NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE HOLDERS BEWARE: NEW ILLEGAL HANDGUN CARRY ZONES — HERE, THERE, EVERYWHERE, THROUGHOUT NEW YORK

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

MULTISERIES

PART THIRTEEN

FRUSTRATED NEW YORKER GUN OWNERS CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL'S AMENDMENTS TO THE STATE'S GUN LAW AFTER BRUEN

NEW YORKERS CHALLENGE AMENDMENTS TO NEW YORK'S GUN LAW

Few Americans may know about a very recent New York Gun Case challenging amendments to New York’s Gun Law. But all Americans who cherish their God-given right to keep and bear arms should be mindful of it. The case is Antonyuk vs. Bruen, 2202 Lexis 15784 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022).Ivan Antonyuk, along with the NYSRPA, Plaintiff in the third major U.S. Supreme Court case, sued in federal court a few days after New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed New York’s Gun Law amendments into law, ostensibly in response to the Bruen rulings.The Hochul Government did not change the New York Gun Law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq., to comply with the High Court’s rulings in Bruen, but drafted the amendments to constrain and eliminate lawful concealed handgun carry throughout the State, consistent with her Government’s plans to negate exercise of the fundamental, unalienable natural law right codified in the Second Amendment. Hochul would like the public to believe that the amendments comply with the Bruen rulings. They do not. It is all a sham. But, to machinate such an elaborate hoax to waylay the U.S. Supreme Court and hoodwink the public takes time, money, effort, and cunning and Kathy Hochul must have had all of that, suggesting she surreptitiously received an advance copy of the decision after November 3, 2021, Oral Argument. This is reminiscent of the illegal unveiling of a draft opinion of the Dobbs abortion case weeks before the Court released the final and official version of the decision, albeit without the hoopla—which is just the way Hochul would want it.The breadth and depth of the amendments to the Gun Law are substantial. They are all collected under the vague, ambiguous, and deceptive title Concealed Carry Improvement Act (“CCIA”). The title doesn’t illuminate, it deliberately hides and obscures. Yes, the New York Government deleted the offending words “proper cause” from New York’s Gun Law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00, but doing so changes nothing apropos of compliance with the Bruen rulings. The CCIA is worse, much worse than the Gun Law had been with the offensive verbiage intact.The CCIA leaves present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses in a nebulous and precarious position. And the CCIA makes it no less difficult for those seeking to get a New York handgun carry license for the first time.Recall——Bruen held clearly and categorically the State’s “proper cause” requirement is unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the exercise of one’s natural law right of armed self-defense outside the home. Kathy Hochul and Albany remain undeterred. The State Legislature merely substituted “proper cause” with other verbiage that accomplishes the same thing, and, disturbingly, goes beyond the old and problematic “proper cause” requirement. And CCIA maintains the multiple-tier handgun licensing structure.Those who at present hold a valid New York handgun license, whether “unrestricted” or “restricted,” or hold a highly restrictive home or business premise license, under the original licensing scheme, should have known what was coming. On June 6, a few weeks before the official release of Bruen, Hochul signed a ten-bill antigun package into law. Both Albany and the Hochul Administration had no intention of allowing the U.S. Supreme Court to throw a wrench into the Government’s plan that had, heretofore, been going to plan to reduce lawful armed self-defense to a nullity.Recall that Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, had successfully fast-tracked into enactment of the notorious New York Safe Act of 2013. The enactment of the NY Safe Act was a harbinger of things to come. At the time Governor Cuomo signed the Act into Law, we at AQ had correctly pointed out that no one should construe the NY Safe Act as the end goal of the Anti-Second Amendment Government’s effort to constrain lawful possession and ownership of firearms. NY Safe Act is a work in progress, as we stated in an article posted in AQ, on February 18, 2020. And right, we were. The NY Safe Act and CCIA, and a plethora of other Anti-Second gun laws, are grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the New York Government's plan to constrain civilian citizen exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The genesis of that plan was hatched well over 100 years. It was the Sullivan Act of 1911. The Sullivan Act ushered handgun licensing into the State.Through each successive incarnation, the Sullivan Act became progressively worse, progressively constricting, and inhibiting the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense. And with each successive enactment, the Anti-Second Amendment Government became more emboldened; enacted more and more dubious and extravagant antigun laws. On June 24, 2022, just one day after the release of Bruen, Hochul issued a stern warning, albeit couched as a mild “reminder, to gun owners that the U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday decision to strike down New York's concealed carry law does not mean New York State's licensure processes and rules do not need to be followed. It does not automatically give current residential permit owners the ability to carry guns outside the home. Gun owners are required by law to follow current restrictions.” So said the Governor. And she did not bother to hide her bitter anger over the rulings, her hatred of the Second Amendment, her resentment of the U.S. Supreme Court, and her disgust toward those citizens who would dare to exercise their natural law right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Calling the Bruen rulings “appalling”, Hochul responded to them with affected piety, as she simultaneously rebuked the Court that issued them:“‘As the case returns to the lower court, we encourage responsible gun owners to continue to follow their current restrictions, and always put safety first. While we are disappointed with the Supreme Court's reckless disregard for the safety of our communities, we are prepared to fight. I am planning for a special session of the legislature where we will explore a wide range of legislative options that will keep us in compliance with this ruling, while also creating a thorough and strict permitting process that prioritizes the safety of our communities. I look forward to working with the legislature, local and county government leaders, and legal experts, and will stop at nothing to protect New Yorkers.’” Id. So said, Governor Hochul.The Governor’s remarks are glaringly, blatantly inconsistent. In one sentence in the afore-recited passage, she expressly contradicts herself. Hochul says she and the Legislature in Albany “will explore a wide range of legislative options that will keep us in compliance with this ruling, while also creating a thorough and strict permitting process. . . .” Let’s analyze that.Hochul is saying she will comply with the Bruen rulings by making it more difficult to gain a concealed handgun carry license. In other words, “I, Kathy Hochul, will comply with the Bruen rulings by not complying with them.” Huh! Governor Hochul has just squared the circle. Quite an achievement.How does that work? If she can get away with this, it doesn't bode well for those expecting to now be able to exercise their right of armed self-defense in New York, unimpeded.Nonetheless, one is expected to take Hochul and Albany at their word, that they drafted the CCIA to comply with the Bruen rulings and allow for armed self-defense in the public realm, even as they clamp down even harder on one's right to armed self-defense outside the home as well as in it. Her arguments are nonsensical, and her actions were outrageous.Hochul intends to take from innocent New Yorkers the only effective means of self-defense available for them, bestowed on them by the Divine Creator, and guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution, while doing nothing to protect New Yorkers against the horde of lunatics and psychopaths allowed to prey, at will, upon them. If it is this thing “Gun Violence” that so concerns her, Hochul will do well to implement a robust law and order system—and leave the law-abiding citizen who wishes to exercise his natural law right of armed self-defense, alone. She won't do either. The CCIA ostensibly allows some people—still very few—to get a concealed handgun carry license. But even for the seemingly lucky ones, it comes at a severe cost. They must sacrifice other fundamental Rights, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to get their prize: a New York concealed handgun carry license, and, ultimately, for all that time, money, and effort, the value of it comes to naught. It means nothing. The language of the CCIA is sufficiently vague, to support the conclusion that a person isn't permitted to use a handgun for self-defense outside the home, even with a valid concealed handgun license in tow. And, in many areas of the State, and especially in the Five Boroughs that comprise New York City, one definitely cannot use a handgun for self-defense, notwithstanding one's valid concealed handgun carry license.In the most dangerous areas of New York, effectively the entirety of Manhattan Island, the Governor and Albany have created a patchwork quilt of “sensitive locations” where the holder of a New York handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry a handgun.Consider what that means:Step in one block of the City and it is lawful to carry a handgun if you have a valid license, albeit you still may not lawfully use it if needed. But step into another block, and you have broken the law, for not only are you not permitted to use a handgun for self-defense, but it's also unlawful even to have it on your person in that area.Carry a handgun in the wrong area, and you have committed a Class E Felony. That means loss of your handgun license, the loss of your handgun, and any other firearm you may own and possess, and a felony record to boot. So what good is this license, for all the trouble that one must go through to get it? And few will ultimately be able to gain one, anyway.A valid New York concealed handgun carry license provides you no protection. Under the CCIA, it is more a liability than an asset. It is not a god-send but a booby-trap. That Class E Felony violation is created especially for law-abiding citizens, and expressly for holders of concealed handgun carry licenses. New York has codified that felony violation in a new code section: NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The tacit implication of this is plain: don't apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license. And for those who have a valid concealed handgun carry license, don't bother to renew it; and for peace of mind, the Hochul Government suggests surrendering the license to the police authorities because one always risks violating NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The CCIA has traps throughout the length and breadth of it for the concealed handgun carry licensee.Do you recall the playground game, hopscotch, a perennial favorite of young girls? If so, now imagine Manhattan Island as a mammoth hopscotch board with safe and non-safe squares. One who has a valid handgun license and carries a handgun has much to fear from Hochul’s hopscotch inspectors, no less so than from the myriad lunatics and psychopaths that do not need a license to carry a gun as they hunt for prey throughout the City. The no-bail policy gives predators free rein if they are caught by the police, for they are out on the streets again in no time. You, however, don't fare as well. A felony conviction here doesn't help the law-abiding citizen.This is what Hochul and Albany are——Petty Tyrants who adamantly defy both the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and clear and emphatic rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. And this is what Hochul and Albany have wrought—— A climate of fear where the armed citizen is perceived as a latent threat to the Government, and a potential transgressor of State law. And that is how he is treated by the Hochul Government.And yet no graver threat to both the Security of a free State and the supreme sovereignty of the American people exists than upon the failure of the Federal Government and those State Governments that refuse to abide by the strictures of the U.S. Constitution, and the rulings of the Third Branch of the U.S. Government, and that sin against the natural law rights of man as bestowed upon him by the Divine Creator.New Yorkers were therefore compelled to file a new lawsuit once again, ever again, against an arrogant, defiant, recalcitrant, intransigent State Government. In the immortal words of the Great Sage, Yogi Berra:“It’s Déjà vu All Over Again.”—And it’s all because our Federal Government, and this New York Government, and all too many other State Governments, refuse to humble themselves to the strictures of the U.S. Constitution and refuse to accept the supreme sovereignty of the American people over Government and their Nation; and who even dare refuse the American citizen the right to exercise his unalienable natural law right to armed self-defense.We continue with our analysis of Antonyuk in the next several articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DESERVES ACCOLADES FOR THE BRUEN DECISION, BUT NEW YORK’S CHANGES TO ITS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW MAKE CLEAR THERE IS NO CAUSE YET FOR JUBILATION

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

MULTISERIES

PART SEVEN

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LAW WAS ALWAYS A MESS—AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A MESS!

The Amendments to the New York State handgun regime are a “mess.” That one word is the best descriptor of them and for them, and for the entire State handgun licensing regime. These Amendments do nothing to alleviate the past difficulties an individual has had attempting to secure an unrestricted handgun carry license. These Post-Bruen Amendments merely substitute one ludicrous arbitrary and subjective, and vague handgun licensing standard, “Proper Cause”/ “Demonstration of Extraordinary Need,” for another nonsensical subjective and vague handgun licensing standard, “Demonstration of Good Moral Character.”The present New York Government, referring here to Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, have manufactured a response to the Bruen rulings that is a sham, a dissembling, a pretense at satisfying the dictates of the Court—one that isn’t at all subtle.Implementation of the new handgun licensing standard makes it decidedly and decisively more difficult, not less so, for the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding civilian citizen, to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun license. In fact, implementation of the new standard makes it more difficult for the average New Yorker to obtain even a restrictive home and/or business premise handgun license.The New York Government has brazenly defied, not obediently complied with, the Court’s Bruen rulings, thereby vitiating the import of Bruen, and violating the Court’s Article 3 Constitutional authority.In her words and actions, Hochul has made her feelings known, and the New York State Senate Majority Leader has echoed those sentiments.Contemptuous of the High Court’s rulings and reasoning, the New York State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, hurled a stream of invective, at the High Court. She regurgitated the same tiresome, disingenuous, and caustic rhetoric of Anti-Second Amendment fanatics and Neo-Marxist Cultists, proclaiming that the New York Nanny State knows what’s best for the people, not the U.S. Supreme Court. And so, the New York Government informs the Court that New York has no intention of complying with the Court’s rulings. In her Senate Majority Press Release, Andrea Stewart-Cousins retorts——“In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, implying that guns are more important than lives in this country, we are passing legislation to ensure that New York State has safe and responsible gun laws. States are the last line of defense, which is why we are stepping up to protect New York from being easily flooded with concealed weapons and keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. These measures, in addition to the previous anti-gun violence legislation we passed, are vital in a time when there are more guns than people in America. New York will continue to prioritize people’s safety and lives, and I thank my conference, Speaker Heastie, and Governor Hochul for their partnership.” ~New York State Senate Majority leader’s remarks after the NY Senate in Albany passed amendments to the State’s handgun licensing statute in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the State’s concealed handgun carry law.The implication of Stewart-Cousins’ remarks is that the Government's changes to the handgun statute are designed to make it more difficult, not less difficult, for the average civilian citizen to exercise his or her right to armed self-defense in New York, thus necessitating the filing of further time-consuming and expensive lawsuits on the part of the citizen to obtain redress for Government's unconscionable, unconstitutional behavior.It is evident that the goal of the New York Government is to make the process of obtaining a New York handgun carry license—that one requires to lawfully possess a handgun in New York—so difficult, so onerous, so expensive, so time-consuming, so oppressive that one’s desire to exercise his or her natural law right to keep and bear arms is snuffed out, and the individual concedes defeat, and gives up further attempt to secure the right. Of course, some individuals will remain undeterred, and that is to be expected as long as the Second Amendment remains, de jure law, in the Bill of Rights—a thing that angers and frustrates the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists to no end. For, as long as the Second Amendment remains explicit in the Constitution, the sovereignty of the American people cannot be disturbed, and United States, as a free Constitutional Republic, and independent Nation-State cannot be dismantled and its remains inserted into the “international rules-based neo-feudalistic, neoliberal empire,” a.k.a. “new world order,” a.k.a. “Open Society,” that the Destroyers of independent nation-states have long yearned and aimed and planned for.   New York's handgun regime is where the Globalists/Marxists are focusing their energies. If they can defeat the Second Amendment there, they also defeat the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. So, the puppet-masters have given their puppets, Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, their marching orders. The Amendments to New York's handgun law are no less draconian than what stood before. The New York Government assumes that many people who had hoped to obtain an unrestricted handgun carry license easily, Post-Bruen, now realizing the hopelessness of the task, will simply capitulate, surrender the effort to obtain one.And, as the Government has included, in the Amendments, many more restrictions pertaining to places where, henceforth, it will be unlawful for the holder of a valid unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public, that, too—the Government hopes—will dampen whatever residual desire a civilian citizen may have to carry a handgun for self-defense. Obtaining a coveted handgun license will be, at best, at long-last, nothing more than a Pyrrhic Victory—hardly worth the effort.And, so, a recalcitrant, intransigent New York Government pushes hard against those citizens who intend to exercise their Second Amendment right regardless of the obstacles the New York Government places in their path. This means citizens must continue to expend earnest effort filing more expensive, more lengthy, more time-consuming lawsuits against Hochul and her Government. And the Government knows that, given the nature of the legal process, and of the effort, and time, and money involved, all those factors work to the Government’s advantage—not that of the citizen.Hochul's message is clear: “the New York handgun regime is here to stay, and any person who doesn’t like New York’s handgun regime, better have a deep pocket to file another lawsuit like Bruen, and they better have the time and energy and will power to follow through on it. They will need it.”Or, in the alternative, Americans can simply leave New York. Kathy Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—creator of and champion of the notorious New York Safe Act of 2013—has made abundantly clear that members of the GOP who hold “extreme views,” in Cuomo’s mind, are persona non grata. As he says, “you don’t belong in New York.’” See article in New York Post.So, then what? “Just leave?” And to be sure, many American Patriots have left New York. They have also left Illinois and California. But many other Americans, true Patriots, too, have stayed and they intend to fight for their fundamental rights and liberties in their State, their home.After all, many good Americans were born and raised in New York, in Illinois, and in California. These Americans consider those States to be their home. And those States are their home. So, why, then, should they leave? Let the corrupters of those States, like Cuomo and Hochul, and DeBlasio and Eric Adams leave New York. Let corruptors like Pritzker and Lightfoot leave Illinois. Let corruptors like Newsome, and Garcetti, and Breed, and Schaaf leave California, as well they all should. But where do Americans go if the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist cultists take over the entire Country—which is occurring apace? The Biden Administration allows CCP China and the Billionaire, Bill Gates, to buy up vast tracts of land—and to what end? The Administration uses tens of billions of American tax-dollars against the interests of Americans and politicizes Government departments, agencies, and bureaus for its own nefarious ends. The military and police are demoralized and weakened. Our founders are denigrated. Our monuments and statues are defaced, removed, and desecrated.    The Biden Administration has done much to destroy this Country’s economy, infrastructure, and its resources, and its military preparedness and prowess. That is its sole reason for being. It is the sole reason, money, and time, and effort, and massive corruption of the electoral process was expended in getting Donald Trump out and getting Joe Biden and legions of lackeys into positions of power that they may damage the Republic irreparably.It has all paid off for the Corruptors of the Country. The Nation’s vitality is on the wane. This is not due to accident or mere happenstance; nor can it be explained as a product of gross incompetence. It is intentional. It is all part of an elaborate, sophisticated plan; carefully conceived and orchestrated; and methodically carried out.Yet, there are limits to the harm a feeble-minded and physical wreck of a man can inflict on this Country even though Joe Biden is but a titular Chief Executive. But, if California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, should run for President, and secure the Democrat Party’s nomination for President in 2024, and, horror of horrors, if he became the 47^th U.S. President, what then becomes of the Country.? Newsom’s California will be replicated across the 50 States. Where might Americans run to, then? What State shall be able to operate—may operate—consistent with the Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, once tyranny cements itself firmly in the Nation, and reigns unchallenged, supreme over Constitution, Nation, and People?For what Americans have experienced, especially, in the last 19 months, one must conclude the American Revolution of 1776 was less a hard-fought war, won, than it remains a war yet ongoing, with battles Americans must continue to fight against its own Federal and State Governments. For these Governments adamantly refuse to acknowledge and accept the sovereignty of the American people, as first conceptualized by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and then as actualized through the fact of our Nation's well-armed citizenry. But can America's Patriots prevail against such powerful, malevolent, and tenacious forces that dare to suppress our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties and to oppress our people until they capitulate—every one of us—to a world-wide feudalistic empire whose central offices one shall find in Brussels, Belgium?As we have seen, even simple recognition of the sacred natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be found everywhere in our Nation, but only in scattered spots here and there. A tyrannical Federal Government and several more tyrannical State Governments, blotting the National landscape, refuse to countenance such basic right—the cornerstone of our free Republic and of the sovereignty of the American people over Government. Our Constitution demands that Government pay homage to the will of the American people through recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No other Government on Earth allows such. Most other Governments mock the very idea of it. But not here. Yet, today, our Government, this Federal Government, and many State Governments and regional and municipal governments have become like so many others; corrupt, and jealous, and guarded of their powers: a blight on a Free Republic. These Governments demand the American people pay homage to them; not they to the American people!The forces that crush have made substantial inroads into achievement of their goal: the demoralizing, destabilizing, and dismantling of our free Republic. They have corrupted every institution of our Country. They have denigrated our history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Christian ethic. And, they are stripping our Nation of its strength, and will, and fortitude. Only the sovereignty of the Nation’s people remains, albeit attenuated, as our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal rights and liberties are being inexorably, and swiftly, eroded before our very eyes. _____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

