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

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

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

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

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

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

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

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK’S “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTION IS A TRAP FOR UNWARY HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

In an article published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, the NRA-ILA asserts,“Since the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, gun control advocates have parsed every word of Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for ways in which to continue their campaign against the Second Amendment. Relying on creative interpretations of dicta, these activists try to twist the landmark gun rights ruling into an endorsement of their anti-gun policies.An example of these efforts is on display in the NRA-supported case New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The case concerns the validity of New York’s discretionary carry licensing regime, where law enforcement is tasked with determining if an applicant has “proper cause” to carry a firearm for self-defense.”That article came out on March 7, 2022, about four months before the U.S. Supreme Court came out with Bruen.The NRA-ILA is correct. Anti-Second Amendment activists do twist legal opinions.Heller held, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”Attempting to secure a loophole, the City of Chicago said the Heller ruling serves as a limitation on the Federal Government, not the States.McDonald shot that idea down, holding “the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Did Anti-Second Amendment zealots accept defeat? No. It just invigorated them, even enraged them.They argued the right to armed self-defense in the home does not extend to the public arena, and energetically pushed that idea, frustrating Americans who sought to exercise their right to armed self-defense wherever they happened to be. Note: there is nothing in the Second Amendment that so much as suggests that the natural law right to armed self-defense is confined to one's home or to some specific place. The natural law right to armed self-defense goes with the man wherever he happens to be. That is basic common sense. The right of self-preservation is not meant to be applied to this or that place, but, rather, it applies to all places and at all times. The right to armed self-defense simply means that a person has the right to use the best, most effective means available to defend his life and that of his family when the need arises. And for the last several hundred years the most effective means available to defend one's life is that provided by a firearm. No one can rationally dispute that. In fact, those activist groups, individuals, and governments that rail against civilian citizen armed self-defense implicitly acknowledge the efficacy of a firearm over any other implement. It works! Compare a firearm to any other instrumentality: knife, bat, golf club, bow and arrow, bullwhip, pepper spray, mace, whistle, air horn, cowbell, arms and legs, stun guns, taser, baton, self-defense keychain, proficiency in martial arts, et cetera. Nothing else comes close in immediate effectiveness for the average person, trained in the use of a firearm for self-defense, and prepared to use it when the need arises.Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, made clear:“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’ We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”Looking for loopholes in High Court Second Amendment rulings and reasoning has become progressively more difficult for activist Democrat-Party-controlled Governments, true. But they are a creative, resourceful, and crafty bunch.Like the Devil, they always attempt to outmaneuver and outwit the U.S. Supreme Court.The result is a constant dizzying merry-go-round of government action infringing the core of the right.And that, in turn, leads inevitably to challenges to the governmental action and to U.S. Supreme Court rulings striking down an unconstitutional action.What follows is yet more governmental action, looking for loopholes in the Court rulings that might allow for constraints on the exercise of the natural law right, and on, and on, and on. . . .In Bruen, the Hochul Government placed a ‘bug in the ear’ of the High Court.In its Brief in support of the State’s “Proper Cause” requirement, the Hochul Government mentioned the need for “Sensitive-Place”   restrictions even though, at the time, curiously, the Consolidated Laws of New York never made mention of such “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Was this use of the expression ‘Sensitive-Place’ restriction, in the Government’s Brief, a “motif” for salvaging the State’s concealed handgun carrying regime in anticipation of a negative U.S. Supreme Court ruling?If so, did the Court see through this and hope to get the upper hand on it, or did it fall into a stratagem devised by the Hochul Government that intended to use, and did make extensive use of, this ‘sensitive-place’ motif? It isn’t clear.Justice Thomas made much of it, opining, on behalf of the Court’s majority, “Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places’ far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.”This did not stop the Hochul Government. On the contrary, the Government included it in the CCIA.“Sensitive-Place” restrictions, along with a bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement (that the Court did not address), are a mainstay of the “Concealed Handgun Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), amending the State’s Handgun Law.It would seem the Hochul Government, predicting a challenge to the CCIA, intends to reiterate the need for “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.Further, the Government plans on arguing that the CCIA’s “Sensitive-Place” prohibition complies with the U.S. Supreme Court’s concerns. But does it?One thing is clear: The Hochul Government would expect to see a sharp increase in filings for a State concealed handgun carry license, and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction provision is meant to lessen the impact of issuing a substantial number of concealed handgun carry licenses—unheard of prior to Bruen—thereby weakening the State’s Handgun Licensing regime.In fact, as of August 2022, just two months after the Bruen decision came down, The New York Times reported a 54% increase in applications for concealed handgun carry licenses.New Yorkers desirous of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license do feel they are much more likely to have their applications approved after the Bruen decision than at any time prior to Bruen.In theory that’s true, assuming they can contend with the bolstered “Good Moral Character” requirement the Court did not address, and assuming they don’t mind waiving their right under the Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures clause.Do applicants really believe that the acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license is a godsend? Likely they do. But is it, really?There’s a catch. There’s always a catch, and the catch now rests on this notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ restrictions.The licensing of concealed handgun carry goes to the heart of New York’s licensing regime—going all the way back to the Sullivan Act of 1911 that started the thing.The New York Government has no intention of allowing the defeat of the machinery of handgun licensing that's been in place for well over a century—much less being itself the agent of the New York licensing regime's own destruction. The agenda of the New York Government is to make the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses increasingly more difficult and onerous, as time goes on, not less so. The U.S. Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of that effort. The Hochul Government zealots will not allow the U.S. Supreme Court to waylay the State's singular campaign against—and, in fact, obsession directed to thwarting—civilian citizen exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense, in New York. That explains the Hochul Government's brazen defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court along with its visible contempt for the Court's conservative majority.New Yorkers who think they now see a new golden era emerging in New York gun law matters with the publication of the Bruen decision, may be sadly mistaken. They should be a little less cheerful and gullible, and a little more watchful and reflective, regarding their expectations. In their exuberance to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, first-time applicants don’t see potential problems. But they will unless the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision in the CCIA is struck down. At the moment the CCIA is active, and that includes the ‘Sensitive-Place’ provision. But for a couple of minor ‘Sensitive-Place’ suspensions, the CCIA is enforceable, and the Hochul Government IS enforcing it. Acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license may leave much to be desired. License holders may find that a seemingly unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is very much restricted, offering much less than what was anticipated and what was sought, and leaving the licensee vulnerable to arrest if he isn't very, very careful and mindful of where he happens to be carrying a handgun while out in public. And he must be extraordinarily careful of displaying it, always asking himself if, one, a threat to life is genuine and imminent and, two, if he is presenting a gun in a designated, non-sensitive place. At the end of the day, the licensee may be left asking himself—— “What’s the point of acquiring a license to carry a concealed handgun if I face severe constraints on where I can lawfully carry it for use in self-defense, as the need arises, and if the need is real enough to satisfy a Court of law.” In a State plagued by a high incidence of random violent assaults—especially in New York City—the need for an effective means of self-defense, a handgun is acute. See the March 27, 2023 article in the New York Post. But, when residing and/or working in a jurisdiction that abhors firearms and that maintains a jaundiced view of the armed civilian citizen, Courts will demonstrate leniency toward the depraved criminal, and throw the book at the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen. Such is life and justice in New York's major cities. That explains the reason for escalating violence and the irony. The criminal remains undeterred, even encouraged to commit violence. And the innocent victim of random, violent crime, is often resigned to his fate—hoping the odds play in his favor, that someone other than him will be the victim of random violence—or trusts that his concealed carry license, if he does acquire it, will provide him, at last, the ability to avoid being the victim. But the Hochul Government is doing the licensee no favors.The New York Government may issue more concealed handgun carry licenses, sure, but licensees are now severely hampered in where they can carry it and, therefore, where they can lawfully use it if the need should arise.This means that the era of issuance of true New York “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses is, at this moment in time, at an end, for all civilian citizens whether applying for a new license or for the renewal of an existing license. The impact of the issuance of more licenses serves only to dilute their utility.There is no “grandfathering in” of issuance of true unrestricted carry licenses for those holders of licenses acquired under the old “Proper Cause” standard. Every licensee is in the same boat.The holder of a freshly minted State concealed handgun carry license, under the CCIA, would do well to talk to those individuals who have heretofore held valid “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses under the “Proper Cause” standard. Those days are over as long as the CCIA remains in effect.  And it remains to be seen how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will decide Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which involves a major challenge to the CCIA. New York has become, under the CCIA, a massive patchwork quilt of designated restrictive ‘Sensitive-Places.’ A licensee will need to carry a map, demarcating all those areas in New York where he can and cannot lawfully carry a handgun. Worse, “Sensitive-Place” restrictions are subject to amendment which means “subject to constant expansion.”This is more than problematic. It’s potentially unnerving for law-abiding New Yorkers who have newly minted concealed handgun carry licenses—especially for those New Yorkers residing and/or working in New York City. See the article in the world population review. New York City's 2023 population stands at 20,448,194, hardly an insignificant number.“Nearly 43% of New York state's population live in the 305 square miles that comprise New York City. The next largest city in the state of New York is Buffalo, with just over 250,000 residents. This means New York City is over 33 times larger than the second largest city in New York.” 

RURAL COUNTY SHERIFFS ARE NO LESS IN A BIND THAN MUNICIPAL POLICE IN COPING WITH THE CCIA

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is presently reviewing a challenge to the constitutionality of “Sensitive-Place” restrictions and other provisions of the CCIA, in the parent post-Bruen New York case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and related cases.The U.S. Supreme Court, having lifted the stay on enforcement of the CCIA that the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York had granted, has allowed enforcement of the CCIA during the Second Circuit Court’s review of the merits of the case.The Second Circuit had reversed the District Court’s stay of enforcement.The High Court agreed to the lifting of the stay, not because it thought the District Court was wrong in having issued it, but out of deference to the Second Circuit, as the High Court acknowledged in its Order.*Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The District Court made a convincing argument for this. That was the basis for the Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction—which is no easy thing for a party to obtain given the requirements for convincing a Court to grant one.If the Second Circuit, on review, fails to strike down those unconstitutional provisions, the Plaintiffs will appeal that negative ruling to the High Court. And the High Court will take that appeal up, as it must since the CCIA not only infringes the core of the Second Amendment, but it is a blatant affront to, and contemptuous of, the Bruen rulings.But what happens when law enforcement sees the CCIA colliding with the Bill of Rights, during the pendency of the Antonyuk case?That may not concern the State Police and major city police officers, but it does present a problem for New York’s County Sheriffs, like Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino. See the Arbalest Quarrel article posted on our website on March 15, 2023, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on March 20, 2023, we explored how Sheriff Giardino contends with a conundrum.After all, the CCIA may be “THE LAW OF THE STATE” since 2022, but the “BILL OF RIGHTS” is “THE LAW OF THE LAND and it has been so since 1791.The CCIA must take a backseat to the stricture of natural law, as codified in the Bill of Rights.Where there is a conflict, Sheriff Giardino will always follow the dictates of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, not State law. But doing so amounts to chancing to incur the wrath of the Governor. What can she do against perceived recalcitrant Sheriffs?Governor Hochul has no authority to remove rural Sheriffs, at will. For they are elected by and are therefore beholding to the people of the County that elected them.But Hochul may, pursuant to the consolidated laws of New York, bring a civil suit against a Sheriff who refuses to comply with the CCIA, claiming malfeasance in office. Such an action will bring to bear a clash between a Sheriff’s duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution versus a duty to uphold State law as ordained by the Governor._____________________________

