RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] 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. . . . 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."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 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.

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.

TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION IN NEW YORK: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

White Paper Summary

The New York Safe Act is a minefield. One notoriously vague area pertains to transfers of ammunition. Only one section of the NY Safe Act deals with ammunition. The matter of transactions involving ammunition is found and dealt with in Section 50 of the New York Safe Act. Section 50 of the NY Safe Act is codified in the Penal Code of New York: NY CLS Penal § 400.03, titled, “Sellers of ammunition.” Moreover, Section 50 is the only section of the NY Safe Act that deals with transfers of ammunition.Section 50 says, in pertinent part, “No commercial transfer of ammunition shall take place unless a licensed dealer in firearms or registered seller of ammunition acts as an intermediary between the transferor and the ultimate transferee of the ammunition for the purposes of contacting the statewide license and record database pursuant to this section. Such transfer between the dealer or seller, and transferee must occur in person.” Section 50 talks about what both licensed dealers in firearms and sellers of ammunition must do in order to comply with the Act and, too, what individuals who are neither licensed dealers in firearms or registered sellers of firearms must do in order to comply with the NY Safe Act, when one of the parties wishes to sell a box of ammunition to another party. So, Section 50 is talking explicitly about sales of ammunition. And, that is fine as far as Section 50 goes. But, the Safe Act presents a problem.The problem is that not all transfers of ammunition between New York residents who lawfully own and possess firearms are typical purchase and sales of ammunition. Some transfers of ammunition from one individual to another individual are not sales at all. They are gifts or bequests of ammunition from one individual to another in a situation where neither individual is in the business of selling firearms or ammunition. So are those kinds of transactions lawful?Unfortunately, the New York Safe Act – which otherwise has much to say regarding the transfer of firearms defined as ‘assault weapons’ from one person to another person – is silent on ammunition transfers that do amount to sales. So, one must delve deeper into the Penal Code of New York in search of an answer, and we have done this for you.The laws of New York dealing with ammunition transfers – as with firearms matters, generally – are confusing and complex. In our “White Paper” we explain in detail the intricacies of ammunition transfers. We clarify the issues for you and do our best to provide you with meaningful answers that you can work with.View And Download The Full White Paper Here.

[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.

The NY Safe Act Strips New York Gun Owners of Property Rights in Their Own Guns

PART 3: A LOOK AT THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT AND RELATED NEW YORK STATUTES THAT DEPRIVE GUN OWNERS OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY INTEREST IN THEIR OWN FIREARMS

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In this installment of our multi-series article on New York's mangling of the private property right interest in one's firearms, we look at actual New York Statutes that deprive New York gun owners of that property rights interest in their own guns from the specific standpoint of bequests of firearms. We list the Statutes, describe them, and explain how they operate to defeat one’s private property interest in one’s firearms as the Statutes. We explain how New York Statutes interfere with one’s right to make bequests of firearms to one’s heirs and, so, undermine one's property interest in one's own firearms.We will show you that, under present New York law, a New York resident and citizen of the United States does not have absolute control over his or her own firearms. That means that one’s private property interest is not preserved. If so, that is in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention to the New York State Constitution as well.Be forewarned: what follows is not a simple matter under discussion. But for New York gun owners it is certainly a critically important one. As failure to adhere to New York gun laws can create very serious issues for the executor of one's estate and for one's heirs.

NEW YORK STATUTES THAT OPERATE TO RESTRICT OR DEPRIVE A PERSON FROM TRANSFERRING ONE’S FIREARMS – ONE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY – TO ONE’S HEIRS

Now, let us begin.

HOW NEW YORK LAW DEPRIVES NEW YORK RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THEIR ABILITY TO TRANSFER THEIR FIREARMS TO THEIR HEIRS IN CONTRAVENTION OF AND IN DEFIANCE OF A DECEDENT’S SPECIFIC BEQUESTS