MULTISERIES

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

PART FIVE

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

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

PART SIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

ANDREW CUOMO SEEKS TO IMPOSE NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS ON THE ENTIRE NATION

In November 2018 an elated New York Times reported that Andrew M. Cuomo had secured a third term in Office as Governor of New York. The newspaper asserted, with typical exuberance and fanfare, that:“In defeating Marcus J. Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, Mr. Cuomo, 60, soaked up the vast majority of votes in New York City, mirroring his success in the September primary, in which he defeated Cynthia Nixon, the actress and education advocate. The race was called by The Associated Press shortly after polls had closed at 9 p.m.Addressing a crowd gathered at a Midtown hotel, Mr. Cuomo said that his victory symbolized the liberal ways of New York, which he called the ‘progressive capital’ of the nation and a fortress against the policies of Donald Trump, a New Yorker himself."Andrew Cuomo—never one to exercise humility and restraint either in words spoken or in actions taken—has shaped and molded New York into his own image, a bastion of Left-wing ideology, increasingly out-of-touch with the Nation at large, and a slap-in-the-face to the vision our founders had for the Nation. Yet, what he has wrought upon the people of New York, he would dare impose on the entire Nation.In the last few months since the election, Cuomo has become increasingly emboldened. And, why shouldn’t he be emboldened? After all, as the Democratic Party has lurched ever Leftward, openly extolling the tenets of Socialism and Communism, and exhorting the Nation to follow suit, Cuomo has made abundantly clear that his own star must continue to rise.Indeed, The New York Times suggested, in its Sunday March 10, 2019 edition, titled, “Centrist Democrats Squirm as Rivals Swerve left in Presidential Race,” that Andrew Cuomo may be one of two logical choices to wear “the moderate mantle” as Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, now that former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has bowed out of the race, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden presently remains undecided.Yet, if Andrew Cuomo can reasonably be considered a political moderate or centrist, it goes to show just how far off the deep end the Democratic Party has fallen. Or, perhaps, The New York Times simply seeks to create the impression that Cuomo is a stalwart, solid, and stolid political moderate or centrist, knowing that an outright Socialist such as Bernie Sanders would not likely pull-off a victory against Trump in 2020.The fact remains that Andrew Cuomo is no less a Left-wing radical than is Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand. Andrew Cuomo is as radical in his politics and in his policy choices as they are. He is as radical as they come. Simply look at the New York policy measures that Cuomo campaigned for and that he signed into law. Consider: Cuomo was instrumental in signing into law, in February 2019, an abortion measure that literally sanctions murder. Even pro-choice Americans look askance at late term abortions, much less abortions at the moment of birth, but not Andrew Cuomo.Keep in mind that the very word, ‘abortion,’ has literally been written out of New York’s Penal Code. Given that fact, it follows from this action, both logically and legally, that abortion at any time, up to and including the moment of birth, is now in effect lawful, even if apologists for the law, insist that isn’t the case at all. It is. Since no penalty is exacted from the perpetrator of an abortion, effectively, then, no crime exists upon which the perpetrator of the act can be indicted. This New York law that Cuomo gloats over is hardly representative of a political moderate or political centrist.But if you were to ask him, Andrew Cuomo would likely tell you that he is a political moderate. He would tell you, consistent with his belief—or, if not, then, consistent, at least, with his claim, hoping you would believe him—that his political views and policy objectives are clearly within the mainstream of the Country even if they really aren’t. And, of course, they aren’t. New York’s abortion law is a prime example. Take another: Cuomo’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In 2018, during his campaign for a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo, made clear that the New York Safe Act—what he and others would claim as his true signature achievement—was not the endgame; not by a longshot. It is but a mere skirmish in Cuomo’s ongoing campaign to weaken the Second Amendment, and eventually to obliterate it. He would if he could do so in New York, and he would relish doing the same well beyond the borders of New York, namely, throughout the Nation.The weblog, Spectrum Local News reported that, during his campaign for a third term in Office, “Cuomo has not just defended his staunch support for gun control, he’s pledging to expand the existing law.” If anyone were to think this was an empty campaign pledge, think again. It wasn’t. Cuomo was deadly serious. In January of 2019, as reported by Hudson Valley 360, Cuomo, “announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,” and he further chortled, “‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation.’”To some, this may be viewed as a hopeful promise. But, to the vast majority of the Nation's citizenry this is a singular, dire threat that must be taken seriously and fought ferociously against.Now that Democrats control both the New York Assembly and the New York State Senate, Governor Cuomo is able to make good on that frightful promise. But, one may well ask: why would Cuomo do so; why would he think it necessary to do so? What would that really accomplish other than making it increasingly onerous, if not impossible, for the average law-abiding New York resident and citizen of the United States to exercise his or her fundamental right, under the Second Amendment? But, then, is not that really the point? Is not that really Cuomo’s ultimate objective: the dissolution of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And, Is not that a primary goal of all radical Leftists?Of course no one can, with a straight face, argue that New York’s present gun laws are lenient, relaxed, or sensible. New York's gun laws--especially those in New York City, and in a couple of New York's Counties--are anything but lenient and relaxed; And those gun laws are anything but ‘sensible’—to use a common appellation of antigun zealots, in reference to their constant call for ever more “sensible gun control” measures. No! New York has long had the most restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws in the Nation. Antigun groups revel in that fact. Apparently, Cuomo and others of his ilk do not think that New York’s restrictive gun laws are oppressive and repressive enough. They look forward to building upon the NY Safe Act, devising ever further ways in which to confound, antagonize, and demoralize law-abiding citizens who wish merely to be left alone; free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed to the Nation's citizenry in the Nation's Bill of Rights.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS A TRAVESTY.

Recall that, in 2013, Cuomo machinated behind closed doors, to instigate enactment of the reprehensible New York Safe Act, which otherwise certainly would not have been enacted. For the NY Safe Act could not have been enacted—likely would not have been enacted—if it had seen the light of day. The Act should have been debated in open session by all Legislators, Republican and Democrat, and the public should have been able to review it and comment on it. After all, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? But, what we see in the New York Safe Act is reprehensible. It is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment and inconsistent with the very idea of the sanctity and autonomy of the individual American citizen. Cuomo and those who detest the Second Amendment knew that the NY Safe Act could not, likely, survive legislative and public scrutiny. Subterfuge was necessary for NY Safe to be enacted.But, subterfuge is not the way to enact law. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to operate. But, that is how the Governor of New York operates and that is how his henchmen in Albany operate. And, to add insult to injury, the Governor and his henchmen in Albany rejoice in their ability to circumvent the law, to attain the aims they wish to attain, the public be damned. To this day the Governor and his comrades in Albany boast of their ability to operate within the periphery of the legislative process to get done those things they want to get done. And, the mainstream media, the echo chamber of these radical Leftist elements, gloats along with them.The New York Times gleefully writes: “The governor successfully corralled recalcitrant Senate Republicans into supporting the so-called Safe Act that expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons, tightened certification requirements, increased criminal penalties for illegal guns and closed private sale loopholes.”  And, so, the NY Safe Act, 2013 Bill Text NY S.B. 2230,was spawned; enacted in Albany, as an “emergency measure,” and signed into law by Cuomo, during his second term as New York Governor, on January 15, 2013.With passage of the New York Safe Act in 2013, New York’s already restrictive gun laws became more restrictive as more and more firearms were classified as illegal ‘assault weapons.’ The Safe Act also imposed new restrictions on ammunition magazine capacity. But that’s not all. The Safe Act did not limit its reach to restrictions to firearms and ammunition.The Act imposed ominous disclosure requirements on health care professionals, impinging uncomfortably on the privilege of confidentiality existent between medical doctor and patient. The Safe Act even imposed new obligations on the Courts, taking judicial discretion away from the Courts on matters involving revocation and suspension of firearms’ licenses and rifle and shotgun permits. And, new, stringent penalties were imposed on law-abiding gun owners who failed to comply with the convoluted new antigun laws, permeating through the Consolidated Laws of New York.Cuomo and the antigun crowd in Albany are fully enamored with themselves. And, with each success, in robbing Americans of their birthright, they consider yet other and more devious ways to divest the public of their sacred right to keep and bear arms, as they escalate their war on the Second Amendment. With Democrats now holding majorities in the New York Assembly and in the State Senate, the State’s antigun Legislators have unleashed a flurry of antigun measures in the first month of 2019:As reported by The Evening Sun newspaper, on January 29, 2019,“The Democrat-controlled New York Legislature is set Tuesday to pass several bills aimed at making the state’s already tough gun laws even stricter. At least eight measures are expected to pass the Assembly and Senate, including legislation to prohibit schools from allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in schools.” While Cuomo muscles through his antigun legislation in Albany, he suffers not any attempt by Republican Legislators to enact legislation that might throw a wrench into his policy objectives; he suffers not any attempt by those in Albany who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2017 the liberal weblog, Politico, reported that State Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from Buffalo, New York, attempted to do just that. He introduced legislation to curtail Cuomo’s Safe Act in its entirety. Governor Cuomo was petulant, stating:“‘If they try to overrule the state of New York, we will sue, because the state has rights, too,’ Cuomo said. ‘And especially with this federal government, it’s very important that the states represent their rights and assert their rights. And I will assert my right to the fullest extent of the law, because I am diametrically opposed and the people of my state are diametrically opposed to much of what this federal government is trying to do.’” Undeterred, Representative Collins fired back,“‘The 10th Amendment respects state’s rights until they violate another amendment,’ Collins said at a press conference, flanked by several state legislators. ‘We’re not going to let them stomp on our right to the Second Amendment.’”State Representative Collins is right. He might also have reminded the Governor that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The U.S. Supreme Court made that point abundantly clear in the seminal Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And, in the subsequent McDonald case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the high Court held that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, applies to the States too. That means the Second Amendment applies to New York. Cuomo apparently doesn’t think so, or would rather that it did not because, if Cuomo is aware of that the Second Amendment applies to New York, he couldn’t care less. He will not allow a fundamental right of the people get in the way of his policy objectives.

COULD A TENTH AMENDMENT LEGAL GAMBIT WORK TO SECURE THE NY SAFE ACT AGAINST A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE ACT LEGISLATIVELY?

Cuomo’s threat to kill an attempt to waylay the New York Safe Act via a Tenth Amendment challenge could not succeed were Representative Collins successful in repealing the New York Safe Act. Perhaps, Cuomo knows this. But, apart from Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment challenge, it was Collin’s remarks, alone, that Cuomo took particular exception to. Cuomo didn’t like what he heard. Cuomo could not stomach what he perceived to be Collins’ audacious assault on the Governor’s signature gun policy achievement. And, Cuomo didn’t like the tacit idea expressed in Representative Collins’ remarks, namely, that a cause supportive of the Second Amendment might be seen by the public as a noble effort.Cuomo finds most disconcerting that he cannot obliterate the Second Amendment at once, but must do so incrementally. Yet, Republican Legislators and Second Amendment groups are, as well, left, at best, to attempt to defeat an oppressive, unconstitutional Act through piecemeal efforts, tinkering around the Act’s edges to weaken a swollen monstrosity, even as Cuomo and fellow antigun zealots seek to add to an already bloated set of repressive anti-Second Amendment measures that, together, constitute, the New York Safe Act.To date, Republican actions have yielded little positive result, as the bulk of the NY Safe Act remains untouched, seemingly impervious to assault. And Cuomo, for his part, with Democratic Party majorities in both the Assembly and in the State Senate, are better situated to enact further oppressive and repressive antigun laws.But, contrary to Cuomo’s assertions, States cannot justifiably claim a general right under the Tenth Amendment to strip the fundamental right existent in each individual citizen, as codified in the Second Amendment. State Representative Collins correctly and unambiguously points out, a Tenth Amendment States’ rights claim does not trump the Second Amendment right existent in each American citizen. Collins is absolutely correct on that score.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not simply refer to States’ rights. It also refers to rights held by the people. The Tenth Amendment sets forth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Like all too many politicians, Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a proclivity toward duplicity and incongruity, along with a barely concealed tendency to exact revenge, through the power of his Office, against those he perceives have offended him. And, so it is that Cuomo dares to threaten a lawsuit against State Legislators who would take action to repeal a State law that Cuomo happens to champion.In threatening a Tenth Amendment States’ rights challenge against State Representative Collins and anyone else who would dare repeal the New York Safe Act, Cuomo is also relying on, albeit tacitly, the doctrine of federalism that demarcates power between the Federal Government and the States. But does the doctrine of federalism apply here? No, it doesn’t. Federalism doesn’t apply because Representative Collins isn’t operating at the behest of the Federal Government in challenging the Constitutionality of the New York Safe Act. He is acting as a State Legislator, on behalf of those American citizens who happen to be New York residents, and he is representing the interests of the residents of the City of Buffalo, who elected him to represent their interests.So, in challenging the constitutionality of NY Safe, Representative Collins is operating within the confines of the State to protect citizens who reside in New York, in order to protect their Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Andrew Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment threat directed against New York Representative Collins is both wrong and wrongheaded.The States’ rights aspect of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply here since, one, the Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people too, not merely rights of the States, and, two, because States’ rights do not, in any event, supersede the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. And, the doctrine of federalism isn’t applicable here, either, because NY Safe does not apply to the Nation at large. It applies only to the residents of New York, and it as an unconstitutional Governmental action against the residents of New York, alone, whom the Act targets, and it is interests of New York residents that that Representative Collins’ has sought, then, to protect and vindicate.Governor Cuomo, for his part, though, doesn’t bother to consider all the negative ramifications of the Tenth Amendment that work against him and he doesn’t consider the negative ramifications of the doctrine of Federalism when it comes to expanding NY Safe to the entire Nation. Cuomo has been quite vocal and blunt on this. The State of Politics weblog, points to Cuomo’s position on this:“The rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the SAFE Act gun control measure approved in 2013 in New York.” “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in a statement. “‘We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation. The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners—but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities. It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people. It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.’Cuomo has previously urged Democrats in Congress to take a more truculent stance on the issue of gun control.” So, even as Andrew Cuomo dares threaten a States’ rights Tenth Amendment challenge against Representative Chris Collins, Andrew Cuomo seems curiously blasé about a true States’ rights challenge that any other State could raise against Congress were Congress to attempt to impose the New York Safe Act on every other State, which is precisely what Congress and Cuomo would like to do. Cuomo is hardly the States’ right advocate he pretends to be when it is his intention to impose New York law, especially, the New York Safe Act, on everyone else.

ANDREW CUOMO "PROJECTS" HIS PERSONAL FAILINGS ONTO OTHERS.

The psychological defense mechanism of projection comes into play when one looks to the Governor Cuomo’s chicanery and antics. Cuomo constantly projects his own moral deficiencies onto those whom he happens to disagree with.The weblog, “The Rant” reports that,“Cuomo has used the gun control issue to knock Republicans.‘They have a different world view of America. They are systemically trying to impose their world view on this country,’ said Cuomo.”

WHO IS IMPOSING WHAT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Cuomo is wrong about Republicans. Republicans aren’t trying to impose a world view of America at all. Republicans—many of them at least—simply seek to adhere to the vision of America as conceived by the founders of our Republic, as set down in the blueprint of our Nation, our Constitution. It is Cuomo and other extremists in the Democratic Party, both in Congress, and in States such as New York, who are hellbent on imposing their world view on the rest of us, in contradistinction to the dictates of the United States Constitution. What they seek is a world view at loggerheads with the will of the majority of the Nation’s citizenry and one singularly at odds with the traditions of our forebears.The recent antigun legislation coming out of the Democratic Party controlled House is a prime example of the Democrats’ rancor toward our Nation’s history, our Nation’s traditions, and our Nation’s core values. Consider the outrageous: For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1. A perusal of the Act, aptly illustrates just how out-of-touch the Democratic Party is with the American citizenry. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that the For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1, is dead on arrival in the Senate, as is the House antigun, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, H.R. 8.But the Democratic Party controlled House isn’t done. The public can expect to see a plethora of unconstitutional laws oozing out of Congress in the months ahead, along with unconstitutional laws emanating from Democratic Party controlled State Governments, such as New York. The U.S. Senate will likely kill all or most Congressional bills coming out of the House. And, those that do make it out of Congress will surely see a Trump veto. But, for State Legislatures that hold Democratic Party majorities, and where the Governor of the State is also a Democrat—as is the case in New York—the people of those States will continue to suffer the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

WILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS TRULY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TRULY TO EXIST AS THE NATION’S FOUNDERS ENVISIONED IT, AS A FREE REPUBLIC, OR WILL THE NATION EXIST MERELY WITH THE TRAPPINGS OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND WITH MERELY THE TRAPPINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT IN THE PEOPLE?