THE “SENSITIVE PLACE” PROVISION OF NEW YORK’S CCIA IS A TRAP FOR HOLDERS OF CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

CONTINUATION OF INTERVIEW OF NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO

PART TWO

Sheriff Giardino has repeatedly and pointedly asserted that when or if State law conflicts with the United States Constitution, his duty, as Sheriff, is to uphold the Constitution, which he has taken an oath to faithfully serve.He has not taken an oath to serve the interests of the State’s Governor, and there is no implicit requirement that he do so either.But then, is a given “Sensitive-Place” prohibition on lawful carry, inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution? How can a law enforcement officer know? That places the law enforcement officer in a quandary. And that is but one puzzling question to be resolved. The Sensitive-Place prohibition on the carrying of a concealed handgun raises another more obscure question.There are nuances and fuzzy areas connected with “Sensitive-Place” restrictions.In some cases what may at first blush seem to be a place where a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license may lawfully carry his handgun turns out, on analysis, to be a “Sensitive-Place,” where a person cannot lawfully carry a handgun, after all.This places County Sheriffs in a quandary and under considerable strain.No less so it places the holder of a license in a precarious situation.That person is in danger of being cited for carrying a handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” even if this occurred innocently, and inadvertently.He then faces revocation of his license. He must surrender his handgun and any other firearms, rifles, or shotguns he may happen to possess. And he faces a serious misdemeanor charge.Sheriff Giardino’s observation provides an apt example of the problem.Although he wouldn’t take such drastic action against a person for engaging in an inadvertent slip-up, a person facing scrutiny in New York City would likely not be so fortunate.Sheriff Giardino says,“We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law now says and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.” About carrying a handgun into a barbershop, Sheriff Giardino isn’t jesting.The ubiquity and ambiguity of New York’s Handgun Law carries over into the operation of other New York laws—creating entanglements that the average licensee wouldn’t be aware of. And many law enforcement officers may not be aware of the intricacies of the laws, either.We know. We delved into this. This is what we found——The notion of ‘Sensitive-Place’ as a legal restriction means the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun in a “Sensitive-Place” under the Handgun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19): “Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course.”The expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  as mentioned in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)(vii), is defined in a new section of the Penal Code: CLS Penal § 265.01-e. The expression, ‘Sensitive-Place’  is a legal term of art, not previously defined in New York law.Subsection CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)) says, “any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services” is a “Sensitive-Place.”Proceeding with our inquiry, further, we ask,“Is a barbershop considered a place “providing health” services?” If so, then it comes under New York’s public health code, NY CLS Pub Health § 225. The Health Code section, NY CLS Pub Health § 225, includes all places subject to the Sanitary Code, and the Sanitary Code IS part of the Health Code.Subsection 5(A) of the Sanitary Code says, “The sanitary code may: (a) deal with any matters affecting the security of life or health or the preservation and improvement of public health in the state of New York, and with any matters as to which the jurisdiction is conferred upon the public health and health planning council. . . .”We must now determine whether New York barbershops are subject to the “Sanitary code.” They are.NY CLS Gen Bus § 436, governing barbershops exclusively, says,“All barber shops shall be maintained and operated in accordance with the provisions of the state sanitary code, except in the city of New York where the city health code shall apply, and all licensees or persons employed or engaged therein or in connection therewith shall comply with the provisions of such rules.”So, then, Sheriff Giardino is correct in his supposition/inference.Under New York law, the holder of a valid New York State concealed handgun carry license cannot lawfully carry his handgun into a barbershop. Carrying a handgun, or any firearm, rifle, or shotgun into a barbershop falls within the purview of the CCIA, even if the expression “barbershop” isn’t specifically mentioned in CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2(b)). Application of other New York State Code sections makes categorically and conclusively clear the prohibition on carrying a concealed handgun into a barbershop, notwithstanding that a person holds a valid concealed handgun carry license. A barbershop falls into the category of a restricted “Sensitive-Place.”A holder of a valid license carrying a handgun in a barbershop in Fulton County need not be concerned about an arrest, but what if that person is carrying a handgun into a barbershop in New York City, and an NYPD officer notices that? How many other little traps exist—a preponderance of “Sensitive-Places” that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license is unaware of and that many law enforcement officers may not be immediately aware of, also?These little snares can get a licensee in a whole heap of trouble.Sheriff Giardino knows this full well and these problems trouble him. Complex Gun laws are vexing. Often, problem areas aren’t perceptible until after these laws take effect. And, if they work against the individual who wishes to exercise his natural law right to armed self-defense, the activist Government finds that a pleasant surprise, and is perfectly content with it.The expression, ‘Sensitive Place,’ never appeared in the Consolidated Laws of New York, prior to the enactment of the CCIA. And now that it has become a fixture in the law—possibly, hopefully, subject to remedial Court action—it is something that becomes, for the Hochul Government, a useful instrument for defeating the benefit that having a valid concealed handgun license was intended to provide holder.Prior to the CCIA, holders of “unrestricted” concealed handgun carry licenses could carry their handguns in “Times Square,” but no longer because “Times Square” is now a “Sensitive-Place.”But how large is this area colloquially referred to as “Times Square?” What does the area encompass? The expression itself is now a legal term of art.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e (2)(t) says this:“For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean: the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.”So, Mayor Eric Adams and the City Government determine the size of the area—expanding it or reducing it at will, like an accordion.The CCIA is designed to keep the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license off-balance.And, once again, an activist government’s unconscionable, unconstitutional Anti-Secondment action is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. A fourth seminal Second Amendment case is in the making with Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, and it is not likely to be the last.If the High Court is going to get a handle on this gamesmanship of activist Governments—Federal, State, or local—it must end or severely constrain government licensing. This won’t, of course, stop further attempts by Anti-Second Amendment zealots to constrain the natural law right to armed self-defense. But it’s a good start.The Court has heretofore been hesitant to take on handgun licensing schemes directly and aggressively.In Bruen, the Court began to look at New York’s unconstitutional handgun licensing regime by striking down the “Proper Cause” requirement. But that at best was merely a half-hearted attempt, likely attributable to the actions of Chief Justice John Roberts, and with the urging or connivance of the Court’s liberal wing.The Court’s conservative wing must now exert its will.Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is likely to come before it after the Second Circuit issues its final, appealable order.Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must exert maximum pressure on John Roberts, if the opportunity presents itself, to review New York’s Handgun licensing regime straightforwardly, unswervingly, and aggressively.The Court cannot just tinker around the edges as it has done in Bruen. That only emboldens activist Governments as we have seen.The fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense is not subject to negotiation. The U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to give effect to the Bill of Rights as the framers of the Constitution intended.We are at a pivotal juncture in our Nation’s history. The Biden Administration has made inroads into the High Court’s independence by seating Neo-Marxist Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the Court.Her aim is that of her sponsors: to eliminate the exercise of our natural law rights. It is not to strengthen them.Do we really want to see Merrick Garland joining her on the Bench at some point—and others like those two? That could happen.What then becomes of our sacred rights and liberties in this seemingly “free Constitutional Republic.”____________________________________

*FURTHER BACKGROUND OF PARENT CASE, ANTONYUK VERSUS NIGRELLI, ON APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Major portions of the CCIA are unconstitutional: in particular, the “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive-Place” restriction designations. There’s no doubt about any of this. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, made a convincing argument for this in Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Hochul Government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerned the District Court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, staying enforcement of the CCIA, pending resolution of the case on the merits. It is is no easy task for a party to obtain a preliminary judgment under any circumstances, given the rigorous requirements that must be met before a Court will grant a preliminary injunction. The fact that Plaintiffs, present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses, were able to convince the District Court of the necessity for a stay on enforcement of the CCIA, attests to the strength of Plaintiffs’ suit against the Hochul Government and the likelihood of success on the merits. The Second Circuit reversed the District Court, that had stayed the preliminary injunction, thereby allowing the Hochul Government to continue to enforce the CCIA during the Second Circuit’s review of the case. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision of the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court. As an interlocutory (non-final) decision of a Federal Circuit Court, it is rare for the High Court to consider a matter. But it did so here. In its issuance of an unusual non-order “request,” the High Court inquired whether the New York State Government would like to respond to Plaintiff concealed handgun carry licensees opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA. Realizing the necessity to respond, the Attorney General for the Government, Letitia James, filed a formal response, contra Plaintiffs’ opposition to the lifting of the stay. The arguments were weak, but any response, apparently, was all that the High Court needed to see. In its order, drafted by Associate Justice Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the stay of the preliminary injunction to continue, asserting that this was done in deference to the Second Circuit, notwithstanding the merits of the lower District Court’s granting of the preliminary injunction in the first instance. But, the High Court cautioned the Government not to dawdle, as it would be inclined to do. The Government knows full well that the CCIA is inconsistent with the Bruen rulings and is likely to be struck down by the High Court if the Second Circuit finds for the Government, prompting the Plaintiffs to appeal a final adverse decision of the Second Circuit.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ “BLUEPRINT TO END GUN VIOLENCE” IS A HOAX

