

CORRUPTION AND UNFAIRNESS PLAGUE THE NYPD LICENSE DIVISION

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND ON PROBLEMS ATTENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY'S CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SCHEMA

PART FOUR

New York City’s handgun licensing rules are bloated and absurd as written and adopted, and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in their application. This engenders abuse of discretion. Even worse, the City’s handgun licensing scheme has, in recent years, invited outright criminal corruption in those NYPD officers whose job it is to administer the licensing process.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-author of this article, co-founder of the Arbalest quarrel, and a decorated veteran police officer with the NYPD, pointed all this out when queried about the present licensing scheme in a 2016 CNN Money article, titled, “Only in New York: Bribing cops for a gun license.”The reporter, Aaron Smith, wrote in pertinent part:“Buying a gun in America can be an expensive ordeal. Or it can be cheap and easy. It depends on where you live.Bribing cops for gun licenses could only happen in a place like New York. In most other parts of the United States, licenses are not even required for handguns.‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D'Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D'Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.‘What they're doing is they're creating a privilege for having a gun and licensing it and they're creating this prohibition style system where people are paying someone off to get a gun,’ he said.”The CNN report wasn’t the only piece on NYPD corruption in the License Division. The Daily News published, on April 25, 2016, an article by New York attorney and former NYPD Trial Commissioner, Arnold Kriss. The article is titled, “Massive questions behind the blue wall: We need an independent commission to probe NYPD.” Arnold Kriss said,“For the first time in over 60 years, top NYPD officials are accused of taking money and gifts for favors. Where this will go when the ship-jumping begins and the brass and others start talking to federal prosecutors — non-stop — is anyone’s guess.This is potentially department-shattering stuff.” And, one year to the day after the Daily News article came out, WSJ came out with its story on License Division corruption in an article titled, “Former NYPD Officers Face Federal Bribery Charges”: “Three ex-officers and a former Brooklyn prosecutor are accused of swapping gun licenses for cash, prostitutes, guns and more.In the scheme, so-called expediters, or individuals who charge clients to help them get gun-license approvals, bribed officers in the NYPD’s gun licensing division, according to prosecutors. These officers then approved or expedited more than 100 gun licenses, including for people with criminal histories, prosecutors said.”Outright criminal conduct in the NYPD License Division may have been cleaned up, yet serious problems attendant to the awarding of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York remain. These core problems can only be resolved through a massive restructuring and transformation of the entire concealed handgun NYPD licensing structure in the City.The task ahead is immensely difficult if not well-nigh impossible because the problems that beset the NYPD License Division are inextricably entwined in New York's historical landscape. New York City's present Mayor Eric Adams, isn't the man to take on the task, as he hasn't the will to do so. In fact, his sympathies rest with leaving matters as they are. Even as the City continues to burn, Eric Adams' message doesn't change when it comes to the issue of guns, for he continues to conflate criminal violence with gun violence. Back on January 24, 2022, the Mayor said, as reported by Fox News,“‘We are in the middle of a crisis with guns,’ said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the weekend. ‘You carry a gun in our city, there is no apology to you,’ Adams added.New York state and city have some of the most strict gun laws in the country, prohibiting most people in the state to openly carry, but Democratic leaders point to guns coming in from other states as a culprit behind the skyrocketing shootings.”One should take note that Adams doesn't draw a distinction between guns as carried by average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens for self-defense, and the lunatics and criminals who injure or kill innocent people, regardless of the means employed by these lunatics and criminals. Arming the citizen is not on his radar. From Mayor Adams'  perspective, the armed responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen is as much a threat to the well-being of the City as are the lunatics and psychopaths who prey upon them. The problem is that New York City is far removed from being a tranquil, idyllic paradise. It is a hell-scape. Everyone knows it. Certainly, the Mayor does. But he refuses even to consider the fact that arming tens of thousands of innocent people, who wish to take responsibility for their own life and well-being, as is their fundamental right, might succeed in securing for New Yorkers a truly safe environment that, to date, has stubbornly eluded and resisted remedying. The Mayor surely desires to reduce the plague of incessant violent crime that has gripped the City for years. Or does he? Is it just gross incompetence, or is it  a cultivated habit and predilection against guns that prevent him from trying something new, trying a new tactic that accounts for his failure to get a handle on violent crime that has a vise-grip on the City? Or is it something more alarming and disturbing that prevents him from relaxing the draconian standards that, to date, preclude the mass of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens from securing, for him or herself, a concealed handgun carry license, enabling the citizen to lawfully purchase a handgun in New York, thereby providing the citizen with the means—the only truly effective means—by which that citizen can protect him or herself against violent, irrational, unprovoked, and random, predatory attack? Does Eric Adams have a latent or calculated desire to take an active role in destroying a free Constitutional Republic? And does that latent or calculated desire inform the Mayor's actions and the actions of political leaders like Eric Adams who seem to be incapable of providing for the welfare of the people of his City? Is the placement of Eric Adams in the Office of Mayor of New York City, by the perverse machinations of Neo-Marxist Internationalist Neoliberal Globalist elites, all by design?Is Eric Adams, not unlike the Chicago Mayor, Laurie Lightfoot, and myriad others, who, operating at the behest of creatures like George Soros, see the need for and who tolerate or who even encourage a complete breakdown of America's institutions and societal order that a new, seemingly better global order can take root and eventually supplant all western nation-states? And, to that end, is it not the armed citizen, rather than the armed and crazed criminal or lunatic that these Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists perceive as the true problem? If that is the case, then lunatics, and psychopaths, and garden-variety criminals, and the tens of millions of illegal aliens looking for and promised free goodies at expense of the American taxpayer, and the well-funded, international drug and sex-trafficking cartels hopping into and out of the Nation's Southern Border, at will, all serve a purpose. It is these sordid elements that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see as useful, even necessary tools—operating on their behalf, albeit unconsciously—to hasten the end of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. And it is the armed American citizen whose presence—indeed, whose very existence—prevents the accomplishment of their goal, whom these ruthless forces that crush view as their one true, intractable and formidable foe. So it is that the message about guns and the tone, coming out of the Mayor and coming out of the tools like him, such as the current President of the United States, Joe Biden, are always the same. The explicit message is that it is guns that are bad; guns that are evil; guns that are the root cause of society's problems—that are the root cause of the Nation's problems. The tacit message is that it is guns in the hands of the citizenry that is the root cause of the Nation's woes; it is the armed citizen who is a danger to Nation and Country, and to “democracy.” And who are these armed citizens? It is those people—those Americans who seek to exercise the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is those people who pose a genuine threat, an insistent threat, to “democracy.” It is those political “conservatives,” those “white supremacists and racists,” those members of organized “militias”—in fact, any American who happens to hold to a vision of America as reflected in the Nation's Bill of Rights, who view our Nation as the founders of the Republic viewed it; who hold true to that vision, and who fervently desire to preserve the history, heritage, culture, values and core Christian ethos upon which a new Nation rose and rapidly became the most prosperous, powerful, and vigorous Nation on Earth. It is these people whom the hordes of Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” abhor and fear. And it is guns wielded by tens of millions of average Americans that the Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” must contend with, must constrain, must defeat so that the United States can be brought low, and the Nation's remains can be inserted into a new western international order, the “Open Society” that the Globalist kingpin, George Soros, has been entrusted to bring to fruition. But none of this is spoken about by the leaders, the flunkies, the placeholders of high Government Office. Instead, they deflect attention away from the campaign to systematically dismantle a free Republic and entrap and enslave tens of millions of Americans. The matter of Ukraine is a convenient vehicle to direct the American public's attention. Discussion of Ukraine serves that purpose, as it has nothing to do with us, Americans, but serves as a useful mechanism for the forces that crush, providing them with a made-to-order safety valve through which to vent and divert the public's justified attention and concerns over the fate of their Country. The forces that crush have successfully diverted public attention away from the Nation's economy, away from the systematic destruction of the Nation's institutions, away from the industrial scale corruption in Government and its failure to uphold the laws and Constitution of the Nation, and away from the usurpation of the sovereignty of the people over Government, that becomes more and more obvious with each passing day. But, the problem of guns in the hands of tens of millions of citizens remains an intolerable, insufferable problem for these Marxists/Globalists. And a different tack is employed to deal with that: continually attack guns and attack criminal violence through the use of guns. But, as for the criminal or lunatic or psychopath who is responsible for violent crime—that person gets a pass.And as for the issue of guns, the focus is on New York City—as a microcosm, a stand-in for the rest of urban America. It is guns, in the City, then, rather than the individual who misuses them that are responsible for criminal violence; not the sentient mind—not the criminals and lunatics and all the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that are agents of violence occurring throughout the City, who reasonably bear sole responsibility, sole responsibility for that violence. And, even there, the tale of woe in the City isn't about guns—not really. For if the creatures causing the mayhem in New York City and in other major urban areas around the Country are simply—albeit unconsciously—working at the behest of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites who seek to hasten the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, then talk about guns as THE problem is really nothing more than a makeweight; or perhaps, not even that. The issue of guns and so-called gun violence is itself simply a deflection. It is a distraction—a distraction away from a discussion of crime and away even from guns, and toward a discussion, tacit as it is, of the armed citizenry, and of the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of the armed citizenry. And, is it mere coincidence, that the Stooge in Chief, the corrupt, demented Joe Biden keeps coming back to the issue of guns, and to the need to curtail them, now especially, with the midterm elections steadily approaching, and with the Democrats/Marxists/Globalists concerned that they are about to lose their tenuous control of Congress?And Eric Adams, himself, may not really fathom the extent to which he, too, is but a useful tool of secretive, powerful, ruthless elements and interests, whose singular goal is the destruction of the most powerful symbol of true freedom and liberty still existent in the world: the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic. So, it is no accident that Eric Adams doesn't even suggest arming the innocent person to combat rampant, violent crime in the City. The whole object is to disarm that person. Better, it is, then—even as it is unstated—to accept the intractable violence. As this state of affairs benefits the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists and their agenda; better it is to accept intractable violence, even use it to advantage, so that citizens remain unarmed and those that are armed—disarm them by any means, legal or not, to effectuate that result. Thus, Eric Adams will not deign to allow innocent New York City residents and workers and visitors to the City, to defend themselves against increasing random violent crime, even as that alone would offer immediate respite for a tired, anxious City, from the mayhem—the “orchestrated” mayhem. But, at least New Yorkers can rest easy knowing that their illustrious Mayor is well protected even if they, themselves, are not. Protecting the Mayor from the orchestrated violence is the first and last order of business. New York residents and workers, and visitors to the City, don't factor into that equation.  As reported by Politico,“[t]he NYPD increased security for Eric Adams Tuesday [April 12, 2022], after complaints about the mayor surfaced on social media in the wake of the subway shooting that wounded 23 commuters. . . .Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said from NYPD headquarters in Lower Manhattan, where she was joined by police brass and a representative from the FBI. ‘In an abundance of caution, we are tightening the mayor’s security detail.’ Sewell said the references to Adams, while not direct threats, were concerning enough to lead her to beef up the mayor’s security detail, which is currently overseen by his brother.”So, then, what does this report tell you: one, that, Mayor Adams' plan to tackle violent crime hasn't done a damn thing to curb violent crime one bit; two, that the Mayor's well-hyped plan for dealing with violent crime hasn't made a dent in it and, in fact, the City's violent crime only worsens; and, three, that the beefing up of the mayor's own security detail only serves to emphasize the horrific criminal violence, running rampant in the City—which, apparently, is a thing expected; tolerated; even welcomed—as it hastens the destruction of American society and the birth of a globalized slave community of billions of souls.So, the public shouldn't expect to see a paradigm shift in the City's tackling of violent crime; certainly not any time soon—and for the reason set forth above. The salient reason why violent crime in New York City will continue unabated is because that disruption of society is all calculated; it is all by design. It is in strict accordance with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan: one that started with Bill Clinton; continued under the regimes of George Bush and Barack Obama; and would certainly have continued under a Hillary Clinton Presidency but for the unexpected loss to Donald Trump in 2016, who, despite incessant attempts to sabotage his Presidency and railroad him personally, actually and remarkably brought a measure of stability to the Country, at least for a time; but, then, Trump was cast aside by ruthless and powerful forces both inside and outside the Country. The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist returned to its agenda, and made up for four years of lost time; continuing apace under the corrupt, effete, emotionally, and intellectually weak and demented Joe Biden—just the unbelievably ridiculous stooge the forces that crush needed and wanted to unravel Trump's accomplishments that served to strengthen and stabilize the Country on all major indicators of health: social, economic, and geopolitical.And, where is this Country now? Economically, socially, and geopolitically, the Country is weak; stagnant. It is in a state of precipitous decline, as intended.Now, more than ever, the Nation's citizenry must be attuned to the wreck of their Country. They must retain control of their weaponry. There may come a time in the not too distant future that the armed citizen will be all that's left to keep the Republic intact. But, as for Cities like New York, the armed citizen, a force otherwise to be reckoned with, will not be tolerated. Fortunately, New York City and several other jurisdictions are beyond the pale. It must be left to the U.S. Supreme Court—the last bastion of hope among the three Branches of the U.S. Government—to preserve the Republic. And the Court's handling of the Bruen case gives the Court ample opportunity. But, will the Justices be up to the task?The belief system of many people in major urban areas that are beset by uncommon violent crime is to reject out-of-hand, recourse to firearms in the hands of the commonalty. And, so, denizens of New York aren't going to see a transformation in attitudes or policies toward civilian citizen ownership. And Mayor Adams, for his part, will continue to reinforce, rather than change, the public's attitudes toward armed self-defense, even in the face of intractable violent crime. That must now be left to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that Branch of Government has also been under attack. The recent Senate confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson is a move in the wrong direction. Her methodology for reviewing cases, and her philosophical predilections are wholly distinct from that of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, and that jurisprudential philosophy is altogether inconsistent with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution as written, and, so, as conceived by the framers of it.  It is not expected that Brown will render an opinion on the Bruen case, as a decision on the case is expected in early summer. But, Justice Breyer intends to step down until the current term ends in late June or early July, as reported by Forbes. And that is cutting it close. The danger is that Breyer will leave prior to a decision being handed down in Bruen. Although neither Breyer's bizarre notion of the import of the Second Amendment nor the methodology employed in case analysis is expected to comprise part of the majority opinion if the Conservative wing holds firm, still his jurisprudential philosophy is a known quantity and will be reflected in his dissenting opinions which will comport with his dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald. But dissenting opinions do have weight, and the analysis therein can be adopted in future case decisions if the liberal wing of the Court secures a majority. As an internationalist, a dissenting opinion in the Bruen case, composed by Ketanji Brown Jackson, is likely to be much more radical than one composed by Breyer. She is likely to imbue her views of guns and the Second Amendment from the standpoint of international law and international norms—that law and those norms fashioned by the United Nations and the EU, and thereby ignore or even refute the principle that High Court decisions involving natural law rights codified in the Bill of Rights—must adhere to the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights which, means, then, the application of American norms, to case law analysis, and must not impose international norms on BOR analysis and decisions. More people like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the High Court will result in a radical contravention of U.S. Supreme Court case review. The Constitution, thus interpreted by international law and international norms standards, which are completely alien to us—that do not, for example, even recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, unalienable, eternal, immutable right—would invariably, irreparably damage and upend the Nation's Bill of Rights, upon which individual autonomy, individual liberty, and American sovereignty over the Government rests and upon which a free Constitutional Republic can only hope to survive.How, then, would Ketanji Brown Jackson rule in the Bruen case? One need only look at the presence of New York City's absurd and unconstitutional concealed handgun carry regime to get an inkling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's view of the Second Amendment Right, which she would defend, and which she, no less than the Mayor of New York City, himself, would refrain from ever tampering with.That bizarre mindset—alien to the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as reflected in its Constitution, and particularly, in the Nation's Bill of Rights—won't change for the following reasons:First, the idea of arming civilian citizens so that they may take an active role in tackling the intractable violence plaguing the City remains more repugnant to the Mayor, and to tens of thousands of frightened New York City residents who voted for him, than is the presence of legions of lunatics and psychopaths who have taken over the City and who continually, and with impunity, prey on, and who pose a constant threat to the millions of innocent people who reside in and/or work in the City. The fear of guns and gun ownership and possession is deep-seated, unconscious, difficult to dislodge from many a New York resident's psyche.Second, reformation of the concealed handgun carry license schema in New York City is difficult—indeed well-nigh impossible—because the regulatory regime is itself a product of, grounded in, and inextricably bound to and entwined in the actions of the New York State Legislature, in Albany. Third, the actions of Albany are tied to New York's historical landscape that bespeaks a long-standing aversion to, and even pathological abhorrence toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fourth, over a hundred years of New York case law is directed to and devoted to the destruction of the natural law right of armed self-defense. The United States Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, do nothing to dispel the New York Courts antagonism toward the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, the State and Federal Courts engage in bizarre jurisprudential contortions, distortions, and confabulations that serve at once to dismiss Heller and McDonald rulings and reaffirm old Second Amendment New York rulings that perpetuate historical prejudices about the Second Amendment and are wholly inconsistent with Heller and McDonald.In our next article, we explain in detail the nature of the difficulties attendant to reforming New York City's concealed handgun carry licensing regime.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NEW YORK MAYOR ERIC ADAMS: DOES HE OR DOESN’T HE —CARRY A HANDGUN THAT IS? SHOULD IT MATTER?

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS IS NO SAVIOR OF THE CITY AFTER THE IGNOMINIOUS, AND DISASTROUS REIGN OF BILL DE BLASIO, AN UNAPOLOGETIC COMMUNIST; HE IS JUST ANOTHER CONJURER, CHARLATAN, AND LIAR.

PART ONE

During his Mayoral run, Eric Adams asserted he would carry a handgun for self-defense once he became Mayor in lieu of reliance on a special police security detail.The New York Post, for one, reported, back in January 2020, that,“Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, a former cop, said Thursday that he’d pack heat if elected mayor in 2021 rather than waste taxpayer money by having his own security detail like Mayor Bill de Blasio and his predecessors.“Yes I will, number one,’ Adams told the FAQ NYC podcast when asked if he’d pack a firearm as mayor.‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” Jump forward to March 26, 2022.In a news story titled, “Did Adams follow through on his campaign promise to carry a gun as mayor?”, 1010 News had this to say about Eric Adams’ remarks:“Now, as the mayor of New York City, he still has a security detail and demonstrated at a press conference Friday that he’s not walking around armed.When asked at a traffic safety event if he followed through on his promise, he smiled and opened his jacket to demonstrate he’s not carrying a gun.‘I stated that if I receive a threat from my intel that states there’s a real threat that I would make that determination. Intel protects me,’ said Adams. ‘If I feel the need to do so then I would do so.’[But] His quote from 2020 does not leave much room for interpretation, even if Adams would like to clarify his intent now.A host for the ‘FAQ NYC’ podcast [had] asked him ‘As mayor would you carry a firearm on you even with a security detail?’Adams responded ‘Yes I will, number one, and number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city’s safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” See also the article in Arbalest Quarrel, titled, “NYPD Officer Shootings Draw Attention To Mayor Eric Adams’ Plans To Make NYS Safe: What Will He Do?”, posted on January 23, 2022. What is a person to make of Adams’ inconsistent remarks?Is the Mayor a hypocrite? Of course. There’s no way for Adams’ to slither around this, try as he might; try as he has.But, then, should anyone be surprised? After all, hypocrisy is a character trait of all politicians. It defines them, and not in a good way.The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word, ‘hypocrite,’ as a ‘person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’ But there is much more to the word than that. The ancient Greeks from whom the word, ‘hypocrite’ derived perceived a hypocrite to be a heinous individual, deserving of contempt. The Merrian Webster Dictionary goes to some length in discussing the etymology of the word:“A number of different things might pop to mind when we hear the word hypocrite. Maybe it’s a politician caught in a scandal; maybe it’s a religious leader doing something counter to their creed; maybe it’s a scheming and conniving character featured in soap operas. But it’s likely that the one thing that doesn’t come to mind is the theater.The word hypocrite ultimately came into English from the Greek word hypokrites, which means ‘an actor’ or ‘a stage player.’ The Greek word itself is a compound noun: it’s made up of two Greek words that literally translate as ‘an interpreter from underneath.’ That bizarre compound makes more sense when you know that the actors in ancient Greek theater wore large masks to mark which character they were playing, and so they interpreted the story from underneath their masks. The Greek word took on an extended meaning to refer to any person who was wearing a figurative mask and pretending to be someone or something they were not. This sense was taken into medieval French and then into English, where it showed up with its earlier spelling, ypocrite, in 13th-century religious texts to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others. (Hypocrite gained its initial h- by the 16th century.) It took a surprisingly long time for hypocrite to gain its more general meaning that we use today [as pointed out supra] ‘a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’” See also the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Truth and Hypocrisy: Bill of Rights Betrayal,” posted on February 18, 2014, one of our first articles. In another Arbalest Quarrel article, posted, five days later, titled, “NY SAFE Advocate and Gun Hypocrite Ferguson: Is the Story Over? Not by a Long Shot,” we dealt further with the notion of ‘hypocrisy.’ Of ‘hypocrisy’ we said, in pertinent part, in that article:“A person who lies does not honor his fellows. No one should lie as a matter of practice. But those who know their words affect the lives of millions of others should be especially mindful of the impact of their words. Those who impact the lives of millions of people through lies are particularly heinous individuals. They do not honor their fellow man. And by failing to honor their fellow man they themselves are not honorable and are not worthy of honor.”Hypocrisy is rife in American politics. Politicians are cut from the same cloth, and Eric Adams, the present New York City Mayor, is no different.Politicians are all consummate actors, but they are actors whose words and actions impact the lives of the citizenry, unlike theater actors whose fictions are confined to the stage.Mayor Adams says he carries a handgun but does not. He says he does not employ an NYPD security detail but he does.Of course, whether or not Adams’ carries a gun when walking around the City is really beside the point. As a retired NYPD police officer, he'd have no trouble obtaining the necessary credentials to do so, anyway. That, unfortunately, cannot be said of the average American citizen who resides in the City. Perhaps a decision in the Bruen case will change that.And, as for Adams’ foregoing an NYPD security detail, the remark is false bravado. The City isn’t any safer under his watch than it was under that of his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Hence the Mayor’s desire for and need for a security detail exists. Adams is acutely aware of the constant dangers that innocent human beings face in the urban jungle—New York City. Crime continues to surge.As this article goes to publication, March 27, 2022, the New York Post writes: “Major crime and gun violence in the Big Apple have shown no signs of slowing as Mayor Eric Adams pushes people to get back to work and attempts to clean up the subway system.New police data shows that serious crime is up nearly 14 percent this year as of Sunday, compared to the same period in 2020 — when the city was bustling before COVID-19.The early crime trends this year present a challenge for Adams, who last week called for workers to return to New York City — promising a safer city. . . .There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.”In light of these troubling crime statistics what is particularly troubling,  galling, and damning is not the content of Adams’ remarks concerning his personal security but the fact that he dared to lie to the public about it, and did so blatantly, casually, with a smile on his face, no less. Has this man so little regard for the average, innocent law-abiding, New York City resident who, unlike him, has no access to police protection and who is denied,out-of-hand, the natural right of armed defense? Does this  Mayor know, or even care, that the average New York City resident must suffer the reality of masses of violent, vile animals, roaming, undeterred, through the streets, subways, train stations, and business establishments of a concrete jungle every day, looking to injure, maim, and kill innocent people—among them, senior citizens and even toddlers? In most of America, the citizenry wouldn't tolerate, for one moment, the horrific conditions existent in and allowed to fester in New York City.And, so, Mayor Adams resorts to lies. And, if he can flippantly lie about one thing, would he not lie about other things—serious matters affecting the physical safety, security, and well-being of the lives of all innocent New York City residents—matters that go beyond those affecting his own life and well-being.Adams brands himself as the “Compassionate Capitalist” ostensibly to distinguish and distance himself from his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Did Adams come up with that expression, or did his image-makers invoke it, perhaps during a public relations brainstorming strategy session?New Yorkers are constantly confronted with dissimulation, not solutions to real, urgent, and intractable problems. Plans, initiatives, blueprints for action, are little more than shadow play; a ruse; an elaborate, carefully choreographed, managed, and executed masquerade to delude the public. Superficiality overshadows substance at every turn. Everything stays the same; status quo. This is fine for the powers that be, but not for the commonalty.In the next article, we lay this bare, as we continue our exploration of New York City's newly minted Mayor, Eric Adams.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

NYPD OFFICER SHOOTINGS DRAW ATTENTION TO MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ PLANS TO MAKE NYC SAFE: WHAT WILL HE DO?