As the Late Eighteenth-Early Nineteenth Century French Philosopher and Diplomat, Joseph de Maistre, said, “Every Nation Gets the Government, It deserves.”  This means the people of a Nation ultimately decide on the form of their Government, and must accept the result of a bad choice.The founders of our Nation carefully considered various models for Government. They created a Constitutional Republic. They realized that Government is best that serves the people, and not the other way around. They fought to overthrow an oppressor,George III of Great Britain.They were successful. But, in creating a new Nation, they did not wish to substitute one oppressor for yet another. So, they established a federal Government with limited, circumscribed powers; and they incorporated into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, codifying fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties upon which Government cannot, must not tread. The Bill of Rights makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the people, not Government. Thus, was the framework for a new Nation established.But, there are ruthless, inordinately wealthy, very well-organized, and extremely powerful forces at work today, both here and abroad, that look on our Nation and its people with jealous eyes. They seek to destroy the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ that the President, Donald Trump was elected, by the people, to preserve, and which he has worked tirelessly to preserve even as there are those hell-bent to destroy both him and his Administration.What we see occurring in the EU can unfold here in the U.S. There are powerful ruthless forces at work that seek to insert the U.S. eventually into a unified trans-world government. They realize that the United States, with the most powerful military apparatus in the world and with its mighty economic clout, must submit to this new trans-world government, if they are to succeed in their effort to consolidate power in a one world Government. They cannot succeed unless they bring the U.S. into its fold. These ruthless forces have control over our Press that actively misleads the people, distorting the news, creating false narratives, and they have their flunkies in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy.The American people are becoming indoctrinated; are becoming predisposed to elect the kinds of people in both Congress and in State Government, who seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; who see our Constitution, with its predominant Bill of Rights, as a relic of a bygone age; and they seek to radically alter our Constitution, and, in so doing, radically alter the foundation of a free Republic.We see this through blatant efforts to rewrite the Constitution; attempts to weaken the unalienable right of free Speech as codified in the First Amendment; attempts to obliterate the unalienable right of the people to keep in bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment; attempts to weaken the unalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment; and attempts to defeat the very concept of ‘private property,’ as embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We see attempts by these new representatives in Congress, and in the States, as echoed by a compliant Press, to admit into the ranks of the citizenry, millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of a Constitutional Republic, who cannot assimilate, and who are not meant to assimilate. They are people who mystifyingly claim a right to reside in our Nation in defiance of our laws. These are people who seek Government largess in return for their vote and the radical Left that has infiltrated the Democratic Party is ever willing to give them tokens in return for their unswerving loyalty.We see attempts to do away with the electoral college as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, we see attempts to rewrite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, with an aim to increase the number of representatives in left leaning States. Were these efforts to come to fruition, the Constitutional Republic as conceived by the founders of our Nation, would cease to exist. Yet, the public is led to believe that all this is for their own benefit; that it is all for their own good; that it is for the well-being of society as a whole; that it is for the welfare of the collective, even as it comes to the detriment of the individual.But, a Government created to serve the people would mushroom into the overseer of the people. And this would be explained to the people as a good thing. The world is complex, they say. The people need guidance. Government must not be constrained. The Government can provide the best care for the people. People must simply be willing to give up a few of their rights and liberties—no big thing!Is there a price high enough that a person would willingly sell their soul? Some would do so. More and more members of the public are becoming hoodwinked.Until the electorate in our Nation comes to its senses, expect to see individuals like Andrew Cuomo and many others contorting this Nation into their vision of a proper world; proper for Cuomo and other radical Leftists, perhaps, but a living Hell for most everyone else: a Hell world as conceived in the radical Left’s own tortured, warped souls, and in their own feverish minds; a world they would force everyone else to live in.It is too late for Andrew Cuomo, and for people like him: people like Eric Swalwell and Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders; and for people like Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. And it is much too late for such arrogant, hateful, spiteful, surly creatures like Senator Krysten Sinema, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and for radical Muslim hatemongers such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.It is, not, however, too late for the rest of us, but it soon will be as we are rapidly approaching the Eleventh Hour. If we do not act to vote these aforesaid individuals, and many like them, out of Office, and if we fail to support U.S. President Trump, we will indeed acquire the Government we deserve—tyranny and servitude.  ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THROUGH ENACTMENT OF THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019, NEW YORK NOW SANCTIONS MURDER

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Those two reprehensible New York policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies; and  with his political clout he has forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former Act into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter Act into law, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as all awful laws invariably do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But Cuomo is lying. A perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public, in order to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane New York laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. The drafters of the NY Safe Act peppered the myriad laws that comprise the Act, here and there, throughout the New York State Code. Even an attorney must spend considerable effort to locate them all in this behemoth compendium of laws that comprise the Consolidated laws of the State of New York. Once found, the meaning of many of these laws is difficult to discern and fathom as much of the verbiage is ambiguous and vague.Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or from a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Andrew Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the American citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Governor Cuomo exclaims, disingenuously, that he is simply more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act only serves to make the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as law-abiding citizens who reside in New York become an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety--which are mere mindless messaging--and has everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability, all intrinsic to the Second Amendment.It should come as no surprise, then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a second measure—certainly a measure he undoubtedly had a hand in crafting and shaping like the first one—a measure that is as sweeping in conception and implementation and as abhorrent to the conscience as the earlier one is.This second measure is, on any estimation, is horrific, as it amounts to legally sanctioned murder. This policy measure has the decidedly false appellation of: “Reproductive Health Act of 2019.”Make no mistake, regardless of protestations to the contrary, it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets for death; for extinction. The Act has little if anything to do with the life and health of the mother and it has everything to do with State licensed execution of an innocent, defenseless child.Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability and sanctity of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ Collectivists concern themselves with society, in its entirety, not with the welfare and well-being of the individual in society. So, then, when Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in the broadest sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called Utilitarian Consequentialism. This is an ethical system unconcerned with and therefore devoid of any reference to a person’s intentions and motivations.Utilitarian Consequentialism derives ethical maxims essentially from the results or effects of one’s actions on society. An individual's motives and intentions for acting fall out of the equation entirely or almost entirely since motives and intentions are deemed essentially irrelevant. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil essentially from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective, the hive.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is a nebulous concept. And, as a nebulous concept it is therefore, ultimately, an unsatisfactory one upon which to build an ethical system, for the concept of 'utility maximization,' means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means. It is therefore arbitrary and constantly subject to revision. It is ever subject to the whim and caprice of the rulers of society, as they utilize it to dictate morality for the populace. Morality for Collectivists, those people, who espouse Utilitarian Consequentialism, perceive morality as a relative notion, not exact, not definite and definitive, not concrete.Utilitarian Consequentialism, grounded as it is on the concept of ‘utility maximization,’ is a bankrupt ethical system, because, for the Utilitarian Consequentialist, good and evil, are relative to time, place and circumstance, and to the wiles of those who define the expression for everyone else.Utilitarian Consequentialism is a form of moral relativism, and moral relativism of any kind or form, is hardly something upon which to establish a system for distinguishing good conduct from bad conduct, as any act, however reprehensible, can be deemed morally permissible. In fact, it is this very moral relativism that allows for something like New York's obscene Reproductive Health Act to be enacted.Only a purported ethical system like Utilitarian Consequentialism could allow for something as horrific as New York’s “Reproductive Health Act” to exist. And, only those who espouse Collectivism and who therefore adhere to the seeming ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism--as does Andrew Cuomo--would be capable of devising and implementing a monstrosity such as the Reproductive Health Act. And, only a Collectivist, such as Andrew Cuomo, would perceive licensed murder, as ethically defensible, indeed, even righteous.But Cuomo isn't done. He goes further. He dares raise abortion to the level of a fundamental right. But abortion qua the murder of a child, does not appear anywhere in this Nation’s Bill of Rights, either expressly or tacitly, and understandably so. Fundamental rights are natural rights, endowed by God, the Creator, on Man. Fundamental rights are not to be perceived as relative to a particular time, place, or circumstance. Fundamental rights are not mere creatures of Man. They are immutable. The idea that God, the creator of human souls, would ever sanction abortion, amounts to the very crucifixion of sanity. But, of course, nowhere in utilitarian consequentialism is there any discussion of a Divine Creator anyway.Not surprisingly Collectivists would espouse an “ethical” system like utilitarian consequentialism for they are atheists. Since they dispense with the very notion of a Divine Creator, they exhibit no humility. And, we see the results of their lack of restraint through the public policy they espouse. They have no inhibition; no shame. They lack all restraint. They are governed by raw ambition, and they are ever ruled by a lust for power and self-aggrandizement. These are exemplified in the present Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo.Now, Andrew Cuomo would probably vehemently disagree with the assertion he is an atheist, having been born and raised as a Catholic; and he has never  disavowed or, in any manner, severed his relationship to or ties with the Catholic Church--at least as far as we can ascertain. But, then, that fact only serves to make his association with an abortion policy, any abortion policy, but especially one he had a hand in crafting and forcing through the New York Legislature--and one as disturbing and confounding and distressing as the one he signed into law--particularly egregious and incongruous; deeply so, and much more so than if Cuomo were to proclaim himself an atheist.

PEOPLE WHO ESPOUSE COLLECTIVISM ARE A COLD, CALLOUS LOT

Not surprisingly, Collectivists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but, profess only concern for an amorphous mass, a Chimera, which is to profess, then, really, no concern for anyone at all. And, indeed, they don't. Thus, they can tell you with cold, calculated certainty that the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual even if those two individuals are serial killers, and the one individual is a simple, God-fearing, law-abiding American citizen. The argument would simply devolve into numbers: two is greater than one, so the life of two individuals is worth more than the life of one individual, and there is no need to consider the nature of those lives. Thus, the Collectivist argues for "gun control." Better, the Collectivist would say, for two killers to murder an innocent individual than for the innocent individual, in an act of simple, basic self-preservation--to kill the two would-be killers with a firearm, as society, in its entirety, will be the better for removal of firearms, according to the reasoning of the Collectivist. Thus, sacrifice of the one individual serves society, as a whole. But, why, really, ought a person to accept sanctity in numbers for the sake of mere numbers?If one cares less for the life of one individual simply because one life is one less than two, why emphasize the import of the lives of the many at all? It is in fact this very preoccupation with raw numbers, rather than with concern for the particular individual life in question that allows Collectivists to sanction abortion. Only a Collectivist can somehow rationalize that the public as a whole will benefit from an abortion policy at all only because there are, presumably, according to the logic of the Collectivist, many more individuals that comprise the body politic than are the number of innocent lives that will be lost--sacrificed--as a result of an abortion policy. In other words, many more women--Cuomo and other proponents of New York's Reproductive Health Act tell us--would personally benefit from disrupting a human life. They tell us that society is better served by killing the unborn child than would be served if the mother were required to carry the child to birth, as society as a whole, somehow, in the mind of the Collectivist is better served for having an abortion policy, notwithstanding the clear, irremediable, irreversible loss of an innocent child that having an abortion policy entails.It is this convoluted, shallow logic that permits New York, now, to permit human sacrifice--sacrifice of the most innocent among us. But this is not reason. It is Satanic sophistry.Thus, Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, doesn’t express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the innocent individual souls that might, if they had a chance at life, comprise part of the body politic. Cuomo, and other Collectivists only express ostensible concern, then, for the well-being and welfare of the Collective, of “the hive.” How it can it be any other way than this?It is very much in vein then that Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Collectivist, the Utilitarian Consequentialist, would help craft the text of, and avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Given the detrimental impact of these horrific measures on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen, Cuomo and others of his ilk strive to hide the dire impact of these schemes on the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen, and suggest that they are something different from what they truly purport to be.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it.Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.  Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system; nor do they wish to adapt themselves to it. But they have no choice. Cuomo thrusts his beliefs and his bizarre belief system onto others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in exercising that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the residents of the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse; he seeks to control all thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, like so many other Collectivists in the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs; oblivious to and, indeed, disdainful of the thoughts and feelings and beliefs of others.As a private citizen, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right as an American citizen as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor, Cuomo can and does ordain his belief system for others, that harms everyone and cannot and ought not be countenanced, and ought to be roundly and soundly condemned and fought against.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental, natural, unalienable right—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment, and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. He thereupon rams through the State Legislature, surreptitiously, without debate, in the dark of night, an extraordinarily restrictive firearms' measure that operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist.Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, Andrew Cuomo operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and, so, may be summarily and unceremoniously erased.

GOVERNOR CUOMO CATEGORICALLY IGNORES THE FACT THAT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE EXPRESS WORDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; YET, AMAZINGLY AND BIZARRELY HE PROPOSES TO CREATE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE SEES AS A RIGHT INHERENT, APPARENTLY, IN A GENERAL, NOTION OF PRIVACY; BUT NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES SUCH A GENERAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EXIST.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Andrew Cuomo dares attempt to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who then signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. In creating such monstrous policy, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other living soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.But contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to an abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. Yet, now, with the enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, the State of York has taken the rash, unprecedented step of literally sanctioning legal murder--an oxymoron, to be sure--but there is no better way to refer to it for that is what it is. Under law, legal murder is not murder at all. But, a purposeful act of snuffing out the life of an innocent soul has occurred nonetheless. And, as if that were not enough, in having enacted such a law, the Legislature of New York and the Governor of New York now audaciously raise a certain instance of murder to the level of a fundamental right, as the preamble to the Act, makes plain. The Governor of New York and those members of the State Legislature who had a hand in drafting the Reproductive Health Act or who otherwise voted for the Act's enactment, categorically declare that abortion is a fundamental right under both the State Constitution and under the U.S. Constitution. A certain kind of act that heretofore did constitute a criminal act, no longer does constitute a criminal act in New York.How does Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act, literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy of the  the mother reside? Cuomo doesn't say. But, assuming arguendo, it does reside and must reside somewhere, implied, and tacit, in the Constitution, where in the Constitution does this presumptive right of privacy happen, then, to reside? Where in the U.S. Constitution does such presumed fundamental right preside over that of the very life and well-being of the unborn child? The answer is: nowhere!If a vague, generalized right to privacy exists at all, it is nowhere to be found in nor can it be extracted from any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and it is not to be found in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution or in any other Amendment of the Bill of Rights; nor is it to be extracted from the text of any one of the subsequent Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive, explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise and explicit. The concept of ‘privacy,’ on the other hand, is abstract and vague.

SUPPOSE, FOR SAKE OF ARGUMENT, A FUNDAMENTAL, SUBSTANTIVE, GENERAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY DOES FEASIBLY EXIST IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, CAN THAT EVER JUSTIFY ABORTION?

Certainly, no rational argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child is somehow subordinated to a general notion of privacy, even if such general right of privacy can be extracted somewhere from the text of the U.S. Constitution. Some people may argue that a general implicit right of privacy exists in or is subsumed in the explicit unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. Even so, such general right of privacy cannot rationally justify abortion. The framers of the Constitution could not have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise. Cuomo is one such fevered mind that does. But, if a general, fundamental right of privacy does exist, and, if not in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then where else might such substantive fundamental right be found upon which abortion might reasonably be Constitutionally sanctioned?Some may argue, that, if a general right of privacy cannot be found tacit in the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, then, perhaps, a general right to privacy exists as one of the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But, once again, no one can reasonably, rationally, logically construe the idea that an assault on the life of an unborn child is always Constitutionally permissible through the notion of a fundamental but unenumerated general right of privacy. Yet, advocates for abortion would argue that a general right of privacy--whether perceived, somehow as a substantive and fundamental but unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment or as tacitly existent in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, or, perhaps, as residing in the due process clause or equal protection clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, or in the text of any other part of the Constitution--serves, legally, to override concern for the life and well-being of the unborn child. In other words, if State sanctioned murder is to be lawfully permitted, then it must be Constitutionally protected, but one must twist and contort the Constitution to find a way to justify what is, on its face, a horrific act. And, however one attempts to do so, the attempt invariably fails.

ABORTION RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND ACTIVISTS MUST FACE THE FACT THAT ABORTION, WHETHER EARLY TERM OR LATE TERM OR AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, ALWAYS INVOLVES THE KILLING OF A LIVING, ABSOLUTELY DEFENSELESS AND INNOCENT CHILD.