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

PART THREE

NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ comprehensive strategy to stem the tide of intractable criminal violence in the City will do nothing of the kind—is doing nothing of the kind. It is a hoax, plain and simple, albeit one well-planned and orchestrated. It is intended to delude the public into placing confidence in his Administration. It is designed to convince the public that the Mayor is doing something concrete to promote public safety. And that is to mean that he has a handle on violent crime. Image is everything, and Mayor Adams maintains vigorous control over that image, carefully overseeing all communications that go out to the Press. See the article in Legal Insurrection, published, on April 4, 2022, titled,  “‘Discipline of Message’: NYC Mayor Adams Wants to Approve All City's Communications.”The “Blueprint,” released with fanfare on the “Official website of the City of New York,” on January 24, 2022, creates an impression, as it was undoubtedly designed to do, that Eric Adams intends to deal head-on with the intractable crime problem—a violent crime wave that continually threatens millions of innocent people in the City, whether they reside there, work there, or are simply visiting.But, how well is this “Blueprint to End Gun Violence” working out? Not so well, it turns out. And that fact is difficult to hide, much as Mayor Adams would like to hide it, regardless of the clampdown on communications from the Mayor’s Office.Even the Radical Left, which supports the Mayor, realizes this and is vocal about it. See MSN.com which cites an article appearing on the website, Slate. The progressive left website, Slate, harbors no illusion about the inherent deficiencies of the Mayor’s “Blueprint,” and expressly asserts its belief about it, referring to the Mayor's plan as a “Trojan Horse.”Be that as it may, “Slate’s” disagreement with Adams’ “Blueprint” has nothing to do with overt concern over incessant crime in the City. Rather, Slate expresses displeasure at the prospect of the Mayor's plan targeting the perpetrators of it, the majority of whom happen to be “non-white” people.Slate posits the plan as racist and, and expresses its indignation and disdain over the implementation, implying that the presence of violent, horrific crime in New York City is preferable to the measures the Mayor intends to invoke to contain it.And violent crime does continue to spiral out of control, as reported on Fox News, on March 2. 2022.See also the article in law enforcement today, posted on April 9, 2022.So, with pushback on Adams’ “Blueprint” coming from polar opposite corners, one wonders if there is a solution to the problem of intractable crime at all.There is a solution, of course. But it’s a solution this Mayor, no less than the previous one, refuses to countenance. For, the perfect solution to incessant, violent crime in the City is one that both Adams, and his predecessor, de Blasio, consider more problematic than runaway horrific violence.And we all know what that solution is: It’s “the armed citizen.”If Eric Adams truly wished to deal effectively with the intractable violent crime problem in the City, he would revise the City’s politically motivated handgun licensing Rules that, on any serious reflection, are absurd. He would have to do this if he were serious about combatting violent crime. And, he doesn’t have to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to make that decision for him through the Bruen case.But that isn’t a tack that Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul, no less than their predecessors, Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo would ever consider—not in their wildest dreams.In fact, these people have spent considerable time hobbling the average citizens’ access to the most effective means of ensuring their defense against violent crime. Of course, the criminals and lunatics know this too. And that goes far to explain how it is and why it is violent crime in New York continues to increase exponentially. Criminals and lunatics know that it is more likely than not that their targets won’t be armed and therefore need not fear their would-be victims turning the tables on them.From his latest comments, Mayor Adams' posture on the armed civilian citizen is clear enough. And that posture explains why he doesn't refer to armed self-defense at all as a means to deal a blow to violent crime. For, the mainstay of Mayor Adams' approach to curtailing violent crimes involves ramping up police efforts to curb crime. See the recent article in the progressive website Politico published on April 3, 2022.Also see the transcript of April 3, 2022, Face the Nation interview of Eric Adams, and the article in Bearing Arms.Eric Adams refers to himself as the new “face of the Democratic Party,” as reported in the New York Post. But, on reflection, his isn't really a new face at all. It is simply a new mask worn over an old face.It is clear enough, from prior remarks he made, that Mayor Adams is an avid supporter of stringent gun licensing in New York, no less so than the new New York Governor, Kathy Hochul. See February 4, 2021 article in St. Andrews Law Review:“Public officials fear any outcome that curtails their ability to regulate firearms. New York City Mayor Eric Adams said that restricting the state’s ability to regulate weapons will simply instigate violence. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed Adams’ sentiments in similar remarks.” And Arizona State University Crime and Justice News reported this, on Eric Adams' stance on firearms’ licensing, apropos of the Bruen ruling:“The ruling is expected to come down after Eric Adams replaces de Blasio as mayor. Adams, who emphasized public safety as key to the city's recovery during his campaign, said that limiting the state's ability to regulate firearms ‘is a recipe for disaster.’”Thus, Mayor Adams dismisses out-of-hand the most effective means at his disposal. For it is the armed citizen who can, in the final analysis, play an important role in combatting intractable, violent crime in the City.Adams sees, albeit erroneously, the armed citizen as likely aggravating a volatile criminal situation in the City rather than lessening violence. So if New York City is to see any change to the concealed handgun carry licensing Rules, such change will have to come from the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.See the article in The Ticker:“New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Mayor-elect Eric Adams have concerns over this case, primarily from a public safety viewpoint.While safety is certainly a factor that can be used to determine which specific, sensitive public places can prohibit firearms, such as libraries, it cannot be used to serve as a prior restraint to prevent people from being able to defend themselves with firearms outside of their home completely.By the end of the arguments, most of the justices appeared likely to strike down or limit New York’s law.If the court correctly rules in favor of the petitioners, New York could be forced to rewrite its law to allow more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense, with clearer criteria and less discretionary hurdles.In addition, New York could become a ‘shall issue’ state, which would compel licensing officers to approve applications if they meet objectively set state requirements, such as meeting the minimum age and having no felony criminal activity.While some advocates will argue that allowing more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense will lead to an increase in uncontrolled gun violence, the result would be the opposite.Allowing more good citizens to legally carry guns will lead to more deterrence and a higher likelihood that they will be able to successfully defend their families and themselves against criminals.New York is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to allowing citizens to legally have firearms, yet it declared a statewide gun violence emergency in July ignoring the fact that most of the gun violence is a direct consequence of illegal, not legal, firearms.Most states, both liberal and conservative states included, adopted a ‘shall issue’ system in recent decades, yet they have less violence than in New York.”Also see the article in the Free Republic.New York as with several other jurisdictions around the Country gives great latitude to handgun licensing officials to make the decision whether to issue an unrestricted handgun carry license to the applicant, or not. Yet, it is the States with the most restrictive gun licensing that are plagued by violent crime. You would think that Cities like New York would consider relaxing the rules on the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses, since nothing else, historically and to date works, effectively to deter violent crime. Yet, nothing is done. Go figure.The governing principle of these jurisdictions—that uniformly abhor the notion of the armed citizen who takes responsibility for his or her personal defense—is the “may issue/proper cause” standard to carry a handgun, concealed. That standard, as applied in New York City, is up for review at the U.S. Supreme Court. And a decision is anticipated in early Summer 2022.How will the U.S. Supreme Court rule in Bruen? It is expected that the Court will rule the NYPD standards for determining the propriety of issuing a concealed handgun carry license to be unconstitutional both as constructed and as applied.To be sure, the entire “may issue” structure for issuing a concealed handgun license in any jurisdiction around the Country is misguided from the get-go because the standards created whatever they may be, are inherently subjective as applied. The entire “may issue” structure is unsound and anathema to the fundamental, unalienable natural law right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The very constitutionality of “may issue/proper cause” was at the heart of the Bruen case, pushing well beyond the borders of New York City and New York State, as the issue was promulgated in Plaintiffs Brief to the Court.But Chief Justice John Roberts narrowed the focus of Bruen, thereby forcing the Justices to consider only the constitutionality of the City’s concealed handgun carry Rules. The salient issue of whether “may issue” infringes the core of the Second Amendment is not up for review.By doing this, the issue, as framed for review, takes as a given that “may issue” is sound and valid but that the City’s Rules regarding “may issue” might not be.It will be interesting to see what Justices Thomas and Alito do with this. Consistent with their opinions in the seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, Justices Thomas and Alito may well view the entirety of “may issue/proper cause schemes unconstitutional, notwithstanding the deformation of the issue by Chief Justice Roberts. In that event, their opinions would be relegated to concurrences; not majority rulings, and other “may issue/proper cause” jurisdictions can rest easy that their own draconian handgun carry licensing rules remain untouched by Bruen. This, no doubt, is what Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had in mind; had certainly intended to do to soften what otherwise would seem to augur yet another landmark Second Amendment case decision.If a handgun licensing scheme is to be retained in New York City at all, it should be simplified, made straightforward, and applied fairly to all applicants. In particular, concealed carry provisions should address the needs of the average law-abiding, responsible citizens who do business in the City and/or reside there. And provision should be made for those law-abiding, responsible citizens who happen to visit the City.The present New York City handgun licensing scheme is deficient on any rational measure. And it isn’t applied in a fair and impartial manner.And woe to any person from another jurisdiction who brings a handgun into the City, and is found possessing a handgun, sans a valid unrestricted handgun carry license issued by the NYPD Licensing Division. At the moment it is that person, and not the gun-wielding rabid lunatic, psychopathic gangbanger, or garden-variety common criminal who will suffer the greatest wrath from the City’s criminal justice system.It has always been thus. And that fact isn’t going to change soon, regardless of the enormity and severity of crime in the City. See the article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, published, August 6, 2015, titled, “Who’s Packing In New York City?” But, even if the Bruen Court strikes down, or otherwise places stringent curbs on the inordinate discretion presently extended to the NYPD Licensing Division in prosecuting applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, it is another question entirely—and a pertinent one—whether the Mayor’s Office will abide by that High Court decision. And that is worrisome.Consider——Back in November 2021, Mayor-Elect Eric Adams specifically addressed Bruen, on MSNBC News, when questioned by the host, Andrea Mitchell:“‘The concealed weapon ruling that’s going to come about is extremely challenging for us,’ says Adams. ‘This is different from a rural county somewhere. And this could have a major impact on our ability to keep our city safe, but we will adjust.’”So, there you have it! In an act of sly casuistry, rather than clarity, the Mayor says, “we will adjust.” He doesn’t say, “we will comply with the rulings of the Court.”  The Mayor's choice of words is telling. For he would rather suffer continuing waves of violent crime than acquiesce to the Constitutional right of all citizens to bear a handgun outside the home or outside their place of business, for their own defense.Even with a U.S. Supreme Court directive that might strike down the entire licensing structure of New York City, the Mayor of New York City and the Governor of the State will—by dictate of the Neoliberal Globalists and Globalist Marxist forces that secretly control them—fanatically resist the reversal of over a century of ever-growing unconstitutional restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And we know whereof we speak, based on past practices.We have seen how State, local, and county governments, along with lower Courts have—have, through the last decade—blatantly, arrogantly, and contemptuously dismissed out-of-hand clear and explicit rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases.Can one reasonably expect that the State of New York and its major metropolitan area, New York City, will do an immediate and abrupt about-face toward concealed handgun carry when Bruen, as the third seminal Second Amendment case, comes down the pike with further explicit rulings? Sadly, we have to say: Not likely! The State and City will come up with dubious schemes to avoid taking any action that would do harm to a handgun licensing structure that has been in place for over 110 years.New York City residents should not expect the Mayor to reform the City’s draconian handgun licensing Rules even with clear, categorical rulings from the High Court.Mayor Eric Adams is of the same mindset and holds to the same alien ideology as both his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, and boasts the same sympathies of myriads of other Federal, State, and local government flunkies.It would be naïve to think Eric Adams is cut from a different cloth. The secretive powerful interests behind his election are the same as those who thrust de Blasio into Office. These powerful, malevolent interests have made certain that the toadies they place into Office share the same worldview, and that worldview is not amenable to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.These forces are intent on replacing a free Republic, and a sovereign people, with an entirely new and ambitious, political, social, economic, financial, juridical, and multicultural construct. It is a paradigm antithetical to the needs and desires and fundamental rights of the American people. This new paradigm or framework goes by many names: “the international order;” “the new world order;” “the global democratic liberal world order;” Kissinger’s “world order,” the “neo-feudal world order,” “liberal internationalism,” and, the “Soros/Open Society.” But, by whatever name, the demise of the United States as a truly sovereign, independent Nation-State, along with the demise of the American citizenry as sole sovereign of their Government and the demise of the very concept of ‘citizen’ are the end goals.To accomplish these ends, the forces that crush are hell-bent on shattering the will, psyche, reasoning capacity, and sanity of the American people.To that end, violent societal upheaval is not to be contained or constrained, but to be encouraged.Americans have in the last few years witnessed violent societal upheaval. They see many of their political leaders embracing, enhancing, aggravating upheaval without care for the horror and misery inflicted on innocent individuals.We have seen this “Democrat Party” tolerating, even coaxing, and encouraging BLM and ANTIFA riots in the Summer of 2020 and the rioting continues today. See, e.g., articles in the Washington Examiner, and The Frontier Post.The vigorous, violent, outrageous assault on the U.S. Constitution and on the American citizenry by the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, and well-connected forces that crush is plain:

• Conceptualization and Implementation of a coordinated FBI hit job on ordinary American citizens who have justifiably sought a serious, comprehensive investigation of and serious accounting of those shenanigans and machinations involving the 2020 election that improbably ensconced, as titular head of the Executive Branch of Government, an obviously corrupt, emotionally and physically weak, and dementia-ridden shell of a man;

• Outrageous DOJ Persecution of “militia” members and Castigation and Remonstrations against average American parents who simply wish to exercise their fundamental rights of free speech and free association without fear of governmental backlash, interference, and reprisals for harboring ideas and beliefs inconsistent with that of the Administration;

• Endangering the Sanctity and Inviolability of the American Citizenry by unlawfully and brazenly secreting into the Nation hordes of illegal aliens from around the world, including violent criminals—literally millions of them;

• Massive Social Engineering Programs and Social and Psychic Conditioning and Indoctrination of the entire American citizenry: including Adults, Youth, and Children;

• Deliberate Actions aimed at Demoralizing and Weakening the Military and Community Police apparatuses of the Nation;

• Placement of scores of defective, incompetent, easily, malleable people in the highest levels of Government to assist in the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic

• Consolidation of all the Apparatuses of Government by which the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic can proceed at a record pace, unconstrained, from within.