Five NYPD officers have been shot in the line of duty, only three weeks into the New Year in Eric Adams’ reign as New York City Mayor.Most recently, on January 21, 2022, a psychopath and recidivist criminal with multiple violent felony arrests in New York and other States, Lashawn McNeil, 47, on probation, shot two police officers in New York City. See New York Post article.Officer Jason Rivera, 22, died in the line of duty, and his partner, Officer Wilbert Mora, 27, is clinging to life. The officers had answered a call involving a domestic situation in Harlem.The wife of the slain officer posted a moving tribute to her husband. The killer also shot and wounded a third officer, who returned fire, hitting McNeil in the head and arm. The killer is in critical condition as of Saturday morning. See report in The New York Times.A helluva guy, isn’t he? Let’s wish him well. Maybe the City should erect a statue to him, just like the statue it erected to George Floyd, in Brooklyn—at the same time the City removed the statue of Teddy Roosevelt.George Floyd was a drug addict and small-time crook—another character worth emulating.Just think: If Floyd had not attempted to pass a counterfeit bill off on a grocery store clerk, he would still be alive. But, then, the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party would’ve had to bide its time, awaiting some other pretext to speed the destabilization of society. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes that point clear, for which her own cohorts slammed her—apparently for being too straightforward and literal. 

AMERICA'S NEO-MARXISTS RETAIN STRANGLEHOLD ON NEW YORK CITY

Neo-Marxists retain a nice, firm stranglehold on the City, even after one of their own—Bill de Blasio—has packed up his bags and departed from Gracie Mansion.The new Mayor, Eric Adams, had once served as an NYPD officer, retiring as a Captain.Unlike de Blasio, Eric Adams isn’t a rabid Communist but he is still subject to manipulation by those elements that helped get him elected and who seek the destruction of the City and the Country.This is clear enough from Adams’ own words, following the recent shooting of those two young police officers.And what did NYPD Captain Adams—now NYC Mayor—say to the City and the Country after the most recent shootings? Just this——“ ‘The police department is doing their job taking thousands of guns off the streets, yet each time you take a gun off, there’s a constant flow of new guns coming here. . . .‘And if we don’t coordinate to go after those gun dealers that are supplying large cities in America such as New York, we are losing the battle, and the federal government must step in and play a role in doing so.‘We need Washington to join us and act now to stop the flow of guns in New York City and cities like New York.’” See NY Post article.Later, Adams told Dana Bash, host on ABC’s Good Morning America:“‘We are able to stop terrorism in this city when state, federal and local law enforcement agencies shared information. . . .‘This is a sea of crime that has been fed by many rivers. . . . We have to dam those rivers.’” See report in NY Daily News.Honestly, is this what the City and the Country want or need to hear from the Mayor? Does the City and Country need to hear seemingly glowing, but vague and bland, or tiresome and nonsensical rhetoric, of Anti-Second Amendment zealots who wish to distract and deflect attention away from themselves and from a failed Criminal Justice System they, themselves, coldly, callously, calculatedly thrust on America?Obviously, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters had scripted Eric Adams’ words for him. And Adams dutifully regurgitated them. The words were contrived; all pretense. His intent was to keep New Yorkers in a perpetual state of passivity, apathy, and mental darkness.If Adams had truly sought to come across as a transformative figure, rather than as a carbon copy of the previous inept, yet smug de Blasio, he might have delivered something to stir the passions; to shake the public from its stupor and naivety. Adams might have said something like the following——

*********

“Criminals take notice: if you kill a ‘Cop,’ you’re going down! I will not tolerate murders and assaults or attempted murders and assaults on Cops on my watch. I am, this day, declaring war on Cop Killers and would-be Cop-killers.For twenty years I served proudly as a New York City Police Officer. My first obligation as Mayor is to the well-being of the people of the City, just as it was when I served as a New York City Police Officer and Captain. An attack on a New York City Police Officers is also an attack on every other good citizen of our community, and I will not tolerate it. Two years ago, after an assassination attempt on a fellow police officer, the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote to my predecessor:“‘Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you. . . ! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. . . . NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you. . . . This isn’t over, Game on.’” [taken from an article appearing on the website, Right Edition] I am here to tell the Sergeants Benevolent Association that I have burned your words into memory. I am not de Blasio, nor do I choose to be. His days are over. In the next few weeks, I will be implementing my plan for a safe, secure, and thriving New York. That plan will include the following:

• The creation of police intelligence units and quick reaction forces to target organized crime, criminal gangs, and sociopaths that commit violent crimes against police officers and against innocent civilians;

• Encouraging City’s prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all violent offenders and to seek incarceration and, for repeat offenders, lengthy prison sentences;

• Encouraging all Branches of the City Government to swiftly draw up concrete, comprehensive, and robust plans to secure the City from the violence that has plagued it for so many years under the previous Administration;

• The Creation of task forces, mobilizing business and community leaders to assist my Office in developing zero-tolerance policies toward crime, vagrancy, and random violent acts committed by criminals, sociopaths, and psychotics against innocent citizens;

• The Complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division concerning the issuance of firearms and handguns licenses for retired police officers, licensed security guard companies, and civilians.

As a former police officer, I am able to carry a gun. But that doesn’t make me special. I believe all responsible, law-abiding citizens of New York City, no less than I, should be able to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is their fundamental right. That is why I am undertaking a complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division.During my campaign for Mayor, I was asked whether, as a former police officer, I would carry a firearm if I became Mayor. I answered, ‘Yes I will, number one. . . . ‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’  [from the New York Post]Now that I have been elected Mayor, I stand by those words. Unlike my predecessor, I intend to make our City safe. For far too long this City has had its priorities completely backward. The previous City Administration made its commitments to the wrong people, to the wrong groups, and to the wrong elements of society. This will all change on my watch. I will provide the impetus for a revitalized New York City—A City where people will want to live and feel safe and secure, where people wish to visit rather than avoid, and where businesses can grow and prosper.”

*********

Alas, in his public remarks Mayor Adams didn't say anything to suggest a sea-change from the prior disastrous Administration.During his conversation on ABCs Good Morning America, Mayor Adams did mention he will be rolling out a plan this week to take on the “gun violence.”We can’t know what that plan entails. We would hope whatever it is, it will include our aforesaid recommendations. But we have our doubts.Our concern is that, by Eric Adams’ use of the Neo-Marxists’ buzz-phrase, ‘gun violence,’ and by tying that phrase in with ‘[domestic] terrorism,’ and by constantly exclaiming and reiterating that “the federal government needs to step in and play a role,” Eric Adams is playing directly to the Harris-Biden Administration’s goal of Federal Government intrusion on State’s rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment and on the American peoples’ rights under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.The ball is now in your court, Mr. Mayor. We pray to God, you do the right thing for the people of New York City.As the Mayor of a major, prominent American City, what you do will set an example for good or ill not only for New York City but for the Country as a whole. You can kowtow to a rogue Federal Government or you can defend the Nation's Bill of Rights. But don't think for one moment you can play both ends against the middle. The public won't fall for it; not anymore._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER’S RESPONSE TO RESIDENTS’ CONCERN OVER FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL “GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION” LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED

Concerned American citizens, residents of New York, recently reached out to the new Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressing legitimate concern over Democrats’ goals pertaining to “gun control legislation.” They looked to the Senator for clarification and for assurances that the Democratic Party has no intention of gutting a sacred, cherished, fundamental, natural right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.It was, perhaps, in the hope of hearing something new, something refreshing, something positive for a change—anything but the usual depressingly familiar contrived nonsense—that may have prompted the query to the new Senate Majority Leader in the first place. If that was the questioners’ hope, they were sorely disappointed. But give Schumer credit for something, as he did, at least, respond.In a carefully worded letter, ostensibly written with the intention to allay the legitimate fears of American gun owners that the right of the people to keep and bear arms remains an endangered species, one, indeed, on the verge of imminent extinction, under both a Democrat-Party controlled Congress and Democrat Executive Branch, the Senator merely regurgitates the usual Party-line patter, platitudes, clichés, and banalities that Americans had heard from the Democratic Party leadership ad nauseum for the past three decades, and now, as then, delivered in the same distant, smug, superficial, disingenuous, and oily tone. Schumer writes,“Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment.While I respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance.I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. After the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, I took a leading role in passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act through the Senate. This legislation, supported by the National Rifle Association, authorizes funds for states to compile required background data into the shared NICS database. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will better prevent criminals from illegally purchasing and possessing firearms.I have also fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”Senator Schumer’s letter demonstrates neither an understanding of the import of the sacred, fundamental, natural, and immutable right of the people to own and possess firearms nor does it exhibit a true appreciation for the level of concern that prompted Americans to contact Schumer.On the surface, Schumer’s letter may come across to some as polite and respectful, but beneath the surface, the letter exhibits a cold and callous impatience and an odd, almost clinical detachment, along with more than a smidgeon of condescension that detracts from what little of worth, if anything, can be derived from the letter’s content. And it is that content that we discuss here.But, before proceeding with an analysis of Schumer’s remarks, we wish to point out that subsequent to Schumer’s response to New York residents’ request for clarification as to Democrat Party’s intentions pertaining to antigun legislation, Joe Biden made abundantly clear to the American citizenry of his own intention to go after the right of the people to keep and bear arms. He did so in a carefully worded statement delivered to the Press in the Rose Garden, on April 8, 2021, and we assume that, whatever the Democrat-controlled Congress has in mind in terms of dealing with civilian citizen gun ownership and possession, those Congressional plans will be consistent with, and in full accord with, and likely coordinated with Biden’s Presidential actions.In his delivery to the Press, Biden declares that he will be signing several executive orders to address gun violence, and that he will be directing his administration to tighten restrictions on so-called ghost guns, or untraceable weapons that can be constructed from parts purchased online. See USA Today report on this. And, a CNN report on Biden’s Rose Garden address mentions that Schumer will be scheduling votes on gun legislation, demonstrating the Biden’s executive actions and Schumer’s Congressional gun legislation plans are being coordinated behind closed doors, after all.So, now after an initial flurry of executive orders and other actions rubber-stamped by Biden, the destroyers of our Constitution and Republic are, as we expected getting around, as we knew they would, to their pet fetish, attacks on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and they are doing so in a robust fashion.Biden’s remarks delivered with the dry, emotionless, mindless hesitancy, one invariably witnesses from a person in the throes of incipient and imminent mental decline, will be dealt with in turn—along with his executive actions—once he signs them, in a subsequent Arbalest Quarrel article, along with his soon to be released executive orders.We now return to Schumer’s letter. Below are the key points Schumer makes. We first list those points and then address them.

• Schumer claims to support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically saying, “Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment.”
• Schumer claims to believe that we—meaning all Americans— “have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance,” he says.
• Schumer asserts that he has “long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms [that he] took a leading role in passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act through the Senate” and that NRA supported this.
• Lastly, Schumer exclaims how much he has “create[d] new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”

The first thing that strikes us and at once rankles us is Schumer’s pretense of being one of us, i.e., an American who cares deeply about safeguarding the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, when he most certainly does not.

THE FIRST ISSUE: ON THE MATTER OF SCHUMER’S “BELIEF”

Schumer says he “believes the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment.” But does he, really? No!The duplicity of Schumer’s remark is betrayed by and laid bare in the letter’s verbiage as well as in his Congressional “accomplishments,” during his lengthy tenure in Congress, both as a U.S. Representative in the House, and as a U.S. Senator. All of his actions against securing and preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms are recorded for posterity.But, let us return to Schumer’s “belief,” and,  from a logical and semantic standpoint, elucidate the meaning of ‘belief,’ for believing something to be true, doesn’t make it true. Schumer says he “believes in the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.”  That is all well and good if we take the assertion at face value, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is based not on one’s mere belief that it is so, but on the fact that it is so.Whether one chooses to believe in the right or not, the right exists, irrespective of belief. Many “Americans” choose not to believe in the fact of the right, and loudly and endlessly say so, and with marked disdain. So, what? Does a raw belief in something or other, in the evidence of rational reflection, make it so?There are false beliefs and there are true beliefs. Beliefs that cohere with or correspond with states of affairs, a posteriori, are true, otherwise, they are false.There are also truths that follow from pure, reason, i.e., priori, as do mathematical truths and the existence of a Divine Creator.And there are beliefs derived from one’s value system that don’t reflect inherent declarative truths but say much about a person’s motivations that inform their actions.Democrats’ 180-degree about-turn on the issue of illegal immigration is illustrative of this. Democrat Party leaders, including Chuck Schumer and even a past U.S. President, Barack Obama, at the time a U.S. Senator from Illinois, clearly and cogently asserted, “We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States—but those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law. They are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently and lawfully to become immigrants.” See, e.g., Townhall report.And recall Schumer’s own remarks on illegal immigration—a position cogently and categorically stated—but that he has since disavowed.“‘Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple’ Chuck Schumer said during a 2009 speech. This was during Obama’s presidency, mind you. ‘People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens,’ he continued. ‘When we use phrases like “undocumented workers,” we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.’” From the website, Political Insider.So, even accepting for purpose of argument, that Schumer is being honest about his belief here, however dubious, he need not stand by it, just as his early assertions about illegal immigration—delivered with an air of pomposity, false piety, and moral certitude and conviction, at the time, turned out to be as fleeting and as ephemeral as a wisp of smoke.By reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mere belief, and perfunctorily asserting a belief in the right sans even a hint of conviction, Schumer is suggesting he could be wrong about his belief, and thereafter he can and would certainly claim he was simply mistaken about the very guarantee he claims he once believed in. Both he and the rest of the Party can then proceed merrily along their way to erode the American citizenry’s exercise of a fundamental right and continue to enact legislation to constrain the exercise of it. This includes legislation creating onerous costs in time and money, and further burdensome restrictions on use, contrary to private property protections codified in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such restrictive gun legislation also intrudes on one’s privacy, in contradistinction to the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.At the moment Schumer, and other Party leaders, demur explicitly and categorically from denying the import of the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, outright, but give them time.Schumer’s goal and that of others who abhor the very notion of an armed citizenry is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, accomplished through incremental action. By slowly, inexorably legislating away the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment—is unnecessary, and at the moment given that outright repeal of the Second Amendment not only immensely difficult but empirically impossible. Once exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment has been effectively nullified by Congressional legislation, U.S. Presidential executive action, and Administrative agency rulings, Schumer and others of his ilk can give up any pretense that they support the “guarantee” of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At that point Schumer would have no compunction of admitting his error in ever having held to a “belief” in the Second Amendment, any more than he has disavowed his earlier remarks concerning his stance on illegal immigration. But, if one can change his belief system as easily and as one changes his clothes.But, seriously, if one were to take Schumer at his word that he does honestly believe in the “guarantee” of the Second Amendment, one would expect his past actions to align with the assertion. The website “On the Issues,” though paints a different picture.In a nutshell, this is what Schumer’s belief in the Second Amendment’s guarantee has amounted to when words are compared to actions:

• Enforce gun laws on national security grounds. (Dec 2003)
• Renew assault weapons ban - no legitimate use for them. (Nov 2003)
• Penalize cross-state gun traffickers. (Sep 2003)
• Cutting record-keeping limits fosters gun sale fraud & abuse. (Jun 2001)
• Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
• Voted NO on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
• Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Close the Gun Show Loophole; restrict show sales. (May 2009)
• Ban large-capacity ammunition. (Jan 2013)
• Supports restrictions on right to bear arms. (Nov 2016)
• Co-sponsored background check for every firearm sale. (Jan 2019)

It is difficult to square Schumer’s Congressional actions that demonstrate a marked consistency for constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms with his assertion he believes in the guarantee of the Second Amendment. But, this point leads into the most critical issue that Schumer's letter raises which goes directly to the relationship between the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental Rights that the Amendments refer to. For, if THE GUARANTEE of the Second Amendment or of any one of the other Nine Amendments is predicated on, depends upon the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution, this logically implies that preservation of—nay, the very existence of—the underlying Right depends upon or is a function of incorporation of the Amendment into the Constitution, itself. But, is that true? This certainly holds true for some Amendments—namely and particularly some of the Amendments ratified and thereupon incorporated into the U.S. Constitution subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, subsequent Amendments that, in language, are of a procedural nature or that did not entail fundamental, natural rights, unlike those comprising the Bill of Rights. But, does that assumption hold true across the board? Senator Schumer obviously thinks so as do other Democrat Party leaders. And they certainly treat the Bill of Rights as if this were true. But this is where Schumer and other Democrats of like mind are wrong, horribly wrong. And the consequences of their horrendous error allow for, provide the rationale for, are the functional basis for, and are at the very heart of present, furious and rapid actions of the Democrat Party leadership to erase the Bill of Rights; reinterpret the Constitution's Articles, and ultimately disassemble the U.S. Constitution; and if successful, this will lead, cannot help but lead, inevitably, inexorably to a very different America: transforming a free Constitutional Republic, an independent, sovereign Nation-State, a sovereign American people into something monstrous, something hideous; something outside the bounds of rationality; certainly something anathema to the founders' vision of a Nation founded on and grounded on the principles and tenets of Individualism. And the fruits of the founders' vision is seen and clearly recognized in a Nation, that, in the space of well less than three hundred years, has grown to become the most powerful, the wealthiest, the most beneficent, morally sound, economically healthiest, and geopolitically most secure Nation on Earth; truly the envy of the world. And, yet, Democrats and their benefactors are working toward, and lackadaisical Republicans are allowing to happen, a horrific disassembling of our Nation and the enslavement of our people, and in very short order.  

THE SECOND AND MOST CRITICAL ISSUE AND MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE OF SCHUMER’S DUPLICITY: SCHUMER CONFLATES THE NATURAL “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” WITH THE NUMBER RANKING OF THE RIGHT, “SECOND AMENDMENT,” PRESUMING, ERRONEOUSLY, THAT THE RIGHT, LIKE THE NUMERICAL CONVENIENCE, IS MANMADE RATHER THAN GOD-BESTOWED.

Schumer, as with other Democrats, have a penchant for claiming to respect the second Amendment but those claims are belied by their actions as they proceed to systematically disassemble exercise of the right embodied in it. They seemingly avoid the duplicity, hypocrisy, and inconsistency between assertion and action by attempting to draw a distinction, albeit tacitly, between the words, “Second Amendment,” and the Right embodied therein.This distinction is aptly illustrated in a passage from a Press Release of another anti-Second Amendment fanatic, Senator Leahy—one of several he released to the public during the U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing of Sonia Sotomayor, back in 2009. Leahy states,“When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year, I applauded the Court for affirming what so many Americans already believe: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm.  The Heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our Bill of Rights.Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.  One does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and Vermonters are trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely. In my experience, Vermonters do just that. Like many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms that the Second Amendment protects. In fact, I own many firearms. Like other rights protected by our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a right I cherish.”Recall this is the same man who would later hold a mock Confirmation Hearing for Judge Merrick Garland. He held a mock Hearing to demonstrate his anger over then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel’s decision not to hold a U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, knowing full well that Garland, along with “Living Constitution” liberal-Wing Justices of the Court, and with the pseudo-Constitutional Originalist/Textualist, John Roberts, would shred the right embodied in the Second Amendment if given the opportunity to do so.See Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on May 31, 2016.  Merrick Garland’s track record demonstrates clear antipathy toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See also Arbalest Quarrel letter directed to Senator Grassley, posted on the Arbalest Quarrel, as an open letter, on April 27, 2016.It is a curious thing and more than a trifle baffling to witness the hypocrisy and rank disingenuousness of those Democrat Party Leaders, like Chuck Schumer, who declare support for the Second Amendment even as their policy goals and initiatives demonstrate their transparent disdain, contempt for, and even loathing of it.But then, it need be mentioned and emphasized that Democrats never refer to the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms apart from their reference through invocation of the words: “Second Amendment.” Does reference to the words, “Second Amendment,” in lieu of the words codified in the Second Amendment or as used together with the actual statement of the Right mean something different than straightforward assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It does.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE SCHUMER CONSTANTLY CLAIM TO RESPECT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT” BUT REFRAIN FROM SAYING THEY RESPECT “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”?