22 NYCRR § 207.20 says, “the fiduciary or attorney of record [of a decedent’s estate] shall furnish to the court a list of assets constituting the gross estate for tax purposes, but separately listing those assets that either were owned by the decedent individually including those in which the decedent has a partial interest, or were payable or transferrable to the decedent’s estate; and those assets held in trust, those assets over which the decedent had the power to designate a beneficiary, jointly owned property, and all other non-probate property of the decedent.”The New York Safe Act adds a new and noxious wrinkle to the requirement in 22 NYCRR § 207.20. Under Section 53 of the Act, codified in the Surrogate Court’s Procedure Act, NY CLS SCPA § 2509, titled “Firearm’s Inventory,”  because a decedent’s firearms’ collection must be delineated with particularity. That list must be filed not only with the surrogate’s court for probate, but also with the division of criminal justice services.NY CLS SCPA § 2509, says, “Whenever, by regulation, rule or statute, a fiduciary or attorney of record must file a list of assets constituting a decedent’s estate, such list must include a particularized description of every firearm, shotgun and rifle, as such terms are defined in section 265.00 of the penal law, that are part of such estate. Such list must be filed with the surrogate’s court in the county in which the estate proceeding, if any, is pending and a copy must be filed with the division of criminal justice services.”At first glance, it’s clear that a person’s gun collection is separated out from a decedent’s other assets for special and undesirable treatment because a fiduciary or attorney of record must send an inventory of those firearms’ assets to the division of criminal justice service for action. The fiduciary or attorney of record doesn’t do that for other personal property.Section 53 of the NY Safe Act also mandates that a list of the decedent’s firearms must be listed with particularity, consistent with the definitions for ‘assault weapon’ as set forth in Section 37 of the New York Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22).Section 37 of the NY Safe Act delineates complex definitional constructions of assault weapons. These definitions are not nearly as clear in meaning as the drafters of the Safe Act may have intended.Now, suppose a New York resident and gun collector has guns that are defined as 'assault weapons' under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), Section 37 of the NY Safe Act. Can a testator bequeath those firearms to anyone the testator wishes, including and especially, a family member related to the testator by blood? Well, a testator can certainly bequeath particular items of personal property to whomever the testator wants and that includes bequests of weapons, including the testator’s assault weapons. There is nothing in the probate code of New York to suggest otherwise. And that is consistent with the fundamental right of a testator to bequeath his private property to whomever the testator wishes. And proponents of the New York Safe Act would likely argue that nothing in New York law prohibits a gun owner from bequeathing his or her guns to whomever the gun owner wishes. And, that is certainly true, as far as it goes. But, the real question, the pertinent question, is whether the heir or legatee to the bequest can keep those firearms, especially assault weapons. And there’s the rub. The answer to that question is a resounding, “no!”The New York Safe Act proscribes anyone but the original owner of assault weapons from keeping those firearms. And that includes close family members, whom the testator may wish to bequeath those weapons to. So, the bequest of assault weapons to heirs, who are not also licensed gun dealers, is an empty bequest. The testator’s wishes, upon his death, are unconscionably countermanded by the New York Safe Act; and the heir’s desire to obtain the testator’s private property – the testator’s assault weapons in accordance with the testator’s express wishes – to become, then, the new owner of them, as the testator wished – is helplessly and hopelessly frustrated and thwarted.Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), says, “Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.”Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), means that any firearm, defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ cannot be lawfully retained by anyone other than the original owner of it.So, while an assault weapon can be bequeathed by a testator to an heir, that bequest is more often than not an empty gesture. It means nothing because, once again, the decedent’s heir cannot keep the assault weapon (or assault weapons if there is more than one) for more than a few days even if that heir otherwise holds a valid pistol license and, where required, namely, in New York City, a valid rifle and shotgun permit as well.Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), is extraordinarily draconian, for it categorically denies ownership of assault weapons by New York residents beyond first generation, original owners.Do you understand what proponents of the New York Safe Act are doing here?Proponents of the Safe Act are destroying the possibility of ownership of entire categories of firearms, defined as assault weapons, to future generations of New York residents and U.S. citizens. This, clearly and obviously enough, to those who read through the NY Safe Act, was the intent of the drafters of the Act.Curiously, even the neighboring State of Connecticut – which does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have gun laws one might call, “liberal,” apropos of firearms ownership and possession, and is not a State that can honestly be said to respect the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution  – does not itself deny ownership of firearms defined as assault weapons to successive generations of gun owners who are otherwise eligible to possess firearms. So, Connecticut, unlike New York, respects, to some extent, at least, the possession of firearms classified as 'assault weapons' by heirs to the original owner of them, in its own Statutes, to heirs who are eligible to possess firearms.To be sure, Connecticut, even more so than New York, has devised an undeniably complex, if more comprehensive, system for categorizing those firearms it calls ‘assault weapons.’ See, Conn. Gen Stat. § 53-202a. In fact Connecticut’s system of categorizing firearms is more comprehensive and complex than New York’s system, if less ambiguous overall.But, Connecticut, unlike New York, does not exclude successive generations of families from owning those assault weapons, assuming heirs to one’s firearms are eligible to possess firearms at all. See Conn. Gen Stat. § 53-202b(b)(3), which exempts from transfers of assault weapons, those transfers of assault weapons to heirs. The Statute sets forth a specific exemption for: “the transfer of an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, by bequest or intestate succession, or, upon the death of a testator or settlor: (A) To a trust, or (B) from a trust to a beneficiary who is eligible to possess the assault weapon." New York, unfortunately, does not have a similar statute. Weapons classified as assault weapons cannot be transferred to heirs under any circumstance in New York.