Although there have been attempts to insert privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn, child. Even if one assumes,  as Cuomo does, the existence of a general and fundamental right of privacy, albeit without proof, it is of dubious value to argue that such general privacy concern is superior to the life and well-being of an unborn child, and that such right of privacy is to be secured to the detriment of the unborn child. But, Cuomo's Reproductive Health Act has, by contriving a general fundamental right of privacy, placed that contrived general right of privacy over the very real life and well-being of the child. The Reproductive Health Act operates from just such an implausible assumption.But, do we allow Cuomo and other proponents of the Reproductive Health Act to get away with murder? Do we allow State-sanctioned murder simply because the proponents of abortion perfunctorily couch the act of abortion in something palatable, namely in the language of a fundamental right of health, privacy, or equality, despite the absence of a clear legal and moral foundation for it? They should not be let so easily off the hook.For those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, inherent in a fundamental, but unproved general right of privacy, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child, which, for these abortion rights advocates and activists, even includes a right to abortion even up to commencement of birth of a living human being. These people, though, do not wish to admit that fact, overtly, even if, among themselves they are perfectly content with it. So they tend to skip over it, rather than contend openly with it. If pressed, however, these advocates of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child, including the child about to be born, and even the child in the midst of live birth, isn’t a person.Those advocating for abortion simply view the unborn child as a nonentity. They deny to a living soul, the sacred, inviolate idea of 'personhood.' Advocates of abortion thereupon deny, to the unborn child and to the child about to be born and even to the child in the midst of live birth, the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim, through it all, a concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Statute and in the New York Safe Act. Both Acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act shows, in the language of it, and in its operation, a complete lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at substantial cost: a concomitant loss of benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society, comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a clear and callous lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent of living beings. As with the NY Safe Act, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act claim the Act benefits society as a whole, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of decidedly the most critical need of all—life itself—for it is innocent individuals who suffer the dire and immediate consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER, PLAINLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by submerging the act of abortion into the context of a presumed fundamental general right of privacy. But, that isn't enough. The problem is that, under the laws of New York, abortion is a crime. So, the Reproductive Health Act must change those provisions of New York law that make abortion a crime. The Reproductive Health Act amends New York law by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other State laws regarding abortion.A new Section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion on demand up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” But is that true? A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion until the third trimester, we must not lose sight of the fact that the New York's Reproductive Health Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Abortions' rights advocates like to skirt over that fact. But, the fact remains that a living soul exists in the womb.Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. So what! whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether one talks about viability of the child during the first, second, or third trimester. The question is whether abortion can be ethically justified at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may perform an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give everyone pause.Third, when analyzing New York's Reproductive Health Act, one should pay attention to how the Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten to cohere with the precepts of the Act.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly so as to conclude that the Act proscribes abortions at the point of the third trimester, as Cuomo and those who advocate for his abortion Act do so claim--apparently to assuage those who oppose the Reproductive Health Act--the claim is actually false.Still, despite the apparent language of the Act, and contrary to the remarks of those who justify the Act, claiming built-in limitations on abortion, the fact remains that with Cuomo's imprimatur, ab0rtion on demand is now perfectly legal in New York, not simply up to the third trimester, but at any time. That signals a legal right to abortion on demand through the third trimester, and, in fact, up to and including the very point of birth of the child. But, is that true? Yes, it is. The statement is true because abortion qua the killing of a child at any point in time, from conception up to the point of delivery and even beyond, is no longer a crime in New York. The very word, 'abortion' has been stricken from the Consolidated Laws of New York.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR ABORTION NO LONGER ATTACHES IN NEW YORK

Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. What does that mean? It means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and, further, it means that abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.Where there is no penalty for committing a crime, there does not, in effect, exist a crime, regardless of what a criminal code sets forth. Any words to the contrary are nugatory, and, so, in effect, meaningless.  Abortion is no longer a crime in New York.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e) A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”Sections (d) and (e) have been excised from New York law. And, New York's Legislators, who crafted the Reproductive Health Act, did so for an important reason. They took this rash step to make clear that the very act of abortion is lawful, even moral, because it is consistent, in the mind of the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, as a fundamental right.What does this Section of New York law mean? It means that abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time. For, where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, once again, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York. It has been indelibly stricken.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that: Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse, when one considers various scenarios that play out.Consider one scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, the mother loses the baby. While the attacker can can still be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot any longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.Where a perpetrator violently attacks a pregnant woman, in New York, we can extrapolate from that a peculiar "benefit" that accrues to the perpetrator of the violent attack: The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. But, since abortion, whether intended or not, is no longer a crime in New York, the loss of the child from abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act provides substantial benefit to a class of society in New York beyond the amorphous class of women who may seek to have an abortion--the criminal element now benefits directly from the fact that abortion, under any set of circumstances is no longer deemed a crime in New York.Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. It is an inane and singularly odd remark, but, apart from that, it misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not in this instance, for she is not responsible for the loss of her child. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., whether the person who harms the mother, the perpetrator of the attack on the mother, can be held, as well, criminally liable for the death of the child. The perpetrator of the attack cannot be charged with any crime related to the death of the unborn child, under New York’s new Reproductive Health Act.Obviously, Cuomo doesn't want to address the fact that, with passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a person cannot be indicted for any crime--not for murder, not for manslaughter, not even for criminal negligence--where, but for a perpetrator's criminal assault on a pregnant woman, the woman would not have lost her unborn child. The perpetrator of the attack on the mother can only be criminally charged for harm done to the mother that is directly attributable to the perpetrator of the attack. Under New York law, the unborn child is not recognized as a living soul. The unborn child simply doesn't exist. Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. Once, again, and it needs to be stressed: New York's Reproductive Health Act operates as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SANCTIONS MURDER THROUGH ENACTMENT OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT OF 2019

Americans will remember Andrew Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York, long after he leaves Office and longer still, once he has departed from this Earth. They will remember Andrew Cuomo, but not in a good way. They will remember him for ramming through the State Government in Albany, two policy measures, both of which are antithetical to the core values, beliefs, and traditions of Americans, and both of which are inconsistent with the core tenets of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.These two reprehensible policy measures go by the names: New York Safe Act and the Reproductive Health Act. Governor Cuomo has championed both these policies. With his political clout Cuomo forced both measures through the State Legislature, in Albany. Cuomo signed the former into law on February 15, 2013. He signed the latter into law, recently, on January 22, 2019.The descriptors employed for these two laws belie their purpose, as most laws do. Cuomo tells New York’s residents that the salient purpose and goal of the NY Safe Act is to promote and enhance public safety. But a perusal of the Act makes clear its true purpose and goal: disarming law-abiding members of the public.The NY Safe Act operates through a multitude of arcane laws that place extraordinary restrictions on firearms’ ownership and possession. A person has difficulty finding them all, as they are peppered throughout the New York State Code. Once found, their meaning is difficult to discern and fathom, even for lawyers, as the verbiage is ambiguous and vague. Whether due to unintentional poor draftsmanship or due to a deliberate attempt to obscure and confound, Cuomo and other antigun zealots do intend to frustrate the citizen, and, so, dissuade the citizen from obtaining and maintaining firearms within the jurisdiction of New York.Cuomo exclaims that he is more desirous of promoting, enhancing, and securing public safety and less intent on defeating the citizen’s exercise of a fundamental, enumerated, unalienable right. Hardly true, but, one thing is true enough. The NY Safe Act makes the public decidedly less, not more, safe, as it becomes an easy target for armed predators who demonstrate regard neither for law nor for the sanctity of human life. Thus, one is left to draw the inescapable conclusion that the NY Safe Act has, ultimately, nothing tangible to do with promoting, securing, and enhancing public safety and everything to do with undermining the ideals of individual responsibility, autonomy, and inviolability.It should come as no surprise then, that Andrew Cuomo would endorse a measure that amounts to legally sanctioned murder in the case of the State’s new “Reproductive Health Act,” for it is the individual—in this case the most innocent among us, the unborn child—whom the Reproductive Health Act targets. Murder, after all, may, in a figurative sense apply to an assault on society at large, writ large, but murder is a literal, life-ending assault on the integrity, and inviolability of the individual, as so defined with particularity in both Federal and State law.As with those who espouse the radical left-wing doctrines of Socialism and Communism, Cuomo is a ‘Collectivist.’ When Cuomo expresses concern for the health, well-being, safety, or welfare of the public, he uses the word, ‘public’ in a broad sense, consistent with the precepts of Collectivism. He refers to the body politic in its entirety; not to the individuals who comprise it.The ethical system Cuomo and other Collectivists embrace is called utilitarian consequentialism. This is an ethical system devoid of reference to or concern with a person’s intentions and motivations; only with the results of one’s actions. Motives and intentions fall out of the equation entirely. An action is deemed morally good or morally evil from the standpoint of consequences only. A morally good act is one that maximizes utility for the collective, the hive. A morally evil act or a morally neutral act is one that does not maximize utility for the collective.The notion of ‘utility maximization’ is nebulous. It means whatever the proponent of utilitarian consequentialism, says it means; nothing more. Utilitarian consequentialism an ethically bankrupt system as is ‘utility maximization, underlying it since, for the utilitarian consequentialist, good and evil are relative to times and circumstances. They aren’t, contrary to a person’s expectations. with the notion of fundamental rights and liberties, as relative concepts derived from and created by man, not by God.Not surprisingly, utilitarian consequentialists espouse no concern for the health, welfare, and well-being of the individual but only for that of an amorphous mass. Thus, Cuomo, the Collectivist and Utilitarian Consequentialist, does not express concern for the life, health, well-being and welfare of the individual souls of the body politic, but only concern for the well-being and welfare of the collective, “the hive.” Understandably, Andrew Cuomo would help draft the text of, avidly support enactment of, and sign into law such morally reprehensible schemes as the Reproductive Health Act and the New York Safe Act. Both these Acts have a decisive, negative impact on the life, health, safety, welfare, and well-being of each American citizen. Cuomo and others attempt to hide the awful impact of these schemes on Americans. They do this through carefully conceived and orchestrated campaigns of deception.Not unsurprisingly, the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, as with the wording of the New York Safe Act, deliberately obscures and, in fact, belies its true purpose and effect. One sees the true import and purport of the Act only when one drills down into the language of it. Like the New York Safe Act, the Reproductive Health Act betrays the sanctity and inviolability of the life. It betrays the welfare and well-being of the American citizen. The New York Safe Act has nothing to do with promoting and enhancing safety. And the Reproductive Health Act has nothing to do with promoting health. It is a Death Act, not a Life and Health Act.Most Americans do not share Andrew Cuomo’s beliefs and wish neither to adopt nor suffer his political, social, and bankrupt moral belief system. But he thrusts his beliefs and belief system on others anyway. Since Cuomo wields considerable power and influence in New York and shows no reluctance in utilizing that power and outsize influence, those falling within the purview of his jurisdiction—namely the State of New York—are compelled to live in a reality, a hell-world, he has created for them. Few can object as Cuomo seeks to control public discourse, thought, and action; and, with the avid assistance of the mainstream media, he has become very successful at it.The qualities of compassion, restraint, humility, and respect for the beliefs of other Americans simply don’t exist in Andrew Cuomo’s psychological makeup. Cuomo, as with so many other Collectivists that comprise the Democratic Party, both on the State and Federal level, demonstrates callous disregard for the feelings and beliefs of others. Forcing his peculiar belief system onto millions of others, he does so with the conviction and certitude of a fanatic and sociopath, seemingly convinced of the infallibility of and superiority of his beliefs, and unmindful and, indeed, disdainful for the thoughts and feelings of others.As a private citizen of the United States, Cuomo may, of course, hold to and cultivate and express any belief or belief system he wishes. That’s his right--the right of free speech--as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That harms no one. But, as Governor of New York, one would hope the Governor would be circumspect. He isn't. As a Public Official, Cuomo thrusts his belief system onto others. He now harms everyone; and what he has ordained cannot and ought not be countenanced; and, indeed, ought to be roundly and soundly condemned.Through enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo at once denied and denigrated a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that is clearly, concisely, and categorically articulated in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He did this because he utterly detests the Second Amendment and he finds the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be repugnant to his own peculiar sensibilities. Cuomo operates as if the Second Amendment did not exist. Similarly, through enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, he operates as if the unborn child is a non-entity and may therefore be erased from existence.

GOVERNOR CUOMO DEMONSTRATES NO RELUCTANCE IN DENYING, TO A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS--A RIGHT CLEARLY CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YET HE DEMONSTRATES, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, A WILLINGNESS TO READ INTO THE BILL OF RIGHTS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MURDER AN UNBORN CHILD, WHICH HE VIEWS AS INHERENT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY EVEN THOUGH SUCH NOTION IS NEITHER EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR IMPLIED.

Let us take a look at what the Reproductive Health Act, 2019 N.Y. SB 240, Chaptered, January 22, 2019, 2019 N.Y. ALS 1; 2019 N.Y. Laws 1; 2019 N.Y. Ch. 1; 2019 N.Y. SB 240, actually says. Section 1, titled, “Legislative Intent,” sets forth:“The legislature finds that comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this right and further emphasized that states may not place undue burdens on women seeking to access such right.Moreover, the legislature finds, as with other medical procedures, the safety of abortion is furthered by evidence-based practices developed and supported by medical professionals. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States; the goal of medical regulation should be to improve the quality and availability of health care services.Furthermore, the legislature declares that it is the public policy of New York State that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy and equality with respect to their personal reproductive decisions and should be able to safely effectuate those decisions, including by seeking and obtaining abortion care, free from discrimination in the provision of health care.Therefore, it is the intent of the legislature to prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.”As made abundantly clear, through this Section of the Act, titled, “Legislative Intent,” Cuomo dares to raise to the level of a fundamental right, something that is nowhere explicit or implied in the Bill of Rights, or, for that matter, anywhere else, in the Constitution. Yet, those members of the New York Legislature who enacted New York’s Reproductive Health Act, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, who signed the Reproductive Health Act into law, have the audacity to raise the killing of an unborn child to the level of a fundamental Constitutional Right. And, having done so, these people dare deny to the unborn child, the sanctity and autonomy, to which that living soul, as any other soul, is rightfully entitled: the right to exist as a living being, created by the Lord.Contrary to the wording of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, no person has a fundamental right to abortion. The Constitution of the United States does not sanction abortion, under any set of circumstances. But, with enactment of the Reproductive Health Act, an oxymoron, the State of York now sanctions murder, and has the audacity of raising murder to the level of a fundamental right.How does Cuomo and other proponents literally get away with murder? They do this by denying personhood to a living soul. And, how do they do that? They do that by declaring, in principal part, that the mother’s right to privacy, outweighs the life of the unborn child. But, where in the Constitution does this right of presumptive privacy for the mother over the life and well-being of the unborn child exist? The answer is: nowhere.Privacy is nowhere mentioned in any one of the Articles of the United States Constitution; and certainly not in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution subsequent amendment to the U.S Constitution. To be sure, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed codify the fundamental right of the individual to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, only through a feat of legerdemain can one claim that a general right of privacy exists within the definitive explicit right of the citizen to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The concept of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is precise. The concept of ‘privacy’ is abstract and vague. Certainly, no sane argument can be made that a right to deny life to an unborn child equates with a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The framers of the Constitution could not have feasibly, rationally have intended that. Obviously, they have not. Only a fevered mind would believe otherwise.Now, one may argue that a general right to privacy, apart from the fundamental, unalienable, enumerated right of each American to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does, arguably, exist as an unenumerated right of the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but, again, no one can reasonably construe the idea of the assault on the life of an unborn child as something that is to be subsumed in or as something that can rationally be subsumed in a general notion of privacy, even if only as an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment. Further, although there have been attempts to interject privacy into the discussion of abortion, one cannot do so without dismissing out-of-hand the fact that abortion logically entails the killing of an unborn child.The New York abortion law dares raise abortion to the level of a substantive, fundamental right. It does so despite the absence of either a clear legal or moral foundation for it. And for those who assert with conviction a woman’s unalienable right to an abortion, they must contend with the necessary consequence of it: the death of the unborn child. They do not wish to contend with that fact. But, if pressed, supporters of abortion will simply assert that the unborn child isn’t a person. The unborn child is simply perceived as a nonentity. Advocates of abortion thereupon deny to the unborn child the most sacred right of all—that of life itself. The moral dubiousness of and indeed the outright absurdity of their position is, thus, laid bare.For those State Officials, who, like Cuomo, claim concern for human life—there is a curious and odd “consanguinity” in both the recent abortion Act, and in the New York Safe Act. Both acts proceed from the false assumption that what Government deems best for society, perceived in its entirety, must take precedence over the welfare of the individuals who comprise that society.Ostensible concern for public safety is the pretext for the New York Safe Act of 2013. But, as with all restrictive firearms’ measures, the NY Safe Act demonstrates a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the citizen. Thus, the proponents of restrictive gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, claim to maximize benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a cost: the concomitant loss of any benefit accruing to the individual.Similarly, the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 claims to extol the virtue of health, privacy, and equal protection to society comprising a class of women who seek abortion; but, in so doing, the proponents of the Reproductive Health Act demonstrate a lack of concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the most innocent beings. Thus, the proponents of abortion on demand, claim to maximize a benefit for society, but that presumed benefit to society comes at a most severe cost: the concomitant loss of the most critical need of all—life itself—as it is individuals who suffer the consequence of abortion as their life is snuffed out.