Let’s go back to the opening statements of Schumer’s letter, the Senator says he believes in the Second Amendment and he goes on to say in that letter that he believes in the right to bear arms “as guaranteed in the Second Amendment.” He invariably mentions support for the “Second Amendment” but never support for the language Of the Second Amendment, codified IN the Amendment.Schumer is never heard to say in his letter to New York residents or, to the best of our knowledge and belief, anywhere else in any written or oral statement, during his tenure as a U.S. Senator or as a Congressman, that he accepts as true, and beyond refutation that“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Is this a mere quibble on our part? No, it isn’t!Schumer and others who detest the very existence of an armed citizenry very carefully refrain from referring directly to the language of the Right, OF and IN the Second Amendment, apart from mere reference TO the “Second Amendment.” This is no accident.The delineation of a sequence of Amendments, from One to Ten, in the Bill of Rights, are manmade constructs.These constructs MUST BE distinguished from the natural, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, itself.The fact of the matter is the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists intrinsically in man. The Right is existent in man’s very being. It is bestowed on and in man by the loving Creator. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a natural right is not a creature of Government and is not properly to be construed as such.But it’s easy for a person to mistake a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT for a MANMADE RIGHT, by equating the words, ‘SECOND AMENDMENT,’ a manmade construct and an obviously mutable and destructible construct, with the RIGHT, itself, contained in the AMENDMENT, which is immutable and indestructible.The importance of this distinction has legal and logical consequence and is not to be trivialized.Recall for a moment Biden’s assertion during his Rose Garden address, on Thursday, April 8, 2021, to the Press. Biden asserts, at one point, as his speechwriters required of him, that,“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.” From Fox news story, titled, “Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute.’” It is one thing to say an “AMENDMENT” to the U.S. Constitution is not absolute, just as no “ARTICLE” in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. But this only means the Articles of the Constitution as with a delineation of numerical “Amendments” are both manmade constructs. Indeed some Amendments to the Constitution, such as the Amendment prohibiting alcohol, could be and were subsequently repealed. But, then, the prohibition on alcoholic beverages was never a natural, God-Given right.The RIGHTS comprising the Bill of Rights are NATURAL—preeminent and preexistent—and, so, are not subject to lawful Governmental manipulation that would transform a FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHT into a mere IMPERMANENT GOVERNMENT BESTOWED OR GOVERNMENT RESCINDED PRIVILEGE.Thus, while it is true that the Second Amendment, perceived as an enumeration in a table, didn’t exist prior to ratification of the Bill of Rights, as Biden asserts, this isn’t to mean the Right, itself, to which the Second Amendment refers didn’t exist prior to the Amendment. The Amendment serves merely as an explicit codification of the Right that always DID exist, just as the Divine Creator DOES ALWAYS EXIST.In that regard, recall that Biden’s writers did not have Biden assert, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” isn’t absolute. Why is that? Biden’s writers and handlers didn’t allow Biden to say that because the right itself, bestowed on Man by the Divine Creator, cannot lawfully be modified, abrogated, abridged, denied, or ignored. The Right, itself, IS ABSOLUTE.On some level, the writers of Biden’s Rose Garden speech must be aware of the distinction between the RIGHT, as DIVINE LAW, and the descriptor that merely alludes to it, because they know the framers understood the Rights, they codified in the BILL OF RIGHTS, are FUNDAMENTAL, and, by that understanding and, by that logic, must be construed as ABSOLUTE, even if Biden’s handlers, who prepared his Rose Garden address to the Press don’t accept the truth of the idea of fundamental, preexisting, natural, God-given Rights.Still, the Bill of Rights is grounded on that idea, and that idea is the foundation of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and of the sovereignty of the American people and of the bedrock principles of Individualism.But then, what are Americans to make of the inexorable whittling away of a fundamental Right and an American’s absolute right to exercise that Right?Any action to dilute a God-Given Right by Government, on the ground of arguably ostensible pragmatic necessity must be carefully considered from the perspective of the possible deleterious ramifications and effects of that Governmental action on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul, as a person’s autonomy proceeds from and is governed by NATURAL LAW, not from MANMADE LAW. Pragmatic necessity may dictate restrictions on exercise of fundamental rights, but such pragmatic necessity is by definition unlawful, as contrary to Divine Law. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS DOESN’T EXIST BECAUSE OF OR FOLLOW FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE RIGHT EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, i.e., THE RIGHT EXISTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT MANMADE CONSTRUCT. The Second Amendment, as a codification of Divine, Natural Law, ISN’T identical to, synonymous with, or a substitute for the Divine, Natural Law itself.Schumer, Leahy, and others mistakenly assume that since the right of the people to keep and bear arms was placed into a manmade Document, the BILL OF RIGHTS, and given a number—2—along with other RIGHTS that were each given numbers and also placed into that manmade Document, this must mean that the BILL OF RIGHTS, as with the ARTICLES of the CONSTITUTION, and all subsequent Congressional statutes, agency rules, and executive actions, orders, and edicts are to be construed as nothing more than manmade creations, subject to modification, or abrogation. So, they say. But such a notion is both false and dangerous.Such a notion is false because—and it bears repeating—fundamental Rights do not emanate from man; they emanate from God. And the notion is dangerous because it undercuts the very structure of our free Constitutional Republic that is predicated on the sovereignty of the American people over Government.Schumer and Leahy and others mistake the INSUBSTANTIALITY of the mere words, ‘Second Amendment,’ for the REALITY of what it is that the words denote: THE SUBSTANTIAL, FUNDAMENTAL, IMMUTABLE, ILLIMITABLE, ETERNAL, INDESTRUCTIBLE, NATURAL, DIVINE RIGHT, ITSELF. This is no small matter to reflect upon for it informs every action people like Schumer and Leahy and others take as they attempt to enact legislation to erode Natural Rights that are not lawfully susceptible to erosion precisely because Natural Rights aren’t themselves manmade laws.AMERICAN HISTORY BEARS OUT THE SINGULARLY IMPORTANT IMPERATIVE: NATURAL RIGHTS MUST NOT BE TOYED WITH.The words, ‘Second Amendment,’ as with descriptors for the other fundamental, natural, unalienable Rights, the First, Third, Fourth, and so on—as the framers of the U.S. Constitution knew full well—are merely an acknowledgment of the Divine nature of the Right to which the descriptor alludes; it is that and nothing more than that. American History reinforces the truth of this statement.Among the framers of the U.S. Constitution, there were two factions: The Federalists and the Antifederalists. But, unlike Chuck Schumer and other politicians today, the Constitution’s framers—whether they were Federalist or Antifederalist—all recognized the existence of a body of basic, natural, Rights that exist in Man, independently of Government. Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrat Party leadership do not recognize the existence of natural Rights that predate the Constitution and that preexist in Man.The Federalists felt a written document, delineating God-Bestowed Rights—as codification of natural law—need not and ought not to be codified. They felt codification of natural law is at best redundant and therefore unnecessary and, at worst, self-defeating because codification of natural law might be perceived as self-limiting in the sense that only those natural laws expressly stated could lawfully be exercised by Americans as only those rights, explicitly delineated, would be recognized by the Federal Government.The Antifederalists disagreed with the reasoning of the Federalists and, for Americans who truly cherish a codification of natural law, it is fortunate that the Antifederalists won the day.The Antifederalists realized that failure to codify natural law could very well lead future Government servants to deny the existence of natural law if such law weren’t explicitly set down and incorporated into the Constitution.Redundancy was of little concern to the Antifederalists. But if a document delineating natural law were to be perceived as self-limiting, as the Federalists rightfully feared and as they posed to the Antifederalists, that would be problematic, but it was a problem easily circumvented through the addition of language in the Bill of Rights.The Antifederalists resolved the problem by use of a catch-all Ninth Amendmentthat reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”Curiously, many legal scholars to this day give little credence to the Ninth Amendment precisely because they eschew the notion of natural law that has not been expressly articulated in the Bill of Rights, demanding therefor that natural law be delimited to those Rights explicitly stated and enumerated and not allow for others. But this just goes to show the Antifederalists’ concern over and demand for a codification of natural law was pertinent and prescient. Imagine if the Bill of Rights had not existed. You certainly wouldn’t hear people like Senators Schumer and Leahy claiming the existence of a natural right to keep and bear arms, would you?Schumer and Leahy only acknowledge the Right because they are compelled to do so, and they are compelled to do so precisely because of the law’s explicit delineation in the Bill of Rights. But, because they invariably refer to the manmade Descriptor of the natural God-given Right, either mistaking the Descriptor for the Right itself or doing so intentionally so as to deceive the public, they conclude, whether intentionally deceptively so or not, that the Right, like the Descriptor, ‘Second Amendment,’ is manmade. In this, they are either, unbeknownst to themselves, victims of logical error, or they know are cunning liars.But, whether through honest mistake or devious, diabolical deception, they plow ahead anyway. Thus, they have no compunction against enacting more and more restrictions on the exercise of the Right of the people to keep and bear arms embodied in the Descriptor, the Second Amendment, with the goal of eventually legislating the Amendment out of existence, and with that, denying to Americans exercise of a fundamental, natural, immutable, and indestructible Right that Government cannot lawfully deny Americans from exercising.But, because the Right is cast as an Amendment to the Constitution rather than as a mere Statute enacted by Congress, they recognize the difficulty in erasing the Right outright, much as they would like to do so. They are left to the need to nullify it slowly, incrementally, through Statute. This they have done and continue to do and that distresses them to no end.

THE THIRD ISSUE: SCHUMER’S OFFER OF PROOF OF SUPPORT FOR THE “SECOND AMENDMENT” IS DUBIOUS

In his letter Schumer says he backed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 that was supported by the NRA. In fact, Schumer is correct that the NRA-ILA did support this Act, which amended NICS to provide federal funding for the maintenance of up-to-date mental health records in the national background check system. And it isn’t necessary to take Schumer’s word for this, because NRA’s argument for supporting this legislation is found on its own website.But, Schumer also makes much of the fact, in the letter that he has “long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms.” Fine. But now let’s jump ahead to the present day; and we see Democrat Party attempting to do what Schumer, in his letter, congratulates himself for not doing: creating roadblocks for American gun owners, to delay completion of firearms transactions; to create unnecessary paperwork, more time and monetary expense, and to create a federal firearms’ registry. See article in Second Amendment Daily News.If Schumer is being honest in his remarks to New York residents, as set forth in his letter, he would not support House bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, or any antigun bills like them that might happen to wend their way to the U.S. Senate.And we know that Senator Schumer is himself taking the lead in advancing further gun control measures in the Senate. In particular, we wish to ask Schumer why, in fact, he is working toward enacting more draconian gun background checks since he argues in his letter that he has already taken care of that issue. See recent Hill article:“Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged the Senate will take on gun control measures in the wake of Monday's Boulder, Colo., mass shooting that left 10 people dead, including a police officer.Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate will specifically move to expand gun background checks—an effort that has long evaded passage in the upper chamber.” It’s one thing to prevent criminals from having access to firearms. But why is it that the vast majority of antigun legislation targets tens of millions of average responsible, rational law-abiding citizens? Schumer dodges that question in his letter and dodges, as well, talking about his long history of promoting and supporting extraordinarily restrictive gun laws, impacting on every American but the career criminal.But let’s look closer at home at what Schumer is doing OR NOT DOING on behalf of his own native New Yorkers on familiar New York City home turf from whence he sprang.

THE FOURTH ISSUE: SCHUMER DOESN’T EXPRESS AN INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE CITIZENS OF HIS OWN HOMETOWN EVEN AS HE PROFESSES TO CARE ABOUT NEW YORK STATE

What is Schumer doing to get the Marxist Mayor, de Blasio to get off his duff. If de Blasio won’t allow the police to provide protection for the City, why doesn’t Schumer utilize his considerable clout as Senate Majority Leader to demand that de Blasio see to it that New York’s residents can at least be allowed, what natural law demands: the right to protect one’s own life and that of one’s family. Schumer has done nothing. The website, hotair has this to say about the problem New York residents have in attempting to obtain a firearm for self-defense.“Nervous residents of New York City (at least those who haven’t already fled the area) have been signing up in increasing numbers for firearms permits, many for the first time in their lives. Given the conditions on the ground there, that’s understandable. But making the decision to take advantage of your Second Amendment rights and actually laying your hands on a firearm legally are two very different things in the Big Apple these days. The New York Post is reporting that there’s a significant backlog in permit applications this season, and among those that do manage to get processed, nearly nine in ten are denied. The NYPD’s License Division hasn’t had too much to say about it, but local gun dealers suspect that this isn’t entirely accidental, while a variety of factors have led to the surge in demand.The Big Apple’s staggering surge in shootings amid the COVID-19 pandemic has led nearly 9,000 terrified New Yorkers to apply for gun permits — but the NYPD has signed off on fewer than 1,100, The Post has learned.The 8,088 applications for first-time pistol and rifle permits submitted since March 22 — when coronavirus-related restrictions went into effect — represent a threefold-plus increase over the 2,562 submitted between March 22 and Dec. 31, 2019, NYPD statistics obtained by The Post this week show.But only 1,087 applications were approved, far less than the 1,778 granted during the same period last year, according to the official data.There are two primary aspects of this phenomenon to consider, those being why approval rates are down and why demand is so high. The first one is the more disturbing of the two.Last year, between March and December, the gun permit approval rate was close to 70%. But during the same period in 2020, the approval rate is less than 14 percent. You might be tempted to believe that these figures represent a lot more people applying who turn out to have criminal records or other disqualifying factors, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Some (probably larger) percentage are being denied, of course, but a lot of the applications simply aren’t being processed. One reason is that many officers from the NYPD’s License Division have been pulled off and sent to other assignments during all of the riots and unrest. But some cops believe that this slowdown is being at least partly driven from the top down.The cause for the surge in demand seems more obvious. Shootings and murders are up significantly in the city, as are robberies. There are still regular massive gatherings in the streets and you never know when the “peaceful protesters” are going to suddenly turn out to be an angry mob that’s trying to drag you out of your car and beat you. People are frightened and looking to defend themselves if they can.In fact, sources inside the NYPD have noted that this slowdown in permit approvals isn’t something that just cropped up recently. It began when the George Floyd protests kicked off in the spring.A source familiar with the situation said would-be gun owners began flooding the department with permit applications shortly after the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which sparked widespread protests, including in the Big Apple.Some of the local demonstrations led to riots and looting, including the ransacking of Macy’s famed flagship store in Manhattan’s Herald Square.No matter what combination of factors is driving this issue, it’s unacceptable. Many of the people who have seen their applications simply disappear into the void have no criminal record should easily have been approved. The Post spoke to owners of jewelry stores that have been robbed repeatedly during the riots who have waited all year for a permit and are unable to get one. But City Hall doesn’t seem the least bit interested in investigating and resolving this problem.”Schumer says not a word about this perplexing, confounding, and outrageous problem on his own home turf. Instead, Schumer concludes his letter by saying,“I have also fought to create new opportunities for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”Why should this even be required? It shouldn’t even register on the psyche. The right of private landowners to allow hunters access to their own property should follow from the natural right of a person to have exclusive use and enjoyment of his own property, anyway, both realty and personalty. To say that he will provide legislation to allow this implies that a person doesn’t have the right of enjoyment of his own property unless or until the Government deigns to permit exclusive use and enjoyment of one’s property. That is bizarre in a free-market Capitalist economy, as an extension of a free Constitutional Republic that extols the right of individual ownership of and enjoyment of one’s property, free from Governmental interference.In any event, while Schumer demonstrates an apparent desire to assist human beings to hunt animals on their own property—which they ought to be able to do anyway—he demurs from allowing human beings the effective ability to protect themselves from two-legged animals that prey on innocent humans on the streets of New York City and that threaten the innocent in their own homes and businesses.Good going Chuck! It’s nice to see that you have a good sense of just where your priorities need to be!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LACKLUSTER NYC MAYOR AND NYPD’S BRASS THAT WON’T SHINE

PART ONE

NYC MAYOR DE BLASIO’S RECIPE FOR DISASTER

Crime is rampant in New York City today. A rational person would expect the Mayor of the City, Bill de Blasio, to work diligently with the Commissioner of Public Safety to develop and implement a comprehensive, concrete plan to deal expeditiously and effectively with this public disorder. Instead, the Mayor remonstrates against the police and essentially orders the police to stand down. This suggests either that the Mayor doesn’t comprehend the severity of the problem affecting the City and is incompetent or he is intentionally inviting anarchy to reign in the City, and the man is insane.In a City as large as NYC the Mayor’s failure to take charge and deal with the mounting violence and chaos amounts, at the very least, to a serious dereliction of duty. Perhaps the Mayor thinks violence and chaos will sort itself out by itself. It won’t; it never does. A person must be dull-witted to think otherwise. Something must be done. Consider——New York City, with a population of over 8.7 million people, is the largest City in the Country,  and among the largest in the world.Moreover, NYC has the highest density of any major U.S. City, with over 27,000 people per square mile. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/planning-level/nyc-population/population-facts.page.But does population density itself have an impact on crime? If so, does population density tend to increase the crime rate, or reduce it?In 2011, the Radical Left publication “The Atlantic,” writing about population density and crime rates,said this:“To offer a policy observation, higher density helps reduce street crime in an urban environment in two ways. One is that in a higher density city, any given street is less likely to be empty of passersby at any given time. The other is that if a given patch of land has more citizens, that means it can also support a larger base of police officers. And for policing efficacy both the ratio of cops to citizens and of cops to land matters. Therefore, all else being equal a denser city will be a better policed city.” The Atlantic’s first observation, that higher population density reduces street crime in an urban environment, is false.Professor Keith Harries, Department of Geography and Environmental Systems at the University of Maryland, posted, in an academic publication—“International Journal of Criminal Justice”—his study that deals with the issue of population density and crime rates and refutes the Atlantic’s conclusion. The Professor’s article serves as a well-reasoned, scientifically supported counterpoint to the Atlantic’s assertion.In the opening abstract to the study, published in July 2006, Harries states that——“The role of population density in the generation or suppression of crime has been the subject of debate for decades. The classic argument is that high density offers opportunities for property crimes, given that it is a surrogate for the distribution of private property, much of which offers attractive targets to thieves. On the other hand, densely populated areas offer natural surveillance that has the effect of inhibiting violent crimes in so far as witnesses are more abundant and events are more likely to be reported to police. In this analysis, property and violent crimes were selected from a database of over 100,000 crimes reported in Baltimore County, Maryland, U.S.A., in the year 2000. Densities of population and of property and violent crimes were calculated for city blocks. Blocks with population densities above the mean of all blocks were then retained for further consideration.” Professor Harries concludes—— Analysis demonstrated that both property and violent crimes were moderately correlated with population density, and these crimes largely affected the same blocks. It was concluded that at the block level of geography, no evidence of a differential between property and violent crimes based on population density could be detected.” So, contrary to The Atlantic’s naked, unsupported remarks, the size of population and density do correlate with both property crime and violent crime; and they do so directly, not inversely, which means that, as population density increases in a given “block level of geography,” both property crime and violent crime increase as well.The Atlantic’s second observation is that, as the size of a community grows, a community’s police force also grows and, concomitant with a larger police force, “all else being equal a denser city will be a better policed city.”That observation, true once, perhaps, in all jurisdictions, is true no longer—not today—and certainly not in the jurisdictions comprising the Radical Left’s bizarro world.

DESTRUCTION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS THE END GOAL OF THE RADICAL LEFT

Radical Left mayors, taking their cue from domestic terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, have defunded their police or are seriously considering doing so. They have substantially reduced the number of police—despite or, perhaps, in arrogant defiance of the continuous, rampant violence afflicting their cities, and notwithstanding the absence of a corresponding decrease in population size—or have seriously considered doing so.These Mayors have also hamstrung those police remaining in their community—those who have not been summarily let go or who have otherwise voluntarily, and certainly understandably, resigned or who have taken early retirement—and in droves.After all why should police officers, honorable citizens, subject to the same feelings and emotions of any other law-abiding American citizen, wish to remain in service to a community when a city’s leadership prevents those officers from effectively performing their duties to preserve and protect the residents of their community and to maintain public order, civility, and decorum; when a city’s leadership refuses to prosecute crime; when a city’s leadership establishes policies that do nothing to constrain or curtail crime, and actually endanger the lives and well-being of police officers; and when a city’s leadership castigates and demoralizes the police, by continually railing and remonstrating against them, and, at once, extolling as virtuous the very rabble that seeks to tear down a community—a community that is the home of the police officers themselves.In fact, some Radical Left mayors have even considered eliminating police departments from their communities. The result is, as any reasonable person would expect, utter chaos, wanton destruction of public and private property, contempt for both the police and the criminal justice system; and willful and horrific violence directed against both police and innocent people.Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago represent,  for the political and social scientist, pertinent case studies of what happens when a City is rudderless and law and order break down; when politicians and the Press, too, deny the fact of and the scale of the horror that besets a nation; when public leaders act like irresponsible children, falling in line with a seemingly popular but misguided clique of sanctimonious, pretentious do-gooders who have nothing beneficial to offer the American people except venom, vitriol, and spite.The police are not society’s enemies. America’s police departments are the guardians of society. The Radical Left knows this. Anarchy reigns if the police are not permitted to function. They know this too. That is why they attack the very concept of  the ‘community police department.’ They know that, once the police go, society goes with it—down the drain. That is what they want: The United States, a free Constitutional Republic eradicated; erased; the vision of the founders forgotten. That is the aim of the Neoliberal Globalists and of the Radical Left of all stripes: A Counter-Revolution to reconstitute America into a thing utterly alien: a hideous, despondent, depleted mutant creature.New York City—as with Portland, Seattle, Chicago, and Minneapolis—is metastasizing into just such an abhorrent creature; and, if uncontained and unconstrained, it can bring down the rest of the Country with it.The burning question: With a huge and heterogenous population, the City requires an equally massive police force—one capable of quelling riots, suppressing crime, and maintaining peace and public order. But is New York up to the task? It is possible, but not with a Marxist Nihilist City Mayor like Bill de Blasio at the helm.___________________________________________________

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO STANDS IN THE WAY OF A SAFER NEW YORK

PART TWO

AN AMERICAN CITY REQUIRES BOTH A COMMUNITY POLICE FORCE TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE AND TO PROMOTE PUBLIC ORDER, AND A WELL ARMED CITIZENRY TO PROTECT PERSONAL LIFE AND PROPERTY AND TO GUARD AGAINST TYRANNY. UNDER DE BLASIO NYC HAS NEITHER ONE

America’s cities, as components of the Nation—a free Constitutional Republic—require both a community police force to maintain peace and to promote public order, and a well-armed citizenry to protect personal life and property and to guard against tyranny. Each component lends to peace, prosperity, and liberty. They each work in tandem, for the benefit of all Americans.Through time, how well has New York City faired in the matter of maintaining a capable, efficient, effective police force and in recognizing the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Let us see.

IS THE NYPD UP TO THE TASK TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES IN A MAMMOTH, HIGHLY CONCENTRATED AND DIVERSE POPULATION?