And the public is expected to do nothing to prevent the coopting of their Country, but simply acquiesce, sit still, and moronically enjoy the hayride to oblivion. And, for those Americans who refuse to submit, who know what is in store for them and their Country, and who refuse to be mesmerized by the claptrap incessantly spread through the airwaves, legacy newspapers, and the internet, they can expect to be unceremoniously crushed beneath the wheels of the hay wagon.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

*********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*********

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART ONE

NYC MAYOR DE BLASIO’S RECIPE FOR DISASTER

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYC MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE NOW

PART THREE

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

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS MAYOR?

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

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

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

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

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

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

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

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

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

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

NYC: THE NEW BADLANDS

THE NEW BADLANDS OF THE EAST SPRINGS UP FROM THE OLD BADLANDS OF THE WEST

PART ONE

“Back in the days of the old West, there were these stretches of territory that I think God and nature just plain forgot about. . . dark and parched and empty as the moons of Mars. Places where sensible men never ventured. . . where only dreams and phantoms walked. Kind of a way station between civilization and the Ninth Circle of Hell—The Badlands.” ~Quotation from the 1991 film, “Into the Badlands,” starring Bruce Dern as a Bounty Hunter, T.L. Barston Has New York City become a new Badlands where even “angels fear to tread?” It would seem so.No reasonable, rational person would venture into New York City unless he or she has to. This isn’t conjecture and it wasn’t always this way, but today it is exactly so, and that statement is true of police officers from neighboring jurisdictions as well.In fact, police officers in hot pursuit of criminals who committed crimes in some New York jurisdictions are now prohibited from entering New York City to continue the pursuit of criminals who make it across jurisdictional lines into the City—a City that has become a safe harbor for vermin. The first New York jurisdiction to ban its officers from chasing criminals into the City is Westchester County.On July 14, 2020, the New York Post reported,“Westchester County is banning cops from the Big Apple, saying the city’s new restriction on chokeholds and other restraints makes it too easy for officers to get jammed up.The new decree, laid out Thursday in an internal memo obtained by The Post, comes on the heels of legislation approved last month by the New York City Council that bans chokeholds and prohibits officers from sitting, kneeling or standing on a suspect’s chest and back.Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the bills this week.‘Given the likelihood that the restraint of a non-compliant individual during the course of making a lawful arrest often requires kneeling on the torso of the suspect for at least a brief period of time,’ the Westchester memo said, ‘this order is intended to protect sworn members from criminal prosecution for actions consistent with their training and department policy.’‘Effective immediately and until further notice sworn members shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ it said. Officials from three police departments overseeing a region that neighbors New York City have ordered their officers to halt any enforcement activity in the city out of concern over a recently enacted chokehold ban that places limitations on the ways in which arrests can be made.The new limitations prompted one New York Police Department-linked executive to slam Mayor Bill de Blasio for turning the Big Apple into “the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls[a containment center of unarmed citizens].Westchester County Police told its members on Thursday that they ‘shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ including ‘pursuing subjects into the City of New York for offenses committed in Westchester County,’ according to the interim order, which was shared online by Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association for the NYPD.‘All 5 Boroughs of NYC soon to be the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls,’ Mullins wrote in the tweet late Thursday. ‘NYC Alienated by law enforcement agency as a result of horrific law sign by [Mayor Bill de Blasio].’‘Administrative Code section 10-18, makes it a misdemeanor crime for an arresting officer to restrain someone in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest,’ according to the bill.”Two days later, the New York Post reported that neighboring Nassau County followed Westchester County’s lead, reporting,“Nassau County police brass this week ordered on-duty cops to avoid the Big Apple unless accompanied or approved by a supervisor, according to a memo issued days after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill making it a criminal offense for officers to use a chokehold on a suspect.The memo, issued Friday, outlines the city’s new ‘unlawful methods of restraint’ law and notes violators could end up with a year in jail.‘In light of the above law, members shall not conduct police business in New York City unless it has been approved by their Commanding Officer,’ according to the document.Nassau cops now must be accompanied by a supervisor, notify the local precinct of their activities ‘unless doing so would cause danger’ to the officers, and officers ‘should have clearly identifiable police insignia when taking police action,’ the memo reads.” These policies aren’t anomalies. They arise from a new sober reality, and as we write this article, other New York counties have followed or are likely soon to follow suit.These unprecedented police policies are obviously and justifiably designed to protect officers from facing criminal charges themselves if they happen to utilize a martial arts maneuver meant certainly not to maim or kill an arrestee but to subdue and secure him, quickly, effectively, and safely, to protect both the arrestee and the officer and to bring an aggressive assault to an end, allowing the officer to effectuate the arrest.Moreover, if police officers are denied the ability to utilize a proven martial arts technique that may at times be necessary, as police training dictates, dangerous individuals may escape police custody, thus endangering the community at large and requiring further expenditures of time, money, and additional police resources to hunt down a perpetrator of a crime, anew, that would not and should not have been necessary.And this all comes about because of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acquiescing to the demands of domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter. Neither de Blasio nor domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter have any true understanding of the nature of, demands of, exigencies pertaining to, or real life dangers involved in police work.On July 8, 2020, the New York Post reported,“NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan on Wednesday doubled down on his criticism of the City Council’s police anti-chokehold bill, calling a portion of it ‘dangerous.’Monahan, speaking during a PIX11 interview, said he does not have a problem with the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds but takes issue with its ban on maneuvers that would press a suspect’s diaphragm.‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’Monahan said the department is ‘absolutely’ lobbying against the diaphragm portion of the anti-chokehold bill.‘It is a dangerous, dangerous portion of that bill,’ he said.”On July 15, 2020, The New York Post wrote,“Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a suite of six NYPD reform bills Wednesday, including a ban on chokeholds, while acknowledging concerns that the new laws will make it harder for cops to do their jobs.‘People want to be safe. They need to be safe. They want to work with the NYPD and they want respect in turn,’ de Blasio said while signing the legislation package in the Bronx after joining activists to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on Morris Avenue between 161st and 162nd streets.‘I also want to be honest when there are concerns out there. It makes sense to talk about it, not to run away from it,’ de Blasio said.On the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds, de Blasio said, ‘I know many in the police department including many I truly respect are concerned.’‘Because although they agree 100 percent and it’s been the policy of the police department, we cannot have chokeholds, there’s concern around some of the additional language around diaphragms.’In addition to criminalizing chokeholds, the bill includes a prohibition on other restraints of a person’s diaphragm or ability to breathe such as sitting, kneeling or standing on someone’s chest or back. Last week NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan called the diaphragm portion of the legislation ‘dangerous’ [to police officer safety].‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said during a PIX11 interview.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’But Monahan’s warnings didn’t prevent the mayor from making the bill law.‘I am signing this bill because I believe we can make it work,’ the mayor said Wednesday.De Blasio made no mention of an earlier incident on the Brooklyn Bridge where Monahan’s finger was broken when he was attacked by a group of people who were at a George Floyd protest. {As reported by a local ABC affiliate news station, abc7, “Protesters at the ‘ encampment clashed with police and at least seven NYPD officers suffered injuries—Monahan suffered a hand injury, a lieutenant was struck in the head, a sergeant was struck in the head and a lieutenant suffered an eye socket fracture. The other three officers suffered minor injuries.”} The last thing the police, the community, and any reasonable, sensible person would want is to have the police embroiled in a physical confrontation with an anxious, temporarily irrational, deranged or inherently dangerous arrestee itching for a fight that devolves into a lengthy street brawl. Apparently, de Blasio hasn’t considered the real possibility of this scenario or otherwise simply doesn’t care because he has political points to rack up with the Radical Left contingents that support him, along with well-to-do uninformed New York City residents who have the luxury of residing above the fray of dangerous street encounters and live securely ensconced in extravagant, luxurious abodes, but for the latter group that is really just illusion.Yet, this is all welcome news to the common criminals, lunatics, and murderous gang members, and dangerous Marxist and Anarchist group members, and other assorted riff-raff who now enjoy an extended “field day” in New York.Is it any wonder, then, that neighboring New York State jurisdictions have implemented their own policy, precluding their own lawenforcement officers from pursuing criminals into the City, once those criminals have crossed into the jurisdiction of New York City?_______________________________________________________________

PART TWO

WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE ISN’T ALWAYS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

What is good for the worst elements of society, though, is bad for everyone else who happens to call New York City their home, including those relatively well-to-do liberal, progressive New York City residents who believe they are above the fray but really aren’t.Bill de Blasio, though, as New York City Mayor, doesn’t have to worry about NYPD police protection. The Mayor enjoys, for himself and for his family, all the comfort and peace of mind that comes from obtaining the very security that he denies the community at large, and from the very Police Department that he publicly excoriates. And he means to keep that special police protection both for himself and his family.This specialized modern day Praetorian Guard who protects its Emperor, Bill De Blasio is called the “Executive Protection Unit.” In April 2019, Daily News reported,“The embattled head of Mayor de Blasio’s NYPD bodyguard unit remains in his prestigious post — and sources inside the department believe it’s all thanks to the man he’s supposed to protect.Sources tell the Daily News that Inspector Howard Redmond was going to be removed from his role as commanding officer of the Executive Protection Unit — that is, until the mayor stepped in.The decision to reassign Redmond was made by Intelligence Division Chief Thomas Galati and Commissioner James O’Neill in the summer, sources said, as The News ran a series of stories about turmoil within the EPU.But sources close to the troubled unit believe de Blasio then intervened and saved Redmond’s job. Only de Blasio would have the authority to override Galati and O’Neill’s decision.When people get to the point where they think they are untouchable, it’s not surprising,’ a police source said. ‘None of this would have happened at any other level in the NYPD or any other department. It was a ground ball they let go into the outfield.’”And, Back in October 2019, the Daily News reported that,“Mayor de Blasio ordered his NYPD security detail to repeatedly take his son back and forth from Yale University during his first years at school, the Daily News has learned.Executive Protection Unit detectives drove Dante de Blasio to or from New Haven, Conn., at least seven or eight times, the sources with direct knowledge said. Members of the detail also took Dante to visit his uncle, who lives nearby, sources said. Dante faced no security risks at the time, the sources said.”Well, the public doesn’t have available to it the special Executive Police Protection that Bill de Blasio demands for himself and his immediate family. Nor do the very wealthy in New York City need to be unduly concerned for their own physical safety and well-being as they reside in extravagant and highly secured fortresses in the City and retain a retinue of highly paid private bodyguards to protect them when they venture into the jungle outside, and a very dangerous jungle New York City has indeed become, courtesy of that very Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose policies have transformed the City into a cesspool of violence.What can the average, rational, responsible law-abiding, New York City resident rely on for self-defense? The answer is obvious. The best security for the average New York City resident is a handgun for protection in the home and when venturing outside. But try to obtain a license, necessary to protect one’s own life if you are a New York City resident!A restricted New York City Premises handgun license is difficult enough to obtain. A highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is next to impossible. Good luck in getting that!