NEW YORK’S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ACT SANCTIONS MURDER

Under any objective appraisal, New York’s Reproductive Health Act is an abomination. It sanctions as permissible conduct, acts of unimaginable savagery that other States codify in their own laws as impermissible, reprehensible, heinous criminal conduct: namely, murder.How does New York’s Reproductive Health Act do this? The Act sanctions murder by amending New York law: by adding to and deleting various provisions of New York public health law, penal law, the criminal procedure law, and other laws related to and regarding abortion.A new section of the Public Health Law of New York, Section 2599-bb reads:"A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion, when according to the practitioner’s reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health."Those who defend the Reproductive Health Act argue that the law, as written, only prohibits abortion up to the third trimester, and at no time thereafter, unless “there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” A few points must be made to counter this unsound conclusion.First, by emphasizing prohibition of at will abortion after the third trimester, one loses sight of the fact that the Act does allow at will abortion during the first two trimesters, regardless of the viability of a child. Those favoring abortion point to the idea that the unborn child is not viable outside the womb before 20 weeks. Whether true or not that misses the point of the horror of abortion at all. It is simply a straw man argument in favor of abortion. If a child is healthy at any point during pregnancy, then the idea of viability inside or outside the womb should not be considered a rational factor in determining the legitimacy of abortion, whether during the first, second, or third trimester. In other words, abortion should not be countenanced at any point during pregnancy.Second, the New York Reproductive Health Act, as enacted, doesn’t limit the act of aborting a child to the services of a medical doctor. Virtually any individual who is licensed in New York, and “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice” may now lawfully perform an abortion in New York. The law broadly expands those who may conduct an abortion well beyond that of a medically trained and licensed physician certified in the field of obstetrics or gynecology. That should give anyone pause.Third, when analyzing the Act, one should pay attention to how the Reproductive Health Act changes New York’s Penal Code. The Penal Code has been extensively rewritten.Every Section of the Penal Code that refers to Abortion as a crime has been either deleted or repealed. Since abortion is no longer a crime, no one can, any longer, be charged with the crime for performing an abortion. Thus, even if one chooses to read Section 2599-bb very narrowly to proscribe abortions during the third trimester, in fact abortions are now perfectly legal in New York up to the point of birth of the child.Since criminal liability for abortion no longer exists in New York, no one can be held criminally liable for performing an abortion. This means that, in effect, anyone—literally anyone—can perform an abortion, contrary to the dictates of Section 2599-bb; and abortions can be lawfully performed up to and including the point where the mother is giving birth to a viable, perfectly formed, and healthy child.If there is any doubt about this, consider that New York’s County Coroners are now absolutely prohibited under the Reproductive Health Act from investigating abortion as a crime, in New York.“Section 11. Subdivision 1 of section of 673 of the county law, as added by chapter 545 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:A coroner or medical examiner has jurisdiction and authority to investigate the death of every person dying within his county, or whose body is found within the county, which is or appears to be:

• A violent death, whether by criminal violence, suicide or casualty;
• death caused by unlawful act or criminal neglect;
• death occurring in a suspicious, unusual or unexplained manner;

(d) A death caused by suspected criminal abortion;(e)A death while unattended by a physician, so far as can be discovered, or where no physician able to certify the cause of death as provided in the public health law and in form as prescribed by the commissioner of health can be found.”What does this Section of New York law mean? It means abortion—any abortion of a child—is perfectly legal in New York. It can be performed by anyone, and at any time.Where there is no liability for criminal conduct, there is, in effect, if not in fact, no crime. Abortion has literally been written out of the criminal code of New York.What is the bottom line here? Just this: In the absence of liability, one can reasonably conclude that:  Under New York’s Reproductive Health Act, abortion in New York is now permissible at any time, for any reason, performed by anyone. And, it gets even worse. Consider the following scenario: Suppose a woman, pregnant with child, has every intention of having a baby and that woman is assaulted by a criminal and, as a result of criminal assault, loses the baby. While the attacker can can be held criminally liable for harm to the mother, the attacker cannot now, unlike in the past, be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child. The attacker cannot no longer be held liable for murder, for manslaughter, for criminal negligence—for anything related to the death of the unborn child.We can thus extrapolate from the law the following, where a pregnant woman is attacked an loses a child as a result of the attack:The loss of the child, as a result of an attack on the mother, may be construed as an unintended abortion. Since abortion is no longer a crime, the loss of the child from the abortion can no longer be deemed a crime. Cuomo himself makes the point by proclaiming that the mother cannot be held responsible for the loss of the child. But that misses the critical point. The question is not whether the mother can be held criminally liable for the loss of her child. Obviously, she cannot and ought not. Rather, the issue is whether the perpetrator of the violence on the mother can be held criminally liable for the harm done to the unborn child—i.e., the death of the child—caused by the perpetrator’s attack on the mother. He cannot!Since abortion is now ruled out as a homicide in New York in every instance, the child, as such, does not in law exist. One cannot be charged for a crime perpetrated on a non-entity. It is as if the mother were not pregnant at all. It simply no longer matters under New York law. It is not, then, merely that an unborn child is perceived as not worthy of life. It is as if the unborn child doesn’t exist; that the unborn child never existed. The child is not perceived as a person, but merely as an unwanted thing to be discarded.This is the new reality, the hellish cauldron of insanity and horror that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Reproductive Health Act has thrown all New York residents into and which, like the reprehensible New York Safe Act, he would unleash on the entire Country if he were but given the chance.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN GRABBERS DELIVER FALSE MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

PART ONE

OPPRESSIVE ANTIGUN MEASURES DO NOT PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY

"Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties." ~ Charles Krauthammer

Removal of guns from society won't promote public safety. It never has; never will. See, e.g., academic article, "The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (Number 71, November 2003), by Gary A. Mauser. And, if, perchance,  someone could prove, by argument, it did, it would never be worth the price of sacrificing our sacred rights and liberties. But, they can't prove that draconian gun control measures will ever make the individual, or that of society as whole, for that matter, any safer. Antigun politicians should know that. Some don't. Many probably do, but pretend otherwise. It fits the narrative transmitted to the public. The reasoning is flawed; the statistical evidence patchy at best. So antigun proponents squash debate, offering simplistic slogans in lieu of facts; in lieu of sound reasoning. They expect the public to accept the lies as gospel, self-evident truths. They shouldn’t expect this; but they do. Lying to the public is reprehensible. Their lies know no bounds. They have done it so often, lying has become reflexive. Many Americans fall into their trap. Many Americans want to believe the lies. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias kicks in to assist the gun grabbers' false messaging. That makes their nefarious work easy. 

Antigun zealots reduce discussion to two simple, basic declarations, one the corollary of the other: arms expansion endangers the public; arms reduction promotes public safety. Americans hear the message often. Through vehement exhortation and constant repetition the gun grabbers imprint their message on the public psyche. Their comrades in the media provide the vehicle to disseminate this mental garbage.Antigun zealots in Congress, in State Legislatures, in Hollywood, in radical Leftist groups, and in the media grab attention and headlines. They proselytize. They pontificate. They deliver their polemic to the public pompously, with rhetorical flourish, smug complacency, and abandon. Their sermon deceives and confuses; inflames and angers. It doesn’t inform and educate. It is a ploy; simple political artifice, devoid of import and substance. But that's all right for them. Accomplishing their goal is important: destruction of the Second Amendment.The clarion call for mass arms reduction demands submission to governmental authority. Antigun proponents impel the public to rebel against their own best interests; to abandon a sacred right. They promise societal tranquility and serenity, if Americans but heed their call.The suggestion is both monstrous and absurd, but it appeals to many. It resounds with enchantment and charm for some. But, for those not seduced, the gun grabbers employ a different tactic. They chastise and condemn; they scorn and ridicule. They crush dissent. A sacred right for them is an object of scorn, emblematic of a “gun culture.”Can you recall when this Nation had a serious, reasoned debate on the issue of Second Amendment gun rights versus gun control? Indeed, can you recall when we had a serious, reasoned debate on any issue impacting American's fundamental rights and liberties; on any issue involving our Nation's security; on any matter involving the Nation's core values? Remember Governor Andrew Cuomo's rancorous, insulting message to Americans? Back in 2014 the New York Post reported:“'Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,'” the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show. Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.'"Governor Cuomo hasn't changed, mellowing with time, and age, becoming more compassionate, more reasonable, more respectful of our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties, more appreciative and supportive of the sanctity of human life and of the autonomy of the individual American citizen. He's gotten worse--much worse; and that is reflected now in New York's new reprehensible abortion law, that Cuomo has championed, along with New York's new antigun measures that he continues to push for.

ANTIGUN MEASURES TARGET AVERAGE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN; NOT THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL

Millions of law-abiding, rational Americans cherish the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. And millions of these Americans choose to exercise that right. These citizens don’t cause gun violence. If they did, Americans would see carnage on a scale beyond that unleashed by psychopaths, terrorists, drug cartel members, and garden-variety criminals, living among us. Antigun politicians should deal with these violent elements. They don’t.Hundreds of antigun federal and State Statutes, and many more local codes, rules, regulations, and procedures have done little to curb gun violence. That isn't surprising. After all, such measures target millions of average, law-abiding, rational Americans, who don’t commit gun violence.  Antigun measures do significantly less to target the fringe element of society, that does commit gun violence. The idea that fewer firearms in the hands of everyone will reduce gun violence is erroneous. It is mere pretense and subterfuge. But antigun proponents make the argument, anyway. For many people, the argument has an aura of plausibility, as so many wrong theories do. Consider instances of violent crime in the EU, and in Mexico and Central American Countries. The citizenry of these Nations has suffered, notwithstanding strict regulation of firearms.Still the gun grabbers bellow. They do so incessantly, disingenuously, albeit with seeming conviction and unrestrained animus toward those Americans who disagree with them; who dare to assert otherwise; who dare to suggest that perhaps--just maybe--the gun grabbers have it wrong. No matter. The narrative continues, unabated. And, no matter how many restrictive gun measures exist, it is never enough. The gun grabbers won't be satisfied until the unalienable right embodied in the Second Amendment ceases to exist.Antigun politicians call for ever more restrictive gun legislation. They direct antigun legislation to the law-abiding, rational American citizen. They maintain the pretense that once no law-abiding, rational American citizen has access to firearms, every law-abiding, rational American will be the better for it; will be safe and secure. But the gun grabbers don’t desire to control misuse of firearms by irrational sociopathic, criminal, and similar types in society; not really.  Otherwise, legislators would separate the dangerous among us; from us. They don’t. "Feel-good" politicians release these deviant, incorrigible types into society, instead of keeping them from society--in prisons and mental institutions where they belong. That sensible action would protect millions of law-abiding, sane members of society, reducing gun violence dramatically.But, antigun politicians don’t concern themselves with dangerous elements in society. Not really. These elements live among us. They prey upon us. But their violent crimes do serve a purpose. They serve as the impetus for imposing ever more oppressive, repressive gun measures on the rest of us. The gun grabbers trust that oppressive and repressive gun laws will induce such stress in average law-abiding gun owners, that they will capitulate; that they will forsake their firearms.It is the mass of citizenry that antigun politicians seek to control; even if they state it is the criminal, the sociopath, the lunatic they seek to constrain and restrain. The extent and nature of antigun legislation bears this out. Deviant types wouldn’t conform to firearms’ measures anyway. They never do.The gun grabbers direct their attention and efforts to the law-abiding citizen. And, the reason they do so  is clear. They seek to control the citizenry because they are distrustful of it.This distrust in the Nation's citizenry, in whom ultimate authority and power resides, consistent with the will of the founders of a free Republic, the founders of an indestructible Constitution, is endemic among those who espouse a collectivist agenda, reflected in totalitarian societies that have forever espoused strong Government control over the actions, and even thoughts, of the citizenry. Societies structured on the precepts of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism exemplify this. Despite the subtle differences in economic and political ideology of these various totalitarian systems, they are all grounded on the notion of Collectivism—consisting of a set of precepts, completely at odds with those that define Individualism. It was through application of the latter set of precepts, those grounded on Individualism, not the former, those grounded on Collectivism, that our founders drafted a Constitution upon which our Nation was founded and on which a great Nation has long stood. The new radical Left in this Country, slowly taking control of the Democratic Party, seeks to turn on its head all that our founders have accomplished. We cannot permit these Leftists to succeed in their aims._______________________________________________________

PART TWO

COLLECTIVISM VERSUS INDIVIDUALISM: TWO DOCTRINES AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER.

The Arbalest Quarrel discusses at length, on our weblog, the principles grounding two incompatible philosophical systems. See, “The Modern Civil War: Collectivism vs. Individualism,” posted in October 2018. The framers of the U.S. Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, structured a Nation on the principles of Individualism, not those of Collectivism. The Radical Left, brazenly attempting to take over our Country, as it is gaining control over the Democratic Party, seeks to exercise absolute control over public discussion and discourse--presumptuously, sanctimoniously, presuming to be the voice of both sanity and morality. The mainstream media follows suit, indoctrinating the public in the new social, economic, political, and legal order, predicated on the principles of Collectivism. Collectivism and Individualism are at odds with each other, wholly incompatible. And, in the words and actions of the Collectivists, we see a Nation they seek to create--one divested of its laws, customs, traditions, history, and Judeo-Christian ethic--a Nation, in fact, that is divested of its very identity and soul. These Collectivists seek to subsume our Nation into a supranational organization of Western States. The differences between Collectivism and Individualism are stark.Let us be clear. Democratic Party candidates entering the race for U.S. President espouse a political, economic, social, financial, and legal system grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, not Individualism. The Nation they conceive cannot be squared with the U.S. Constitution as it exists. And, no one should be surprised that these Collectivists would call, shrilly and audaciously, for several changes to be made to it. Contenders, recently announcing their candidacy, namely, Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker unabashedly declare radical Socialist positions. Each tries to outdo the other. Beto O’Rourke the Radical Left Democratic Party candidate is also pondering a run. These politicians espouse political, social, economic, and financial positions far to the left of Joseph Biden; and even to the left of Bernie Sanders—difficult as it is too believe. Not surprisingly, these people show no reluctance in both misconstruing and attacking our Constitution.Among the radical views expressed by these contenders, vying for the Democratic Party crown, we see: Constraints on the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association; Constraints on Freedom of Religion; Abrogation of the Second Amendment; an End to Habeas Corpus; an End to Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures; Abrogation of the Electoral College; Vast Expansion of the House of Representatives, promising outsize representation of California, in Congress; Continued Politicization of our Bureaucratic Institutions; Radical Expansion of the Federal Government; Absolute Federal Control over Public Education; Porous Geographical Borders, permitting free flow of non-citizens both into and out of our Country; the granting of voting rights to non-citizens, and career felons; a curious tolerance for crimes committed by illegal aliens, including drug cartels, against our Nation's citizens; and, through it all, the desire to close all debate on their radical agenda.Where would this all lead? The citizenry would inevitably witness the dismantling of our Nation State; renouncement of the U.S Constitution. Arguably, we would see the integration of our Nation into a pan-North, Central, and Southern American Confederation, eventually connected politically, socially, economically, and legally to the EU.Socialist precepts, beliefs, and desires have run amok in our Nation. Any vestige of a Nation as conceived by our founders may very well draw to a close if Democrats take control of the U.S. Presidency in 2020. The Democratic Party is no longer--if it ever truly was--the Party of Moderate political and social thought and discourse.The Democratic Party leadership takes its cue now from new radical members. The Leftist agenda is seeing a dangerous re-emergence and resurgence in America—not seen since the early Twentieth Century. The Socialist and Communist belief system, grounded on the precepts of Collectivism, is naturally accepted among the poorly educated illegal aliens among us, as they are familiar with it, and have most to gain from it. They are steeped in it. And, their ranks grow every year.More disturbingly, we see this strange belief system of Collectivism, adopted by a younger generation of Americans. This may be due to radical, doctrinaire changes to our Nation’s public education system. The political, social, economic, financial, and legal fabric of our Nation is at risk. It is all being questioned, criticized, reevaluated. Nowhere is that more in evidence than in the matter of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country. Will our Nation survive, in the form our Founders structured it, as a free Republic? The question of the future of firearms' ownership and possession in this Country is central to that question. How the gun issue dynamic shapes up in 2019 and beyond, into the 2020 Presidential Primary Season, will likely impact the ultimate question facing our Nation:Is our Bill of Rights to be perceived as codification of natural law, sacrosanct and inviolate, as understood by our Founders, who believed in the principles underlying Individualism, or is it to be perceived as nothing more than a compendium of man-made law, as accepted by the proponents of Collectivism--which we see in other Nations, whose populations conceive their laws as ever malleable, subject to reworking or repeal, not unlike those of our own man-made Congressional Statutes?This question goes to the heart of what it means to be an American citizen. And, because this question, tacit though it be, nonetheless underscores what is at stake in the coming U.S, Presidential election, as our Nation stands at a crossroads, a critical juncture in our Nation's history, it is not exaggeration to assert that the American citizenry is facing a monumental crisis in 2020. There have only existed a few others.Our forefathers fought George III and the might of the British empire. That was our first mighty struggle. We prevailed.The founders of our Republic then debated the form our Nation should take. That was our second mighty struggle. The founders came to agreement with ratification of the United States Constitution, and, so, succeeded in their effort.We then faced major wars and depressions, and the might of the Soviet Union. These calamitous events combined, constituted, together, our third major struggle. We overcame them all, our Nation and its Constitution surviving, intact.We are now facing internal conflict as radical elements in our society, organized and supported by foreign internationalist groups and individuals, seek to undermine our Constitution, our people, our Republic, and our fundamental rights and liberties—and doing so callously, insidiously, seditiously—deliberately creating dissension among us, dividing each of us, one from the other, to accomplish their monstrous aims.The dangers we face as a Nation today are caused less from a disruption and explosion from outside, and more from implosion within. It is the work of a massive Fifth Column, actively at work, in our Country. It is marked by its insinuation into and control over the Democratic Party machinery. But it operates at many other levels of our Government as well. And it operates in our communities; and in the various sectors of business, finance, and media; and even within the legal profession. Nothing is left untouched. This fourth major battle has been waging for the last thirty years. And this new danger is unique for the diabolical approach it employs to destroy our Nation. The ruptures in our Nation, seeded by the machinations of this Fifth Column are now bearing poisonous fruit.But, the Fifth Column struggle for dominance over our Nation and its Countrymen isn’t over. But what we see is dire. We will know soon enough, whether the disruptors of our Nation, these purveyors of lies, succeed. The outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election will do much to decide whether our Nation survives in the manner our founders have bequeathed it to us or falls under the weight of those who seed dissension and discord from within.If a Democratic Party candidate should gain control of the U.S. Presidency, and the Fifth Column that controls it continues to extend its tentacles into, around, and through every organ of our Nation, slowly squeezing the life out of our Nation--we will, indeed, have lost, and those who have fought and died to create a Great, unique Nation and those who have since fought and died to preserve it, will have done so in vain. For, nothing will remain of our Nation but an empty shell. All vestige of what we once were as a great Nation and a great People will be lost forever.__________________________________________