WHAT MUST THE EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, OR HEIR DO ONCE HE OR SHE COMES INTO CONTACT WITH DECEDENT’S FIREARM OR FIREARM’S COLLECTION?

Once a New York firearms’ owner dies, the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate who comes into possession of the decedent's firearms, or, otherwise, the heir who comes into immediate possession of decedent’s firearms, has a very short window in which to surrender the firearms to the appropriate official.NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code says, in pertinent part, “. . . A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.”This Section is very important. It tells the administrator, executor, or holder of firearms that the firearms – all of them, not merely those that are defined as assault weapons – must be surrendered to the appropriate authority within 15 days of receipt of the firearms, upon the death of the owner of the firearms.And, who is an appropriate authority who can receive firearms? The first – and lengthy – sentence of NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code sets forth: “A person voluntarily surrendering such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance, provided that such surrender shall be made to the superintendent of the division of state police or a member thereof designated by such superintendent, or to the sheriff of the county in which such person resides, or in the county of Nassau or in the towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip and Smithtown in the county of Suffolk to the commissioner of police or a member of the police department thereof designated by such commissioner, or if such person resides in a city, town other than one named in this subparagraph, or village to the police commissioner or head of the police force or department thereof or to a member of the force or department designated by such commissioner or head; and provided, further, that the same shall be surrendered by such person in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be established by such superintendent, sheriff, police force or department.”This means that firearms must not be surrendered to just any governmental official. Firearms must be surrendered to the appropriate official as defined in CLS Penal § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code.Now, suppose the administrator, executor, or holder of the firearms of decedent fails to surrender the weapons within fifteen days of receipt of them as the law requires. Well, under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-b, “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision. Criminal possession of a firearm is a class E felony.”If a person – namely, the executor or administrator of an estate or the heir to a firearm or firearms, who comes into immediate possession of the firearm or firearms upon the death of the original owner of the firearms – fails, within fifteen days, to transfer the firearm or firearms to the appropriate official – that person is in unlawful possession of said firearm or firearms. Thus, failure to timely transfer a firearm or firearms of a decedent to the appropriate official, upon the death of the decedent – whether such failure to transfer is deliberate or inadvertent – places the possessor of the firearm or firearms in an untenable position. For that person is in felony possession of a firearm. That person is a criminal under New York law!Now, suppose a firearm or collection of firearms is in fact timely delivered to the appropriate official upon the death of the original owner. In that case NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6) says, “A firearm or other weapon which is surrendered, or is otherwise voluntarily delivered pursuant to section 265.20 of this chapter and which has not been declared a nuisance pursuant to subdivision one of this section, shall be retained by the official to whom it was delivered for a period not to exceed one year. Prior to the expiration of such time period, a person who surrenders a firearm shall have the right to arrange for the sale, or transfer, of such firearm to a dealer in firearms licensed in accordance with this chapter or for the transfer of such firearm to himself or herself provided that a license therefor has been issued in accordance with this chapter. If no lawful disposition of the firearm or other weapon is made within the time provided, the firearm or weapon concerned shall be declared a nuisance and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section.”The last paragraph of NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6) makes clear that a firearm or other weapon will be disposed of if the party who surrendered the weapon does not arrange for the sale or transfer of it within the applicable time frame – one year from the date that the firearm or collection of firearms is delivered to the appropriate official.And, what does the expression ‘disposed of’ mean? NY CLS Penal § 400.05(2) spells that out bluntly. The Statute says, “The official to whom the weapon, instrument, appliance or substance which has subsequently been declared a nuisance pursuant to subdivision one of this section is so surrendered shall, at any time but at least once each year, destroy the same or cause it to be destroyed, or render the same or cause it to be rendered ineffective and useless for its intended purpose and harmless to human life.”The expression, 'disposed of' by an official” means 'destroyed' by that official.Now, NY CLS Penal § 400.05(1) defines ‘nuisance’ as, “Any weapon, instrument, appliance or substance specified in article two hundred sixty-five, when unlawfully possessed, manufactured, transported or disposed of, or when utilized in the commission of an offense, is hereby declared a nuisance.”We know that any firearm or weapon that is surrendered to the appropriate official by an executor or administrator of an estate or by another lawful possessor of such weapon, namely and particularly, an heir of decedent to whom a bequest of firearms has been made, in accordance with NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f), is specifically not a nuisance under the applicable Statute, NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6), and therefore is not subject to summary destruction.NY CLS Penal § 265.20(a) (1) (f), provides that the officer to whom such weapon (or weapons) has been surrendered, “shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.”NY CLS Penal § 400.05(2) makes abundantly clear that the official – to whom a decedent’s firearms’ collection is delivered, in accordance with NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1), namely within 15 days of a party’s possession of it – cannot summarily destroy the weapons. He is the custodian of them. The firearms are still the property of decedent’s estate. And so long as decedent’s heir to the bequest of firearms timely informs the official as to the ultimate disposition of them, namely, within one year of the date of surrender of those firearms to the official, that official, the custodian of them, is responsible for their safekeeping.This does not mean that the official to whom the weapons are surrendered will perform his or her duty. What, then, is the responsibility of the State when those firearms are prematurely damaged, lost, or destroyed, prior to the one-year time period? That issue turns on whether the official would have known that failure to preserve the firearms violated the owner heir’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See, Maio vs. Kralik, 70 A.D.3d 1; 888 N.Y.S.2d 582; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8062; 2009 NY Slip Op 8187.In the next installment of this series, Part 4, we will provide you with a checklist for gun owners. Given present New York law, a testator who wishes to bequeath firearms to his living heirs, must be aware of traps and snares that lurk for the unwary.Be advised: failure to consider contingencies may place both the executor of one's estate as well as one's heirs in real danger of incurring felony charges for failure to make proper disposition of firearms in strict accordance with the applicable laws.[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) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