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE THE AVERAGE NEW YORK CITY RESIDENT?

First, the average City resident cannot rely on the police to provide them with even a modicum of community security and this comes at a time when the City suffers heightened unease and tension due to mob violence. Second, because New York traditionally frowns on civilian ownership and possession of firearms, the average New York City resident is denied effective means of self-defense. Third, the news media refuses to acknowledge that the City is facing the worst violence in years.In this constant state of paroxysms of violence devastating urban centers across America, it is remarkable that the mainstream media invariably refrains from use of accurate descriptors such as ‘assailant,’ or ‘attacker’ or ‘law breaker,’ or ‘agitator,’ or ‘provocateur,’ to refer to the agents of this violence; invariably resorting to or falling back on innocuous and general expressions ‘protestors’ or ‘demonstrators’ when referring to everyone taking part in this carnage.And, you never hear the mainstream media referring to the weeks of wanton, numerous, endless, and horrendous acts of vandalism, and looting, and of the defacing, defiling, and destroying of monuments, statues and artwork and of the incessant rioting, assaults, and muggings, and even of acts of murder—and all of it on a massive scale and all of it occurring in major cities across the Country for weeks on end—as ‘civil disturbances,’ or ‘civil unrest,’ or’ ‘civil upheavals,’ or ‘mob violence,’ or ‘lawlessness,’ or ‘violent disorder,’ which is what these acts are.The Press is careful not to employ any of the many available and more accurate descriptive words and phrases and nomenclature to describe those who individuals who are engaged in a large number of clearly serious criminal acts. The mainstream media insists on utilizing the expression ‘protest’ or ‘peaceful protest’—sometimes even resorting to using the illusive and evasive and absurd phrase, ‘mostly peaceful protest,’ abjuring the cardinal journalistic rule to avoid use of adverbs in news accounts, and avoid use of ambiguity and vagueness.The seditious New York Times, on those occasions when it deigns to recite acts of violence occurring in cities across the Country, still resorts to prefacing those acts as protests and even denying that physical confrontations are anything other than lawful acts of civil disobedience, insisting on employing the generic expression, ‘protest,’ or the deliberately vague expression, ‘unrest,’ even though whatever may have commenced weeks ago as a ‘peaceful protest,’ ostensibly triggered by the police killing of a petty criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has long transcended anything that can remotely be reasonably categorized as a ‘protest,’ peaceful or otherwise.Cities have devolved into essentially free fire zones. Nothing occurring in our major urban centers today can reasonably be described as a “lawful peaceful protest,” guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In fact the mainstream media continues to denounce the police, referring to any action that might have resulted directly or indirectly to harm against an agitator, as the fault of the police. Apparently, it never occurred to any of these newspaper reporters to consider that it wasn’t the police that rounded up people, placed them on a street, and told them to stir up trouble. It was the looters, and rioters, and agitators that brought the police out, in an attempt to maintain some semblance of law and order as required of them.Since Radical Left City and State political leaders have essentially handcuffed their police officers, preventing them from even attempting to maintain a modicum of law and order, these “peaceful protestors” realize they have carte blanc to physically assault the police, and they are going at it with relish. New York City is a prime example of what happens when a Radical Left mayor, such as Bill de Blasio allows people to act like animals; many of them will do so.If perchance, a NYPD police officer should arrest these “peaceful protestors,’ they know the Courts will immediately release them, sans bail. And this is exactly what New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio wants. This is what his policies dictate. And innocent New York resident bear the sad consequences.______________________________________________________

HOW DID NEW YORK CITY GET TO THIS POINT: ATTACKS ON POLICE AND THE ARMED CITIZENRY, LEAVING BOTH DEFENSELESS?

PART THREE

We postulate: the desire to protect health and hearth, life and well-being, self-identity and personal autonomy is encoded into a person’s very being at the very point of conception, when the child is imbued with an immortal soul by a morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Divine Creator.This desire of man is manifested in Divine Law, grounded on the sacred principal of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. These assertions are axiomatic, self-evident, a priori true. For, it is said that our God is a Creative God, and we, human beings, exist as an important part of his Divine Creation.We as finite beings, yet created in the image of God, given free will, are created to be creators ourselves; free to express our own individuality; free to do so as long as we allow other human beings to freely express their individuality as well.Equally self-evident, a priori true is the raw desire of Government—a man-made institution—to enfeeble man; to crush man into submission.Governments exist, after all, as a collective of men who, wielding power over others, and given the gift of “freedom of choice” as the Divine Being gifts to all human beings, choose unwisely, attempting to exert their will on others, and often, as we have seen throughout history, succeed.The very institution of Government evolves. Eventually, inexorably, inevitably it becomes an unholy creature, one that cannot help but dominate, subjugate, and destroy personal individuality, independence, initiative. Government attempts to destroy the very integrity of Self. In a sudden paroxysm of violence, like the cataclysmic death of a star, the Government destroys itself and everything and everyone else along with it.

NEW YORK MAYOR DE BLASIO BARKS THAT PEOPLE DON’T NEED HANDGUNS; THEY HAVE THE POLICE

Bill de Blasio argues that average New York City residents don’t need a handgun license at all because the NYPD provides them with all the safety anyone would need.And, Didn’t de Blasio make that very remark and continue to reiterate if when pressed by evening Fox News Host Sean Hannity, one evening, many moons and ten thousand years ago, as reported by Fox News in an exchange between de Blasio and Hannity, when de Blasio—then running for the Democratic Party nomination—attempted, albeit unconvincingly, to explain, to Hannity’s listeners why he, de Blasio, would be the best candidate to take on Trump in November; that the Country needs a man like him to lead our Country?“Bill de Blasio defended his stance on gun control during an exclusive interview with Sean Hannity.De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, claimed New York is the safest large American city and that the police are the best outlet to keep people safe, on Wednesday's ‘Hannity.’‘You're in the safest big city in America. . . with the finest police force in America,’ he said.‘We keep people safe. Crime's gone down for the last six years on my watch.’‘I believe right now what's wrong in this country is not that people have rights around guns, it's there are no gun safety measures like background checks.’In response, Hannity said he had to submit to a background check to obtain his gun permit in the state of New York.De Blasio said the background checks should nonetheless be more ‘sufficient.’‘Ask the NYPD and they'll tell you they believe in strong gun laws to keep officers and civilians safe,’ he added.‘Everyone deserves to be safe. The answer is not for everyone to have a firearm—any more than the answer is not for every teacher to have a firearm.’‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘We have a police department. . . that is making it safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people.’When Hannity pressed further, de Blasio quipped, ‘I ain't buying what you're selling.’”Needless to say Hannity was having none of that. He remained, unconvinced; incredulous, even baffled by the nonsense that kept coming out of de Blasio’s maw.Now jump ahead ten thousand years, to the present day. Juxtapose de Blasio’s earlier remarks to Hannity:‘We have a police department. . . that is making it [the public] safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people’ ———with de Blasio’s recent and massive Police budget cut to the tune of $1 Billion—coming at a time when, reasonably, rationally, de Blasio ought to be adding $1 Billion to the Police budget, not slashing the budget, in a time of massive violence across the length and breadth of the City.About that $1 Billion budget cut, the New York Post recently reported:“The latest evidence comes with his agreement to cut police spending by about 17 percent, including the cancellation of a new class of rookies. With retirements soaring, that guarantees fewer cops on the street just as murder and mayhem are turning much of the city into the Wild West.Murders are up 25 percent this year and the police counted 63 shootings last week, compared with 26 for the same week last year.The violent tide suggests the bad guys have no fear of being ­arrested. Why should they? And if they are, the new bail law requires judges to release most of them ­immediately anyway.Meanwhile, the domino effect will add to the city’s misery. The crime spurt, including the tragic murder of 17-year-old Brandon Hendricks, while the police force is facing reductions means the NYPD will have little or no resources for less serious but still important quality-of-life issues.The illegal fireworks exploding all over the city with impunity are but a loud foreshadowing of the disorder to come. Consider, too, that it took the city more than a month to move a homeless man, often naked, out of the dry fountain at Washington Square Park.For de Blasio, the police budget episode has been Exhibit A of how he is both hapless and unscrupulous.At first, he tried to dance around the far-left pressure to defund cops, but after he was booed and heckled off the stage at a June 4 ­memorial for ­George Floyd in Brooklyn, he instantly embraced the national madness.Within days, de Blasio was throwing the mob a bone, saying that while he didn’t agree with calls for $1 billion in cuts to the NYPD’s nearly $6 billion in spending, he would propose ‘something substantial.’Given the backdrop of protests, riots and looting, even that was reckless pandering. These ‘mostly peaceful protests,’ as much of the media still insist on calling them, destroyed hundreds of businesses and scared sensible people out of their wits — and sent many of them to the exits.A good, courageous mayor would have stood up to the anti-cop crowds and reminded them that the NYPD had saved thousands of black lives by taking illegal handguns off the street, and that a declining prison rate was another consequence. It was the police, not the protesters and rioters, who had made New York the safest big city in America.Such a mayor also would have reminded all New Yorkers that a continuing exodus of taxpayers will leave the city with even less money to spend on anything and everything.But expecting de Blasio to be a good, courageous mayor is a fool’s errand. He caved into the demands and instead of nibbling at police spending, agreed to slash it.”How does de Blasio respond to reality? Simple; like all Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist crazies he denies reality, and huffs and puffs in rage that millions of rational New York City residents would question his judgment, obsequiously bowing to the Mob that is as crazy and as obsessed as he is with tearing down a Nation that the founders placed their life on the line to create and that millions of Americans thereafter placed their life on the line to sustain.Sean Hannity’s media room reports,“Embattled Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio enraged millions of angry residents Thursday; saying New York City is “safer and better” with “fewer people in our jails.”‘We now have fewer people in our jails than any time since WW2 and we are safer for it and better for it!’ yelled De Blasio.”The Mayor then goes after the police union. Sean Hannity’s media room again reports:“Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio publicly attacked one of the city’s biggest police unions during his daily press briefing Thursday; saying they “foment hatred” and have no interest in ‘moving forward.’“The Sergeants Benevolent Association has only practiced division. They foment hatred. . . . They do not try to help us move forward,’ de Blasio said during a press conference Thursday. ‘They don’t try to create anything good. I have no respect for the leadership of the SBA.’”So much for both public safety in New York and personal safety in New York.We have to ask: Who the hell votes for dangerous jackasses like Bill de Blasio, anyway, and for all the other flotsam and jetsam peppered throughout our Nation, destroying it with all the rapidity, mercilessness, horror, anguish, and mindless terror of the ‘Bubonic Plague?’ Apparently a lot of people once did, at least, support de Blasio, back in 2017, as reported by City & State, at any rate, which suggests that a lot of New York City residents must be into masochism Big-Time. PJ Media writes, anecdotally, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek,“After a couple of conversations with comedian friends of mine from New York this week I am more mystified than ever as to how Bill de Blasio got re-elected. One of my friends is conservative, the other liberal, and both hate de Blasio with a white-hot passion.When Mayor Moron was first elected almost everyone I know who is well-versed in New York City politics was convinced that he would be a one-term wonder. As he went about dismantling twenty years of progress in the city it seemed almost certain that he would be shown the door, Apparently, everyone in New York was drunk in 2017, and de Blasio was given another shot at screwing everything up.”And what does the run-up to the 2021 NYC Mayoral race portend at the moment? The Gotham Gazette writes,“But one year from now, New Yorkers will cast their ballots in another primary election, one that will likely determine the slate of leadership of New York City for the next four years, including the next mayor. With Mayor Bill de Blasio term-limited, the stage is set for a fierce competition, which may not really take off until just after this year’s presidential election but has already begun.With the economy in shambles and the streets echoing with the exasperated cries of a city disillusioned with current leadership, political analysts say New Yorkers will look for a steady hand to guide them through the city’s many crises, whether it’s the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural and systemic racism, economic devastation, perennial unaffordability, entrenched homelessness, crumbling public housing, and more.”The entire race will hardly matter to anyone if the Radical Left Democrats take over the Federal Goverment. It will be the end of the Republic. That much is certain.But assuming, hopefully, Trump does win a second term in Office and Republicans manage to hold onto the Senate, the dire situation affecting NYC then and now will be of concern primarily to New York City residents and less of concern to the rest of the Nation. Still, it should be remembered that New York City hadn't always suffered fools for mayors and crime had been brought into some semblance of control.Under the leadership of Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, the extraordinarily effective “Broken Windows” policing policy significantly reduced criminal activity in the City. Even under the leadership of Radical Left virulent Anti-Second Amendment hater, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, criminal activity in New York City remained significantly lower than had existed under the leadership of Radical Leftist Mayor David Dinkins. Bloomberg implemented a highly effective “stop and frisk” policy that took firearms out of the hands of criminals.Bloomberg later, of course, and, unsurprisingly, disavowed the City’s “stop and frisk” policy when he, late in the game, joined the race—semi-seriously, it seems—for the Democrat Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 General Election.Now, though, under the pseudo-leadership of the Radical Left fanatic, moronic and abjectly hopeless, helpless, and thoroughly contemptible, Bill De Blasio, the City has once again reverted into a sordid, fetid, festering, extraordinarily dangerous hellhole.To hardened serial criminals, raving lunatics, illegal alien drug cartel gangs, murderous drug lords, dangerous psychopaths of all types, along with home-grown domestic Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and other sociopathic organizations, New York City is looked upon and, in fact, has become a shelter, a haven, a safe harbor, a playground sanctuary where the creatures of the night may rant and rave, shout and scream, rampage and pillage, and assault and murder with total abandon, preying mercilessly on innocent, bewildered, forlorn disarmed citizens.Better, then, for normal, sane, law-abiding residents to remain in secured buildings—apartments, lofts, cooperatives, condominium units—as they have more to fear from the viral flotsam and jetsam of society than from the ravages wrought to our society by the Chinese Coronavirus.To normal, rational, responsible, hard-working people who do not call New York City their home, the City has become a veritable containment center, a quarantined area, a contaminated zone, where no one in their right mind would willingly venture into if that can be avoided, and that now includes police officers from neighboring jurisdictions.Unfortunately, New York City isn’t alone. The Radical Left mob has infected other jurisdictions, resulting in pandemonium, across the Nation. Crime and mayhem are the abnormal norm in major Cities around the Country—those led by Radical Left mayors and Radical Left State Governors, and the Radical Left Democrats in Congress are all too busy whipping their whirling Dervishes up to a fever pitch, and the Republicans are all too lame to oppose them, leaving the President himself, as always, to take up the slack.Where does this leave innocent, rational, law-abiding citizens? Best for them to be well-armed with substantial ammunition. And, if average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizens do not have a firearm in their possession, they ought now to seriously consider acquiring one for their own peace of mind and self-defense because the police will have enough on their mind to secure their own safety. But, if you happen to reside in New York City, your chance for acquiring a firearm for home defense is perhaps 50/50. And, if you wish to carry a handgun on your person for self-defense at all times, you will need to acquire an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license to do so lawfully. And your odds of obtaining one is, if we were to hazard a guess, about .00001%, and that is being optimistic.And, if Biden becomes U.S. President, most of us will be in the same boat as your average New Yorker. Expect to see civil unrest, disorder, and destruction expanding, spreading throughout the Country down to the smallest rural village.The first order of business of the Radical Left will be to implement a large-scale plan to collect firearms from the citizenry. Expect to see life in the U.S. taking on the look, and quality, and feel of Venezuela, Cuba, and Mexico, not the picturesque seeming quaint serenity of such quasi-Socialist Nordic States like Sweden and Denmark.______________________________________________