On its website, this is what the NYPD tells us—“The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest and one of the oldest municipal police departments in the United States. . . . The NYPD was established in 1845, and today, is responsible for policing an 8.5-million-person city, by performing a wide variety of public safety, law enforcement, traffic management, counterterror, and emergency response roles.” The NYPD adds this comment on its website: “In the past 25 years, the department has achieved spectacular declines in both violent and property crime, ensuring that New York City has the lowest overall rate of major crimes in the 25 largest cities in the country.” Does this statement ring true? Well, it was once true.Under former City Mayors, Rudolf Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, crime was in fact brought under control. And it in fact took 25 years to do so—to repair the carnage wrought to the City under the stewardship of David Dinkins, a Democrat, who served as Mayor for one term: from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1993.The public had had enough of Dinkins. He was defeated by a Republican, Giuliani, in 1994.We compliment Giuliani and Bloomberg on what they did right, improving the City’s economy and taking a hard stance on crime. But their consistent attack on the fundamental, natural right of armed self-defense is indefensible.A WELL-EQUIPPED, WELL ORGANIZED, WELL-FUNDED, COMMUNITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NECESSARY TO FIGHT CRIME, TO MAINTAIN ORDER, AND TO KEEP THE PEACE IN INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES; BUT A POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT STAND AS, AND CANNOT STAND AS, A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ARMED CITIZENRY, AS ONLY AN ARMED CITIZENRY CAN ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR, AND HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR ITS OWN DEFENSE AND TO SERVE AS THE BEST DETERRENT OF AND THE FINAL FAIL-SAFE TO THWART THE ONSET OF TYRANNY; THEREFORE IT IS WELL SAID AND HAS BEEN ETCHED IN STONE THAT “A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”The maintenance of public safety and order, to preserve and protect a community, is, and always has been, the frontline duty of a community’s police force. That is why the modern police department exists and has existed in our cities since at least the first third of the 20th Century, although the institution of policing existed much earlier, going back to the colonial days.But the duty to preserve and protect one’s own life and that of one’s family is personal, and the duty to ensure the security of and continuity of a free state and the immutable, illimitable sovereignty of the American people over Government remains forever in the hands of the people themselves; never in a standing army; nor in a federal or state or local police force; nor in the Nation’s massive intelligence apparatus, nor even in the Nation’s system of laws, which are, as has been disturbingly, depressingly shown, especially in the matter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, susceptible to flagrant abuse; nor, as it has come to pass, in a Press that has misused its freedom, selling out our Country and our Nation’s people. And, of late, the Press has done so with wild abandon: officiously, audaciously: sermonizing endlessly, and sanctimoniously, and condescendingly to the American citizenry, as if the citizenry were merely an ignorant flock of sheep that must be constantly herded lest it go astray.Only through force of arms does the raw and awesome power of the American citizenry ring true. Only through force of arms can the American citizenry maintain the security and continuity of a free State as against those—be they inside or outside the Nation—who would dare usurp ultimate authority from the citizenry in whom that authority and sovereignty rightfully belong. Only through the force of arms can those who would dare hobble the American spirit be effectively constrained and contained and learn well that Americans are not to be toyed with.Apparently, neither New York City mayors nor New York State governors have gotten the message. Or, if they have, they have failed to heed it, and must be reminded of it.And it isn’t the duty of the police to provide for one’s personal safety; nor is it the duty of the police to guarantee the security of a free State, and never was. That duty rests solely, as it always has, as it always must, and as it was always meant to rest, in the people themselves.Yet, the City’s mayors have invariably, and grievously, and notoriously mistaken the duties, and functions, and responsibilities of the one with the duties, and functions, and responsibilities of the other; ultimately conflating the two; inferring, whether erroneously or disingenuously, that the police are fully capable of and should alone be tasked with the duties, functions, and responsibilities that the founders, in their wisdom recognized, and mandated must rest, as the Divine Creator intended, in full accord with the natural order of things, solely on the individual.The founders codified that natural law in the U.S. Constitution. More than two centuries have past since ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Nation has adhered to natural law. Natural law is the foundational strength upon which the Constitution, the blueprint of our Nation, rests: the Nation's Bill of Rights. And through no accident, our Country has become the happiest, most productive, most  prosperous, most powerful, and most beneficent Nation on Earth.Now, though, we see cracks, deep fissures forming in our beautiful, wondrous blueprint. Why is that? How did that come about? There are sinister, ruthless, and jealous forces at work who are hell-bent on destroying the foundational principles of our Nation. Although these forces have actually been at work to tear down our Nation since the moment it came to fruition, in 1788, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. But only recently has the full nature of and fury of these malevolent, malignant forces come to light. Americans are seeing unnatural, loathsome elements taking control of many major urban centers. And the Democrat Party—or, rather, what the Democrat Party, controlled by their own Globalist puppet-masters, has devolved into—is using these abhorrent hordes in a bid to take complete control over the reins of Government. These rabid, mindless hordes are operating with near complete abandon in several major urban centers. If the Democrats take control of Government in November, this rancid mob of malcontents will be unleashed, infecting all Cities, townships, and villages. Armageddon will ensue across the Nation.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO PREVENT THE NATION’S ANNIHILATION: THE VERY THREAT PRESENTED TODAY

Most States recognize the transcendent soundness of the Nation’s Bill of Rights and have adopted its language in their own State Constitutions, mirroring the Nation’s Constitution, including, most importantly, the language of the Second Amendment. But seven States have demurred, thinking they know better. One of those seven States is New York.THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVES THE COUNTRY’S STABILITY; ITS LACK WILL END ITThe language of the Second Amendment appears nowhere in the State’s Constitution. Rather, the Second Amendment language, taken verbatim from the U.S. Constitution, but for the substitution of the  word 'shall' for 'cannot'—“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,”—appears in the Consolidated laws of New York, Article 2 (Bill of Rights) of the Civil Rights Law, along with certain other “Rights” but notably, not in THE Bill of Rights, Article 1 of the State Constitution itself.This means New York considers the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be statutory, not fundamental, and, hence, debased to the status of a privilege, not a true right, subject, then, to constant modification and tinkering, which of course it has been.The 2008 U.S. Supreme Court Heller case made clear what sensible Americans always knew; that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not tied to one’s service in a militia, and the subsequent 2010 U.S. Supreme Court McDonald case held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States as well as to the Federal Government. No matter: New York, and several other jurisdictions routinely and contemptuously ignore those clear, adamant U.S. Supreme Court holdings. And New York’s residents pay the price for the New York judiciary’s insolence and contentiousness. Rampant destruction, understandable fear among the polity, and needless, senseless loss of life follow where armed self-defense ceases to exist.

NEW YORK CITY, A MAJOR URBAN CENTER, PROVIDES AN OBJECT LESSON IN THE TRAPS AND SNARES OF WRONGHEADED, PIGHEADED MAYORAL LEADERSHIP, COMMENCING WITH THE LUDICROUS IDEA THAT AN ARMED CITIZENRY ENDANGERS THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE CITY, RATHER THAN ENHANCING THE CITY’S SAFETY AND SECURITY

The NYPD doesn’t comprise legions of personal bodyguards to serve millions of New York City residents. It has neither the resources nor, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the legal responsibility to do so. And, pretending that the NYPD can fulfill that function—a function, duty, and responsibility of the average citizen residing in New York—has had disastrous consequences for the City.Truth to tell, the constant danger posed to average, innocent citizens residing in New York requires both a massive police presence to provide public order and safety and an armed citizenry to promote armed vigilance and safeguard one’s personal life and well-being. It isn’t an either/or consideration. See Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on November 21, 2019, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us?” 

THE IMPLOSION OF NEW YORK CITY OCCURRED ONCE, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, UNDER DAVID DINKINS; UNDER DE BLASIO IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN, ONLY WORSE!

The Former New York City Commissioner of Public Safety (Police Commissioner), Bernard Kerik, recently and accurately pointed out, in newsmax, that,“Twenty-five years ago, New York City was about to implode.Violent crime and murder rates were the worst in the United States, tourism was declining, real estate values were plummeting, and economic development was in regression.There were close to 1.6 million people on welfare, and neighborhoods of color looked like the remnants of war-torn Beirut.City streets and highways were cluttered with stolen and abandoned cars.As Rudolph W. Giuliani focused on his second attempt to become New York’s mayor, most New Yorkers believed that New York City was just too filthy, corrupt, and violent to manage.Giuliani possessed a different view: He was adamant that no one wants to live, work, visit, or go to school in a place where they're not safe.For every percentage point he reduced violent crime, we witnessed increases in economic development, rising real estate values; and all-time highs in tourism. As he walked out of City Hall on his last day, there was close to 800,000 less people on welfare.New York City had become the safest large city in America.Over the next 12 years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly carried on Giuliani’s anti-crime strategies, both achieving continued reductions in violent crime and murder.Mayor Bloomberg used that success to trumpet New York City as America’s economic and business capital of the world, which opened the floodgates for thousands of new companies and jobs.By 2014, New York City was one of the cleanest, safest, and fastest growing cities globally.Then came Mayor Bill de Blasio.” What happened next?Bill de Blasio single-handedly undid all the positive work of Giuliani and Bloomberg in rebuilding the City and making the City a safe place to live and to work. This hasn’t gone unnoticed; not least of all by police officers themselves. Retired NYPD sergeant, Joseph Giacalone, points out:“There have been more shootings so far this year in New York City than in all of 2019. . . . ‘“It only gets worse from here,” warned Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.’”The NYPD would do well to update its website to reflect the stratospheric rise in crime under the stewardship of Mayor Bill de Blasio. The Mayor, taking his cue from the domestic terrorist organization, Black Lives Matter, has completely hobbled the police, but, at one and the same time continues to resist recognition of the citizen’s right of “armed self-defense.”The right of the people to keep and bear arms continues to be a persistent bugaboo of all New York mayors. It is all the worse, today, in the topsy-turvy City of New York where a Marxist Mayor treats gang bangers, common criminals, dangerous lunatics, and Marxist rioters with kid gloves while at one and the same time castigates the police and spurns the public safety needs of ordinary citizens. The result——Bill de Blasio has single-handedly turned a once safe and thriving City into utter chaos, giving the green light to criminals and rioters and endangering the lives of average, law-abiding people.Quite an accomplishment! And de Blasio seems pleased with himself. His continuous obsequious behavior toward and grotesque relationship with Black Lives Matter demonstrates the toxic brew this creates, and the danger that such a coupling of Radical Left political leaders and domestic terrorist organizations poses to the stability of our Nation.The New York Post recently reported de Blasio as saying,“It was exactly the right thing to do to paint that mural and we’re going to keep sending that message constantly that Black Lives Matter in New York City, . . .”Marxist organizations—like Black Lives Matter—only matter to de Blasio. It is the organization, after all, that matters, and not actual Black lives.And, of course, de Blasio regularly denounces the NYPD. He has disbanded successful anticrime units; has demoralized the rank and file; has placed police officers in personal danger with his new policies; and he has advocated for the defunding of the entire Department.In having aligned himself with a domestic terrorist organization, Mayor de Blasio had apparently forgotten how he had not that long ago heralded the NYPD. Once, a little over a year ago, when Bill de Blasio hoped to secure his Party’s nomination for U.S. President, to take on Donald Trump—a long-shot bid if ever there was one—he realized that, to make headway, against a large field, he would have to take a major risk. He agreed to appear on Fox News, to be interviewed by Sean Hannity. The question of “gun control” came up.“Bill de Blasio defended his stance on gun control during an exclusive interview with Sean Hannity.De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, claimed New York is the safest large American city and that the police are the best outlet to keep people safe, on Wednesday’s ‘Hannity.’‘You’re in the safest big city in America. . . with the finest police force in America,’ he said.‘We keep people safe. Crime’s gone down for the last six years on my watch.’‘I believe right now what’s wrong in this country is not that people have rights around guns, it’s there are no gun safety measures like background checks.’” Of course, this exchange took place well before de Blasio hopped into the sack with Black Lives Matter. He has since forsaken the NYPD. Like many politicians, de Blasio is routinely dismissive of his audience, surmising wrongly, that the public is either too stupid or too gullible to notice the inherent inconsistencies and hypocrisies manifested in his bombastic utterings. See Arbalest Quarrel article, “NYC: The New Badlands,” posted on July 27, 2020.But, even if some Americans are oblivious to the pompous and vacuous assertions of this Mayor, they certainly cannot ignore what they see taking place; changes occurring at lightning speed; emphatic, insistent, and none of it pleasant: a City in turmoil; declining property values; the City’s economy shot-to-hell; skyrocketing crime; people leaving in droves; a Paradise to some—masochists and nihilists, likely—a vision of Hell to most; New York transformed into Venezuela.Governor Cuomo and Bill de Blasio continually bicker and snipe at each other, and blame their own failings on racism, Trump, Russia, or on anything or anyone else but for themselves. But they are of one mind when it comes to their Collectivist Dystopian vision. A Biden-Harris Presidency will see that Nihilist vision come true for the entire Nation.______________________________________________________

NYC MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE NOW

PART THREE

New York City cannot tolerate Bill de Blasio for the duration of his term. He must be removed before the City turns into the New Badlands. See, supra, Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “NYC: The New Badlands,” posted on July 27, 2020.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS MAYOR?

Most New York City residents desire stability and cherish the free Constitutional Republic our founders placed their life on the line to give us. These New Yorkers do not much appreciate or accept the Mayor’s policies. They reflect his Marxist principles and philosophy, antithetical to their own. And the negative impact is plain: a once safe, secure, vibrant, and economically thriving City drained of all vitality.Can the Mayor do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it? No!Mayor de Blasio may think his policies are a step in the right direction even as peace and public order have been shot to hell. Any normal, rational person, though, would say the Mayor has utterly failed at his job.This brings up a pressing question: what are the Mayor’s duties, after all? New York law spells this out.

A MATTER OF LAW AND THE RULE OF LAW IN NEW YORK

In the reign of Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York City, the City’s residents would do well to peruse New York law. It says much regarding the duties and responsibilities of the Mayor who is supposed to serve them, but isn’t.NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 54 (Duties of the Mayor) sets forth that,“It shall be the duty of the mayor to see that the city officers and departments faithfully perform their duties; to maintain peace and good order within the city; to take care that the laws of the state and the ordinances of the common council are executed and enforced within the city. . . .”Further, NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 57 (Additional powers and duties) sets forth:“The mayor shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed in this chapter or by other laws of the state or by ordinance of the common council, not inconsistent with law. In case of riot, conflagration or other public emergency requiring it, the mayor shall have power to call out the police and firefighters; he or she shall also have power to appoint such number of special police officers as he or she may deem necessary to preserve the public peace. Such special police officers shall be under the sole control of the regularly appointed and constituted officers of the police department. They have shall have power to make arrests only for disorderly conduct or other offenses against peace or good order. In case of riot or insurrection, he or she may take command of the whole police force, including the chief executive officer thereof.”Do you think the Mayor is complying with NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 54? Clearly not!Mayor de Blasio has done nothing to end riot, conflagration, and public emergency. To the contrary, he has stoked it. He should be removed from Office. But can he be?The short answer is, “yes;” the Mayor can be removed from Office, prior to election. The process in New York isn’t quick and it isn’t easy, but it can be done.Unfortunately, New York doesn’t have a recall procedure, unlike other cities. Removing the Mayor from Office through the electoral process, prior to the general election, isn’t open to New York City’s citizens. And the next regular election won’t take place until November 2021. So, removing de Blasio, sooner, barring death, must be done, if at all, through the Courts.But can the Mayor be taken to Court? He can if he is considered an “officer” under New York State law, who has committed crimes under color of law.Under New York law, the Mayor is an officer of the City: an ‘elected officer,’NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 11 (Elected officers) provides that:“There shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city, a mayor, comptroller, treasurer, president of the common council and four assessors. There shall be elected by the qualified electors of each ward of the city an alderman and a supervisor. There shall also be elected by the qualified electors of the city and of the wards thereof such other officers as may be provided by law.”State law sets forth the grounds for removal of city officers. The mayor comes under the purview of NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 20 (Charges against city officers): “An officer of the city . . . shall be removed only upon charges, such charges shall be for disability for service or neglect or dereliction of official duty or incompetency or incapacity to perform his official duties or some delinquency materially affecting his general character or fitness for the office unless otherwise specifically provided by law.” The follow-up question is this: Has there been “disability for service or neglect or dereliction of official duty, or incompetency or incapacity to perform his official duties” sufficient to support a legal basis to remove de Blasio from Office?As an avowed and devoted Marxist, de Blasio operates in accord with the tenets and strictures of Marxist Collectivism. His supporters might argue he’s faithfully carrying out official duties, consistent with his ideological bent, namely, to promote Marxism. And many City residents seem satisfied with that, having voted him into Office in the first place.But there is a specific act de Blasio has undertaken that is inconsistent with his duties as Mayor, rendering the matter of his political and social philosophy and posture irrelevant.The Mayor is a trustee of the public’s property. Under NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 22, the Mayor, no less than any other officer of the City, whether elected or appointed, including members of the common council,“are hereby declared trustees of the property, funds and effects of said city respectively, so far as such property, funds and effects are or may be committed to their management or control, and every taxpayer residing in said city is hereby declared to be a cestui que trust in respect to the said property, funds and effects respectively; and any co-trustee or any cestui que trust shall be entitled as against said trustees and in regard to said property, funds and effects to all the rules, remedies and privileges provided by law for any co-trustee or cestui que trust; to prosecute and maintain an action to prevent waste and injury to any property, funds and estate held in trust; and such trustees are hereby made subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed by law on trustees, and such duties and responsibilities may be enforced by the city or by any co-trustee or cestui que trust aforesaid. The remedies herein provided shall be in addition to those now provided by law.”Bill de Blasio has made clear his intention to defund the police to the tune of one billion dollars. But those funds are police funds, part of the budget necessary to maintain public order. His intention to take money away from the police is prima facie inconsistent with the Mayor’s principal duty “to maintain peace and good order within the City.” Doing so, during a period of rising crime—indeed, a stratospheric increase in crime—amounts to an act in flagrante delicto.The Mayor’s dislocation of valuable police resources, including disbanding anticrime units, hamstringing police operations, rewriting police policy to cohere with Marxist objectives that are wholly inconsistent with traditional and accepted police practice, destroying cohesion within the ranks of the police, and misappropriation of public funds necessary to the proper functioning police operations, demonstrate clear evidence of massive dereliction of official duties and incompetency, demanding de Blasio’s immediate removal from office.Of course, a lawsuit against de Blasio might not, and probably would not, succeed—as Radical Left forces along with a seditious Press would be marshalled against such a lawsuit—but it would send a clear and stark message, to both de Blasio and to those who support a Radical Left insurgency, nonetheless; a message that reverberates throughout the Country, that, yes, Radical Left political leaders can be prosecuted for their crimes, too.

WHAT OTHER ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN TO CONSTRAIN A RENEGADE MAYOR?

Lawsuits against public officers are an expensive and time-consuming process. Can something expeditiously be done to curb de Blasio’s actions?As a stopgap, the present Police Commissioner, Dermot F. Shea, can try, at least, to keep the Mayor’s power in check, refusing to implement policies that endanger public order and safety. But would Shea even want to?Remember, Mayor de Blasio appointed Shea. He did so obviously because they share a similar political and social philosophy. In fact, The New York Times quoted de Blasio as saying he selected Shea “because he is a ‘proven agent’ of change.”And we know what kind of change de Blasio has in mind for the City: Marxist Collectivism.But even Shea realizes de Blasio is operating erratically, as the Times pointed out in that same August 3 article. “[Shea’s] criticism of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s law enforcement policies was stinging.” Apart from publicly criticizing the Mayor, Shea seems reluctant to go any further than that; he is unlikely to take action to countermand the Mayor’s policies concerning police operations. If he were to do that, Shea would jeopardize his own position because de Blasio would likely fire him. It is the Mayor’s prerogative to do so since the Police Commissioner is appointed by the Mayor. Shea knows that.In New York, as in many jurisdictions, the Police Commissioner, i.e., the “Commissioner of Public Safety,” isn’t elected by the people, so he isn’t directly answerable to the people. He is answerable to the Mayor who appointed him.NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 12 (Appointive officers) provides that,“There shall be appointed by the mayor a corporation counsel, city engineer, commissioner of public works, commissioner of public safety, commissioner of public welfare and sealer of weights and measures.”Perhaps New York law should be changed to enable the residents to elect their police commissioner directly, as they do their mayor. If so, the police commissioner wouldn’t be answerable to the mayor, but directly to the people who elected him. That might help.But, in the interim, unless a party with standing—who also has the time, money, the moral fiber and strength of spirit—to file a lawsuit to remove a recalcitrant, intransigent de Blasio from Office, the public is stuck with him until the next mayoral election in November 2021.What kind of shape do you suppose the City will be in fifteen months from now with de Blasio still in office? Can the residents of New York City afford to wait that long? The prognosis isn’t good.Representative Lee Zeldin (R-NY) told Fox News, bluntly:“ ‘I don’t believe New York City is going to survive the remainder of Mayor de Blasio’s term in office,’ he told Fox News. ‘Certainly there are individuals who live in New York City who will not literally survive without any type of a change in the way New York City approaches policing, law and order, safety and security.’” _______________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

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

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

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

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

JUST OUT: SUPREME COURT DENIES WRITS ON ALL PENDING SECOND AMENDMENT CASES

IMPACT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SEVEN

The U.S. Supreme Court released its orders from the June 11, 2020 conference.  No Second Amendment cases were relisted for consideration. Worse, there will be no Second Amendment cases reviewed this term; all were rejected. The High Court denied certiorari in all of them.This comes as no surprise to the Arbalest Quarrel. We expected this and were making this very point in a comprehensive analysis of the New York City transport gun case we’ve been working feverishly on these last two weeks. Word came down from SCOTUS before we could get our series to print, but we intimated as much in numerous other articles.We realized how important the New York City gun transport case was to the preservation of our sacred Second Amendment right, even if many did not. We knew what a loss meant; and we did lose much, contrary to what some proponents of the Second Amendment may otherwise think. How much we lost is apparent from what just transpired in today’s SCOTUS morning conference.We held little expectation that the High Court would take up any new Second Amendment case, contrary to Justice Kavanaugh’s wimpish suggestion that the Court “should.” And, unfortunately, we were correct.In one of the cases the Court denied cert on, Thomas Rogers, et al. v. Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, decided June 15, 2020, Justice Thomas wrote another justified blistering dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Thomas except for Part II of the dissent. We will analyze the dissenting opinion in a forthcoming article. But——

WHY DID KAVANAUGH JOIN THOMAS IN THE GREWAL DISSENT?