GUNS, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

PART 1: GUNS, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND THE CONSTITUTION

Question For New York Gun Owners: Do You Think Your Firearms Are Your Private Property? If So, You Are In For A Rude Awakening!The NY Safe Act And Other Provisions Of New York Antigun Laws Wrongly Destroy Gun Owners Private Property Rights And Interest In Their Own Guns.No one can rationally deny that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the cornerstone of the right of the American People to possess firearms. Still, scant attention is paid to the private property interest embedded in the Second Amendment right of the People to Keep and Bear arms. And too little attention is paid to the independent nature of private property interests in this Country.The “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment prevents the Federal Government from taking one’s private property without just compensation. The “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, as directed originally and alone to the Federal Government, applies to the States, as well, through the Fourteenth Amendment.  This means that a State Government, too, is not permitted to take one’s private property without just compensation.The “Takings Clause,” as applied to both State Governments and to the Federal Government operates as a check and safeguard against a Government’s unlawful attempt to secure unto itself the private property of a citizen. Such taking of a citizen’s private property without just compensation deprives and denies a citizen the use and enjoyment of it and destroys the economic value associated with it.In our previous article we discussed generally how New York law undercuts one’s possessory and legal interest in one’s firearms – firearms that are a person’s private property. We discussed how New York law operates to dispossess the owner of his or her personal interest in and enjoyment of those firearms as private property. We pointed to New York law that effectively denies a gun owner the inalienable right to effectuate the bequest of firearms to his or her heirs.We now take a closer look at those New York Statutes that make it extremely difficult for person to transfer his or her private property – one’s firearms – to one’s heirs. By denying a New York resident and citizen of the United States the right to quickly and easily transfer legal ownership and possession of one’s firearms to one’s heirs – assuming the law permits one to do so at all – New York law essentially and effectively deprives the owner of his or her property without just compensation and without due process of law.Because of the length of this article, we have broken it down into several parts. One new part or installment will be posted every day.