DE BLASIO’S THREE-PART RECIPE FOR DISASTER: DEFUND AND DISMEMBER THE POLICE; DISMANTLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AND DISARM THE CITIZEN

PART FOUR

NEW YORK CITY: ON THE VERGE OF MELTDOWN

How has the jabbering, Bill De Blasio, single-handedly turned the safest Big City in America into a snake pit? Consider what this present New York City Mayor has done——1) He has welcomed criminals with open arms, releasing hardened dangerous, sociopathic and psychopathic inmates from prison; tolerates or actively encourages unruly protests, riots, arson, vandalism, and looting; and has implemented a no-bail policy requiring Courts to release countless more dangerous criminals onto the City’s Streets.2) He has hand-cuffed the City’s own police, the NYPD, preventing law enforcement from providing even minimal protection for the community at large, and has effectively alienated them; treating the New York City Police Department like pariahs as if the police were the enemy of the community rather than the community’s protectors, even as he welcomes private police protection for his own personal security.3) As an anti-Second Amendment fanatic, he, along with the Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, continues to discourage civilian ownership of firearms.Unfortunately, de Blasio isn’t a one-of-a-kind loon. There are many others. The dangerous, ruthless, inordinately wealthy and secretive Marxist Globalist, George Soros, has quietly seeded a plethora of Radical Left Marxists leaders throughout the Country, down to the local level of Government, and the results of his well-organized plan to destroy our Nation from within are in evidence.These Radical Leftists are dutifully operating, as Soros expects them to. We see them working either in concert with or otherwise as passive sympathetic observers of virulent Marxist and Anarchist groups that have been deliberately fomenting violence in Cities across America; engaging in continuous, massive seditious acts of unbridled destruction to property and deliberate, unprovoked assaults on civilians, police, and military—goading and baiting the police and President Trump, daring them to try to stop the rampaging plague of violence.And the seditious Press and Radical Leftist Democrat Party leadership and its members blatantly, chillingly, caustically ignore the carnage and ravaging and rampaging rioters; refusing even to acknowledge their existence; continuing to refer to them peaceful protestors and not agitators, rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants, even murderers, which is what they are; incongruously blaming the existence of and continuation of violence on President Trump.Community Law enforcement officers, in particular, are ordered by the radical Left local and State governmental leaders either to stand down, or have become wary of doing their job lest they place their own life in danger or face criminal charges themselves, given new police policy directives, designed to constrain them from effectively and quickly and safely restraining vicious predators and rioters. The result is that they have become the target of violent attacks.New police policies are often deliberately vague, ambiguous, or altogether incoherent. And they are clearly inane.NYPD Police Officers, for example, face recriminations or criminal charges themselves for simply attempting to perform their duty: promoting at least a modicum of safety for the community.Not surprisingly, police from neighboring jurisdictions are loath to venture into New York City to apprehend criminals fleeing their own jurisdictions.keep in mind that, under the laws of New York, and around the Country, police do not have a duty to protect the life and safety of individual members of the community, except in very narrow, carefully defined circumstances.The duty of ensuring one’s own life and safety and that of one’s family rests on the individual. See the November 21, 2019 Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us?” But, as the recent situation with the McCloskey couple of St. Louis, Missouri, makes manifestly and disturbingly clear, the Radical Left intends to handcuff the police, preventing the police from, at the very least, protecting communities at large and; but, at one and the same time, the Radical left has precluded law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens from defending their own life and property. See the website, law enforcement todayThus, with their hands effectively tied, NYPD police officers—and those police officers of other communities whose departments have faced defunding and downsizing, disassembling or dismantling—have left their communities in a precarious situation, as those communities do not have even a modicum of protection from the worst elements of society. Residents of these communities cannot now rely on armed police to provide them with even general community-wide protection. And, as if this state of affairs weren’t outrageous enough—brought about by the apathetic and pathetic and totally irresponsible and useless Radical Left State and local governments, innocent, law-abiding, rational, and Americans of these communities once mercilessly denied their God-given right to defend their own life and well-being utilizing the best means available to do so, the firearm. This state of affairs is truly mind-boggling and it is continuing non-stop and likely will continue in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.If a Government denies a person the means to protect his or her own life and safety, Government generally covers the gap, bestowing substantial power to the police to maintain law and order and to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of the community at large. This also means that Government would not suffer criminals gladly or kindly but would enforce criminal laws quickly and stringently. Convictions rates would be high and recidivism low.Countries such as Singapore that fashions itself as a Constitutional Republic but, in practice, operates as a “benign” Dictatorship, and China that, curiously, also calls itself a Republic operates as an oppressive, repressive Communist Dictatorship. Both Countries have relatively low violent crime rates. Private ownership of firearms is prohibited in both Nations. The Governments of these Countries don’t tolerate crime. Crime is stamped down fast and it is stamped down hard.  See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.Other Nations, Switzerland and Luxemburg, may best be described as Democratic Republics. Luxembourg, though, has a strict policy against private firearms ownership. Switzerland’s policy encourages private ownership of firearms. Both Nations have extremely low crimes rates. The populations of both Countries are small and homogenous. See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.And Venezuela and Mexico both have extremely strict gun control policies but Venezuala, in particular, has exceedingly high crimes rates. And, extremely strict gun control policies in Mexico belie the claim by antigun zealots that Mexico's high rates of gun violence that high gun rates and lax gun laws are directly related, albeit, antigun zealots argue that guns in Mexico emanate from the U.S., as Newsweek reported last year. But, then, who, in Mexico is responsible for all the shootings and killings? Newsweek would rather not say, but the photo accompanying the story more than suggests that it isn't your average law-abiding Mexican citizen who is responsible for the carnage. Dollars to Donuts, we would wager the violence in Mexico is concomitant with rampant criminal activity. In our Nation, companies settle their differences in Court. In Mexico, drug cartels settle business differences through other means.Both Venezuela and Mexico refer to themselves as Republics. They aren’t. The former is an oppressive Marxist Dictatorship. The latter is more accurately described as a Narco-State—that is to say, a Country essentially controlled by criminal gangs. Neither Country is politically, socially, economically, or jurisprudentially functional in any practical sense. The term ‘Republic’ is ubiquitous as a descriptor for governments of Countries around the world; curiously, even among those Countries in which the term is clearly a misnomer.The most oppressive dictatorships invariably refer to themselves as “republics,” ostensibly to convey the idea both to their populations and to the outside world that—however obviously false the nomenclature is to reality—these Countries are responsive to the needs of the people and operate through the consent of the governed.Despite the strenuous and strident arguments generated by those governments and organizations that are vehemently opposed to private ownership of firearms, there is no demonstrable causal connection, nor even a correlation, between high rates of violent crime in a Nation and liberal policies pertaining to private ownership of firearms. This becomes obvious when size of a nation’s population and ethnic and racial composition of that population—whether homogenous or heterogeneous—are factored into the equation, as they should be but rarely are. Nations that historically encourage, even strongly encourage, the private ownership of firearms, such as Switzerland and the U.S., have a relatively low violent crime rate. Nonetheless, Anti-Second Amendment groups and other Radical Left and Progressive political groups proclaim endlessly and vociferously, but erroneously, that the U.S. suffers from a brutally high violent crime rate and that this is due predominately if not exclusively to the notion of too many firearms in the hands of too many people. The conclusion is false. It is predicated on a calculated and deliberate failure of anti-Second Amendment groups to consider critical factors, such as population size and population density in urban areas, the diversity of the ethnic and racial makeup of the population, and lax enforcement of criminal laws, which has grown noticeably ever more lax in recent weeks. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA AGAINST TRUMP: IGNORE ACHIEVEMENTS; MAGNIFY PERCEIVED FAILURES