PART THREE

THE RESHAPING OF AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FIREARMS

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes. . . . One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. . . . We need to do this every day of the week, every school, at every level, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” ~ A young Eric Holder, speaking to the Woman’s National Democratic Club in 1995, as televised on CSPAN in 1995—fourteen years before President Barack Obama appointed him as Attorney General, in Obama’s Administration.” Among the critical rights codified in the Bill of Rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the only truly tenable check against tyranny in our Nation. That, of course, explains the ferocity of the Collectivist attack on the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. For, after all, it isn't tyranny that concerns them. In fact, the unchecked, unchallenged growth of Government is the clearest manifestation of tyranny; it is something they have designed and are working to accomplish--the enslavement of the American people, much as the populations of the EU are becoming enslaved. Our Nation, though, is not so easily susceptible to tyranny, unlike the Nations comprising the EU, as our Constitution provides for several "failsafe" mechanisms that serve to preclude, forestall or, at least, to deter the onset of tyranny. And that makes the effort of the Collectivists, both here and abroad, who seek to "soften up" our Nation, and ultimately to destroy it—that it may be subsumed eventually into a massive transnationalist union, which is the Collectivist dream of a new world order, comprising the remains of what had once been distinct, independent, sovereign nation states—so extraordinarily difficult. The last of the "failsafe" mechanisms that the framers of our free Republic built into our Constitution to preserve its existence and to preserve the existence of a free, autonomous citizenry in whom ultimate authority resides, and was meant to reside, is also the most effective failsafe mechanism: the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.For proponents of Collectivism, the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms--and the emphatic assertion that this sacred right shall not be infringed--creates a serious problem for the Collectivists in this Nation--those Collectivists like Eric Holder and Barack Obama. And it creates, as well, a problem for the Collectivist overseers--those both here and abroad--who support and who have orchestrated the Collectivist agenda and who are working to implement the items in it. Much more so than even the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech--which, too, not surprisingly, is also under attack today--the Collectivists cannot and will not abide the Second Amendment to our Nation's Bill of Rights. Tyranny cannot take root and prevail--indeed it cannot even exist--in the presence of an armed, capable, determined citizenry, poised to resist tyranny. Thus it is that those who seek to destroy us--the Collectivists both here and abroad--those intent on to breaking the back of our free Republic and on breaking the will of the American citizenry, no longer even pretend to support the Second Amendment. We see this as they call for more gun control laws--gun control laws they refer to, disingenuously, as "sensible."These Collectivists, who vehemently denounce our Second Amendment, have long considered it an anathema. Of late, these ruthless creatures who have sought to impose ever more restrictive gun laws upon us no longer even keep up the pretense of supporting the Second Amendment, as they once had done so when prefacing their remarks slyly, duplicitously, with the phrase--"but of course we support the Second Amendment"--when really they didn't. The Collectivists who have always seen the Second Amendment as intolerable, are now making overt claims of their abhorrence of it. They now assert it to be inconsistent with modern Western civilization; archaic; a relic of a bygone age--bizarre remarks to say the least, and remarks all the more disturbing when they emanate from a jurist.Firearms in the hands of millions of citizens are perceived as senseless to those who espouse the ideology of Collectivism. But then Collectivism demands absolute obedience to subservience to Government and reliance on Government. A person isn't prepared to be obsequious to Government if that person insists on being armed. That fact informs Government that a person isn't prepared to place his or her trust in Government. But, some people are prepared to do just that. And, for them, firearms are considered unnecessary. In return for forsaking one's firearms, Government promises to fulfill one's basic needs and wants and even happiness. But, for others, that price, is much too high. For, the mere act necessitates that one place blind trust in Government. That is something one should never do, and we, for our part, never will. And, we have history to resort to as proof in support of our reluctance to do so. Government's promises are designed merely to soothe and placate the public, who are urged to view the false promises as true and proper and desirable.For the ignorant, for the shallow, for the gullible, and for the weak among us, who readily "buy into" these false promises--and who believe in, who are compelled to feel the need to believe in mere words--that seems to be enough. Like children, such people wish to believe. It is easy to deceive those for whom faith in false prophets comes easy. Those who seek comfort in Government to coddle, protect, and nourish them, the Collectivists' promises are tranquil pipedreams. And for these sorry souls, "the big tall wish"--this seeming pleasant pipedream--is enough. But they will  learn too late what they have lost--and what they will have lost is everything of consequence. They will learn too late, much too late, that happiness--true happiness--can be achieved only if the individual remains "individual”--true to him or herself. Happiness is not something that Government is capable of bestowing on the individual, notwithstanding the Radical Left’s suggestion to the contrary._________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE MYTH OF THE BENEVOLENT GOVERNMENT AND OF SOCIETAL PERFECTION THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL IMPOSED AND SANCTIONED ORDER

Ultimately, each individual must depend on him or herself for sustenance and for providing for one's needs, wants, and desires, and happiness. That is as it should be. This requires less Government control over the citizenry--as little control as possible--not more control over the citizenry. Government, whatever its configuration is not benign, and it is not benevolent and reliance upon it to create a utopia for its denizens is a cruel hoax, even as the Collectivists tell us otherwise. A recent Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal bears out the hollow, empty pipedreams that Collectivists shower on the masses, like so much fairy dust--sparkling gold that inevitably turns to gray soot and ashes in the  sharp, clear, rationality of the morning.Barton Swaim, who writes political book reviews for the Wall Street Journal aptly points out the shallowness and emptiness of the Collectivists' drives, aspirations and goals. Published in the Wall Street Journal on February 11, 2019, Swaim's article, sarcastically titled, "All You Need is a Congress, And A Dream," writes of the bizarre aims of the Democratic Party Collectivists--new members of the Party and old--whose goals, if implemented, would fracture, irreparably, our free Republic and its free People. It is worthwhile quoting Swaim's article at length. He says:"The [Democratic Party's] Green New Deal is an expression of dreams, but that doesn't make it pointless or merely comical. Take it seriously, not literally. Much of it reads like a leftist manifesto from half a century ago--I thought of the Port Huron Statement, issued by the founders of Students for a Democratic Society [invariably referred to, at the time, by the initials "SDS"] in 1962, which crammed scores of hopelessly vague and muddled objectives in a single document for the purpose of movement cohesion [that is to say, for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the American citizenry or for the benefit of the Nation] not 'the economy itself is of such social importance that is major resources and means of production should be open to democratic participation and subject to democratic social regulation' and so on. . . . The imperturbable Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn't offended by the word, 'dream.' I don't consider that to be a dismissive term,' she said. 'I think it's a great term.' It's certainly an apt one, and makes sense of the resolution's weirdly vatic language. Mr. Marky, sounding a little like the prophet Isaiah, said: 'We will save all of creation by engaging in massive job creation.'The word 'dream' almost always has a happy connotation in American politics. To dream is to desire worthy and noble ends. Sometimes the ends really are worthy and noble. . . . But, mostly they are not. Communism was always a dream, always a future state toward which its adherents had to struggle. I recall the haunting line of the political philosopher Michael Oakeshott: 'The conjunction of dreaming and ruling generates tyranny.'American progressives are fond of the word 'democracy' but it is not democracy they want, because democracy is messy. What they want--and it is Mr. Trump's strange genius to make them say it--is the noumenal perfection of a dream."The dream of the “perfect” society is difficult enough to conceptualize, and impossible to realize. To begin, how do we define this word, ‘perfection,’ as applied to a social, political, economic, and legal construct? Carrying out such a scheme would be empirically, if not logically, impossible--one fraught with considerable difficulty and peril from the get-go, even if theoretically possible.Assuming arguendo, that a workable definition could rationally be developed, how would one go about implementing the creation of this seemingly 'perfect society?' And, once implemented, how might this ‘perfect society’ be maintained? One is  reminded of the futility of the enterprise, as one reads Voltaire’s satire, "Candide."Yet that doesn't stop the Collectivists in this Country from daring to thrust their notion of the 'perfect society' on the rest of us. Indeed, the thing they envision is grounded on a precept, taken as axiomatic, that very few in our Country would agree with. It is that a strong, centralized Government, unfettered by rights and liberties of its citizenry, imposing edicts on the rest of us, is the way forward toward creating this 'perfect society'. These Collectivists accept as self-evident that a strong, central Government of unfettered power is the appropriate vehicle through which the 'perfect society' might one day be realized. But, the idea is less ambitious than it is foolhardy, and presumptuous, and pretentious, and dangerous. Consider: what does the Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society, entail? It entails no less than the dissolution of our Constitution; the dismantling of our free Republic; and the debasement, defilement, and subjugation of the American people. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect societydemands that the American citizenry forsake their fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, and--adding insult to injury--therein proclaim that the American citizenry would be all the better for having done so. The Collectivists' blueprint for their ostensibly perfectly ordered, perfect society presumes that some people--namely and particularly, the Trillionaire Rothschild clan, residing safely in their lofty, sequestered, protected abodes, removed from and safely tucked away from the hoi polloi, who toil away in the lower realms of the world, along with the Billionaire Globalist Technocrats, through whom the radical Left elements in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy receive their marching orders--be permitted to rule with dictatorial power and abandon over the rest of us, bound not by legal constraint or by ethical maxim, or by convention, or by compunction of custom, or by simple common decency as they, after all, know what is in our best interests. Oh, but how imperfect this perfect world they envision and how imperfect this seeming perfect world they would make and thrust on all Americans.The founders of our Republic would likely take a very dim view of this, the Collectivists' most perfect of all perfect worlds and of this, the Collectivists' vision: that of a  meticulously crafted and implemented, presumptively and pretentiously presented, pompously ordained, perfect well-ordered society that the few "Elite Elect" in the world ordain for rest of us, the Condemned and Damned, to toil in, underfoot, for their benefit, on their behalf. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AN INHERENT DANGER TO A FREE PEOPLE, REQUIRING OUR CONSTITUTION’S BILL OF RIGHTS TO DETER THE THREAT POSED TO OUR LIBERTY

THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WERE WELL AWARE THAT, EVEN AS THEY RECOGNIZED THE NEED FOR A "FEDERAL" GOVERNMENT, THEY SAW THE INHERENT DANGER IN ITS CREATION--AS IT WOULD INVARIABLY AMOUNT TO A DANGEROUS DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.

The founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution, dismissed out-of-hand the idea that Government, through unfettered power and authority, is capable of serving the best interests of the citizenry. The members of the new radical Left in our Nation, would—if given a free hand—destroy the very underpinnings of our Nation, and consider themselves none the worse for having done so. But, then, this should come as no surprise to anyone, as the Radical Left clearly demonstrates its utter contempt for the founders' vision of a Free Republic and of the founders' understanding of the sanctity of the individual. The members of this new Radical Left have exhibited their absolute disdain for and disregard of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people--those natural rights and liberties cemented in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They perceive the Constitution, not as containing the inviolate principles they are constrained to work within, but, rather, as an inconvenient impediment they feel smugly confident they can and should be permitted to work around or skate happily beyond or through.Through a strong central Government, the Nation would be in the best possible position to thwart dangers posed to the Nation from forces outside the territorial boundaries of the Nation. But, by the same token, a strong, central Government, would also pose the greatest, gravest threat to the freedom and autonomy of the Nation's citizenry. The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, knew all this, of course. They weren't naïve.The founders knew full well of the inherent danger existent in a strong, central Government--especially one with unfettered power. The founders knew full well what would occur if Governmental power were allowed to grow unrestricted, unhampered, unchecked. To prevent this or, at least, to forestall, the danger to a free people, through unfettered, unrestrained growth of Government, the founders created a Government of limited power. Further, to preclude accumulation of power in Government, the founders of our free Republic, devised three co-equal Branches of Government, legislative, executive, and judicial. And the founders divided the powers that Government would wield, among those three co-equal Branches. But would this be enough? The founders of our Nation, of our free Republic, pondered this, and many of them--those referred to as the antifederalists--were unsatisfied; were vexed and wary. They concluded, and rightfully so as it has come to pass, that even a Government of limited power--power distributed among three co-equal Branches--might yet not prevent a push by those in Government, the servants of the people, to seek ever more power, to seek power well beyond that power permitted in the Constitution the founders envisioned.Since ultimate power would remain, must remain, in the American people themselves--a point axiomatic for both the Federalists and Antifederalists, an argument ensued among them as to the manner of ensuring that ultimate power would always remain in the American citizenry. For the Federalists, it was necessary and sufficient for to articulate clearly and categorically those specific and limited powers Government shall have. The Antifederalists were not convinced that this would be enough to maintain supremacy of authority and power in the American people themselves. To guarantee that ultimate power would forever reside in and remain in the American people, thereby preventing Government encroachment on the preserve of the American citizenry, the Antifederalists demanded that a Bill of Rights  be incorporated into the very structure of the Constitution.  Those among the founders, belonging to the Federalist camp, did not, for their part, feel it incumbent upon them, much less mandatory, to incorporate a Bill of Rights into the fabric of the Constitution. For the Federalists, it was enough for the Constitution to consist of the core Articles. Since Government as conceived and structured, by both Federalists and Antifederalists alike, would have limited power, the Federalists felt that inclusion of a document codifying the rights and liberties of the American people into the Constitution, would simply be redundant. Further, a few among the Federalists, thought that a Bill of Rights, consisting in salient part of enumerated rights, would work against itself, endangering a free people, as its existence might imply that delineation of specific rights and liberties would operate as a limitation on the American people and detract from the principle of ultimate authority residing in the American people.The Federalists reasoned that, if a Bill of Rights were incorporated into the Constitution, this would mean that the American people would have only those rights and liberties specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and no others. Even worse, some Federalists speculated that incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, would operate in a matter wholly inconsistent with the principle that ultimate power and authority must reside in the people, not in Government. Thus, some Federalists inferred that inclusion of a Bill of Rights into the final product would be tantamount to saying that ultimate authority did not, would not, and could not reside in the American people, but must, then, reside, by default, in the Federal Government, notwithstanding that the Articles would speak of a Government with limited powers. Thus the Federalists were much convinced that inclusion of a Bill of Rights would actually operate to the detriment of the American people, nullifying ultimate authority residing in the American people, contrary to the deep set desires and wishes and understanding of all the founders.The Antifederalists, though, insisted a Bill of Rights be included in the final product as this alone would ensure that ultimate power and authority would invariably--for all time, as it should and must--reside in and remain with the American people themselves, and not in and with Government. Otherwise the new and free Republic would be a travesty, no better than that of Great Britain, ruled by a Monarch. After all did not the founders, and other Americans, fight a bloody war to throw off the yoke of just such a totalitarian Government--apart from those Colonists, the Tories, who had thrown their lot with George III? So it was that the Antifederalists, among the founders of a free Republic, vehemently disagreed with the Federalists. The Antifederalists felt that it could only be through inclusion of a Bill of Rights that ultimate power and authority would remain with the American people. And they were adamant. Perhaps they foresaw that, whatever reservations the Federalists had in incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, the dangers posed by the federal Government to the citizenry would be greater and graver by far were a Bill of Rights omitted from the Constitution. We, now with clear hindsight, realize the Antifederalists with their prescient foresight, were  correct in their observations, and that the Federalists were wrong. Much worse would we, Americans, be today, had the founders forsaken inclusion of a Bill of Rights in our Constitution. And we, the founders descendants, realizing that a Bill of Rights was needed, would attempt too late to rectify the matter. Better we are by far, as we see those despicable groups among us, the Collectivists, who complain bitterly over the existence of our Bill of Rights--who dare call for  constraints on the First Amendment and on the Fourth Amendment, and on the Fifth Amendment; and who call for de facto or de jure repeal of the Second Amendment. Let those who ascribe to the precepts of Collectivism be, as they are, in the more difficult and, in fact, in the untenable position to dare attempt destruction of an indestructible document than for us, who, like the founders before us--ascribe to the philosophical precepts of Individualism, but who would be in the most difficult position of all, proclaiming the need for adoption of a Bill of Rights had the Federalists held sway over the Antifederalists--and ratification of our Constitution proceeded without inclusion of our sacred Bill of Rights. ______________________________________________________

PART SIX

NO RELIEF FROM LIES, INCESSANT LIES, AND DAMNABLE LIES!

Antigun proponents proselytize relentlessly, mercilessly, zealously, and sanctimoniously to the masses. A compliant, complicit mainstream “Press” reports every incident of gun violence. And, it does so deliberately, duplicitously, insidiously--exaggerating, magnifying incidents of gun violence in society. The unethical reports become a fictional, grating, narrative: Confiscate firearms from everyone and the problem of criminal and sociopathic misuse of firearms will take care of itself, we are told. No, it won’t. This tactic would simply leave millions of law-abiding Americans defenseless. But some believe the lie.Antigun politicians cajole the public to view gun violence as more prevalent than it is. Since they see firearms in the hands of millions of citizens as senseless, antigun politicians wage a ceaseless, inexorable assault on law-abiding gun owners. They try to instill in the average American a feeling of revulsion and abhorrence of guns.They see the ownership and possession of firearms as uncivilized. They deem firearms aesthetically unpleasant. They find firearms morally objectionable. They perceive the teaching of our youth to enjoy and appreciate the proper use of and respect for firearms to be wrongheaded at best, and altogether unconscionable, at worst. The youth of our Nation are expected to share the raw hatred and fear toward  firearms that the antigun zealots, themselves, have toward them. Young boys that grew up playing "Soldier" and "Cops and Robbers," and "Cowboys and Indians" in the 1950s, are no longer permitted to do so. What once was actively encouraged or, at least accepted, is no longer tolerated. Those children who do play these childhood games--as part of  acclimation to manhood--are chastised for doing so.The radical Left, insinuating itself throughout Government, Business, the media, and even in our institution of law, consider the innocuous games of our youth, dangerous, aberrant behavior that will no longer be tolerated and condoned, much less acquiesced, let alone encouraged. Allowing children to play such games is considered wrongheaded, socially deviant. Antigun zealots and other radical Leftists  believe that the very existence of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms undermines social cohesion; undercuts the societal collective, and undermines their ability to control the polity. This bespeaks the “hive mentality” they seek to seed, cultivate, in nourish in all Americans--to create a docile and obedient and frightened community, beaten down, and remolded to accept bondage and penury. Yet, they find "reeducating" the adult population difficult--too many adults resist their efforts. So they refocus their efforts on our children. Children are ostracized, today, in our public schools, when they happen to demonstrate a predilection for firearms and who eventually are able to understand, truly understand, and appreciate the critical importance of our Bill of Rights and, especially, the critical importance of the Second Amendment in at least deterring if not preventing the onset of tyranny. Gun ownership and possession is the sine qua non of individuality and autonomy.The new programs for educating our youth--apart from the education of the children of the "elite" who will dominate and rule over the rest of us--do not breed self-assurance and self-confidence, as the curricula are not designed to do that. Instead children are instilled with anxiety and self-doubt, and this is by design. They learn nothing about our core values, traditions, and history. They know nothing about our form of Government and the trials and effort and sacrifice that went into the creation of our Nation, founded and preserved on a unique, sacred, Constitution. Rather, children are instilled with guilt over perceived wrongs of our ancestors and told to behave and toe the line. The youth of our Nation, educated to be docile slaves in a new international world order, will then be easier to control. And the massive waves of ignorant, uneducated, ill-informed illegal aliens--admitted with open arms into our Country by those elements, both here at home and abroad, who see in these millions of hapless individuals a useful tool to undermine our Nation--are intended to supplant Americans.These alien migrants are, after all, nothing but a glob of docile, obedient "worker ants." They know nothing of the importance of personal autonomy and individuality; and they couldn't care less about  the structure of a Constitutional Republic, ruled by law, not by men, even if they could understand and appreciate our Constitution, our history, our traditions, our core values and beliefs. Indeed, The New York Times, in an article titled, "Backlogs Prolong Wait To Become U.S. Citizens," published on February 21, 2019, says--in fact, complains--that "the steep application fee, and the civics and English tests have historically deterred many from naturalizing." Really, now! The fact that people who seek to become citizens of the Greatest Nation on Earth have to pay a steep application fee, and learn to speak English and gather an understanding of our Nation's history, and traditions, our fundamental, sacred rights and liberties and our form of Government is asking to much of them? Did millions of Western and Eastern Europeans quibble and complain about costs, and the demands of learning English and learning about our Constitutional Republic when they emigrated to our Country in the early Twentieth Century? Were these people heard to complain about remitting exorbitant amounts of money just to arrive here by ship, and who had to learn English, and who had to learn about our Constitution, and about our Nation's history, and about our core values. Not at all! They were proud to become citizens, and they realized the importance of inculcating our values and language as they assimilated. Now, we have the MSM making excuses for them, as it is we, Americans who should accept people who have no desire to learn our language, or to learn about our Nation's rich cultural past, and who feel no need to accept the principles under which we live--it is we who must kowtow to them! Many of these people are looking for handouts, and handouts will, of course, be given to them so long as they behave. Thus, the Billionaire Globalist "elites," through their minions, the Radical Left--in Congress, in the media, in business, and even in the Courts--envision a different, bizarre America, one that is hollowed out--one that even precludes the trappings of a once proud, sovereign, independent Nation. Yes, the strength of the military and of the police and intelligence apparatus will continue to exist but will be coopted for use by the rulers of a new transnational system of social, political, cultural, economic, and legal governance, as we are occurring even now. It stands to reason that assimilation is unnecessary if our Nation is doomed to fall anyway as our Nation becomes a mere cog in the grand scheme of the new international world order. It is all false messaging. And most Americans do not fall for it.Most citizens recognize the fallacy of the new messaging and are well aware of the agenda of this Radical Left. The Radical Left desires to create confusion and uncertainty in the public and seeks to instill, in our children, that same confusion and uncertainty. The aims of the Radical Left is insidious. But, it has access to money; lots of it. And the Radical Left is well organized. The ruthless internationalists, who seek to destroy our Nation, orchestrate the radical Left's every move; provide the Radical Left with its talking points; create the Left's agenda, and tick off the items on the agenda, once accomplished. It is all a well-planned, orchestrated subterfuge. It is all a carefully calculated, ruthless scheme to take the Nation from the American people, without the American people even knowing it is happening. _____________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

WILL FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION GO THE WAY OF BUGGIES AND CORSETS AND THE CATHODE RAY TUBE?