NEW YORK STATUTES CONTRAVENE BOTH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND NEW YORK’S STATE CONSTITUTION

New York State Statutes operate in derogation to the U.S. Constitution and in derogation of New York’s State Constitution, undermining New York firearms’ owners’ property interest in their own firearms.New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And New York Statutes amount to an unconscionable taking of gun owners’ private property without just compensation in derogation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. New York Statutes are also inconsistent with New York’s State Constitution. New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their private property rights in firearms in contravention to NY CLS Const Art I, § 7(a). That Article prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. And New York Statutes deprive gun owners of their private property rights in contravention to NY CLS Const Art I, § 11, which states categorically that New York residents and citizens shall not be denied the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled.

WHAT IS “PROPERTY?”

The words ‘property’ and ‘private property’ are often bandied about. And the meanings of these expressions may seem obvious. But, colloquial meanings aside, you should know what the legal definitions of the words are.Legal definitions of words are important – in fact, critical – because the legal meanings given to words as embodied in law impact your rights and liberties. By the same token, when government officials ignore the plain legal meanings of words, they denigrate the U.S. Constitution, and the American People suffer the consequences.The primary source for the legal definitions of words is Black’s Law Dictionary. The definitions we give you here are those listed in the Ninth Edition of that Dictionary.Property takes one of two forms: personal property and real property. The expression ‘real property’ means ‘land and everything attached to, or erected on it, excluding anything that can be severed without injury to the land.’ We are not concerned with the notion of ‘real property’ here. We are concerned with the notion of ‘personal property.’ The expression, ‘personal property’ means ‘any movable or intangible property that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.’Intangible personal property refers to intellectual property such as patents and trademarks and copyrights. And we are not talking about intangible personal property here either. We are talking about tangible personal property – that is to say, physical property. Firearms fall within the definition ‘tangible personal property’ because firearms are physical, movable objects, not attached to or erected on land. Now, both real property and personal property can be one of two types: public or private. The expression, ‘public property’ means ‘State or community-owned property not restricted to any one individual’s use or possession.’ The other kind of ‘real property’ and ‘personal property’ is ‘private property.’When talking about firearms, we are referring to ‘private property’ – property that is owned by the individual. We are not talking about property that is owned by the State or property that is owned collectively by the public – that is to say – the community.Your firearms are private property, not public property. Your firearms are not the property of the State and they are not owned collectively by the public. You paid for your firearms out-of-pocket with hard-earned dollars. They belong to you and to you alone. So your firearms are private property – your private property.In law, ‘private property’ means something more than simply property that isn’t State owned or community owned. The expression ‘private property’ means, in law, ‘property protected from public appropriation – over which the owner has exclusive and absolute rights.’ Think about that definition for a moment. The notion of private property exemplifies ideas of exclusive ownership and absolute control by the individual.Your firearms, like the clothes on your back and the automobile in your garage and the gas range and refrigerator in your home, all of which you paid out-of-pocket for, are your private property – property that you have exclusive ownership rights in and to and absolute power over. That is what it means for a citizen in a capitalist society to own property.To the extent that you control your property and to the extent that you have exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of it – to keep it or to sell it or to gift it to another, as you wish – the notion of ‘private property’ is preserved. And, to the extent that your private property rights are infringed or impinged upon, the notion of ‘private property’ is defeated.In the next installment of this article we will provide you with terminology that you need to know to fully appreciate the extent to which the NY Safe Act upends your property interest in your own firearms.[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) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE AND TO NEW YORK STATE OFFICIALS

ARBALEST GROUP'S OPEN LETTER TO EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, AND TO THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TO THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015