The U.S. has the third-largest population of all nations.The Nation's urban centers have dense concentrations of people. And the ethnic and racial composition of the U.S. is extremely diverse. Yet, despite all these factors that contribute to crime, the violent crime rates have, in the last few decades have been falling in the U.S., and the most dramatic decline in violent crime has come during the last few years. This comes to the consternation of the Radical Left in this Nation as President Trump can take credit for that. On October 10, 2019, Forbes reported that:“The FBI released its annual crime report a few days ago, showing the violent crime rate has dropped 4.6% since President Trump took office. Had the violent crime rate in 2018 remained at 2016 levels [that is, during the Obama era], almost 58,000 additional murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults would have occurred.The major property crime rate has also continued its steady national decline, with the rate of motor vehicle theft resuming its downward rate in 2018.” This is no accident. President Trump has focused his energy to reducing crime in our Country, not in constraining and restricting private ownership of firearms. The Pew Research fact tank reports:“Donald Trump made fighting crime a central focus of his campaign for president, and he cited it again during his January 2017 inaugural address. His administration has since taken steps intended to address crime in American communities, such as instructing federal prosecutors to pursue the strongest possible charges against criminal suspects. Here are five facts about crime in the United States.Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,500 jurisdictions around the country. The other is a nationally representative annual survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which asks approximately 160,000 Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported those crimes to the police.Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 51% between 1993 and 2018. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 71% during that span. The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016. Violent crime includes offenses such as rape, robbery and assault.”Consider: According to the worldometer, there are at present 235 Countries and dependent territories. Of those 235 Countries and dependent and territories, the three largest, by population, include China, India, and the United States: China has over 1.4 billion people; India has almost 1.4 billion people; and the United States has 331 million people.But, despite the size of the U.S. population, the third largest of all Nations and dependent territories in the world, as of 2020, the U.S. doesn’t even rank in the top 20 nations in violent crime, as pointed out by the UK news source, the Independent. Obviously, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership, along with their wealthy powerful and secretive benefactors, are desirous of destroying Trump’s singular achievements: a fall in crime rates and a rise in economic activity and growth.But one year before the election the Radical Left Democrats, along with the transnationalist Globalists, realized they had to turn these positive indices of Trump’s effectiveness as U.S. President, around. And, with a few short months remaining before the most important U.S. Presidential election in the last several decades, they have grown desperate. But, in recent months, given two recent events, they are now succeeding: a global pandemic brought about by the Chinese Coronavirus, and by one event horrific caught on video, there has been a marked turnaround.The economy has crumbled and societal breakdown is occurring. But neither one of these two, events, one continuous, one incidental, can reasonably be attributed to President Trump, nor should they be. Yet, the forces at home and abroad that desire to destroy the Trump Presidency have milked these events—a global pandemic and the evident murder of a petty criminal and drug addict by a sociopathic police officer—for all they are worth. None of this is by accident. All of it is by design.The inception of the Chinese Coronavirus pandemic has served the Disruptors and Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic well even as the illegal coups to bring down the Trump Presidency through the reprehensible Mueller probe, the ludicrous House impeachment proceeding, the half-hearted and ridiculous effort to utilize the 25^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the insertion of spies and saboteurs into Trump’s inner circle—all this, in a cold, callous, concerted, and calculated effort to undermine and bring to a halt Trump’s policy initiatives and goals—have failed.That Trump has been able to accomplish any policy goal at all in the face of constant, concerted, well-organized attacks directed against him, coming from numerous and diversified forces—including the Democrat Party leadership and rank and file members, Bush Republicans, the massive Deep State Bureaucracy, the mainstream Press, Big Tech, and even the Courts—says a great deal about Trump’s fortitude, his stamina, his tenacity, and his capacity for leadership.For the last three-plus years, Trump has in fact faced more adversity from forces within the Nation than from anything emanating from outside the Country.The Democrat Party has consistently and rapaciously attacked him, refusing to work with him; the bloated Bureaucracy covertly and systematically machinated against him, sabotaging the President’s policies, having the audacity, no less, to admit this and gloat over it; the mainstream media scurrilously and scandalously denigrates him, refusing to credit his many successes, magnifying his perceived failures, even manufacturing lies and attributing all sorts of misdeeds against him; and the large technology companies utilize their power over information dissemination to control messaging, often censoring the President and censoring those Americans who support them.Progressive and Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist groups—unable to get close enough to the President to endanger his life and that of his family—do what they can to physically threaten and assault members of his Administration: his advisors, and administrative staff, attempting to discourage Americans from working for him. And FBI, CIA, and DOJ leadership, for their part, working within the Bureaucratic Deep State, have unlawfully used the awesome power and authority they wield to conspire against those who have assisted the Trump campaign.The misdeeds of those forces at home that have orchestrated and implemented campaigns against Trump to disrupt and disable his Administration, as shameful and disgraceful as those misdeeds are, such misdeeds must be understood, as well, as direct and ignominious attacks on the Nation itself.Those forces aligned against Trump that have worked unceasingly to destroy his Presidency, have, as well, harmed the Nation. They have insulted the American people. They have undermined our system of laws and jurisprudence and have demeaned the very sanctity of our Constitution. They have trampled our sacred symbols and monuments and have made the Nation look ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Their misdeeds are unprecedented in number, wide in scope, and audacious beyond anything previously seen in the annals of history.But, in all this, the forces aligned against Trump have failed to prevent him from attempting to accomplish his goals. They have failed to weaken his resolve or to weaken the resolve of the many Americans who support him.But, in all that these malevolent, malignant forces have attempted to defeat the President and to destroy the Nation—and it is now clearly evident the would-be Destroyers of the Trump Presidency have in mind, have always had in mind a goal beyond even that of disrupting the Trump Presidency, as they truly do wish to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people—they have not yet succeeded and would not succeed. But, with the onset of a Global pandemic, they might yet succeed.The Global pandemic wrought by the Chinese Coronavirus has devastated our Nation’s economy: quickly and effectively just a few months before the U.S. Presidential election. The pandemic has left millions of Americans out of work, and has left thousands of small companies, and large companies, too, in serious financial straits.And the killing of a small-time criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has provided the pretext to undermine the safety and security of our communities and of the well-being of our citizenry, thereby undercutting the achievements of a President who, having unerringly focused his energies on having successfully and substantially reduced violent crime in our Country—a singular achievement that none of his predecessors had effectively accomplished or for that matter had even tried to accomplish as they had not seriously focused their energies on trying to reduce the rate of crime in our Country.The plan to secure a Radical Left Marxist victory in November 2020 is actually straightforward. It is grounded on an amalgamation of enticement, fear, and guilt:  Entice the American people into accepting the false belief that the violence impacting our Nation is a result of two centuries of pent-up rage of Black victims at the hands of White oppressors, caused by systemic racism infecting all American institutions; that it is reflected in White supremacism that resulted in the election of Trump as U.S. President; that, if Trump is re-elected, violence will continue; and that such violence will only recede if the electorate repudiates Trump and elects a Democrat in his stead.The Marxists, now controlling the Democrat Party, have a solution. Once they get into Office, they suggest that they will do what, they say, Trump cannot do: restrain the violence infecting our Nation because, after all, they control the mob. This of course amounts to naked extortion. And what will these Radical Left Democrats do, if they take control of the reins of Government?Revamp all political, social, legal, and educational, and cultural institutions in America through stringent, uniform norms that are designed and administered by the Federal Government; disarm the citizenry; control all manner of speech and association; flood the Nation with a new class of indentured servants, namely cheap labor from Third World Countries; reduce or keep the mass of citizenry in a state of penury; convert the Nation into a massive Welfare State; and accept the lion’s share of the burden in arms, manpower, and money, for Europe’s military defense.How will this massive federal Government stay afloat, as we see it?Through increased taxation of what remains of middle America and, conceivably, through private and secret bankrolling and funding by a close, tight-knit, transnational oligarchical world order that controls major economic sectors including finance; technology; agriculture; health; energy; construction; telecommunications; raw materials production; defense; consumer staples; and manufacturing._______________________________________________