Recall Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the New York City case. Kavanaugh intimated the High Court would be taking up one of the new Second Amendment cases soon. That was nonsense and we suspect Kavanaugh knew it.The tactics and strategy of U.S. Supreme Court review of Second Amendment cases must not be underestimated. It defines what Second Amendment case is heard and when. As of now, it is clear that the liberal wing of the High Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, intend to block review of any further Second Amendment case that comes before the Court in which the Heller and McDonald rulings come into play. This is no longer theoretical speculation. This is ice-cold fact.We suspect that had Kavanaugh voted to deny the mootness claim in the New York City case, joining the conservative wing—Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—then Chief Justice Roberts would have joined Kavanaugh. He would have been forced to, if for no other reason than for the fact that Roberts did, after all, join the majority in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case.If Chief Justice Roberts were to stand with the liberal wing of the Court, alone, wholly apart from the conservative wing, in the first and only Second Amendment case—where the Second Amendment issue had not been altogether side-stepped as the issue was side-stepped in the Voisine case, to the justified frustration and righteous and virtuous indignation of Justice Thomas—would be untoward, unseemly, awkward. Appearances are, after all, important to the Justices. But when appearances become more important than intellectual honesty and logical consistency, then a Justice should not expect to garner and retain the respect of Americans.Chief Justice Roberts, as the Chief Justice, wishes to give the impression of his “supreme” impartiality and conviviality. But, at what cost to his the principles of intellectual honesty and logical consistency, and at what cost to our Bill of Rights?Each Justice votes to grant or deny a writ of certiorari predicated on his jurisprudential and ideological predilections; and those jurisprudential and ideological predilections reside as much on a visceral level as on an intellectual one. They inform a Justice's decisions—influenced, on occasion, by the internal give and take of political maneuvering and jockeying; but that political maneuvering and jockeying should come by sacrificing one's duty toward preserving and strengthening our Bill of Rights. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the Conservative wing of the Court in Heller and McDonald, but he would go no further—ever. He has made clear his visceral disdain for the Second Amendment, known.The progressive website, Politicus, made known Writing, today, on the results of the SCOTUS morning conference, Politicus reporters said, in an article with a title meant to “sock it to Trump” and to all Americans who happen to venerate our Bill of Rights. Politicus says, “Supreme Court Rejects 10 2nd Amendment Cases As Trump’s Bad Day Gets Worse”: “Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, which means that the odds of the Second Amendment being expanded or local and state gun laws being reversed by the high court is practically zero.”Roberts would prefer not to appear like a liberal wing, Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Bill of Rights Justice, in the vein of the liberal wing, even if he is one. He would not like to be seen standing alone with the liberal wing on a Second Amendment case. The jig would be up if he were to join the liberal wing of the Court, finding the New York City gun transport case moot, and no non-liberal wing Justice stood with him.Did Roberts pressure Kavanaugh to go along with him? It is not improbable. Perhaps, that explains why Kavanaugh’s really did file his singularly odd concurring opinion in the New York City case after all. It may be that Kavanaugh did agree with the Associate Justices, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—wanted to join them—but was strongly urged by the Chief Justice not to; was cajoled to side with the liberal wing. Perhaps, as the newest member of the Court, Kavanaugh was reluctant to draw the ire of Chief Justice Roberts.Clearly the liberal wing of the Court did not need Kavanaugh’s vote. Robert’s vote gave the liberal wing the fifth vote needed—a majority—sufficient to prevent the substantive merits of the case from being heard. But, Roberts, standing with the liberal wing of the Court on the mootness issue would make patently clear the Chief Justice’s negative views toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and would also make clear the Chief Justice’s jurisprudential leanings and tendencies in matters concerning the Second Amendment: those in line with the liberal wing of the Court, comprising: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Roberts obviously sought to prevent that perception.By voting with the liberal wing of the Court in the New York City case that ruled the case moot, Kavanaugh gave cover to Roberts, and Roberts also gave cover to Kavanaugh. Who loses? We do, the American people.The New York City gun transport case took a page out of the Heller case playbook, albeit to obtain a negative rather than positive result: weakening the Second Amendment; not strengthening it.We surmise that Chief Justice Roberts, no less than retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, had an understanding with the conservative wing. They would agree, both of them, to join the conservative wing or neither of them would. Both of them would join the conservative wing or neither of them would. And if they couldn't both get on board, Heller would have failed and we all know how much worse off we would be now for it.The late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority, was compelled to mute what otherwise would have been a stronger opinion that he, and Alito, and Thomas had much preferred to write, making a one-point crystal clear.The point is this: Government action infringing the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be struck down. Courts are forbidden to engage in interest-balancing, which is nothing more than a ruse anyway; a ruse created to rationalize and legitimize unconstitutional, unconscionable government action infringing the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. That point was muddied, obfuscated, diluted. It was a concession that Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas were forced to make to obtain Chief Justice Roberts acquiescence and Justice Kennedy's acquiescence. To obtain the acquiescence of those two Justices, necessary to obtain a slim, but critical majority, Justice Scalia wrote,“. . . nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” This assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with the Heller rulings and the majority's reasoning. But it had to be made to appease Kennedy and Roberts. The result was to undermine the efficacy of Heller. We have seen in the years since how Anti-Second Amendment governments rely on the softening of Heller to enact laws that directly and contemptuously attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and we see courts using interest-balancing to defend these unconstitutional laws. Heller was meant to rein in both government and courts. But, the language that Justice Scalia was compelled to include in Heller gave Anti-Second Amendment State governments and Anti-Second Amendment courts a way to deviously slither around the impact of the Heller rulings and holdings, even if it is clear to everyone what these governments and courts were doing. In fact, to provide a safe harbor for Anti-Second Amendment State governments and Anti-Second Amendment courts, Justice Scalia had to reiterate the point that these governments may do whatever the hell they want to eviscerate the Second Amendment, notwithstanding the dictates of the Second Amendment. The point was made in the last paragraph of the majority opinion. Compelled to humble themselves before the anti-Second Amendment crowd, Justice Scalia, joined by the conservative wing, wrote:“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” The sickening concession to anti-Second Amendment amici and Anti-Second Amendment governments and Anti-State Courts that the majority was forced to make and which we, Americans are forced to endure has served the Anti-Second Amendment zealots well. Heller and McDonald are routinely ignored.Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court will make damn sure that the rulings of those two seminal Second Amendment cases will never be clarified. That is where we are now and where we will remain unless or until another Justice sits on the High Court who actually honors the oath he takes to the Constitution.

WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR NATION TODAY IS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE

We are seeing a massive campaign of brainwashing taking place in our Nation at this very moment, and we are getting much more than a foretaste. We are getting a choking mouthful of what the Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and billionaire Neoliberal Globalists have in store for each of us.We are holding onto our Nation by a thread. Make no mistake about that. The puppet masters have brainwashed the mass of Lemmings, and they intend to destroy those of us who are immune to the nonsense spouted.Today we see every monument to our glorious past—our ancestral memory—being wiped out; erased. Tomorrow, we will see the absolute destruction of our Bill of Rights. No question about it.If Trump fails reelection and if the Senate is lost, we will lose everything irreplaceable: but likely not before the “cold” War at home turns “hot.”I know what my next purchase will be; and it won’t be a toy.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT’S PLAN: PROTECT CRIMINALS; CONSTRAIN THE POLICE; AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC DISARMED AND DEFENSELESS

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system. The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later. The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We explain, below._____________________________________________

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

The presumption of innocence platitude applies to criminal trials. It has no application to pretrial events: arrest, arraignment, or detention awaiting trial. The platitude alludes to a legal procedural safeguard afforded the accused at trial, nothing more. The phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and does not invoke a substantive right. It is merely a colloquial expression, not a legal term of art, and, like many colloquial expressions, it conveys erroneous and exaggerated ideas that the seditious Press and Leftist activists latch onto in their ceaseless attack against our Constitution and our system of laws.

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence to prove the accused’s guilt of a crime. The accused does not bear the initial burden of having to prove his innocence. And the prosecutor’s burden—guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—is a difficult one to meet; deliberately so, decidedly so.Further, the burden of proving guilt in a criminal prosecution falls solely on the Government. The accused need not present evidence in his or her defense. What does that mean? It means the accused need not make a showing of—namely demonstrate—his or her innocence at all. If the prosecution fails to make a case for the accused’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest bar set in our system of law and justice—the Court must acquit the accused of the crime. The Court has no other choice.If, however, it appears the prosecution has met the difficult burden of proof, it behooves the accused to present evidence to rebut the State’s evidence. But the accused need not do so. The accused need not do anything to prove his or her innocence of the crime charged, and the prosecution must do everything to convince the trier of fact that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.The presumption of innocence platitude does not, then, really attach to anyone or to anything.The platitude simply alludes to the burden of proof and the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. In a criminal proceeding the burden of proof rests initially, and, in fact, solely, on the prosecutor, not on the accused.The prosecutor must prove, one, that a crime has been committed, two, that each statutory element of the crime has been met in the proof; and, three, that the person accused of committing the crime probably did commit the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The platitude, contrary to common belief, does not impute innocence onto the accused.Once trial concludes, the trier of fact, often a jury but sometimes the Court itself, if the accused agrees to a “Bench Trial” in lieu of a jury trial, considers whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused committed the crime he was charged with, weighing the prosecutorial evidence of guilt against such contrary evidence the accused presents if the accused wishes to present any evidence in his defense. The trier of fact then renders its verdict: to convict or to acquit.The prosecution has a heavy burden to lift and won’t generally prosecute a crime unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of the accused’s criminal conduct.Critically, such evidence a prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial must be admissible, which means that, on occasion, evidence of guilt of the accused may be incontrovertible and, yet, inadmissible in Court because, under the rules of evidence, the evidence that the prosecutor would like to use but cannot, is legally tainted.Thus, if a prosecutor does bring a case to trial, the prosecutor does so because the accused likely did commit the crime he or she was charged with, and the prosecutor has substantial, compelling, and admissible evidence to support a conviction.*Leftist activists, though, ever quick to condemn our system of laws, justice, and jurisprudence, in their zeal to promote the welfare of criminals over that of the safety and security of the law-abiding citizen, demonstrate their obliviousness to the heavy burden our legal system imposes on the State to prove the accused committed the crime he or she is charged with.Leftists routinely attack and constrain the police and concoct schemes to undermine our legal system. One such scheme involves bail reform. By ‘bail reform’ they mean doing away with the requirement of bail altogether, because they assume, erroneously, that the requirement for bail is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence platitude, which, as we explained, supra, doesn’t apply to pre-trial events at all. If the requirement of bail were incompatible with due process in all criminal proceedings, the Bill of Rights would have condemned the requirement of bail as inconsistent with a person’s necessary, fundamental, immutable, natural rights and liberties. Yet, that is not the case at all, as the Eighth Amendment makes abundantly clear. The setting of bail is permissible, but it cannot be excessive.

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

A seditious Press, like the NY Times, operating in flagrant disregard to news accuracy and truth, obsessively desirous of and complicit in achieving the Radical Left agenda, in service to millions of criminals and illegal aliens who daily dare to flaunt our laws—undermining our institutions, preying on our citizenry—argues for application of the prosecutorial burden at trial to pretrial events. Thus, a misunderstanding of the phrase “presumption of innocence” becomes the impetus for enactment of ludicrous laws and dangerous practices such as doing away with bail altogether and harboring a dismissive attitude toward prosecuting crime at all.Flash forward in time: NYC’s lackluster Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose bid for the DNC nomination for U.S. President quickly fizzled out, devised a plan to protect the criminal class: simply do away with the requirement for posting bail, while awaiting trial, and hamstring the police while you’re at it. The New York Post writes,“New York City voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that will boost a government watchdog’s oversight of the police department — coming just a day after the resignation of Police Commissioner James O’Neill and after years of tense cop-community relations.The amendment to the city constitution gives the Civilian Complaint Review Board more power to investigate cops it suspects lied to the panel regarding alleged brutality or other misconduct.“This slate of reforms will make the CCRB more efficient, make discipline more transparent, and bolster public confidence in the integrity of the agency’s process,” he said.But police unions fired back that the public’s decision undermined cops.“Today the NYPD was stabbed in the back by the very same people we swore to protect. With bail reform taking effect in January of 2020 and the passing of CCRBs political power grab, New Yorkers can only expect the NYPD to provide paralyzed policing on city streets,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins.O’Neill — who is leaving to take a private-sector gig in California — had been heard repeatedly warning others in law-enforcement that “It’s only going to get worse” under the changes, police sources have told The Post.”­­­­­­­­­­­It’s wondrous strange that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims the public doesn’t need firearms for self-defense because, as he contends, the police provide the public with all the safety they need. At least this is what he told the political commentator Sean Hannity on Hannity’s nightly Fox News program.But now we learn that Bill de Blasio doesn’t even want the police to do a modicum of police work, as he hampers their work, second guesses their actions, and releases hundreds of individuals charged with serious crimes from jail without requiring bail, presenting a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry.And, lest we forget, New York City is making it next to impossible for average American citizens residing in New York to obtain a handgun license for self-defense. And Leftists contend they care about the value of human life? Really? It is as if the Leftists in their condemnation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms and in their hasty desire for criminal reform, do intend to leave the citizenry defenseless. But, then, this is all part of the Radical Left and New Progressive Left game plan: to conduct a scarcely soft revolution, to tear down our free Republic.We are even now seeing the results of the Leftist game plan tragically playing out in major cities across our Nation.______________________________*Corrupt prosecutors may, as we unfortunately learn, manufacture false evidence of a crime or fail to provide exculpatory evidence of innocence. That’s always a problem, and, on an “industrial” scale, a serious problem, dangerous to the integrity of our entire judicial system. The sham Mueller investigation is a casebook study of a massive prosecutorial corruption scheme instituted for the sole purpose of unseating a duly elected President and harming many law-abiding citizens on the way. Ruthless forces both here and abroad, that seek to destroy the Trump Presidency, planned and carried out this charade. And the charade continues today, now in the guise of a Congressional impeachment against Trump. The forces that seek to unseat Trump perceive his policy goals summed up in the campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again,”—which, for Radical Leftists, amounts to a four-word phrase obscenity—as incompatible with their own goal of a one-world system of governance. But these forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission don’t stop there. Through the despicable secretive actions of George Soros, a henchman of the Globalist “elite,” prosecutors of a different sort, who Soros has inserted into several City Governments: Radical Left activists or willing toadies of Soros and of the Radical Left, who won’t prosecute crimes, even serious crimes, at all. As reported by the Washington Times, these puppets of neoliberal, Globalist, Transnationalist forces—who include Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts—regularly refuse to prosecute crimes, thereby endangering the safety and well-being of the public and making a mockery of our entire system of law and justice. That, of course, is all in accord with the Radical Left’s plan intentionally to disrupt the judicial process to destroy our Country from within.______________________________________________

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

Just how far is the radical Left willing to go to carry out their vision for a new America? Well, let’s consider how far one Leftist, namely, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, is willing to go. The Wall Street Journal provides us with an inkling, reporting on May 28, 2019:“More teens accused of serious felonies will be released from jail without bail under New York City’s latest push to limit incarceration, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday.The new policy, which begins June 1, would affect hundreds of teens accused of serious crimes like assault, robbery and burglary, allowing them to be eligible for release without bail, while they await adjudication of their case.”Releasing dangerous people, charged with serious crimes, on the street, and, at once, hamstringing the police will hardly make the City safer.And doing away with bail altogether serves only to worsen the situation. Doing so is foolhardy and takes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which cautions that bail cannot be excessive, too far. The Eighth Amendment mandates only that the bail amount set must be commensurate with the crime. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment to suggest that the imposition of bail is inconsistent with due process in criminal proceedings.The Eighth Amendment sets forth:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”Obviously, bail has a basis in criminal law and procedure. It isn’t a mere legal nicety. It has a place in our criminal justice system to ensure the accused will appear for trial. A dollar amount set by the Court reflects the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. If the accused does not have funds on hand to meet bail, the accused has recourse to bail bondsmen.But Leftist activists like de Blasio have an agenda and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding our citizenry and preserving both a free Republic and the Constitution. The Leftist agenda has everything to do with tearing down our free Republic and rewriting the Constitution to cohere to the Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism—tenets at odds with those of Individualism upon which our Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic, rests.Recently, the New York Post reported:Nearly 900 city jailbirds could be celebrating Christmas early courtesy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a plan to quietly free them before the state’s bail-reform law goes into effect next year, The Post has learned.And if that weren’t enough of a gift, Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising to follow up with even more presents for the lucky accused criminals — by giving them free baseball tickets, movie passes and gift cards to encourage them to return to court, sources familiar with the program said.'You’re literally rewarding them for committing a crime,' said a disgusted senior staffer in Manhattan Criminal Court.The proposed early jail release is tied to a law that Cuomo signed in the spring to eliminate bail for defendants charged with an array of misdemeanor and felony crimes.The more than 400 offenses include such heinous acts as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault on a child under 11 and selling drugs on or near school grounds, according to a memo being circulated by prosecutors across the state and obtained by The Post.The law goes into effect Jan. 1 but it will be retroactive — meaning inmates who are already locked up on such cases can apply to have their bail lifted and to be freed.In the Big Apple, court officials estimate that 880 prisoners — about 16 percent of all pretrial detainees housed by the Department of Correction — will be eligible for the get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

Substantive and substantial legal Constitutional and Procedural safeguards and protections exist to protect the rights of the criminal accused at trial. We don’t need more. This would only serve to endanger the public.First, common law crime no longer exists in our Country. No conduct is illegal unless such conduct is set forth statutorily, in our State and Federal Criminal Codes. The elements of each crime are set forth clearly and unambiguously. To support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of a crime.Second, the accused enjoys substantial procedural safeguards under extensive State and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.Third, and most critically, the U.S. Constitution accords the accused a full panoply of substantive, fundamental, natural rights. Under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with rights laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, the accused has substantially more legal protections than those accorded the accused in any other Nation.Regardless, Radical left activists continue to malign our Constitution and our system of laws, contending that those charged with crimes don’t have enough legal protection. That notion is patently false; even ridiculous. But, why does the Radical Left constantly go on about the presumed inequities and iniquities of our criminal justice system? Is it that they truly care about what befalls serial criminals or do the motivations of Leftist activists lie elsewhere?

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

Radical Left groups and politicians, along with a seditious Press, foment societal confusion, dissension, and unrest. They encourage disrespect for our Constitution, our laws, our social and political institutions, our culture, our history, our core ethical Judeo-Christian values, and our National identity.Through a caustic, diabolically planned and orchestrated agenda, they seek to induce mass hysteria and rend the very soul and psyche of the Nation, thereby disrupting societal cohesion and creating societal instability. Thus, the polity becomes soft, malleable; and open to a completely new vision of reality: The Collectivists’ vision; a vision that entails the end of our Nation-State; the end of our fundamental, natural rights and liberties; and the insertion of the tatters that remain of our Nation into a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance where the polity sees itself subject to abject penury and misery, subjugation and harassment, and under constant surveillance.Leftists, swift to promote social justice for the criminal class, in their zeal to tear down the social order and to rebuild it in accordance with the tenets of Collectivism, the criminal class becomes a useful tool to accomplish their goals, and, so, dismiss the safety and welfare of the law-abiding citizenry.Thus, do Leftists show their disdain for the welfare of human beings, as they, one, release upon the citizenry, a plague of criminals, free to disrupt and harm; two, constrain the police, making it difficult for them to promote the public welfare; and, three, dispossess average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans of their firearms, leaving them defenseless in the face of the criminal element now given carté blanche to run amok in society. This, then, is a major component of the Leftist plan for the re-ordering of society.Would these Leftist policies establish a Socialist or Communist Utopia? If so, what might that Utopia look like? Do you really want to know? Peer down at Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Do you like what you see? If so, you will be most happy to know this is what the Radical Left has in store for the entire Nation.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT: BASIC PROCEDURES

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NON-RESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FOR THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE STATE: NON-RESIDENTS MUST SECURE A VALID CCW FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED

THE ADVENTURES OF ONE LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN AS HE TRAVERSES THE MINEFIELD OF FIREARMS’ LAWS, ATTEMPTING TO SECURE FOR HIMSELF MULTIPLE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES FROM A MULTITUDE OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HE MAY EXERCISE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-DEFENSE

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN VARIOUS STATES, FOR THE LAYMAN

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

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

SUBPART THREE

RECAP AND ASIDE

As we continue to work through a detailed examination of the licensing schemes of a few States, we do so following in the footsteps of Mr. Wright, an American citizen, a successful business owner, and fervent supporter of our “Bill of Rights”— all ten of them, including then, our sacred Second Amendment. Mr. Wright, travels regularly on business throughout the United States. The nature of Mr. Wright’s business requires him to carry valuables, consisting of products associated with his business and, as well, valuable negotiable instruments, and substantial amounts of cash. As he travels throughout the U.S. on business, Mr. Wright is an obvious target of assault. And, since Mr. Wright carries products and negotiable instruments of significant and substantial value, he is, as well, a tempting target.Mr. Wright had first sought to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for Nassau County. The licensing of firearms is handled exclusively by the Nassau County Police Department. Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. We discussed, in previous articles in the ROAD TRIP series, the onerous steps involved in attempting to secure handgun carry licenses in New York. In fact, various jurisdictions, County and City, within the State of New York, such as New York City, have instituted their own requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. That means, for example, the NYPD, that has exclusive authority for issuing all firearms’ licenses for the City, won’t recognize a handgun carry license validly issued from any New York jurisdiction other than its own. A New York resident who seeks, then, to exercise his or her fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a handgun concealed for self-defense anywhere in the State, but who doesn’t reside or work in any one of the five Boroughs of New York City, must obtain an additional CCW issued by the Licensing Division of the NYPD if he or she wishes to carry a concealed handgun, lawfully, in any one or more of those five Boroughs that comprise the City.Our intrepid citizen, Mr. Wright, holds valid handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing official of Maine, of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, of New York City, and licensing officials of other jurisdictions.State laws governing firearms ownership and possession are constantly changing. For the ROAD TRIP series, we will present you with the latest firearms’ licensing procedures as of the date of posting of the respective article.Each State, and the District of Columbia, has its own set of firearms’ laws including its own laws pertaining to the licensing of firearms to citizens. Those laws are often changing and they are often complicated, sometimes exceedingly so. That is the case, especially, in those jurisdictions that don’t desire American civilians to own and possess firearms—and there are more than a few of those.Since State firearms’ laws do change—sometimes quickly and often drastically, subject to the whims of Legislatures operating on the latest “gun news” story of the day—the Arbalest Quarrel will keep abreast of the changes of the law in the jurisdictions—local, State, and federal—that we discuss. As we go through the steps Mr. Wright went through to secure his handgun licenses, we will take some liberty. We will discuss the firearms’ laws and procedures as those procedures exist today, which may be different in small or large part from the time Mr. Wright applied for and received his handgun permits and licenses. We will also discuss, as they pertain to the often frustrating circumstances surrounding Mr. Wright’s experiences, what one might expect as he or she attempts to secure a concealed handgun carry license for one’s self. The actual tortuous hurdles are not exemplified in the droll and dry application papers themselves. Real world circumstances illustrate plainly and painfully, just what a person must go through simply to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.As we have pointed out both here and in previous articles, Mr. Wright applied for and received his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago, albeit he periodically must renew those licenses to keep them in force, and he does so. You might think that renewals of one’s licenses would be a relatively simple and straightforward process, compared to the lengthy process of securing a concealed handgun carry license for the first time. But, that is not always the case. Moreover, even where renewing a license is a relatively simple and painless process, it still involves the laying out of additional sums of money, and each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewing a license. The timing of renewals is not consistent from one jurisdiction to the next and, if a handgun licensee should miss the renewal period, there is no grace period, and licensing officials do not excuse a mistake in missing a deadline. That means an individual must go through the entire process to secure a concealed handgun carry license again, as if for the first time. That means: do not miss a deadline for renewing your handgun license!We will provide you with accurate gun licensing information as of the date of the posting of the article as if Mr. Wright were applying for a concealed handgun carry license at this moment in time, noting differences in past and present laws to the extent we believe those differences critical in understanding the reason jurisdictions have made the changes in firearms’ laws that they do and to point to ambiguities and vagueness in gun laws as we see them.The steps involved in securing a concealed handgun carry license are time-consuming and expensive. Don’t think they aren’t. In some jurisdictions, the application procedure is extremely extensive and tedious, sometimes confoundingly complex or confusing, and any two processes are invariably duplicative. Jurisdictions will require the applicant to present fingerprint cards, signed and completed. Many questions as to one’s physical and mental health, and criminal record, if any, will be duplicative, if somewhat nuanced from one jurisdiction to the next. Photographs and proof of citizenship will likely be standard from one jurisdiction to the next.The ROAD TRIP series should demonstrate to you, if nothing else, the need for simple, straightforward, streamlining of the application process—keeping in mind that, after all, the law-abiding American citizen who seeks to obtain a handgun carry license for self-defense is undertaking a task that should not be inconsistent with the customs and values of our Nation. Yet, the procedures in place today, in many jurisdictions, are reminiscent of or suggestive of values and customs and traditions of other nations or groups of nations, such as those that comprise the EU. Understand: no other Country on Earth recognizes the singular right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms as accruing in and existent in the individual. Yes, the cantons of Switzerland permit, perhaps—at one time—may even have required citizens to own firearms, including machine guns. That may no longer be the case as Switzerland, being pressured by the “elites” who had created the EU, have a strong distaste toward the average citizen owning firearms. Switzerland has acquiesced somewhat to the dictates of the EU even though it isn’t formally part of the EU.Israeli citizens, too, may apply for and readily obtain a permit to own and possess firearms, including machine guns. But the right of the Swiss citizen or the Israeli citizen to own and possess any firearm doesn’t accrue to the individual—that is to say, the right is not intrinsic to the individual, as a natural right, preeminent in and preexistent in the individual. It is a privilege bestowed on the citizen by the government—bestowed easily and routinely, but a privilege nonetheless.The United States is the only Nation on the face of the Earth that recognizes, in the Country’s Second Amendment, that the right of self-defense is basic, natural, primordial and that the right accrues to the individual. It is not something that is bestowed upon a person by government. That right is not to be denigrated or denied. No better means for defending one’s life and well-being against physical threat exists than that of a firearm in the hands of one properly trained in its use. Yet, why is it that the average law-abiding American citizen must jump through hoops simply to exercise that right?The right of self-defense is, after all, embedded in the Second Amendment. The federal Government does not bestow that right upon American citizens. It cannot bestow that right because the right preexists in each American citizen. Antigun groups either don’t realize this basic incontrovertible fact or otherwise choose to ignore it. They claim the right to keep and bear arms exists merely as a collective right in the context of militias, suggesting that the right has no meaning except in the context of the collective need of the State to protect itself against threats from outside the State—outside the Nation.We see this idea echoed constantly in innuendos, in suggestions, as exemplified in policies, that rights and liberties are tied not to Americans as individuals, but to American citizens as nameless components of society; to Americans as they exist as part of a huge collective; as part of a hive, as so many nameless cogs in a wheel. That, of course, is a false notion, one the founders had not and would not ever ascribe to. But, it is a myth presented to the public, as perpetrated by and engrained in the public through the mainstream media, at the behest of those ruthless forces that seek an end to the Republic and an end to this Country as an independent, sovereign Nation.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR THOSE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SECURE ONE OR MORE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