POSTED BY THE FOUNDERS OF ARBALEST GROUP, LLC., CREATORS OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL WEBSITE

_________________________________________________February 9, 2015The Honorable______________________Legislative Office BuildingAlbany, New York  12247Dear Senator/Assemblyman/Assemblywoman:We are writing to you on our own behalf and on behalf of tens of thousands of concerned New York gun owners and visitors to our website, the Arbalest Quarrel. You may not be aware of this but a major flaw exists in the New York Safe Act and in the Penal Code of New York that has not been previously addressed. The existence of this flaw, involving bequests of gun collections, undercuts the fundamental right a New York resident and citizen has in his private property.Many New York residents have extraordinarily valuable firearms collections that fall under the Safe Act. These collections are worth tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars. The owners of these valuable gun collections may wish to pass the collections to their heirs who live in New York State. They cannot do so. We urge you to change New York law to permit the transfer of a decedent’s gun collection to the decedent’s heir or heirs, who reside in the State of New York, and to allow the transfer to proceed quickly, free of obstacles.Consider how present New York law operates to denigrate private property rights.The executor of a decedent’s estate seeks to fulfill the terms of the decedent’s will. The will specifies that an expensive gun collection is to go to the decedent’s spouse or to one or more of decedent’s adult children. Present New York law doesn’t permit the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate simply to turn the gun collection directly over to the decedent’s heirs who reside in New York; nor can the lawful possessor of such property of a decedent continue to hold onto the property so long as the possessor of that property remains in New York.NY CLS Penal § 265.20a(1)(f) says, “A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful posessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.” And the difficulties for the executor or administrator of a decedent’s estate, or for the lawful possessor of and heir to that valuable gun collection who resides in New York, do not end there.Under Section 37(A) through (F) of the Safe Act, codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (a) through (f), many firearms are defined as assault weapons. A gun that is defined as an ‘assault weapon’ is a banned weapon. The Safe Act prohibits the sale or exchange of assault weapons between New York residents unless the sale or exchange is to an authorized New York purchaser, namely a licensed New York gun dealer. Otherwise, the sale or exchange must be to an individual or entity residing outside of New York. So, an heir to a valuable collection of assault weapons, who resides in New York, cannot keep those weapons even if that heir is duly licensed to possess firearms unless that heir holds a valid New York gun dealer or gunsmith license issued pursuant to NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2).Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h), says, inter alia,“ Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision . . . that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state. . . .” Now suppose the heir to a decedent’s expensive gun collection, who resides in New York, doesn’t want to dispose of the gun collection but wishes to keep it, in accordance with the decedent’s express wishes. That heir has no choice if he or she wishes to remain in New York. New York law is coercive. It severely limits a person’s enjoyment in one’s own private property. Moreover, to compel disposal of a gun collection almost certainly will substantially diminish the dollar value of that property. A New York resident and heir to an expensive gun collection may not – probably will not – be able to find a buyer, out-of-state, willing or able to purchase the gun collection at a fair market price.A New York resident and his or her family who have lived their entire lives in New York are faced, then, with an intractable problem. If the heir to a valuable firearms’ collection wishes to remain in New York, as the heir would, the heir must give up possession of the gun collection, which he or she definitely would not wish to do. Present New York law does not permit the heir to both remain in New York and hold onto the decedent’s entire bequest. Present New York law places the heir to a valuable gun collection in extremity. This is an intolerable situation. It’s a situation that need not exist and will not continue to exist if appropriate changes to New York law are made. And changes to New York law must be made to honor a decedent’s wishes. These changes to the law are necessary if the idea of the sanctity of one’s private property is to be credible in New York.Please give the matter discussed here your urgent attention. Tens of thousands of New York residents and gun owners are negatively impacted by the language of New York law, as shown in this letter. They are bewildered by and frustrated by provisions of the NY Safe Act and the Penal Code of New York that operate to take their private property from them without due process of law and without just compensation. Be advised, we share our information and our views with many distinguished individuals, other major websites, and several noteworthy organizations with whom and with which we have a close business and professional relationship.A prompt reply is requested so we can respond to the thousands of New York residents who are seeking an effective resolution to the critical private property rights issue discussed in this letter.Sincerely, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, President, Arbalest Group, LLC.[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) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT

THE ARBALEST QUARREL'S RATIONALE FOR WRITING TO THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE, TO THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TO THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL

The New York Safe Act, signed into law by New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, is poorly drafted legislation. It was authorized without due process and in defiance of New York’s own State Constitution.The Safe Act is the Government’s model for undercutting the Second Amendment. The public knows this. But, what is not understood by most is that the Safe Act is destructive of private property rights too. The antigun establishment argues that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right, not an individual right. But, in the seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not merely a collective right. A person need not be a member of a State militia or other governmental military force to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.Moreover, an implication can be drawn from the Heller decision. Since an American citizen has the right, as an individual, to keep and bear arms, irrespective of membership in a State militia, this individual right to keep and bear arms presumes the citizen’s right to own the firearms he bears and keeps. Private property ownership is basic to a free America.The right of an American citizen to own property – to have exclusive and absolute ownership of property – is as fundamental a right to an American as the right to speak openly and freely under the First Amendment or to keep and bear arms under the Second.But, under the Safe Act a resident’s right of ownership in his own firearms is strained and constrained. New York law severely restricts a New York resident’s right to transfer ownership in his or her firearms to others upon the person’s death.New York residents may have one firearm worth a few hundred dollars or they may have collections of rare and expensive firearms worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars – perhaps millions of dollars. In either case, New York law restrains one’s ability to transfer firearms during one’s lifetime and restricts one’s ability to transfer firearms to one’s heirs upon the firearms’ owner’s death.The dollar value of a rare and expensive firearms’ collection may be severely compromised upon the death of a New York resident gun owner because New York law restricts transfers of firearms to heirs who happen to live in New York.In particular the New York Safe Act absolutely forbids the transfer of any firearm to an heir that is a Safe Act registered weapon unless that heir happens also to be a licensed New York gun dealer or an authorized police official.What does this mean for an individual who may happen to own a very rare and expensive firearm that happens to be a New York Safe Act registered weapon. Let’s consider an example.Suppose you have a gold-plated commemorative firearm that has a fair market value of $50,000.00, and suppose you wish to bequeath that firearm to your adult son or daughter upon your death. Suppose, further, that this gold-plated commemorative firearm is classified as a New York Safe Act registered weapon. Can you transfer that firearm – your personal property – to your adult son or daughter?Well, certainly nothing in New York law prevents you from bequeathing that firearm to your next of kin. But, the important question is whether your son or daughter can keep and enjoy that personal property, just as you had. And, there’s the rub.Your adult son or daughter can keep the firearm for up to 15 days. After that, the firearm must be turned over to the appropriate police official. At that point your son or daughter has up to one year to transfer or sell the firearm either to a licensed New York gun dealer or to a person or entity outside the State. If your adult heir fails to tell the police official how the Safe Act registered weapon is to be disposed of, the police official will destroy that firearm – a valuable collectible – one year from the date he or she obtains custody of it. There is no recourse. There is no remedy. There is no redress.Transference of firearms to a decedent’s rightful heirs creates an undue burden on the estate as the heirs may be ineligible to receive the firearms under the Safe Act. Thus, the Safe Act operates as an unconstitutional “taking” of one’s firearm in violation of the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This cannot be tolerated. This contempt for our Bill of Rights cannot be condoned.The Arbalest Quarrel has recently written to every member of the New York State Senate and Assembly, in Albany, New York, and to the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the New York and to the Attorney General for New York, requesting each of them to use his or her authority to amend New York law so that a New York resident and citizen of the United States may exercise the fundamental right of enjoyment in his or her private property – that such right may be preserved, consistent with the intent of the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and the precepts of a capitalist society. The Arbalest Quarrel has also notified the New York Delegation in Washington D.C. of its action as well.If the notion of private property is to mean anything concrete in this Country, then no governmental body, State or Federal, should be allowed to undermine an American’s exclusive power over his or her private property. That means American citizens and law-abiding gun owners, including those citizens and gun owners who are residents of New York, should be able to transfer their firearms to their heirs, free of governmental interference and constraint. That is why New York law must be changed. It must comply with the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution, and with principles of a free market economy.The fundamental right of ownership and power over one’s private property must not be diminished by political machination. The fundamental right of enjoyment in one’s private property, as protected in the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment, is as basic and as important and as fundamental a right to an American as any other right set forth in the Bill of Rights.We are posting our letter on the Arbalest Quarrel website. It appears as a separate blog post. We shall keep our readers apprised of the results: who responds, and who fails to respond to our letter; and what each respondent has said in reply to our letter.[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) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

GUN RIGHTS ARE NOT SIMPLY EMBODIED IN THE SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT. AMERICANS HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS TOO.

GUN RIGHTS ACTUALLY TRANSCEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT; AN AMERICAN’S FIREARMS ARE HIS SACRED PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND ONE’S RIGHT IN ONE’S SACRED PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED EITHER.