AMNESIA AND DISTURBANCE IN THE AMERICAN PSYCHE

PART SIX

The Destructors of our Nation have created a dangerous illusion, and, through the force of propaganda have force-fed this illusion to the Nation’s people. It is one of systemic racism, endemic in our Nation and, particularly, endemic in the entirety of community police forces.The Destructors of our Nation have created this illusion to divide our Nation; to sow suspicion and enmity, division and divisiveness, confusion and discord between races; and even between the sexes. All of it is fabricated; none of it true. The Destructors of our Nation have orchestrated a strategy that is nothing more than an elaborate hoax; a fairy tale will-o’-the-wisp; an artificial construct crafted and implemented to cement, for these Destructors, a coalition of diverse elements to ensure a victory for them in November 2020.Ever since Donald Trump won the Republican Party nomination and the U.S. Presidential election, the Destructors of our Nation, the Radical Left and Globalist transnationalist “elites,” have worked methodically, unceasingly to engineer Trump’s downfall, thereby allowing them to continue where they had left off—where they were so rudely interrupted after the shocking and humbling defeat of their carefully groomed stooge, Hillary Clinton.These malevolent, malignant forces are now anxious to complete their agenda, an agenda that mandates the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic; the erosion of the very concepts of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizen;’ the eradication of our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture; the deliberate and disgraceful denigration of our Nation’s founders; the wholesale destruction of our Nation’s sacred symbols; all in a reprehensible and transparent attempt to loosen the ties that bind Americans to one another and bind all Americans to their wondrous Constitution; the foundation of a great Nation, comprising the world’s only truly free and sovereign people.Much more than a mere document, the United States Constitution is a blueprint providing the functional framework of our Nation. It establishes the structure of a central, “Federal” Government, the relationship of this central, Federal Government to the American people, the authority of the American people over Government, and the inherent sovereignty of the American people. The Constitution is the very force that binds Americans to each other.The subversion of a Constitution upon which the reality of our Nation exists and that has served this Nation and its people well for 240 plus years would not only entail the destruction of our free Republic, it would entail the utter annihilation of the very thought of natural God-given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties, that exist intrinsically in man, well beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore.The import of the twin-goals of denying to the citizenry the general security the police provide and in denying to Americans their God-given right of self-defense with the best means available, a firearm, is by design, not accident. It is all part of a deviously, diabolically clever plan. Through a severely weakened economy and a physically defenseless, and demoralized people, the Nation’s Destructors see a path forward.If the Destructors of our Nation do achieve their goals, it means unraveling the very fabric of our society, leaving the public defenseless during an extensive and intensifying period of chaos.If successful, the Radical Left will have created a Collectivist dystopian morass, forcing Americans to bend to the will of and to rely solely on a massive, strong centralized government to meet all their basic needs: from food, to shelter, to safety; that they may need their basic survival needs. What we are seeing today is no less than a wholesale ransacking of our Nation; the theft of our birthright; the attempt—no longer disguised—to transform a free Constitutional Republic and a free sovereign people to a state of abject servitude.Nothing portrays  the sheer rage and desperation and even depravity of the Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and of our Constitution than in their callous disregard for human life even as they claim to assert concern for it.The inanity is reflected in the duplicitous, hypocritical, erroneous, and even incongruous remarks that these Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution constantly make and reiterate. In recent days, the messaging has become even at once more strident and even more incoherent, to wit:“American civilians do not need to be armed because they would likely just harm themselves with firearms and the police provide Americans with all the physical safety and protection they need, but that, since the police are a danger to Americans, too, they must be defunded or disbanded. So, social services will be expanded to provide Americans with physical safety and security.”What this really means is that the Nation’s Destructors trust neither the American people nor, at present, the local and State police because they perceive both as standing outside their control. Thus, they wish to disarm American citizenry and drastically revise the nature of community policing.The Radical Left Destructors of society have shown, of late, where their true sympathies rest, if anyone has had any doubt about that.Those sympathies don’t rest with the people or with the police.The surrogate representative for the common people is now Black Lives Matter which really has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, be it a “Black” life or that of anyone else. It has everything to do with erasing a Constitutional free Republic and the sovereignty of the American people.Black Lives Matter members have called for defunding the police. And Mayor de Blasio has obliged them, defunding the NYPD to the tune of one billion dollars. The Mayor should be increasing funding to the police, not cutting funding, but de Blasio would rather listen to the demands of domestic terrorists whose agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting safety and security and the well-being of residents of a community and has everything to do with tearing down our nation’s institutions, rewriting history, controlling the habits, thoughts and actions of Americans, thoroughly disrupting the lives of us all; transforming America into a nightmarish Dystopia Collective.The fact that Mayor de Blasio expressly endorses the activities of this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter, demonstrates the extent to which he and other radical Leftists intend to remake society, commencing with a massive reorganization of the Nation’s community and State police forces.Indeed, this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter—that news outlets often refer to by the shorthand seemingly innocuous-sounding and charming acronym “BLM,” ludicrously claims,“We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe.”Who is this “we” that this terrorist group is referring to? In what way is the criminal justice system in New York City and around the Country corrupt?Does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt because “BLM” sees it failing to incarcerate criminals who do in fact deserve to be incarcerated for the crimes they commit? Or does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt precisely because the system is doing what it should be doing, namely incarcerating criminals for the crimes they commit, and “BLM” doesn’t like this scenario and prefers to “reimagine” the criminal justice system as it “reimagines” policing: doing away with both. If it is the latter, Black Lives Matter utilizes an odd definition for the word, ‘corruption.’And is the incidence of crime really a function of a lack of money poured into public housing, health, and education? Or is that merely a false presumption, and an excuse for destroying a free Constitutional Republic in order to create a Marxist world order, where everyone, Black and White, alike, can live happily ever after in a Stateless State of perpetual penury, strife, and subjugation.?Bill de Blasio ought to be asking this small “BLM” domestic terrorist group—that the Press outsize importance to and that Corporations and Soros-funded Marxist organizations flood with money, explain itself. Instead, the Nation sees this jackass helping Marxist Nihilists paint huge and ugly “BLM” graffiti on the City Streets, in front of Trump Tower.And where did this upstart “BLM” movement come from him? If we are to believe the website, three women started it because, as the website says,“Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.” That is the myth at any rate. But, how has this organization happen to emerge so quickly into such prominence? Why does it dominate the news? How has it grown into a world-wide organization if in fact it is truly a world-wide organization? From whom is this organization receiving such vast sums of money, and why? How is BLM spending that money if it is spending it? And who, really, is behind this organization and managing it? Might not BLM be a “front” for something else; something secret, something much more powerful, and something much more sinister? And why do the mainstream media and so many political leaders blindly, reverentially kowtow to this group? Is this organization, BLM, being deliberately used as a vehicle or catalyst to destroy community policing?Understandably, the morale among NYPD police officers, as among police officers across the Country, is at an all-time low and fear and anxiety of New York City residents and those of residents in many other communities, is at an all-time high.The New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, treats the NYPD like pariahs, and, concomitantly, he forbids the average law-abiding citizen to arm him or herself.The NYPD has become a passive observer of crimes committed rather than assertive crime preventive actors, and many NYPD officers have not unreasonably, opted for early retirement.New York City residents who have the means to relocate elsewhere are moving away from the City in droves. That leaves the poor—Black and White residents of the City alike—to suffer the consequences of what has metastasized into a complete breakdown of law and order, leaving the wealthier residents who remain in the City to spend exorbitant sums of money to retain well-armed bodyguards or; leaving the less well-to-do to attempt to obtain, and very rarely succeeding, a highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.Since it is next to impossible for the average person and business owner to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for protection in New York City and as it has become increasingly more difficult for those who presently have one of a very few of these licenses to renew it when the license comes up for renewal, the law-abiding public is essentially denied even the basic right of self-defense.In point of fact, Bill de Blasio has single-handedly turned what had become the safest large City in the Country into a cesspool of rampant violence, confusion, disorder, and fear. Why would anyone wish to relocate to New York City or, for that matter, to any other major City that has become a sanctuary for the worst elements of society.Marxist, Anarchist Radical Left Governors and Mayors are encouraging civil unrest rather than discouraging it; emboldening those who seek to tear down our society to indulge themselves rather than attempting to restrain them.And life in this Nation is only going to get worse, much worse, if the Radical Left Democrats take control of this Nation’s Government in November.____________________________________________________

AMERICA’S CHOICE: PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC OR ANNIHILATION

PART SEVEN

“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” Anecdotal account, cited from the New AmericanThere is a constant push-pull tension between the natural desire of man to be left alone, to create a world for him or herself, within him or herself, free from Government interference. And there is Government that attempts to create conformity and uniformity; destroying all vestiges of individuality; demanding subservience.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic knew all this of course, and wrestled with it; no easy task at all: How to create a centralized, Federal Government sufficiently strong to withstand external pressures from outside a new Nation to be but at once able to resist the tidal forces within it that strive to corral the independent spirit of its own citizens that is grounded on the sacred right to be left alone, turning the Nation into a despotic, totalitarian nightmare: monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, and, absolute democracy (majoritarian mob rule). The founders pondered how man might live in harmony in a society with other men, free to go their own way, walk their own path, free from interference by a strong centralized Government that strives to defeat the desire of one to be left alone. And the founders came up with an ingenious solution.The founders realized the need to codify God-given rights existent in the American citizenry upon which Government must not, cannot, ever transgress.The First Amendment right of free speech—free expression—is a codification of Divine Law that tells man to be creative. The right of free speech is a codification of Divine imperative that each individual soul is sacrosanct and inviolate. Government is to let each American alone to realize his or her own potential and attain his or her own goals.The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is a codification of the Divine law that recognizes the cardinal right of defense of self, whether that threat comes from beast, from another man, or from a tyrannical government.The blueprint for such a Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, explicitly established a centralized, “federal” government but with limited powers. These nature of and extent of these powers was set forth in the Articles. But, to contain the urge of those wielding power to amass more power unto themselves as the expense of the public to whom they are sworn to serve, the framers of the Constitution included a Bill of Rights, codifications of God-given fundamental rights and liberties of the people, beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore. This  Constitution has served the American people well through decades and centuries. Our Constitution has successfully resisted all attempts to undermine it. Having allowed the free expression of Americans to flourish unimpeded by Government, Our Nation has become the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest Nation on Earth.Thus, through a free Constitutional Republic, the framers had developed a political system most beneficial to the individual, and one where man is able to live in a society with other men, in harmony, and through a free Constitutional Republic a society can grow and has grown into a great Nation. This, the framers of the Constitution, the founders of our Republic, had accomplished, but it was no easy task.Yes, our Nation has had its setbacks; a major civil war and economic strife and hardships, but our Nation remained strong; the greatest, most prosperous Nation on Earth; a natural magnet for many people across the Globe.As with the power and might of the Roman Empire that lasted for over a thousand years, our own Nation has, through time, absorbed many different ethnicities, but America was and is perceived as a “great melting pot,” as a unique American ethos was born. This notion of a “great melting pot” is more than metaphor. It says that each American citizen has imbued within him or her a unique American spirit that binds each of us.But something has changed in recent years. A virus has been seeded in the population. This virus is invisible both to the naked eye and to the most powerful microscope because it is non-physical. Yet, it is intensely noxious, highly infective, and extremely tenacious. It affects the psyche of the polity. It has been lying essentially dormant for years in the body politic but has now emerged full-blown, mutating the Nation into a hideous beast.We know the carriers of this plague. We see them. The sources of this plague are New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. In Congress Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Adam Schiff are the “Typhoid Mary” source of this plague. Billionaire sources of this plague include George Soros and the tech moguls. And, they have infected others: political leaders of States and towns, who in turn have infected millions of others; many of them among the younger population, turning them into unthinking, raging, ravaging and rampaging zombies; mindlessly attacking people; destroying and defacing monuments; defiling places of worship; demanding obeisance to false gods.To create a transnational world order devoid of sovereign independent nation-state, it is first necessary to destroy the notion of national identity as tied to the individual nation-state. As Americans have their own individual unique identity, the transnational Globalists must somehow dislodge what they perceive to be an inconvenient conceit from the psyche of each American, no easy task.It is necessary to replace or redefine concepts that are ingrained in the American psyche. One such concept, deeply ingrained in the mind of each American is that of  America perceived as a “melting pot”—the idea that Americans are diverse ethnically, but they all come to inculcate a unified American spirit.The Radical Left and the transnationalist Globalists understand that this idea must be challenged and reshaped or replaced with another concept; something quite different. And the Nation’s Destructors have devised the concept of diversity in America, but diversity divorced from the concept of ‘melting pot;’ diversity divorced from the notion that Americans do have or even that they can have such a thing as a uniquely American identity. And the propagandists in the mainstream media are conveying that new message: that America isn’t a melting pot at all and never was, and never should be considered a melting pot. According to the new State religion, America consists of diverse, distinct people who happen to reside in a particular geographical region that at the moment happens to be referred to as the United States. Diversity, absent assimilation, breeds hostility, antagonism, suspicion, contempt, between and among people and this is playing out in America today as the Radical Left demagogues and Globalist elite puppet masters intended. It is a plague they have sowed; meant to elicit ill-will. And they pin the division, and divisiveness, the confusion and despair, the violence and travails all on President Trump. It is a lie. It is a  False Flag operation, meticulously planned, and orchestrated.Division, Divisiveness, the plague of Diversity has been created by and is being nurtured and spread by the seditious Press, at the behest of their puppet masters, in a deliberate attempt at spreading enmity and suspicion and hatred among Americans, to turn us against each other—the better to control all of us.How many Americans have already fallen victim to this plague: Any of your friends, family, perhaps? Will you fall victim to this plague of diversity, yourself?The virus is suggestive, highly seductive to many. But you can resist. Be prepared to arm yourself. The zombies are coming for you. They are coming for all of us.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS ARTICLE

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

THE NEW YORK CITY FIREARMS’ LICENSING PROCEDURES

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

THE LICENSE DIVISION

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

TYPES OF HANDGUN LICENSES ISSUED BY THE NYPD

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

INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL HANDGUN LICENSE APPLICANTS

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

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

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

PARENTHETICAL NOTE CONCERNING APPLICATIONS FOR HANDGUN LICENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

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

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

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