Antigun zealots and other Leftist extremists, and radical Leftist Groups, along with the Billionaire Internationalist Class of Overseers who fund them, consider the holding and exhibiting of positive thoughts toward firearms to be outworn and outdated; altogether unfashionable; aberrational; even primeval.And, as they seek to control the thoughts and actions, and word and deed, of average Americans, we see, at once, these antigun zealots, and other Leftists of all stripes, and the billionaire Globalists exhibiting a marked reluctance toward castigating the criminal, sociopathic element in our society for their conduct, in whom reprehensible, aberrational behavior truly resides. This is all according to plan.As for this criminal element of society, antigun zealots, and other Leftists, tell us that society is itself to blame for the aberrant behavior of criminals and of the criminally insane. It is all nonsense. But, the incessant repetitious drone has a nascent effect on some. Thus, the cry goes out to "liberate" the criminal and the lunatic from the institutional setting, even as law-abiding citizens are placed more at risk for their life, safety and well-being in the implementation of such policy. It is they--average law-abiding, rational Americans--who, strangely, find themselves shackled, psychologically for daring to harbor impure thoughts toward gun ownership and possession; all the more so in the event they dare to exercise their Second Amendment right. If they could, antigun zealots, and others of the radical Left, would lock up millions of law-abiding gun owners, to reeducate them. Alas, they cannot, at least for the moment. Once they come into power, who knows?American gun owners extoll the virtues of individual responsibility, autonomy, self-reliance and self-resilience. These virtues are reflected in the desire to keep and bear arms, as is their unalienable right. But these virtues are inconsistent with Government control over the commonalty. Bizarrely, we see attempts to control thought by controlling use of language. Nothing is sacred. Leftists seek to revise how Americans view their fundamental rights and liberties. Indeed, everything—our history, traditions, core values—now demands revisiting for these Collectivists.The existence of enumerated, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties, intrinsic in each American citizen, guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, presents a formidable problem, a true conundrum for those who ascribe to Collectivism--the harbingers of a one world government. They cannot control a citizenry that has access to guns. That is the insistent, irrefutable truth, and it poses a difficult, significant if not  insurmountable hurdle for them.The Bill of Rights mandates freedom from Governmental restraint. Guns in the hands of the American citizenry guarantees freedom from Governmental restraint. The radical Left can have none of it. But, then, how do Antigun zealots go about separating the American people from their firearms?From a legislative standpoint, Antigun politicians must use a different tack against those of us who exalt the fundamental rights and liberties cherished by the founders of our Free Republic. Antigun politicians cannot change the attitudes of those Americans steeped in an understanding of and deep abiding love and adoration for our unique Constitution and our Bill of Rights. They have tried. They argue, dubiously, that some gun owners see the value of “gun control” and “gun licensing” measures and schemes. But, is that true? And, if it is true, does that mean we all must follow suit? Does that mean “gun owners” who have capitulated are right, and the rest of us are wrong? No!Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who visualize a Government of limited authority. Antigun proponents cannot sway those Americans who understand that ultimate authority resides in the people, not in Government; that Government growth must be contained and constrained; that the tendency toward accumulation of Governmental power should be resisted; attenuated; that fundamental rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights, must be preserved and strengthened, at all costs, not weakened, restricted, ignored, or abrogated.Most Americans understand that natural rights—such as the right of Free Speech and Association, the right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, and the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—exist intrinsically in the American citizen; that a loving, all powerful, and omniscient, and benevolent Creator bestowed these rights on us; in us. No man, nor Government entity created these natural rights. So no man, nor any Government can deny the American citizen of these fundamental, unalienable, enumerated rights. For those of us who ascribe to the precepts of Individualism, these sacred, fundamental rights and liberties are not mere statutes. They represent the highest form of moral law—codifications etched in stone in our Constitution; never to be amended, repealed, ignored, or abrogated.Again, since Government did not bequeath these natural, primary rights to man, Government cannot lawfully take those rights from man. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this. See, for example, our article, posted April 2017,  titled, “Does The Second Amendment Codify Natural Law, Preexistent In The Individual, Or Is The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms A Man-Made Construct?”  Leftist politicians and those in the polity who espouse an alien ideology understand, if only reluctantly, they cannot erase centuries of traditional American values and teaching. They cannot lawfully abrogate the Bill of Rights. So, they use the force of Government, unethically, even illegally, to thrust their will on those who stubbornly hold to their natural rights and liberties, and who refuse to yield to a new belief system—one requiring the forsaking of such rights and liberties._______________________________________________________

PART EIGHT

AN INCREMENTAL ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the enumerated fundamental, unalienable rights, Leftist politicians know, the one etched in the Second Amendment is most difficult to dislodge. But these politicians are tenacious. This assertion isn’t meant to be a compliment; merely an observation.Strong drives coupled with an equally strong will lead one to act. Actions may be positive or perverse. Here, perverse. Leftists abhor the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, more so than any other elemental right set forth in the Bill of Rights, because, more so than any other sacred,  elemental right, the Second Amendment constitutes the greatest threat to their accumulation of power and their ability to maintain power over the American people. It is impossible for these Leftists, these Collectivists, to implement a new system of governance in our Nation—a system of social, political, and legal governance, altogether contrary to and inconsistent with that designed by the founders of our free Republic. But, these Leftists won’t stop their nefarious, diabolical attempts to impose more and more stringent constraints on the average law-abiding American who, uninhibitedly, dares to exercise the fundamental, unalienable, primordial, enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

THE THREE ANTIGUN PLANKS

Although gun laws enacted by Congress, State Legislatures, and subordinate bodies of the States, are numerous and complex, the strategy undergirding them is simple. That strategy has three primary planks. Each Governmental measure falls into one or more planks, and Leftist, antigun politicians and those echoing their sentiments in mainstream media organizations, in antigun groups, and in other radical Leftist organizations often pursue all three planks simultaneously. These three planks are as follows:One, continually expand the domain of banned firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Two, continually expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own or possess firearms, ammunition, and firearms’ components and paraphernalia. Three, among those who do not fall within a statutory federal or State disability, and who, then, may continue, at least for the moment, to own and possess firearms, ammunition, firearms' components and complementary firearms' paraphernalia, make the exercise so onerous, so pernicious, so expensive, that few of these individuals will wish to continue to do so.

THE ONSET OF “RED FLAG” LAWS AND GUN LAW BANS

For 2019, the Arbalest Quarrel will be dealing especially with two of the three planks.Pertaining to the first plank, we will see, in 2019, a flurry of activity in both the Democratic Party controlled House of Congress, and in Democratic Party State Legislatures to ban semiautomatic weapons and so-called large capacity magazines; and we will see attempts to ban ammunition and components of firearms.Pertaining to the second plank, we will see efforts to expand the domain of individuals compelled to surrender their firearms. Our next article will look at so-called “Red Flag” laws and bills. These are a new phenomenon. We will explicate the nature of these laws and will zero in on New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s success in resurrecting New York’s “Red Flag” measure--several of which were presented in both the New York Senate and in the Assembly, and all of which failed in 2018. However, with Democrats firmly in control of Albany's Legislature, and with Cuomo's clout, several of these measures passed both the Senate and Assembly, as the antigun group, "New Yorkers Against Gun Violence" proclaimed, with boisterous approval, on the group's website, NYAGV. Note: In New York, the "Red Flag" measures are referred to as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" ("ERPO"). A flurry of other draconian antigun bills have been introduced in and are floating about in both the New York State Assembly and in the State’s Senate. Since Democrats control both Houses in Albany, the State Capital, Cuomo is not sitting back with one success. He is continuing to exert strong pressure on the State Legislature to pass further antigun bills. Keep in mind: Governor Cuomo does not perceive these “Red Flag” laws and other proposed antigun legislation coming down the pipe, as measures distinct from the New York Safe Act, which the State Government passed and which Governor Cuomo signed into law in 2013. Rather, he sees New York's new antigun measures as extensions of the New York Safe Act, enacted in 2013. As Cuomo says, as reported in the weblog, State of Politics, an obvious mouthpiece for Cuomo and a propaganda organ of Cuomo's radical Left Government: "I think the red flag bill adds improvements to the Safe Act." In that same blog post, Governor Cuomo asserts, disingenuously and flippantly, "We have proven that gun safety laws are needed and I think we have also proven that gun safety laws exist without the fear of the slippery slope. . . . Well, they're trying to take away your guns. No one is trying to take away the guns from people who are mentally healthy."No slippery slope, here? Really? And, who, among U.S. citizens residing in New York, is judged to be "mentally healthy." And, is that expression to be construed as a medical or legal term of art?Through it all, there may be a silver lining for those of us who cherish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One should remember that, while the Democratic Party leadership in Congress and Democratic Party controlled Legislatures in some States, continue efforts to undermine the Second Amendment, the Conservative-wing on the United States Supreme Court will, it is our fervent hope and belief, continue to review antigun laws that impermissibly impinge on and infringe the Second Amendment, and, acting as a powerful counter-force against antigun efforts carried out in Congress, and in State Legislatures around the Country, and in the media, strike down unconstitutional laws, rules, regulations, codes, and procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court has done remarkably well with the issuance of favorable rulings in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases. While reluctant to take up any Second Amendment case since then, until very recently, the fact that the high Court has now voted, finally, to hear a straightforward Second Amendment case, in the decade since Heller and McDonald, this may very well augur a good sign for things to come, apropos of preservation of our sacred Bill of Rights.In that regard, the Arbalest Quarrel has written on New York City’s firearm transport case that the high Court has accepted for review. See our article, posted recently, titled, “U.S Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”We will keep tabs on the New York transport case, analyzing, in depth, the arguments of Petitioners, New York residents and gun owners, as well as arguments brought by the Respondent, City of New York, contra Petitioners. There is a lot of work ahead of us, and for you too.We must let Republicans in Congress and in State Government know, and we must let the President know, too, that, notwithstanding the importance of controlling illegal immigration—which has gotten much media attention in the last several weeks—preserving and strengthening the Second Amendment is as critical to the safeguarding of a Free Republic, and the safeguarding of our Nation’s Constitution, and the safeguarding of our Country’s core values, history, and traditions, as is stemming the flow of illegal migrants, refugees, terrorists, criminal gang members, drug cartel members, sex traffickers, contraband, and other assorted flotsam, jetsam, and riffraff  into our Country.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides 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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES SAFE ACT IN THE MAKING: PENNED AND PENCILED BY ANDREW CUOMO

GUN RIGHTS STAY CENTER STAGE

With the midterm Congressional and Gubernatorial elections just around the corner, those Americans who support a strong Second Amendment must not sit idle, but must vote for Congressional candidates and State Governors who will not only support the right of the people to keep and bear arms but who will actively defend that right against those who dare to destroy it. The gun rights issue is of paramount importance and will take center stage if Cuomo Democrats win control of the House and Senate and if they take control of the States.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT REMAINS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST FOR CUOMO DEMOCRATS.

The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in our article, posted on August 1, 2018, that, although the immigration issue has been hyped by the mainstream media and by leftist politicians, in recent weeks and months, it is the Second Amendment that remains first and foremost, firmly in the crosshairs of those who seek to undermine our sacred Bill of Rights. And, sure enough, the exercise of gun rights is once again in the antigun zealots’ crosshairs.In recent days, as the Governor of New York, Andrew M. Cuomo, gears up for a third term bid, he has taken direct aim at the oldest Civil Rights Organization in the Country, the NRA. NRA exists to defend the single, most important right of the American people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic, and critical to guaranteeing the autonomy and sanctity of the individual citizen, as the true sovereign authority in and of the United States.The New York Times has taken the lead in shepherding New York residents to elect Cuomo to a third term in Office, making the point of telling the public, in an August 5, 2018 article, titled, “A New Brawl With the N.R.A.? Cuomo Seizes an Opportunity as a Primary Looms”— that “Mr. Cuomo has had a longstanding ideological commitment to gun control. . . [and that] in 2013, Mr. Cuomo successfully fought for passage of the Safe Act, making New York the first state to enact more stringent gun regulations after the Sandy Hook massacre. He has proudly touted his ‘F’ rating from the N.R.A.” Lest there be any doubt where Cuomo’s ultimate ambition lies, the New York Times adds, in that same article, that “he [Cuomo] has also made no secret of his belief that his actions on gun control have made his state a model for the nation—a handy argument for a politician who has garnered some mention as a possible 2020 candidate. ‘Use New York as a test case,’ Mr. Cuomo said in an interview of his gun control measures, including the Safe Act. ‘The state is a laboratory of democracy where I can say: We passed the law five years ago. Come look at our state.’”Come look at New York, indeed! Imagine, if you will, a Nation, where the model for gun control, the New York Safe Act, becomes federal law—thrust on every State in the Union.De Facto, if not outright de jure, repeal of the Second Amendment has been the goal of the Democratic Party for decades. And, Andrew Cuomo will lead the charge on eviscerating the Second Amendment. Long before Democrats changed their position on illegal immigration—calling at an earlier time for curbs on such immigration, but now extolling an open borders policy that would essentially open the floodgates, letting flow, like an angry river into this Country, tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of low-skilled migrants, along with a large contingent of criminal gangs and refugees from failed states of the Middle East—Democrats have never wavered but have consistently attacked the sacred, natural right codified in the Second Amendment. They have done so incessantly, unceasingly, vehemently. That single issue is what defines them. That single issue is what motivates them, like no other. For, they know that: once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is destroyed, they--these Cuomo Democrats and other leftists--will do away with other fundamental rights and liberties. In so doing, they contrive and machinate to contort our Nation into a thing unrecognizable, an entity completely alien to the aims and desires of the founders of a Free Republic. These Cuomo Democrats seek to create a quagmire, a geographical "Place," no longer an Independent, Sovereign Nation--but merely a place--overrun by unassimilable alien people. These Cuomo Democrats and other leftists who seek to destroy our Nation--a Nation founded on natural rights and liberties--intend to destroy the very fabric of our Nation: its memory; its history, its values, its culture, its ethos. They intend to wipe the slate clean. And, to assist them in their detestable endeavor, they conspire to bring into our Country, such denizens of other Countries who have no understanding of, no appreciation for and, in fact, no concept, of a Nation that exists under and by the will of the people alone--a Nation whose people are endowed by their Creator with fundamental, natural rights and liberties--rights and liberties intrinsic to their very being: incorruptible, immutable, beyond the power of Government to deny, to ignore, to erase.

CUOMO DEMOCRATS DO NOT PERCEIVE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS CODIFYING NATURAL RIGHTS BUT AS A CREATION OF MAN THAT CAN, THEREFORE, BE AMENDED OR DELETED AT WILL.

Not surprisingly, Cuomo Democrats and other leftists' disdain for the Second Amendment is reflected in their rebuke of the very notion that the Bill of Rights embodies and codifies a set of basic, natural rights endowed to man by the Creator, intrinsic to man's very being. As Cuomo Democrats and other leftists savagely, mindlessly, mercilessly attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms of the Second Amendment, they have also attacked the right of free speech, codified in the First Amendment, and they have attacked the very notion of private property rights codified in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They consider these rights trivial, anachronistic to, and an anathema to the "new" Socialist Order they wish to create. In their scheme, these Cuomo Democrats, and these other leftists residing in our Nation, consider the Nation's sacred rights to be merely man-made conventions, capable of excision or rescission, at the stroke of the pen.Thus, these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists belittle the Nation's Bill of Rights, and belittle, too, and especially, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At every turn these Cuomo Democrats and these other leftists contrive to undermine the sanctity of our sacred rights. In their insidious design first to trivialize the Nation's fundamental rights--natural rights, codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights by the framers of our Constitution--they seek, second, eventually, to strike these fundamental, natural rights from the Constitution, substituting for them, such man-made rights, they happen to construct for the moment; rights that happen, for the moment, to comprise their wish list, consistent with and commensurate with their plans for a new Socialist Order they intend to impose on Americans.And what are some of these new rights? Investor Business Daily wrote, presciently, in 2016, that: “They [Democrats] talk about the ‘right to affordable health care,’ the ‘right to a college education,’ the ‘right to a livable wage.’ But at the same time, many of these same Democrats have been agitating to restrict or outright repeal existing rights enshrined in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.” 

CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATORS MUST SPEAK OUT!

Conservative commentators must speak out against the perils of a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party, and they must do so continuously. They must emphasize the threat that Cuomo Democrats and other leftists pose to the continued sanctity of and continuity of the Bill of Rights and, especially, the threat they pose to the Second Amendment.Yet, conservative commentators remain, for the most part, reticent. Oddly, even the conservative commentator Sean Hannity fails to mention that Cuomo Democrats would strive to weaken the Second Amendment if they gained control of the House and the Senate. On his nightly Fox news broadcasts, Hannity rightly warns the American public about specific dangers posed by a Democratic Party takeover of Congress, including Democrats’ intention to impeach President Trump and their commitment to an open borders immigration policy, but he says nothing about Cuomo led Democrats’ devious, scurrilous plans to enact restrictive firearms measures, on the National stage, in the event they take over the House, and, possibly, the Senate as well.

IS THE WRITING ON THE WALL?

If Democrats do in fact take over Congress, after the November 2018 midterm elections, and if Andrew Cuomo is elected to a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo will be taking his plans for a National New York Safe Act to a receptive Congress, where he will lead the pack to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of that, there can be no doubt._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

STRATEGIES OF DESTRUCTION: HOW THE NY SAFE ACT EVISCERATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF ENJOYMENT IN ONE’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

ANTIGUN GROUPS ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA BY TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TRAGEDY

American citizens who hold dear our sacred Bill of Rights may think that leftists in this Country, and abroad, have placed their goal of destroying the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the back burner by virtue of the fact that the mainstream media has said nothing, or virtually nothing, about it, in the last few weeks. This is due to a few other matters that have piqued media interest and attention in recent days and weeks: one, the crisis at the Nation’s Southern Border, resulting from a massive influx of individuals—tens of thousands of them—from Central America, trekking through Mexico, to our Nation’s doorstep, outrageously demanding entrance, at various ports of entry, to our Country, or otherwise illegally crossing over into our Country; two, the retirement of Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court; three, the closed door Congressional hearings with the renegade, Trump-hating FBI Official, Peter Strzok; and, four, today’s open door Congressional hearing of Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, who has, for months, wrongfully and defiantly placed impediments in the path of Congress, making Congressional oversight functions of the Department of Justice and FBI extremely  difficult. While these issues have, at the moment, taken center stage—and, make no mistake, these are critical issues—still, destruction of the Second Amendment forever remains the major goal of both so-called “moderate” Democrats, and those of the radical “Left.”

FIREARMS AND MENTAL HEALTH

The issue of mental health and access to firearms has become a focus of concern in the mainstream media due to two mass shooting incidents occurring in public schools: one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, and a second, not that long ago, at Santa Fe High on May 18, 2018. These two tragedies follow in the wake of two other major school shootings: Columbine High School, in Jefferson County, Colorado, that occurred in April 20, 1999, and a later shooting incident taking place at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012.Mass shooting incidents occurring in public elementary and secondary schools across the Nation—these four, in the span of 18 years—are statistically small in number. But the mainstream media’s control of the airwaves, newsprint, and the internet—thrusting the issue into the public consciousness and conscience—has warped perspective. An illusion has been created and deliberately fostered, suggesting that school shootings are common when in fact they are not. Consider that, according to a 2013-2014 National Center for Educational Statistics (“NCES”) study, there are over 98,000 public elementary and secondary schools in the Nation, and another 33,600 private schools. Four mass shootings have taken place have in four schools in the span of 18 years. Statistically, the number of mass shooting incidents in schools is small. Of course, any gun shooting incident, especially in schools, is a serious matter, never to be taken lightly. The number of such shooting incidents should be zero. But, it is a mistake to believe that the cause of gun violence is the gun itself and not the sentient being who misuses the firearm. It is a mistake that many citizens make because it is one that the mainstream media, on behalf of antigun groups, fosters. Antigun groups, and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, always blame the misuse of firearms on the firearm itself, rather than on the individual who misuses the firearm. They do this, of course, in furtherance of their agenda, emphasizing, as they see it, the need to curb, in this Country, gun ownership, generally, all the while remarking little, if at all, that even the four tragic mass shooting events that did occur in public schools would never have occurred—indeed could never have occurred—had the schools in question undertaken, in the first instance, rigorous school security assessments, following these security assessments up with the implementation of effective security measures and procedures.In each case, failure at the “backend”—failure to implement effective school security—was a major factor in the horrific tragedies that ensued. But there also existed a failure at the “front end” as firearms fell into the hands of young people who should never have had access to them in the first place. In each of these four mass shooting incident cases, there was: one, a failure to secure firearms away from disturbed young people and, two, a failure of Governmental authorities and/or adult family members to provide these disturbed young people with appropriate mental health treatment.Had appropriate measures been taken at both the backend and front end, the four mass shooting incidents that took place in the Nation’s public schools would never have occurred. In fact, there have been no shooting incidents in those schools that have implemented comprehensive, effective school security measures.Obviously, no reasonable person would argue that a severely disturbed individual ought to have access to firearms. But, by the same token no reasonable person--if that reasonable person should stop to consider the matter--would posit that a severely disturbed individual should have access to any instrumentality through which such severely disturbed individual might do violence to self or others.Yet, it is, invariably, the misuse of guns by disturbed individuals that receives mainstream media attention. It is never the misuse of knives* or automobiles by disturbed individuals that receives attention. The reason for this is clear. The mainstream media, as the dutiful mouthpiece for fanatic antigun groups, targets the gun, an inanimate object, for elimination from society, rather than preventing the agents of violence, those individuals who pose a threat to self or others, from acquiring access to these weapons.

NEW YORK IS THE FIRST STATE OUT OF THE GATE TO FURTHER RESTRICT A CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO USE, POSSESS, AND ENJOY THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY

Antigun Legislators, most notably, those in New York, jumped on the antigun bandwagon early, through the creation of ever more stringent gun laws, following the Sandy Hook School shooting incident in 2012. Almost one year to the day of the occurrence of that tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law the New York Safe Act. As for the purpose of instituting further firearms restrictions on resident gun owners, the Governor said this, as emblazoned on the Governor's NY Safe website: “The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun by requiring universal background checks on gun purchase, increases the penalties for people who use illegal guns, and mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who murders a first responder, and imposed the toughest assault weapons ban in the country.” But that wasn’t all. In what could only be seen as provoking resentment among those residents of New York who wish to exercise the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment, the Governor had the gall to add: “For hunters, sportsmen, and law abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”Actually, the ability of law-abiding gun owners to buy, sell, keep or use their firearms—through implementation of the Safe Act—is extremely restricted, contrary to Governor Cuomo’s pronouncement. For example, those individuals who lawfully owned firearms, dubiously referred to as ‘assault weapons,’ prior to enactment of and now banned by the Safe Act, are in fact denied the right to possess, use, and enjoy their property because of substantial Government interference. Further, if one has any doubt as to the parameters of one’s right to possess, use, and enjoy one’s firearms qua private property, the Safe Act does little to reassure that person, because there is nothing in the Safe Act that clearly clarifies the parameters of that property right.Like so much of the NY Safe Act, one finds inordinate ambiguity and vagueness. A person can debate whether such ambiguity and vagueness is due simply to negligence in the drafting of the Act or is, rather, the product of careful and crafty deliberation on the part of the Act's drafters to make it ambiguous and vague. Be that as it may, the law-abiding gun owner, licensed gun dealers, mental health practitioners, and even executors of estates are left scratching their heads as to the meaning of several of the provisions of the Safe Act. One thing, though, is manifest and clear, and cannot be overstated. Those New York State legislators who pushed for this thing detest firearms and would gladly abolish guns from civilian hands outright if they could. The only thing that prevents complete gun bans and gun confiscation in States such as New York, and in States, such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others—States that hold the Second Amendment in low regard if not outright contempt—is the very existence of the Second Amendment as etched in stone in the Nation's Constitution.Given that the framers of the Constitution, specifically the antifederalists, were adamant in demanding codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, the gun grabbers of today are compelled to take a seemingly more measured approach to the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, albeit they do so reluctantly and disgruntledly.   As heretofore stated, the New York Safe Act is the first major piece of antigun legislation to hit the public. Coming on the heels of the Newtown, Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, Governor Cuomo sought, one, to be the first out of the gate to tighten the noose around those individuals who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, and, two,As with all restrictive gun measures, emanating in antigun jurisdictions across the Country, but predominately on the East and West coasts, the NY Safe Act is heralded not as an attempt to constrain the exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, which it is, but as a “common-sense,” “sensible” measure meant to secure that right. Through a feat of legerdemain, the public is expected to buy into the proposition that restricting Americans’ gun rights somehow preserves and strengthens Americans’ gun rights. It does no such thing. The NY Safe Act as with those Acts modelled on the Safe Act in other jurisdictions is no less than a scarcely disguised attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Congressional Democrats, for their part, would just love to see a New York Safe Act measure applied to the Nation as a whole, through federal law enactment; and make no mistake, Congressional Democrats, with the quiet backing of some Centrist Republicans—no friends of the Second Amendment—will work toward accomplishing that very goal in the unhappy event they happen to attain a majority in Congress, in November.

IN WHAT MANNER IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT MERCILESSLY ATTACKED BY CONGRESSIONAL ANTIGUN FORCES AND BY ANTIGUN PROPONENTS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE?

There are three primary strategies by which and through which antigun groups and antigun legislators in Congress and in various States seek to significantly reduce the efficacy of the Second Amendment. One, expand, exponentially, the domain of firearms that the citizenry is precluded from lawfully owning and possessing. Two, expand, incrementally, the domain of individuals who are precluded from owning and possessing any firearm. And, three, increasingly restrict the free exercise of one’s property rights in one’s chattel among those people within the law-abiding civilian population of this Nation who are permitted to own and possess firearms. These are the three strategies employed in the NY Safe Act. One, the Safe Act is specifically designed to expand the domain of guns banned in New York. Two, the Act expands the domain of those New York residents who are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms. And, three, the Act makes increasingly expensive, onerous, and oppressive, gun ownership and gun possession for those New York residents who wish to exercise their property rights embodied in the Second Amendment right, who are not denied the exercise of their right outright.We will, in upcoming articles, look at how the NY Safe Act applies these strategies to curtail one’s enjoyment of his or her personal property as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and we will see how these strategies are then replicated in various jurisdictions across the Nation._________________________________________________*Once guns are effectively banished from a society, a government will go after other implements, using the pretext of societal violence to constrict and constrain a nation's populace under the guise of protecting it. In one of several articles on the subject--this one from a May 2018 article, posted by the BBC, titled, "Judge calls for rounded knives to stop stab deaths,"--the BBC reports:“Judge Nic Madge said ordinary kitchen knives were causing a "soaring loss of life", rather than more heavily regulated large-bladed weapons.He was speaking at Luton Crown Court at a ceremony to mark his retirement.Knife crime rose by 22% in England and Wales in 2017, according to the Office for National Statistics.‘Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points,’ the judge said.He wants manufacturers to produce knives with rounded points for domestic use and those with points to be sold under strict rules.In past two months in Bedfordshire, 77 knife related street attacks went through the courts, with three deaths and 44 injuries.”Rather than dealing with the perpetrators of violence, governments tend to cast a wide net, capturing an entire population, treating the entire populace of a nation to "population control." Is it really the criminal element of society that a nation's government seeks to control, or is it a nation's citizenry that a nation's government seeks to control, albeit under the cloak of promoting "public safety?"  Consider our Nation under the thumb of the Democratic Socialists of America. The Democratic Socialists of America openly admits, on its website: "We are a political and activist organization, not a party."Not since the heyday of the Communist Party USA, one century ago, 0f which the Democratic Socialists of America may be considered one of several offshoots, struggling for membership, have Leftists in this Country actually gained some modicum of political traction, due in no small part to the surprising upset of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz over the U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Party incumbent and power broker, Joe Crowley. What it is that people like Ocasio-Ortiz envision for our Nation is not equality for the masses, regardless of her pronouncements, but, rather, mass serfdom, for one and all, and an end to the fundamental rights of the American people as codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights. Americans shouldn't for a moment take Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz seriously. After all the Party of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi has, as evidenced by the election of Alexandria Ocasio-Ortiz to the House of Representatives, devolved into a burlesque imitation of itself, if ever it were to be seen as anything more or other than a sad joke. But we, Americans, must nonetheless ever be cognizant of erosion of our sacred rights and liberties if we become too complacent. To be sure, there is more danger posed by smug, status-quo Centrist Republicans, to the preservation and strengthening of our sacred rights and liberties, than any danger to the preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties posed by sordid leftists, whatever their stripe: Socialist, Communist, Moderate Democrat, Democratic Moderate, Progressive Democrat, Democratic Socialist, Socialist Democrat, Socialistic Communist--so forth and so on--however this or that leftist may happen to define him or herself._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 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.

HOW DID THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT BECOME LAW? LET’S ASK THE “THREE MEN IN A ROOM?

A new scandal has hit Albany, New York – a big one!  The arrest of the powerful New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, by the FBI, on Friday, January 23, 2015, has sent shock waves across the State, most likely affecting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Administration. The arrest of Sheldon Silver on corruption charges has less to do with Silver than it does for the way legislation affecting the rights and liberties of over 20 million New Yorkers has been and continues to be compromised by an elite group of elected officials – the “three men in a room” – Governor Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Silver, and the State Senate leader – whom the Governor has jokingly referred to as “the three amigos.” An overview of the Complaint filed in federal court, on January 21, 2015, bears this point out. It provides a disturbing picture of how business has been conducted in Albany for many, many years. The Complaint says in pertinent part: “Sheldon Silver, the defendant, has engaged in and continues to engage in a secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of New York of his honest services, and to extort individuals and entities under color of official right, as an elected legislator and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly.”The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s filing of felony corruption charges against Silver may cause Governor Cuomo to distance himself from the Assembly Speaker. Cuomo’s own actions cast a bright and disturbing light on Cuomo as well.On July 2, 2013 Cuomo created the Moreland Commission. Its purpose was twofold: to root out the very corruption the Complaint alleges Silver must now answer for and provide better governance for the residents of the State of New York. The Moreland Commission had the potential to be a good thing for New York State residents and it appears to be a bad thing for Silver.U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who filed the criminal case against Sheldon Silver on January 21, 2015, had testified before the Moreland Commission more than one year earlier. On September 17, 2013, Bharara pledged “the cooperation and assistance of [his] office with the Commission’s vitally important work.” He added, “Fighting public corruption has been a top priority for [Bharara] for a long while. . . .”Many of New York’s elite Legislators railed against the Commission and sued to have it disbanded. In their own filing, those Legislators argued the Commission’s actions trampled the Legislators’ Constitutional Rights. Imagine that.Less than one year after forming the Commission, Cuomo said, on March 29, 2014, he was disbanding it. On April 3, 2014 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District sent a letter to the Commission. In it Bharara said he was taking possession of the Commission’s case files. He questioned whether the Governor was abandoning his commitment to fight public corruption. Cuomo, for his part, was petulant. According to a story published in Crain’s Insider on April 24, 2014, Cuomo told Crain’s: “‘It’s not a legal question. It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow.’” His power seems omnipotent.The concentration of power in New York has been, for many years, in the hands of a Triarchy, reminiscent of the First and Second Triumvirates that ruled ancient Rome. This modern Triarchy consists of the Governor, the Assembly Speaker, and the State Senate Leader. It has worked in secret, under cloak of darkness, without accountability. These three individuals seem to answer only to themselves as if they do not have to account to the public and do not have to account for their actions.Did these “three amigos” engineer the New York Safe Act and thrust it down the throats of New York residents and gun owners sans debate? It certainly seems so.News accounts report that Silver has temporarily stepped down as Assembly Speaker. However, in light of the serious criminal corruption charges the U.S. Attorney has brought against the Assembly Speaker, we question the wisdom of allowing Silver to continue to serve in the New York Assembly at all during the pendency of the case against him.There is another pressing issue that must be addressed. Since the propriety of the actions of “the three amigos” is in question, we feel the New York public has the right – in fact, the duty – to insist on a probe of how the New York Safe Act was drafted; how it was enacted; and, to what extent, if any, the creators of it knew or had good reason to know that enactment of the Act might undermine New York residents’ Constitutional Rights.If corruption is uncovered any step of the way, then the Safe Act should be repealed in its entirety.Despite the fact that some New York residents exhibit animosity toward guns and gun possession, elected officials, including and especially New York Legislators and the Governor, must operate with transparency and fairness on behalf of their constituencies.Any legislation – especially far-reaching legislation, such as the New York Safe Act, that negatively impacts not only one’s Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, but one’s Fifth Amendment private property interest in those firearms, and one’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights – must be discussed in the light of day, before enactment. The New York Safe Act wasn’t enacted protecting these Rights. The impetus for it and passage of it all took place in secretive session, out of the public view. Why? The “three amigos” must explain their actions.How was the New York Safe Act pushed through the Legislature so quickly? How were these individuals able to get away with this? Did the “three amigos” honestly think they were acting on behalf of the New York public for the benefit of the public, as the mainstream media portrayed them? Or were they merely furthering a private agenda, using the power of their respective Office to systematically deprive millions of New York residents and gun owners of their Rights and Liberties under both the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution? Did political ambitions motivate these individuals? If so, how? These are serious questions. And they deserve serious consideration. The public demands answers. The public demands accountability. New York residents and citizens must speak up. The damage to the Public’s Constitutional Rights and Liberties must be undone. The time to act is now.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.