Gun collections are private property. This may seem obvious to you. After all the concept of a private property right is deeply embedded in American culture. It is deeply embedded in America’s economic traditions. And it is deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of Americans. The right to own and possess private property is as fundamental a right in this Country as is the freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and as the freedom to keep and bear arms is under the Second Amendment.Unfortunately, New York law doesn't really treat guns as private property. But, then, New York law views gun possession as a privilege rather than as an inalienable right. So, it should come as no surprise that guns are treated less as private property and more like rental property. We say this because strict limitations are placed on New York residents' ability to transfer their firearms, especially apropos of transfers  of guns or gun collections to heirs. If one's right of enjoyment in and to one's private property were truly honored as a right, then no express or tacit limitation would be placed on one's full enjoyment of that private property. That enjoyment includes the right to dispose of the private property as one wishes, to those whom one wishes to give that property, assuming one wishes to dispose of his or her firearms at all. A person should not be required to dispose of his firearms or firearms' collection if those firearms or collection of firearms are truly private property. Nonetheless, New York Statute tells a person not only when or that he or she must dispose of a gun or collection of guns, but also how a disposal of guns or of an entire gun collection must take place. And the language of gun transfers is laid out not at all succinctly, clearly, and plainly, as one might reasonably expect, but in lengthy, agonizing, and often incoherent detail.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS ENTAILS THE RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS AS ONE'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

The concept of private property rights underlies and precedes the imperative of the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Further, the fundamental right of Americans to own, possess, and enjoy their private property is embraced in the language of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as specifically applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution secure for American gun owners the right to enjoy the liberties the Founders of our Republic intended for them as for all Americans. Present New York law denigrates the rights and protections and liberties of New York gun owners.Many New York residents have firearms’ collections worth many tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars – perhaps millions of dollars. The fair market value of these firearms’ collections is placed in jeopardy by specific language of the NY Safe Act, and in the language of the Penal Code of New York, and, by implication, in other Rules and Regulations of New York. In that regard it is not sound to argue that New York law provides firearms owners with mechanisms through which they can freely transfer, or sell, or otherwise dispose of their firearms to appropriate parties within the State or outside it. For the language of New York law is coercive. New York law often requires a gun owner to sell, transfer, or dispose of a particular gun or an entire gun collection when he doesn’t want to and prohibits him from bequeathing his gun collection to those whom he does want to bequeath his gun collection to. And he obtains little or no monetary compensation for that gun collection. Such coercion is antithetical to free market practices and turns the very notion of a free market on its head.Oddly, Governor Cuomo doesn’t address how a property interest in a firearms’ collection might be secured. We know this to be true as we have checked out the Governor’s website. You can check it out for yourself. This is the link: http://programs.governor.ny.gov/nysafeact/gun-owners.The Governor’s website provides absolutely no information or guidance for New York gun owners who seek to bequeath a gun collection to their next of kin. Doesn’t Governor Cuomo believe this matter to be important? If that is the case, clearly, tens of thousands of law-abiding New York gun owners would disagree with the Governor. They believe this to be a matter of utmost importance. Many of our readers have expressed considerable bewilderment over the matter of transferring gun collections to their heirs, and they have expressed substantial confusion as to the specific manner of transferring gun collections to their heirs.The testator owner of an expensive gun collection who wishes to bequeath a gun collection to his heirs should not be subject to impediments. But he is. New York law takes his expensive gun collection away from him. It takes his private property away from him without justly compensating him for it. And it deprives the New York gun owner of his expensive firearms collection, his private property, in complete derogation of the precepts laid out in the United States Constitution.In fact the taking of a New York resident’s gun collection without just compensation is not only in contradistinction to the United States Constitution; such taking is in derogation of the New York State Constitution, too.NY CLS Const Art I, § 7(a) says, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” A person’s gun collection is his private property and the State essentially takes it from the owner and prospective heirs without just compensation. And, what public use is attendant to this “taking” of the firearms’ collection? Is the public use merely that a police department may, unbeknownst to the gun owner’s heirs, and, in fact, contrary even to the laws of New York, make use of the gun collection sans compensation to the owner’s heirs? Is the public use merely and incoherently that some of the firearms or the entirety of it will be destroyed by the police official and, so, the decedent’s heirs wind up with zero compensation for the firearms? The taking of private property without just compensation is also inconsistent with NY CLS Const Art I, § 11 which sets forth in pertinent part, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof. By failing to safeguard the monetary value of a New York resident’s gun collection, through the taking of it without just compensation, New York clearly and categorically denies to gun owners the equal protection of the laws to which they are entitled.The Bottom line:New York Statute altogether ignores the precepts implicit in the United States Constitution and in New York’s own State Constitution. New York’s governments operate in complete derogation of and, in fact, in unconscionable defiance to the dictates of both. Whether New York residents own firearms or not, they must wake up to the monstrous destruction of sacred rights and liberties, lest they lose all rights and liberties. [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.