The first step an American citizen should take when seeking to acquire a concealed handgun carry license is to peruse the website of the gun licensing authority closely. Each of the jurisdictions we have examined, during our research, maintain a website through which one may find information pertaining to firearms’ laws applicable to the jurisdiction. The information provided is basic, but it is a good starting point. The websites we have looked at provide, as well, information pertaining to the licensing of firearms in the subject jurisdiction. The information we found to be presented in an honest and forthright manner in even if you must, in some instances, have to dig deep to uncover that information through several layers of menus and through more than a few web pages.The website will plainly lay out the governmental authority that has primary or exclusive authority for licensing of firearms in the jurisdiction. Often, but not invariably, this will be the duty of police authority in the jurisdiction. The applicant for a firearm’s license should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable licensing procedures. Sometimes, it will be relatively easy to do this as the menu items directed to firearms’ licensing are easy to locate and decipher. At other times that can be difficult. We find this to be true for those jurisdictions that have had a history of draconian gun laws and that are antithetical to the notion of an armed citizenry. Thus, you may need to drill down through several menu options to obtain the information you need.You should contact the issuing authority directly if you have any question or seek confirmation of how you are to proceed in acquiring a firearm’s license or permit. We have, in our work, found the licensing authorities to be helpful, knowledgeable, and attentive in responding to questions about firearm’s licensing, and have found these officials to be, as well, forthright about the prospects of obtaining a firearm’s license—especially about the prospect of securing a concealed handgun carry license in the particular jurisdiction for one’s self. Although Mr. Wright has applied for and obtained his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago—subject, of course, to jurisdictional renewal requirements—keep in mind, once again, that we will provide you, the reader of this article, with current licensing standards and procedures for the jurisdiction we are covering.Bringing the procedures and standards up-to-date will serve two purposes. First, doing this will provide the reader with a useful vehicle for understanding the salient laws and procedures of the jurisdiction in question, as they exist presently. This will save the reader time and energy he or she would otherwise have to expend were that person to research the laws and procedures on their own.We have, in a previous article, when discussing changes in concealed handgun carry laws for the State of Maine, spent time looking at changes in Maine law. This, we felt, was necessary to explain apparent inconsistencies or ambiguities existent in the present law and to provide context for the changes. We will continue to do this in forthcoming “ROAD TRIP” articles where we feel explanatory information would be helpful to individuals who may wish to acquire a concealed handgun carry license in the jurisdiction we happen to be covering.Second, in our ROAD TRIP articles, we aptly demonstrate the difficulties attendant to acquiring a concealed handgun carry license in a State or City or County jurisdiction.What an individual must go through--indeed, suffer--merely to exercise his natural right of self-defense will not, then, and should not,  be lost on anyone. It is ironical, even shameful, that citizens of a free Republic should have to expend substantial time and exorbitant sums of money simply to exercise the natural right guaranteed to them, codified in the Bill of Rights. But, that is the case and has been the case for some time. Effective, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would do much to end the need to acquire more than one valid concealed handgun carry license. Thus, an individual will be spared the needless, senseless, duplicative, wasteful expenditure of time and money presently required to obtain and renew multiple licenses issued by multiple jurisdictions.Note: if one has any doubt as to how to proceed to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, one should contact a licensed attorney and/or respected professional security consultant and expert in firearms’ laws and procedures. This can save one time and, more importantly, preclude the possibility the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license fails to fill out an application completely, or fills an application out improperly or includes the wrong information on the application form, or includes more information than the information that is required and thereupon jeopardizes one’s chances for securing a license.As to the last point, this is not to say or suggest an applicant should lie on an application or be less than forthright. One should never lie or ever be less than forthright, especially when completing an application for a firearm’s license or permit. You will never fool the licensing official and if you attempt to do so, you will fail. If one isn’t honest, that is the surest way to be denied issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Moreover, attempting to obtain a firearm license if you are not permitted to own and possess a firearm—for example, if you have been convicted of a felony or if you were in the military and you received a dishonorable discharge, or if you have renounced your citizenship, or if you have a history of serious mental disorder, psychosis, or if you have been convicted of domestic violence, to name a few bases for disqualification— you may open yourself up to civil or even criminal liability by applying for a handgun license and failing to include these matters if an application asks for information pertaining to these matters—and, make no mistake, an application for a concealed handgun permit or, for that matter, an application for issuance of any firearm will require to respond honestly to any of these. That said, one doesn’t have to include in his or her application and ought not voluntarily include anything more or other than the information the application specifically asks for. If, after completing and submitting the application for processing, the licensing officer contacts the applicant to request additional information, the applicant must comply. If again, the applicant has any question as to what information is sought or has concern about the information sought, the applicant should contact a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction in which he or she seeks the license or should contact a security consultant whose expertise rests in or includes application for possession of firearms.Let’s now begin on the matter of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. Below, we discuss the procedures that Mr. Wright had to follow to obtain a license permitting him to lawfully carry a handgun concealed in the State of Connecticut.

PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN CONNECTICUT

The basic Connecticut firearms’ licensing procedures are available for perusal on the State's website.We note that, in Connecticut, the Department responsible for licensing of firearms is the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) of the State Police.There are several menu options. The one we want and the one Mr. Wright wants is this one:Special Licensing and Firearms.There are distinct procedures depending on whether one is a resident of Connecticut or not. Mr. Wright does not reside in Connecticut. You cannot obtain an application on-line. Mr. Wright isn’t a resident of Connecticut. He is a resident of New York. A non-resident must obtain an application by contacting the State Police directly. However, important information exists on the website and a non-resident should peruse that information before contacting the Connecticut State Police for an application packet.On the website, Mr. Wright drills down to the application process for preliminary information for both residents and non-residents. He comes to this:FIREARMS AND PISTOL PERMITSHow do I get a permit to carry a gun in the State of Connecticut?Out of state residents may apply for a non-resident Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Non- residents apply directly to the Connecticut State Police.  Call 860-685-8494 to have an application mailed out.”For Residents of Connecticut, the preliminary procedure is different. Residents of Connecticut must first apply for a Temporary State Permit.The Procedure is as follows:“How do I apply for a Temporary State Permit?You must go to your local Police Department or First Selectman’s office to obtain an application. The application has all the instructions necessary to obtain the permit. The cost of the permit is $70.00, and it generally takes eight weeks to obtain.”After the Connecticut Resident obtains a Temporary State Permit, he or she can then apply for a permanent, “Connecticut State Permit.The information on the website sets forth: Once I have received a Temporary State Permit, how do I apply for a Connecticut State Permit?You can apply at the following locations to fill out the state application and have your photo taken. You must bring a copy of your Temporary State Permit, a check, money order for $70.00, made payable to Treasurer State of Ct. or cash,  proof you are legally and lawfully in the United States (i.e., Birth Certificate, U.S. Passport, Naturalization Certificate or Alien Registration Card issued by I.C.E.) and a current photo I.D., such as a driver’s license.  Applications are available at:

• Troop G in Bridgeport - Tuesday through Saturday

• Troop E in Montville - Tuesday through Saturday

• Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in Middletown

Office Hours and Locations:How do I change my address on my State Pistol Permit?You can either call (860) 685-8290, or mail a letter to the Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown, CT, 06457. Change of address is required within 48 hours, and the letter should include pistol permit number, name, and date of birth, old address, and new address.”Further information given is applicable to residents and non-resident holders of Connecticut State Pistol Permits alike:“May I keep my State Pistol Permit if I move out of state?Yes, providing you notify the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the change of address, and continue to renew your permit.How long is a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers good for? The permit is valid for 5 years from date of issue unless revoked or suspended.  Who may purchase a handgun?  Only those people who are Permit holders, Eligibility Certificate holders, or sworn Police Officers may purchase a handgun.Mr. Wright knows he regularly visits Connecticut on business and wonders if he could just stop into a local police department when he is in the State. He phones his attorney. His attorney takes a look at the website and phones the DESSP. Mr. Wright’s attorney determines that Mr. Wright must obtain an application through the mail. There is no way around this, and he requests an application for Mr. Wright. The DESSP official says he will send an application out forthwith to Mr. Wright’s attorney on behalf of Mr. Wright.Upon receipt of the application papers, Mr. Wright and his attorney look through the documents. In the first few sentences of the first page of a green sheet, titled, “Connecticut State Pistol Permits,” and subtitled, “Out of State Residents,” one thing becomes immediately apparent. A non-resident cannot apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit prior to securing a valid concealed handgun carry license from another jurisdiction.The non-resident must already have a valid CCW license issued from another jurisdiction before he can apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Thus, having a CCW in hand from another State is a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut Pistol Permit. Mr. Wright’s attorney learns that Connecticut does not require that the non-resident secure a CCW license from a particular jurisdiction or jurisdictions. The non-resident must simply have in his or her possession a valid CCW license, issued from any State. Mr. Wright has a valid unrestricted CCW issued to him by the NYPD, and a second valid CCW issued to him by the State of Maine. Either one of those two valid CCW licenses satisfies the condition precedent for further processing of Mr. Wright’s application.

CONNECTICUT CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING PROCEDURES

Mr. Wright’s attorney took a look at the applicable Connecticut pistol licensing Statute. Below is the Statute stated in full:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association, (2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d, (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120, (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13, (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court, or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing, (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or (10) is less than twenty-one years of age. Nothing in this section shall require any person who holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver on October 1, 1994, to participate in any additional training in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. No person may apply for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver more than once within any twelve-month period, and no temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued to any person who has applied for such permit more than once within the preceding twelve months. Any person who applies for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall indicate in writing on the application, under penalty of false statement in such manner as the issuing authority prescribes, that such person has not applied for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the past twelve months. Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”There are several important items for consideration in the above Connecticut Statute. The Statute sets forth, one, the requirement that a person “successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association”; and, two, the applicant must not fall within one or more of the categories that constitute automatic disqualification. You will waste your own time and money and that of the licensing official if you have either failed a firearm’s safety training course or if you fall into one or more categories of individuals who are prohibited from owning a gun.If, however, you have passed and have documentation to prove that you have successfully passed an appropriate firearm’s safety training course and you do not fall within one or more of the categories that disqualify one automatically from possessing any firearm, then you may proceed to the next step of the application process.In the next segment of this article, we will go into further detail of the application process as Mr. Wright seeks to secure a valid DESSP issued Pistol Permit that will enable him to carry a handgun, lawfully, in Connecticut.Before concluding this segment of the article on Connecticut CCW licensing, we address a few matters that individuals who are contemplating obtaining a Connecticut Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers might have in connection with the foregoing discussion:

FINAL NOTE PERTAINING TO CONNECTICUT PISTOL LICENSING STATUTE: TWO POINTS IMPORTANT TO NON-RESIDENTS THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS THE READER MIGHT HAVE, AS THEY ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE ARBALEST QUARREL HAD, AS WELL; AND ONE GENERAL POINT APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTS OF CONNECTICUT AND NON-RESIDENTS ALIKE.

Connecticut law, as we said, requires non-residents to have in hand a valid concealed handgun carry license as a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut CCW permit. Some readers of this article may wonder whether a Connecticut CCW is necessary at all to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut if they hold a valid CCW from another jurisdiction. As of this writing, the answer is an unequivocal, “no.” Connecticut does not maintain reciprocity with any other jurisdiction. A CCW issued by another jurisdiction is required, as we have said, as a condition precedent, for obtaining a Connecticut CCW if and only if the person seeking a Connecticut CCW is a resident of another State. This means that a non-resident must invariably hold at least two CCW licenses in order to be able, lawfully, to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut: a valid CCW issued by another State, as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW issued by the appropriate firearms’ licensing authority in the State of Connecticut, the DESSP. Obviously, this condition does not apply to residents of Connecticut.Second, for both residents of Connecticut and non-residents alike, those who seek a valid Connecticut CCW permit, must successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. Now, some jurisdictions outside of Connecticut do issue CCW licenses without the requirement that a holder of a valid CCW license or permit first successfully complete. New York City, curiously enough, is one of these. It is exceedingly difficult for the average law-abiding person to obtain an unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license. But, the City doesn’t require and the NYPD itself does not provide a safety training course for holders of concealed handgun carry licenses. One may speculate as to the reason for this. One possible and plausible explanation for this is that the City officials do not wish for any civilian to possess firearms. It isn’t a secret that the previous Mayor or New York City, Michael Bloomberg, benefactor and sponsor of the antigun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, is virulently opposed to the average law-abiding citizen from owning and possessing firearms. The present Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is no less a zealous advocate for disarming Americans. The website, OntheIssues says this concerning de Blasio’s position of firearms’ possession and ownership. “Bill de Blasio has pushed for strong gun safety laws at the state level and for the promotion of industry-wide standards in gun safety, including micro-stamping. De Blasio also led the effort to divest public pension fund holdings in companies that manufacture the most dangerous weapons and launched the 'Wall Street for Change' campaign to support gun divestment of prominent hedge funds and money managers nationwide.” New York City officials apparently feel that by requiring holders of restricted and unrestricted concealed handgun licenses to successfully complete a firearms’ safety training course, whether provided by the NYPD or another organization, this would suggest that the City encourages the average citizen to own and possess firearms. This is convoluted thinking but it pervades the thinking of those New York City officials who are behind the draconian New York Safe Act. It is as if City officials are saying, “we don’t believe any American citizen should own and possess firearms. Those New York residents who seek to own and possess firearms must receive the appropriate licenses and permits to do so; and we will not make it either easy or cheap for those that wish to do so. Moreover, we will not provide access to firearms’ training courses or provide any information as to where a firearm’s licensee or permit holder may obtain that training, for to do so would mean that we believe in the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; and we do not wish to give anyone that impression; for we don’t.”Now the Arbalest Quarrel is not taking the position that a government body should require a person to take a firearms’ safety training course because we do not believe that the government should be in the business of bestowing on law-abiding American citizens what is their natural right anyway: the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Arbalest Quarrel does feel that, if a person does own and possess firearms, he ought to have the good sense of obtaining training in their proper use and function. A sane, rational person should have proper training in the use of any implement that, if used or handled improperly, can cause serious injury or death. But one’s responsibility for the handling of any instrument devolves on the individual. It should not be a mandate of the State. If a jurisdiction does require the law-abiding citizen to first obtain a handgun license before that person is lawfully permitted to carry a handgun concealed on his or her person within the jurisdiction, that governmental body should make available to the person the means whereby a person can obtain proper training or provide a person with a list of recommended organizations such as the NRA that have well over a century of experience on the proper handling of firearms. New York City doesn’t have anything to say about this. It is as if the City Government through the NYPD Licensing Division--the City Government's authorized body for issuing firearms' licenses and permits to individuals--simply wishes to wash its hands of the matter. That is bizarre to say the least.The City has draconian, arbitrary standards in place for issuing firearms' licenses and permits and puts the New York resident through an ordeal to obtain a firearm's license or permit, but then expresses a complete disinterest in providing firearms' training for the license or permit holder, or even suggesting venues through which the licensee or permit holder may obtain training once the license or permit is issued to him. Can you imagine the NYPD giving its officers a badge and a gun and leaving it up to the officer to find some means or other on their own to obtain training in the proper use of the firearm--caring not one whit whether the officer obtains proper training in the handling of the firearm or not, and offering no suggestion as to where an officer might obtain training? Yet, that is precisely the situation in which the City and the NYPD leave the civilian upon whom they deign, grudgingly, to issue a firearm's license or permit. It is almost as if the City is inviting a mishap with a gun; indeed almost as if it is expecting a mishap with a gun; perhaps even wanting one; and thereupon being in a position to say, "there, we told you so; you should never have had a gun in the first place. But you wanted a gun; and we gave you a license so you could buy one. And, now that you have 'messed up,' as we fully expected you would do, we are taking away your gun, we are taking away your gun license, and we charging you with a misdemeanor for misusing your gun. We hope you learned your lesson. We are never again going to issue you a firearm's license. So, don't bother applying for one. Guns belong in the hands of responsible individuals only, such as the police, and politicians, and judges, and movie stars, and other VIP; in other words, 'connected' individuals. The average, ordinary, law-abiding person such as yourself has no business with a gun. Guns are for 'elites,' in society--for important people, intelligent people; people with money; guns are not for the hoi polloi, such as you! If you need protection, you have your cell phone; call 911; or get yourself a whistle, and wait for help. It's on the way!"

CONSIDER THE ABOVE "CHASTISEMENT" BY THE NYPD FIREARMS' LICENSING OFFICER APROPROS OF THE FOLLOWING:

An old story goes that a semi-blind businessman, an industrious hard working man, who spent many years working to create a small but successful cash business but a man who has had no formal or informal training in the handling of firearms goes to the Licensing Division of the NYPD, applying for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the businessman why he thinks he needs a handgun for self-defense. The businessman explains that his business is a cash business and that he handles substantial sums of cash as he conducts his business and he has been mugged on more than a few occasions and his money stolen on numerous occasions. The businessman explains, further, that he is tired of being mugged and threatened and losing money that he has worked hard earning and he needs a gun for self-defense when he walks several blocks to the bank, or takes the subway, or a bus, or a cab to deposit the cash at his bank. He is surrounded by many people—some of whom would love to get their hands on the substantial sums of money he has on his person and several thugs have done so in the past.Now, the NYPD has set an arbitrary standard for proof of the necessity for issuing a CCW license to a person. The NYPD Licensing Officer determines whether a person, in the normal conduct of his business, happens to transport substantial sums of cash to or from a bank. The NYPD considers, without explicitly saying, whether a business operates, in part at least, like a mini Brinks security service. If an applicant for a CCW license can make a good case for issuance of a CCW to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, this amounts to an applicant arguing that his business duties involve in part, at least, working like a Brinks security guard, transporting canvas bags full of money. Of course, what constitutes the carrying of substantial cash is determined by the NYPD and on a case-by-case basis. In this story, the NYPD determines the semi-blind businessman does carry substantial cash to or from a bank a few times a week. That the man has been mugged on numerous occasions, and seriously hurt, in part, at least, because the man's business happens to be located in a particularly dangerous part of the City, is not reason enough to issue the man a CCW license, according to the NYPD License Division standards. Indeed, that sad circumstance is beside the point. After all, a lot of law-abiding New York residents are mugged on a daily basis and these individuals do not have firearms to protect themselves. So being mugged is not a sufficient basis upon which the businessman may effectively distinguish himself from countless others who live in the City. But, the fact that the businessman has been mugged carrying sufficient amounts of cash on his person to and from a bank a few times a week--and what constitutes a sufficient amount of cash is up to the NYPD Licensing Officer to decide--is deemed by the Officer to be an important factor, a critical, even decisive, factor for determining whether to issue the man a CCW license that he seeks.The NYPD Licensing Officer then asks the businessman whether the man has any disability that might hinder his ability to use a handgun. The man, semi-blind, though he is, says, he has some vision problems but that he is able to see well enough to transact his business, handle large sums of cash, and to handle a handgun. The NYPD licensing official thereupon agrees to issue the businessman his CCW license.Now, whether the businessman has had any training in the use of a handgun and, if not, whether the businessman intends to get that training so that he would be able to use a handgun effectively if the need should arise, that is another question entirely, and it is not one that is a requirement for being issued a handgun license and securing a handgun. Curiously, this latter point is true. The ability to handle a firearm is not a factor in and is altogether irrelevant to the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses by the Licensing Division of the NYPD. But, we are not yet done with this story.Another man, a New York resident, hale and hearty, has just moved to New York City, having served his Country as a U.S. Navy SEAL. Our U.S. Navy SEAL, recognizes how dangerous it is to live in the City and, like our semi-blind businessman, he also applies for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the man why the man thinks he needs to carry a handgun. The U.S. Navy SEAL, now retired from the Navy and living in New York City, says he wishes to have a handgun for self-defense. The Licensing Officer asks the man whether he has a business and, if so, if the man transports substantial sums of cash to or from a bank, one or more times during the week. Our U.S. Navy SEAL says that he doesn’t have a business and does not transport substantial sums of cash to a bank. The Licensing Officer then asks the applicant, our U.S. Navy SEAL, retired from active duty, whether the applicant is presently the target of specific threats to the Navy SEAL’s life. The applicant, our retired U.S. Navy SEAL, replies, “none that he can think of.” The NYPD Licensing Officer then tells the applicant that he must deny the applicant a CCW because the applicant hasn’t demonstrated need, sufficient, to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, under the standards established by the NYPD, for issuance of a CCW to the applicant.The retired U.S. Navy SEAL doesn’t understand this. He points out that he knows full well how to use firearms—virtually any firearm and that he is an expert marksman, and that he operates coolly under threat to life, as his combat experience and training demanded. “Sorry,” replies the NYPD Licensing Officer. “You have failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that you face, on a daily basis, more danger to your life and well-being than does any other average New York resident face, in the City. The fact that you know how to use a firearm effectively and would certainly be able to do so in a life threatening situation--and I have no reason to doubt that--is irrelevant. New York City doesn't recognize self-defense, in the absence of more to be sufficient reason to issue a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Again, I am sorry. But, City Government officials believe that too many guns in the hands of too many people--even the law-abiding--is considered dangerous to the well-being of the community even if law-abiding individuals are placed at risk for being denied access to a firearm when they truly need one and know how to use it."There is no moral to the story. But one may take note how logic may be turned on its head so that irrationality is perceived as presumptively rational. And, although, it appears to be far-fetched, the story, sadly, really isn’t. Of course, an NYPD Licensing Officer is hardly likely to issue a concealed handgun carry license—or any other kind of firearm’s license or permit—to an applicant who appears to have a difficulty seeing, but one’s ability to use a gun in a life-threatening situation is not a factor for consideration in the issuance of any firearm’s license or permit. Concerning issuance of CCW licenses, New York City, and any other City or County in the State, in accordance with State law, is a “may issue” State, like several other jurisdictions around the Country. A “may issue” State means a person requesting a CCW license, must convince to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction that he “needs” a gun and that “need” generally translates to meeting an arbitrary standard for the issuance of a CCW license to the person. If a person cannot meet the arbitrary standard the “may issue” jurisdiction has established, then the applicant is denied the CCW, unless the person is a VIP, such as a politician or a judge, or someone famous—a movie star for example. That means the life of one person is worth more than the life of another. If you are a VIP, you obtain what you want. If you are one of the hoi polloi who cannot otherwise satisfy the arbitrary standard, well, then, good luck.Whether a person is capable of using a firearm for self-defense is often, as we see in some jurisdictions, like New York, all but irrelevant. The need of a firearm for self-defense becomes nuanced, subject to the whim of the licensing official. This means that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is reduced inevitably to a privilege, a grant of Government and the import and imperative of the Second Amendment is simply ignored.Getting back to the requirements for obtaining a CCW license in Connecticut, that State, unlike New York, does require of its own residents and of non-residents, that they show proof of successfully completing a firearm’s training and safety course prior to issuance of a gun permit. So, if a holder, say, of a New York City concealed handgun license, wishes to secure, as well a Connecticut CCW, in order to carry a handgun lawfully in Connecticut, that person must show proof of having successfully completed a gun safety and training course. This means the holder of a New York City CCW license and those who hold a CCW from any other jurisdiction that does not require proof of completion of a firearms’ safety training course in the handling of firearms as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW license, must obtain the necessary training. Having, then, successfully completed the firearms’ safety training course and receiving a certificate to that effect, the applicant, whether a resident of the State of Connecticut or not, who seeks a Connecticut CCW license, has, then, the necessary documentation to present to the DESSP Officer. Further processing of the application for the Connecticut CCW permit can then continue.Lastly, we have learned that a holder of a CCW from another jurisdiction who seeks to obtain a Connecticut CCW does not have to obtain a CCW in the jurisdiction he or she resides in.A resident of Hawaii, for example, who wishes to obtain a Connecticut CCW permit—a State permit to carry handguns or revolvers—need not demonstrate he or she has a CCW license from Hawaii. That’s a good thing. For although it is theoretically possible for the average law-abiding American citizen, who is a resident of Hawaii, to obtain a CCW license, for all practical purposes, that is impossible. Take a look at the Hawaii Police Department’s website.The website sets forth: “In exceptional cases when an adult applicant shows reason to fear injury or is engaged in the protection of life and property, the Hawaiʻi County police chief may grant a license to carry. For detailed information on who may be granted a license, see Section 134-9 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.” Living in Hawaii may be paradise. But, in that paradise, “here there be tygers.” One must forsake one’s self of any pretense of access to firearms for self-defense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 17 of Hawaii’s State Constitution, which mirrors the language of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution word for word, contain empty verbiage, devoid of effect.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

NEW YORK CITY, NY FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

THREE: PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY -- A LOOK AT ACTUAL APPLICATION LICENSING PROCEDURES IN THE SEVERAL STATES

PART TWO: NEW YORK CITY, NY FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS ARTICLE

In our previous article, we explained the process of securing a handgun license in Nassau County. We explained that Mr. Wright, a successful businessman, who lives in Nassau County, New York, had applied for a “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE.” That was the nomenclature that the Nassau County Police Department used for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. But as an attorney relayed to Mr. Wright, specific information that the Nassau County Licensing Officer explained to the attorney, the Nassau County Police Department did not, in actual practice, issue NCPD "FULL CARRY LICENSES" to civilians unless those civilians happen to be judges or politicians. So, very few “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSES” are ever issued in Nassau County. That is quite an admission on the part of the Nassau County Police Department Officer. Apparently, the lives of judges and politicians are deemed more important than those of any other law-abiding resident of Nassau County. After much labor, the best that Mr. Wright could obtain for himself was a Nassau County “TARGET/HUNTING LICENSE.”Even though Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County as previously mentioned, his corporate offices are not in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. His corporate offices are in New York City. Mr. Wright first sought, albeit, ultimately, unsuccessfully to obtain a concealed handgun carry license for his hometown, in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. And, he believed, logically, that once he secured the “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE,” that license would be valid throughout the State of New York even if not valid in any other State. Simple enough, you might think. Simple enough, Mr. Wright thought. Mr. Wright was wrong in his initial assessment. As he found out, had Mr. Wright been successful in obtaining a “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE,” that license would not be valid in New York City. Be that as it may, since Mr. Wright has his business offices in New York City and, as the manner in which he conducts business requires him often to carry substantial cash and other negotiable instruments, his life and well-being are in constant danger. Mr. Wright was determined to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license from the New York City Police Department. This time, Mr. Wright hired a professional team, consisting of, one, a professional firm that is knowledgeable about and assists individuals, such as Mr. Wright, in obtaining firearms’ firearms’ licenses and permits throughout the State and in other jurisdictions across the Country, and, two, a licensed New York attorney. With the assistance of these professionals, Mr. Wright would enhance his chances on securing an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for himself.

THE NEW YORK CITY FIREARMS’ LICENSING PROCEDURES

Although Mr. Wright retained the services of professionals to assist him in securing an unrestricted concealed handgun carry permit, Mr. Wright, who always prides himself on being “on top of his game,” decided to learn as much as he could about the New York City firearms’ licensing procedures. So, he took a look at the New York City Police Department website.On the far left-side of the website’s main page, there is a laundry list of menu options. The one Mr. Wright was looking for was set forth clearly enough. It was titled, “FIREARMS LICENSING.” Mr. Wright clicked on the link. Unlike Nassau County, the website did not provide a manual that Mr. Wright might download, but there were a list of menu options that explained the firearms’ licensing procedures that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) had established. There were five links: ONE, “THE LICENSE DIVISION;” TWO, “TYPES OF LICENSES;” THREE, “HANDGUN LICENSE CONSULTING FIRMS;” FOUR, “INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL HANDGUN LICENSE APPLICANTS;” AND, FIVE, “FEES.” Mr. Wright reviewed all the material. He would have many questions for his team of experts.

THE LICENSE DIVISION

“The License Division receives many inquiries from the public regarding the procedures involved in obtaining a permit for a handgun. Because of the serious safety concerns inherent in the possession of handguns, it is recommended that the decision to obtain a handgun license be carefully considered and that a licensee receive training in the safety and use of a handgun. Licensees must become familiar with all laws and regulations relating to handgun ownership. The following sections provide information in order to assist persons who wish to apply for a handgun license. They do not in any way imply that a license application will be approved.The following pages have been prepared as a guide to assist you in deciding which type of handgun license may be appropriate for you. If you decide to apply for a license you must APPEAR IN PERSON at the License Division with the completed application, the documents specified in the application instructions, the application fee, and the fingerprint fee. These are the only fees you are required to pay to have your application processed. The fees may be paid by credit card or in the form of two U.S. POSTAL OR BANK-DRAWN MONEY ORDERS made payable to the New York City Police Department, CASH IS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure that you save the receipt for your application fee given to you by the cashier. This receipt is proof of payment and contains your application number, which is required for any subsequent inquiries regarding the status of your application.If you intend to apply for a license related to your employment, profession, or business, you may ask to speak to an application reviewer who will screen your application and documents, and will assist you in determining the type of license you appear to be eligible for. Whether or not you choose to have your application screened by a reviewer, you will have to provide the documentation specified in the application instructions at the time of application submission.After you file your application you will be contacted for an interview and may be required to submit additional documentation. All documents will be examined and evaluated, and all factors will be considered in making the determination as to your qualification for an employment, profession, or business related license.Regardless of the reviewer's recommendation, you may apply for whichever type of license you choose. The screening process is merely an attempt to assist you, and does not affect the final decision regarding your application. You must be twenty-one (21) years of age to apply for a handgun license or rifle/shotgun permit.” As Mr. Wright reviewed the extensive on-line information, he learned that the NYPD classifies handgun licenses into four categories. In the back of his mind Mr. Wright wondered why Nassau County established six categories of handgun licenses and was a little perturbed at the mind-numbing complexity and inconsistency of handgun licensing standards that existed throughout the State.

TYPES OF HANDGUN LICENSES ISSUED BY THE NYPD

PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED while being transported.CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE: This is an unrestricted class of license which permits the carrying of a handgun concealed on the person. It is valid for the business name, address, and handguns listed on the front of the license. It is not transferable to any other person, business, occupation, or address, without the written approval of the commanding officer, license division.LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. The licensee may only carry handguns indicated on the license in accordance with the specific limitations listed thereon. At all other times the weapon must be safeguarded within the confines of the business address listed on the front of the license either concealed on the licensee's person in a proper holster or stored unloaded in a locked safe. SPECIAL CARRY LICENSE: Is valid for the business name, address and handguns listed on the front of this license, only while the licensee has in his possession a valid basic county license issued according to the provisions of article 400 of the N.Y.S. Penal law. Upon the revocation, suspension, or cancellation of the basic license, the special license is rendered void and must be immediately returned to the license division.CARRY GUARD LICENSE: (SECURITY GUARDS, ETC.) Applications for this type of license must be made with the documentation provided by a company's Gun Custodian. It is issued only for the handgun listed on the license. The handgun may be carried only while the licensee is actively engaged in employment for the company whose name appears on the license, and/or while licensee is in transit directly to or from residence and place of employment. At all other times the handgun must be stored unloaded in a locked container, at either the address on the license, or at the employee's legal residence (within the State of New York).Mr. Wright determined that he must obtain an “unrestricted” handgun license if he were to be able to adequately defend his life. The NYPD referred to this type of license as a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.”Mr. Wright relied on his team of experts to assist him. He made it very clear to his this team of experts that he must obtain an unrestricted, concealed handgun carry permit and they were to assist him to that end.Mr. Wright first had to gather information that was required of all applicants, as set forth in the “HANDGUN LICENSING INFORMATION” material. This was set forth cogently and comprehensively on the NYPD website under the heading:

INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL HANDGUN LICENSE APPLICANTS

The application form MUST be typewritten and signed by you. Only the original application form will be accepted. DO NOT SEND A PHOTOCOPY. The application form must be completely filled out and presented by you personally at the License Division. At the time you submit your application, you must furnish the items listed below that are applicable to you. All documents, certificates, licenses, etc., must be submitted in the original. (A copy certified by the issuing agency as true and complete is also acceptable). In addition, a legible photocopy of each item submitted must accompany the original or certified copy. Originals and certified copies will be returned. Your application will not be accepted without the required documents.1. Photographs: Two (2) passport size color photographs of you taken within the past thirty (30) days are required. They should show you from the chest up. The wearing of any article of clothing or adornment that obscures identification is not permitted.2. Birth Certificate: In lieu of your birth certificate, some other proof of your birth date, e.g., a military record, U.S. passport or baptismal certificate must be submitted. You must be twenty-one (21) years of age to apply for a handgun license or rifle/shotgun permit.3. Proof of Citizenship/Alien Registration: If you were born outside the United States, you must submit your naturalization papers or evidence of citizenship if derived from your parents. All other applicants born outside the United States must submit their Alien Registration Card. If you have lived in this country less than 7 years you must submit a good conduct certificate, or equivalent, from your country of origin and two (2) letters of reference that certify to your good character. 4. Military Discharge: If you served in the armed forces of the United States, you must submit your separation papers (DD 214) and your discharge.5. Proof of Residence: You must submit proof of your present address. Proof may consist of, but is not limited to, a real estate tax bill, ownership shares in a cooperative or condominium, or a lease. You may also be requested to supply further documentation i.e., a New York State Driver's License, a New York State Income Tax Return, or a current utility bill.6. Arrest Information: If you were ever arrested, indicted or summonsed for any reason, other than a parking violation, you must answer "Yes" to question #23 on the handgun license application and submit a certificate of disposition showing the offense and disposition. Also, you must submit a detailed, notarized statement describing the circumstances surrounding each arrest or summons. YOU MUST DO THIS EVEN IF: the case was dismissed, the record was sealed or the case was nullified by operation of law. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services will report to us every instance involving the criminal prosecution of an applicant. DO NOT rely on anyone's representation that you need not list a previous arrest or summons.If you were ever convicted or pled guilty to a felony offense or a serious offense, as defined in Penal Law Section 265.00(17), an original Certificate of Relief of Disabilities, must be submitted.6a. Order of Protection: If you have ever had an Order of Protection issued against you, or issued on your behalf against anyone, you must list the following information: Court of Issuance, Date of Issuance, Complainant's name, address and phone number, Complainant's relationship to you, and reason for issuance of Order of Protection.7. Proof of Business Ownership: If you are making application for a carry or premises license for use in connection with a business, you must submit proof of ownership for that business. Such proof must clearly state the names of the owner(s), or, if a corporation, the names of the corporate officers. A Corporation must submit its corporate book to include filing receipt, certificate of incorporation and minutes of the corporate meeting reflecting current corporate officers; others must provide their business certificate or partnership agreement, whichever is applicable. If the business requires a license or permit from any government agency, e.g., alcohol or firearms sales, gunsmith, private investigation and guard agencies, you must submit the license or permit or a certified copy thereof. You must also submit proof of address for the business. Proof may consist of a utility bill, not more than 60 days old, in the name of the business or a lease in the name of the business.8. Letter of Necessity: All applicants for a carry license and those seeking a premises license for use in connection with their employment MUST complete the Letter of Necessity found on page 3 of the application. NO SUBSTITUTES WILL BE ACCEPTED. 9. Social Security Card: All persons filing applications must bring their original Social Security cards with them to the License Division when applying for a license.”Mr. Wright then reviewed the last section, titled, aptly and succinctly enough: FEES “The application fee is $340.00.Please note that effective March 19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50 for all applicants. Due to a decrease in the charge for FBI electronic civil fingerprint submissions, the fee for fingerprints will be $89.75 effective February 1, 2015.These fees may be paid by credit card or by two separate money orders made payable to the New York City Police Department. ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLEIf you have any questions concerning your application, please call (646) 610-5560. Applications must submitted in person at the License Division, 1 Police Plaza, Room 110, or the Rifle and Shotgun Section, 120-55 Queens Boulevard, Room B-11, Kew Gardens, NY. You may submit your application between the hours of 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. It takes approximately 45 minutes to process an application. Please arrive early enough to complete the application process by closing time.Mr. Wright was not deterred by the fees although, as a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights in general and of the Second Amendment in particular, he was more than a little annoyed at the fact that he had to pay fees to the New York City Police Department in order to be able to exercise a basic right, guaranteed to him under the U.S. Constitution. And, Mr. Wright was aware that many New York residents are not wealthy by any means, and the expenditure of over $400.00 to acquire a license – expenses apart from the cost of a firearm itself and other assorted items – could very well preclude many law-abiding New York residents from exercising what the Founders of the Republic insisted to be a fundamental right. Indeed, when one factors in the cost of a semi-automatic handgun, as produced by a respectable manufacturer, and the costs of a quality holster, ammunition, trigger-lock, gun box or gun safety cabinet, cleaning kit, membership at a gun range, and NRA gun safety training course, the cost of NYPD filing fees is, in fact, a very small, although not insignificant, portion of the entire monetary outlay.And, in Mr. Wright’s case, since he was intent on securing an unrestricted business carry license – that is extremely difficult to obtain, necessitating the services of attorneys and other specialists – Mr. Wright was well aware that he would have to spend thousands of dollars on professional fees if he were to have a reasonable chance of obtaining his much sought-after unrestricted New York City “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.”Many New York residents learn to their dismay, after much time, money, and effort expended to obtain a license – even a basic “PREMISES LICENSE” – that no handgun license will be issued if, as determined by the License Division of the NYPD, there is any blemish on a person’s record. And, filing fees are not refundable. And, if that is the case, and if a person is intent on obtaining a handgun license, then even the less well-heeled New York resident realizes that he or she will need to secure the services of professionals to handle the administrative and judicial appeals – time-consuming and costly processes and ordeals in their own right.Mr. Wright was less vexed by the monetary outlay – substantial though it was – than he was exasperated by the sheer volume of documentation that he had to gather together and provide the NYPD since acquisition of a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” requires the amassing of substantial documentation about Mr. Wright’s business – an inordinate amount of documentation, far beyond the documentation required of an applicant who seeks to secure or who might only be able to secure a restricted, “PREMISES LICENSE.” And, Mr. Wright was not pleased that massive amounts of proprietary business information would now fall outside his control and purview. He had to trust the NYPD to keep his information secure.

THE MATERIAL THAT MR. WRIGHT NEEDED TO AMASS AND TO DELIVER TO THE NYPD

Mr. Wright downloaded the application form that was provided on the NYPD website. There were the usual questions he had seen before when he completed the Nassau County Police Department handgun license application. There were questions pertaining to military service, questions pertaining to use of narcotics, questions pertaining to arrest record, mental health, and whether the applicant had ever suffered from a disability that might affect one’s ability to handle a handgun. In particular the NYPD handgun application required the applicant to state affirmatively whether the applicant suffers from epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, blackouts, loss of memory, or any nervous disorder. And, recently, the NYPD application has added a new category – apparently operating as a disqualification for issuance of a handgun license – involving orders of protection and there were several questions related to the issue of domestic disturbance and domestic violence. Mr. Wright, fortunately, was able, honestly, to respond in the negative to any question that might operate as a basis for disqualification for any kind of handgun license. But, there was more, much more, to the application process.Mr. Wright came to a section of the Application, titled, “ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRY LICENSE APPLICANTS,” sub-titled, “LETTER OF NECESSITY.” This section was targeted to those applicants, who, like Mr. Wright, were applying specifically for a concealed handgun carry license. The first question set forth, “All applicants for a carry license for use in connection with a business or profession must answer the following questions in the space provided. If additional space is necessary continue your letter on reverse side. In ALL CASES the form provided must be used.” The applicant for a concealed handgun carry license, whether for a restricted or unrestricted carry license has to set forth, “a detailed description of the applicant’s employment and an explanation of why the employment requires the carrying of a concealed handgun.” Now this question is tricky. What the NYPD is looking for – although the rationale for a carry license is unstated – is whether the applicant for a concealed handgun license can distinguish himself or herself from others. But, only experienced experts would know this. In other words, apart from the fact that any individual can be assaulted at any time and in any place, Mr. Wright had to explain, to the satisfaction of the Licensing Officer, why Mr. Wright felt that his life and well-being were more likely to be jeopardized on any given day that was the life of any other New York resident – and, more to the point, Mr. Wright had to explain why he felt that he was more exposed to danger from assault or robbery than any other New York businessman.Mr. Wright’s team of experts knew that, as a necessary condition for the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license, Mr. Wright would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NYPD License Division Officer, that he can adequately distinguish himself from the countless others who do business in New York. This translates into the manner in which Mr. Wright conducts his business. Now, the nature of Mr. Wright’s business requires him to collect, carry, and transport substantial sums of money and other negotiable instruments throughout the City of New York and to and from banks. Doing so places his life in jeopardy in an uncommon way, as he is a tempting target for robbery – no less so than is the case for those private security individuals who work for companies that collect, transport, guard, and deliver cash to and from businesses. This fact, Mr. Wright had to make poignantly clear to the NYPD License Division Officer who would be reviewing his application for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” Mr. Wright’s team of experts would assist him in drafting the “LETTER OF NECESSITY.”Lastly, the application for a concealed handgun carry license required Mr. Wright to provide recent sales tax reports and Federal and New York State Tax returns for the previous year, and daily bank deposit slips and corresponding bank statements for the preceding six months from the date set for an interview with an NYPD License Division Officer. In addition, Mr. Wright also had to provide payroll information and employee withholding taxes; Mr. Wright’s Company workers’ compensation policy; and, as well, Mr. Wright had to provide valid local, State and federal licenses, permits, and certificates that were required in order to conduct business.Given the sheer volume of information that Mr. Wright had to compile, collate, and copy for the NYPD License Division Officer who would be conducting the interview and assessing the merits of his application for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” Mr. Wright realized that the task of obtaining that license was a major business project in its own right, requiring Mr. Wright to expend an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy that might have been better spent on the running of a huge business enterprise. Mr. Wright could and did delegate some of the work in gathering together the necessary documentation to trusted people inside his Company. But, Mr. Wright had to coordinate what became a massive undertaking effort and he had to ascertain that all necessary documentation was gathered, copied, and collated so that no documentation was missing once he met with the NYPD License Division Officer. And, throughout this massive undertaking, Mr. Wright was guided constantly by his team of experts.Once all the documentation that the NYPD License Division Officer required had been compiled, and a date had been set for the interview, Mr. Wright had to cart that documentation over to the NYPD. And, that, itself, was no easy task, as the documentation would easily fill a few large filing cabinets. Mr. Wright’s team of experts warned Mr. Wright that the NYPD License Division Officer, in his sole discretion, might require yet other documentation in support of his application for a concealed handgun carry license. So, Mr. Wright could never be certain that the information required of him, as set forth in the application forms, would be sufficient. As it turned out, the NYPD License Division Officer, who was conducting the interview, pointed out to Mr. Wright that he would need to see Mr. Wright’s corporate books. So, Mr. Wright had to make arrangements to meet with the Officer once again to provide the necessary corporate books for the Officer to review.At the end of the day the sum total of proprietary information that Mr. Wright was required to produce at the request of the NYPD License Division Officer was not unlike the vast reams of information attorneys might request of each other when undertaking discovery on behalf of their respective clients in a complex legal case.Approximately, six months from the date that Mr. Wright first sought to obtain an unrestricted, “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” Mr. Wright was issued his much sought after “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” Mr. Wright was contacted by the License Division. And, he would have to come down to the License Division to obtain his license. New York Police Department policy required Mr. Wright to personally arrive at the License Division within 30 days of notification that his "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" was available. Failure to pick up his license within the 30 day window would result in automatic cancellation of his license. To the best of our knowledge and belief that 30 day window to pick up one's license is still in effect. After Mr. Wright picked up his license, he was told that he has thirty days, counting from the date that he received his license in hand, to purchase a handgun. And, the purchase of a handgun must be made through a licensed New York dealer of firearms or, otherwise, by some other party through special instructions from the License Division. The "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," constituted a "NOTICE OF APPROVAL" to purchase one handgun Once Mr. Wright purchased his handgun, he had 72 hours from the point in time that he made his purchase to, once again, travel to the main headquarters of the NYPD, at One Police Plaza, where he had first met with an  License Division Officer, to have the gun inspected. Mr. Wright could not carry that handgun on his person. Because, at this point in time, he still did not have authorization to carry a handgun on his person, concealed or open. But, he had to bring the handgun down to One Police Plaza, unloaded, in a locked box, without ammunition on his person, and the handgun had to be equipped with trigger-locking device. The NYPD licensing officer would then inspect the handgun and the make, model, type, caliber, and serial number would all be recorded on the license. Mr. Wright was aware that the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" is not Mr. Wright's by right, but only by privilege, granted to him by the NYPD, and therefore revocable by the NYPD at any time. In fact, language on the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" itself makes this point poignantly clear: "This license is revocable at any time. Upon demand of a police officer, a licensee must immediately surrender his/her license and handguns. Lost, stolen, confiscated, or surrendered handguns must be reported to the License Division immediately at 646-610-5560 or 646-610-5154." As a holder of an unrestricted, "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," Mr. Wright might possibly possess, but at the sole discretion of the NYPD, a second handgun. If the NYPD permitted Mr. Wright to possess a second handgun, he would, once again, have to travel to One Police Plaza to obtain, from the License Division, a "PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION FORM," setting forth the make, model, type, and caliber of the handgun that he wished to purchase and possess. And, once again, after Mr. Wright obtained that second firearm, he would have to return to One Police Plaza to have the handgun inspected. He would have to be very careful that, once again, as well, the handgun was secured in a locked-box, sans ammunition and he must not have ammunition anywhere on his person, and the handgun must also be secured with a trigger lock. Details concerning the make, model, type, caliber, and serial number would all be duly recorded on the carry license.For those New York residents who hold a valid, "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," only one handgun is permitted on the license. That is not to mean that a holder of either an unrestricted, "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," or holder of a restricted, "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," cannot lawfully possess other handguns. But, such other handguns that a licensee might happen to possess would have to be listed on another handgun license. For example, if Mr. Wright sought to obtain one or two additional handguns, other than those two listed on his license, he would have to secure another type of New York handgun license, namely and specifically, a "PREMISES LICENSE." And any additional handguns that Mr. Wright happened to own and possess could not lawfully be used for concealed carry. those handguns and only those handguns that appear on Mr. Wright's "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" may be lawfully carried concealed in public, for the purpose for which the license was issued. If Mr. Wright happened to carry a handgun that was not specifically listed on his license, Mr. Wright's license would be summarily revoked and he would likely face criminal charges, as well, for unlawful possession of a firearm. Also, even if Mr. Wright has two handguns listed on his "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," he is only permitted to carry one of them at a time. He cannot legally carry both handguns. This limitation does not, of course, apply to current, active-duty NYPD Officers, who are governed by NYPD policy affecting active-duty NYPD Officers and not by License Division policy that affects civilian handgun licensees.With his license in hand, Mr. Wright then went to a New York licensed gun dealer and purchased his handgun, trigger lock, ammunition, and other handgun accessories. Mr. Wright was also aware that his handgun license would have to be renewed every three years; that he was responsible for the renewal of his license every three years; and that the process was not automatic. He would have to prove, to the satisfaction of the NYPD License Division Officer, that he has a continued need for a "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," and this would necessitate the submission of documentation similar to what he had to submit during the initial application. Nothing can change in regard to Mr. Wright's business. In fact, if the NYPD License Division Officer determined that the nature of Mr. Wright’s business had changed, to the extent that Mr. Wright's “LETTER OF NECESSITY” no longer supported his singular need for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” then that license would be cancelled. Moreover, the onus on maintaining his license was on Mr. Wright, himself. If Mr. Wright did not timely renew his “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” the license would be automatically cancelled, and then revoked. And the renewal fee was not insignificant. It is $340.00, valid for three years. Mr. Wright kept his team of experts employed for the specific purpose of making sure that his “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” would not be cancelled for failure to timely renew.

PARENTHETICAL NOTE CONCERNING APPLICATIONS FOR HANDGUN LICENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

Today, unlike the period of time when Mr. Wright applied for and obtained his NYPD issued “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," the NYPD License Division doesn’t issue an unrestricted concealed carry license immediately. Instead, the License Division issues only a “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” This is a restricted license that allows the licensee to carry a handgun concealed only at particular times and on specific days. The issuance of a restricted “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” in lieu of issuance of an unrestricted FULL “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" is, of late, a matter of policy. It appears that the creation of the "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" by the NYPD is a manifestation of the desire by politicians to curtail civilian ownership and possession of concealed handgun carry licenses to the extent possible. Clearly, in the running of a business that requires a proprietor to carry substantial sums of money or other negotiable instruments, circumstances may require that proprietor to transport negotiable instruments on days and at times other than those listed on the "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE." Be that as it may, that proprietor is not permitted to carry his handgun on his person.Currently, the NYPD policy will issue, during the initial application for a concealed handgun carry license, only limited “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSES,” assuming a businessman is qualified to possess a firearm at all and assuming, too, that the businessman can distinguish himself or herself, in the "LETTER OF NECESSITY," from other businessmen who do not have handguns accessible to them for self-defense. Through time the NYPD License Division will consider the issuance of a FULL “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," assuming the licensee’s stated “LETTER OF NECESSITY” has not changed and to the extent that the licensee has demonstrated responsible handling and safeguarding of the licensee’s handgun and to the extent that the licensee has shown that he or she has successfully completed a certified handgun safety training course. In other words, the licensee must demonstrably establish a track record of proven ability and responsibility in the safe handling and safeguarding of a handgun, consistent with continuous proof of need for a handgun.Curiously, in many other States that issue concealed handgun carry licenses -- and they don't create odd distinctions between restricted and unrestricted "full carry" handgun licenses -- the applicant must take and pass a certified handgun safety training course before the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That isn’t the case in New York. First, one has to have an unblemished record – free of any arrest record or mental health issue and that person must show that he or she is not subject to a protective order – and, second, the applicant must show especial need for the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license that sets that businessman apart from other New York business people, as explained supra, and third, the applicant must provide voluminous documentation to support the claim of especial need, which means exposing massive amounts of proprietary information to the police.

FURTHER TO MR. WRIGHT’S EXPERIENCES IN APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

This is not the end of the story. It is just the beginning. Since Mr. Wright does business throughout the Country, he realized that the time, money, energy spent on securing a New York City "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" would be of little value in most other States. Thus, the effort expended to obtain the two licenses that he now had – a “TARGET/HUNTING LICENSE” issued by the Nassau County Police Department, and the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" issued by the New York City Police Department, would be of no value to him in virtually any other State he happened to travel to and through as he conducted business. Mr. Wright would need to obtain concealed a handgun carry licenses in virtually every other State he did business in if he were to best protect his life and well-being.Mr. Wright's journey through the Labyrinthine quagmire of State concealed handgun carry licensing would never be an easy one.In the next installment we discuss the application procedure for obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license as issued by the police authority for the State of Maine.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, APPLICATION FOR AN UNRESTRICTED, CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

PART THREE: PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY -- A LOOK AT ACTUAL APPLICATION LICENSING PROCEDURES IN THE SEVERAL STATES

SUBPART ONE: NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

Mr. Wright is a resident of New York State, and, as we previously mentioned, in Part Two of this multi-part series article, he lives in Nassau County, but his corporate offices are in New York City. MrWright first sought to obtain a concealed handgun carry license for his hometown, in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. And, he believed, logically, that once he secured the license, the license would be valid through the entirety of New York, at least, if not valid in any other State. Simple enough, you might think. Simple enough, Mr. Wright thought. Mr. Wright was wrong in his assessment. As he found out, through some digging, New York does not issue one concealed handgun carry license that is good throughout the State for most individuals, unless they are retired, qualified police officers or retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers. Of course, current active-duty New York police officers and current active-duty law-enforcement officers do not require a license to carry a firearm. Their badge and ID is license enough to carry anywhere in the State.Mr. Wright soon learned that a concealed handgun carry license that is issued by the County of Nassau would allow Mr. Wright to carry a handgun concealed in Nassau County and in all Counties within the State of New York, but would not allow him to carry a handgun concealed in any of the five Boroughs of New York City. So, Mr. Wright first decided that, as it made sense for him at least, at the outset, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license in his hometown of Nassau County, he would begin there. If Mr. Wright wishes to carry a handgun anywhere within the five Boroughs of New York City, he would unload his handgun and place it in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip through the city’s five boroughs. Ammunition must be stored in its own locked container. Both the handgun and ammunition should be stored in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the locked containers must be kept the furthest distance as possible from your person. Of course, Mr. Wright did not know this at the time, but would learn just how complicated and convoluted the laws of New York City, in particular, are, once he became knowledgeable of the City’s firearms’ Rules.

THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

So, Mr. Wright went about the arduous task of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license in Nassau County. Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department is the issuing agency authorized by law to grant handgun licenses in the county. Mr. Wright then learned that the holder of a valid license may carry a handgun loaded in all counties in the State of New York, except for all five boroughs of the City of New York. Mr. Wright could download an application and, as well, for a handgun license, but once completed, he realized that he personally had to go to the Police Department’s headquarters located at 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501 to file it. Mr. Wright also downloaded Nassau County’s “Pistol License Section Handbook.” During some off-time, during the weekend, Mr. Wright sat down to read the “Handbook.”Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department issues six types of handgun licenses: one, “Target/Hunting License;” two, “Business License;” three, “Restricted Business License for Armed Guard & Armored Car Guard;” four, “Civilian Full Carry License;” five, “Retired Police Officer/Federal Law Enforcement Officer License;” and, six, “Retired Peace Officer License.”Mr. Wright reviewed the requirements for each type of license and the restrictions, if any, on the licenses. Mr. Wright found it easy enough to rule out several licenses. Since he resided in Nassau County, but his business was in New York, he decided that he would like to apply for a “Civilian Full Carry License.”Mr. Wright then reviewed the actual “PISTOL LICENSE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS” that he had printed out along with the “Handbook.” From a quick scan of the Handbook, Mr. Wright ascertained, immediately, that the Application did not provide any space allocation for setting down the type of handgun license the applicant wished to apply for. Mr. Wright wondered, then, whether the “Application” was, for all intents and purposes, an initial application and that, based on Mr. Wright’s responses, and on the basis of the Nassau County Police Department’s initial investigation of him, the Application would either be accepted for further processing, or his Application for a pistol license – any kind of a pistol license – would be summarily rejected. But, Mr. Wright, realized that his initial assessment was wrong, once, after a cursory inspection of the Handbook, he carefully read and memorized important details. He noticed that, on the very first page of the handbook, the NCPD had this to say:"Please note that while pistol licenses are processed as quickly as possible, the present processing time is approximately six (6) months. All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready. PLEASE DO NOT CALL TO INQUIRE AS TO THE STATUS OF A PENDING APPLICATION."Mr. Wright’s gaze was drawn to a particular sentence that wasn’t in bold type: “All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready.” This sentence proclaimed that the NCPD would, itself, determine what kind of license it would issue to an Applicant, if a handgun license would be issued at all. So, Mr. Wright reasoned, he would not have any choice in the matter after all. The next day Mr. Wright phoned the NCPD and asked to speak to an Officer with the “Pistol License Section” of the NCPD. Once connected to the appropriate Officer, Mr. Wright explained that he was reading through the handbook and he was aware that the NCPD issues six types of handgun licenses and that he is aware of only two that could feasibly apply to him: the “target/hunting license” and the “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright explained that he wanted a handgun for self-defense, adding that he was not interested in hunting or for plinking at targets. The Officer replied in an offhanded way that, if Mr. Wright qualified for a license at all, he would not be receiving a “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright wanted to know why that is. The Officer pointed out that very few of those are issued. Mr. Wright asked him if the NCPD obtains many requests for “civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer stated that, in fact, many New York residents do want full carry licenses but very few are ever issued. “Who,” Mr. Wright asked, “receives ‘civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer replied: “judges and politicians.” Mr. Wright thanked the Officer for his time and for his honesty and, once he hung up the telephone, he wondered if it would be worthwhile for him to spend the time, which would be considerable, and a sum of money, which would not be inconsiderable, to apply for a handgun license at all, in his own home town, if, at best, he would receive nothing more than a “target/hunting license.” Mr. Wright decided that he would complete the application process.In continuing to read through the application process, it was very clear to Mr. Wright that, if a person, was to receive a handgun license at all – any kind of license, that person would need to be literally squeaky clean. Indeed, one question required Mr. Wright to indicate whether he had received a traffic violation within the last five years and “traffic violation” included “traffic infractions.” This was what the Handbook set forth:“An applicant for the issuance of a pistol license must:

1. Provide two passport-size photos with their application;

2. Reside within the confines of the County of Nassau;

3. Complete the notarized form letter (found in the application package) which states all persons 18 years of age or older who reside with the applicant are aware applicant will be securing a firearm(s) in the residence.

4. Be at least twenty-one (21) 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;

5. Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

6. Not have had a license revoked or be under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 530.14 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law or Section 842-A of the NYS Family Court Act;

7. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully residing in the United States;

8. Not have been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2);

9. Having been a citizen of the United States, never renounced his or her citizenship;

10. Be of good moral character;

11. Demonstrate the existence of proper cause or legitimate business necessity for the issuance of a license other than Target/Hunting or Retired Officer;

Note: The NCPD may alter a licensee’s classification at any time upon a finding that proper cause/legitimate business necessity no longer exists. Proper cause, like any license requirement stated herein, must be demonstrated each time the license is renewed and at any time upon request by NCPD Pistol License Section personnel. If proper cause is not proven, the license will be modified accordingly to reflect the appropriate classification.

12. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a felony or other serious offense, as defined in Section 265.00(17) of the NYSPL;

13. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;

14. Disclose whether he or she has been the subject or recipient of an Order of Protection or a Temporary Order of Protection;

15. Not be a fugitive from justice;

16. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802;

17. Not have been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene pursuant to Article 9 or 15 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law, Article 730 or Section 330.20 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law, Article 402 or 508 of the NYS Correction Law or Section 322.2 or 353.4 of the NYS Family Court Act;

18. Not have been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to Article 10 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law;

19. Not have had a guardian appointed for him or her pursuant to any provision of New York State law, based upon a determination that as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incapacity, condition or disease, he or she lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs;

20. Not have a history of suffering from a mental illness;

21. Be free from any mental disorders, conditions, defects or diseases that would impair or affect his or her ability to safely possess or use a firearm;

Note: If an applicant is being treated by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, he or she must obtain a letter of “no objection” from that caregiver.

22. Demonstrate that no good cause exists for the denial of such license.”

Mr. Wright could deduce from the nature of the questions in the handbook, which were mirrored in thirteen questions that required a simple “yes” or “no” answer, that a “yes” answer was sufficient grounds for immediate disqualification for any handgun license. And, if an applicant were to lie, in the hope that the NCPD might not, through its investigation, uncover the deception – well – the NCPD had that possibility covered as well, for the “Pistol License Application Questionnaire” set forth this:“ANY OMISSION OF FACT OR ANY FALSE STATEMENT WILL BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTES A CRIME PUNISHABLE BYFINE, IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.”Mr. Wright, who is a man of impeccable integrity and honesty would never lie; nor had he need to. He could honestly answer, “no” to each question. Mr. Wright’s main concern – indeed – Mr. Wright’s only concern was that he would likely not receive a “civilian full carry license.” Having reviewed both the Application Questionnaire and the “Pistol License Section Handbook” in depth, Mr. Wright, who was also a man who was methodical and meticulous in attending to details decided that if he were to enhance his prospect for obtaining a civilian full carry license, he should consult with both an attorney and with a professional organization adept at understanding and handling the intricate process of obtaining a handgun license.At the end of the day, after waiting the full six months to obtain a handgun license, issued by the NCPD, Mr. Wright obtained his handgun license: a “target/hunting license.” He was unable to obtain a “civilian full carry license” as issued by Nassau County, his own hometown. Had he been a judge or a politician, instead of a mere “businessman,” as the NCPD Officer explained to him, the outcome would likely have been different. Apparently, the NCPD has determined that the life of a politician or a judge is more valuable than that of an American citizen who is only a businessman. One can only wonder what the founders of this Republic would have said about that!If Mr. Wright wished to acquire a handgun license for self-defense, he realized that he would have to obtain one in another New York jurisdiction. As his business was located in New York City and, as his attorney and other specialists suggested that his opportunity for securing an unrestricted “full carry” license may actually be better once he applied for a handgun license as issued by the NYPD, Mr. Wright now used considerable energy and resources to obtain what he hoped would culminate in his first unrestricted full carry concealed handgun carry license. In the back of his mind Mr. Wright was more than a trifle upset that he – an honest, law-abiding American citizen and a successful businessman who has helped fill the State and City and County coffers with substantial tax dollars, much of which would go to the very police departments bestowed with the singular power to determine how much value to place on his life – should deny him the right of access to a handgun simply that he might exercise his right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deny him one of the most basic of human imperatives: the impulse to defend one’s own life.Would the NYPD treat Mr. Wright just as curtly? Mr. Wright aimed to find out. In the next subpart of this multi-series article, we will discuss Mr. Wright’s experiences involving his application for a New York City unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHO’S PACKING IN NEW YORK CITY?

If ever there existed a testament to the need for universal concealed handgun license reciprocity, New York City is glaring proof of it. Yesterday, August 3, 2015, an honest U.S. citizen, Marine Corps veteran, resident of Texas, and mother of three, was visiting the 9/11 memorial with her friend in the City, when she was arrested for carrying two handguns. The story appeared, yesterday, August 3, 2015, in the New York Post, under the title, “Pistol Packin’ Mama Under Fire.” The person arrested, Elizabeth Anne Enderli, does possess a valid concealed carry permit. But, Mrs. Enderli’s concealed carry pistol permit was issued in Texas, not in New York City. Her Texas concealed carry license isn’t recognized as valid in New York City or, for that matter, anywhere else in the State of New York. Mrs. Enderli didn’t know that. And, since she doesn’t also possess a valid, unrestricted New York City handgun concealed carry license, she found herself spending the night in jail rather than in her hotel room. An otherwise law-abiding American citizen became a de facto law-breaker simply because she was unaware of the impact of New York City’s restrictive gun laws.Mrs. Enderli was subsequently arraigned on weapons possession charges. If convicted, she could face prison time. Is this just a quirk? Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” What happened to Mrs. Enderli, could happen to any honest and otherwise law-abiding American citizen, and, in fact, has happened to other honest, law-abiding American citizens – with disturbing regularity.But, this should not happen and need not happen. It would not happen if each State recognized the validity of a concealed handgun carry license issued by other States. Curiously, according to the New York Post, Texas does recognize the validity of New York firearms’ licenses, and has done so since 2006, even as New York does not recognize the validity of Texas firearms’ permits. This might explain why Mrs. Enderli thought, reasonably enough, although wrongly, that her Texas concealed handgun carry permit was valid in New York. Handgun license reciprocity ought not to be so blatantly one-sided. State reciprocity is not, we see, always reciprocal.Many States, such as New York, have archaic, draconian, and mind-numbingly convoluted firearms’ laws. These laws are clearly aimed at the average, law-abiding citizen, not the criminal, for they do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and committing crimes with them. This is clear, obvious, and beyond reasonable refutation.But, the irrationality of firearms’ laws such as those of New York does not lead to the repeal of them because the goal of these laws has little if anything to do with reducing crimes committed with guns – and, so, the laws, not surprisingly, fail. Restrictive firearms’ laws have more to do with disarming the honest, law-abiding American citizen – and, so, the laws, on that score, not surprisingly, tend to succeed. New York’s firearms’ laws were, clearly enough, not designed – were never really designed – to encourage the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right of self-defense. They were designed, rather, with the opposite goal in mind: to discourage the exercise of that right. But, why is that?For honest American citizens, like Mrs. Enderli, who wish to exercise their natural right of self-defense, it is hardly welcoming to say: “if you wish to visit New York City, leave your firearms at home; your out-of-State handgun license is not valid here; and, if you feel that you must carry a handgun, then you would do well to secure an unrestricted New York City handgun carry license.” That license is, by the way, exceedingly difficult to obtain. An applicant for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license must go through a lengthy, arduous, and expensive investigative process. And, after all is said and done, that applicant may, more often than not, end up empty-handed anyway because the modus operandi is "may issue," not "shall issue." In the State of New York – and even more particularly in New York City – the law-abiding American citizen does not have the inalienable right to carry a handgun, as guaranteed by and through the Second Amendment, only the privilege to do so, as warranted by and through government. And, as a privilege to carry a handgun, that privilege can be revoked at any time.So, once again, we ask: "Why is that?" Why does New York City – and the State of New York, for that matter – make it so difficult for the average, honest, law-abiding citizen to secure for him or herself a concealed handgun carry license merely to exercise the natural right of self-defense as embodied in and guaranteed by and though the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why does New York City and the State of New York wish so fervently to discourage the exercise of a fundamental right? Is this due to the irrational notion that a firearm in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is more to be feared than a firearm in the hands of a criminal? Given the nature of New York’s draconian firearms’ laws – directed more to oppressing the law-abiding U.S. citizen than effectively restraining the criminal – one could reasonably draw that conclusion.Consider: the law-abiding American citizen and motorist needs one and only one valid driver’s license, issued by any one State, to secure the privilege of driving a motor vehicle lawfully in any other State. It is extremely odd that the same law-abiding American citizen must secure multiple State-issued concealed handgun carry licenses and permits, merely to exercise his or her natural right of self-defense, as sanctified in the Second Amendment.If the one license is so easy to obtain but amounts merely to a privilege proffered by a State government -- which that government may refrain from granting to a citizen because the granting of a license to drive a vehicle on public roads is a government sanctioned privilege, not an inalienable right -- why is the other so difficult to secure, when the right of self-defense – the effective right of self-defense that a firearm provides – is so much more than the mere privilege to drive an automobile on a public road? The right of self-defense is a basic and fundamental right existent in the individual and, therefore, a thing that neither a State Government, nor the federal government, can justifiably deny to a citizen, absent sufficient and good cause for doing so.For those readers who are interested in the issue of handgun carry reciprocity, we explain the merits of universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity, and respond to those who criticize it, in our article, “A Road Trip with a Handgun: The Case for Universal Handgun Reciprocity,” posted on July 12, 2015. In future articles we explain just how arduous, time-consuming, and expensive it is for a law-abiding American citizen to secure concealed handgun carry licenses and permits from a plethora of States.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.