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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

U.S SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NEW YORK GUN CASE; MAINSTREAM MEDIA VISIBLY WORRIED

“FREE” PRESS FLAILS WILDLY AS HIGH COURT TAKES UP RESTRICTIVE GUN MEASURE.

Much to the consternation of antigun proponents the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a Second Amendment case. On Tuesday the high Court granted the petition in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280). This marks the first time the high Court has granted a petition in a straightforward Second Amendment case since handing down its rulings in the seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The central issue, as presented on The Supreme Court’s weblog, is “whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.” The City’s restriction is not only inconsistent with the high Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, it is patently ludicrous. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should have struck down the measure. Instead, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower U.S. District Court’s decision, finding for the City, ignoring the Heller and McDonald case rulings and legal standards for review of Second Amendment cases. In finding for the City, against Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit, as with several other Circuit, fell back on the age-old disturbingly familiar and empty shibboleth: “public safety concerns” in ruling for the City against Petitioners. This "interest balancing" approach is precisely what the Court's Majority in Heller and McDonald, frowned upon and cautioned against. Clearly, several members of the U.S. Supreme Court were not impressed with the Second Circuit ruling, and granted Petitioners' writ of certiorari to review the Second Circuit decision. At long last, the high Court has accepted the challenge of those lower Federal Circuit Courts that have openly defied United States Supreme Court precedent.In requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the writ for certiorari, Petitioners made a compelling case, stating in pertinent part:“New York City flatly prohibits its residents from removing their lawfully purchased and duly registered handguns from the city limits, even to transport them (unloaded, and locked up) to second homes at which they are constitutionally entitled to possess them, or to out-of-city shooting ranges or competitions at which they are constitutionally entitled to hone their safe and effective use. That prohibition does not even make sense on its own terms. It has the perverse consequences of forcing New Yorkers to leave their handguns behind in their vacant residences whenever they leave the city for an extended period of time. And far from achieving the City’s professed interest in decreasing the amount of time that its residents spend transporting their locked and unloaded firearms to and from shooting ranges (an activity that the City made no serious effort to demonstrate poses any meaningful safety risk), the ban actually forces New Yorkers to spend more time traveling to the paucity of inconvenient in-city shooting ranges. Indeed, the only plausible theory under which the City’s novel transport ban could be understood to further its professed public safety interest in decreasing the transport of unloaded, locked-up firearms is if the ban discourages people from transporting their handguns to shooting ranges at all. But it would be utterly irrational for the City to enact a restriction for the express purpose of making it harder for individuals to gain proficiency in the use of the handguns that the Constitution entitles them to possess. More to the point, a restriction that is expressly designed to make it harder to exercise core Second Amendment rights cannot  plausibly withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny. Courts would not countenance for one moment a prohibition on leaving city limits to get an abortion—and certainly not if there were only seven locations in a city of 8.5 million people at which to obtain one. A prohibition on leaving city limits to exercise core Second Amendment rights should fare no better.”Respondent, New York City, was furious the high Court would dare second guess the Constitutionality of the City’s firearms’ measures. The Supreme Court never did so before, and the City didn’t want the Court to do so now. It didn’t take long for antigun proponents’ echo chamber, the mainstream media, to offer its own concerns; issue its rebuke of the high Court; and present, to the public, its dire prognostications.The New York Times, quoting one antigun activist, Michael Waldman, reported:“This is the first case but not the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws.”And, in that same NY Times article, the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio chimed in, as well, essentially chastising the high Court's for its seeming presumptuousness in daring even to consider that perhaps--just maybe--the New York City's gun regulations do not meet Constitutional muster.“Mayor Bill de Blasio, responding to a reporter’s question about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the city would vigorously defend its law.“We, every single day, are working to make this the safest big city in America,” he said. “We need the laws that we have that protect against guns being on our streets and we will fight to protect ourselves, that’s the bottom line.”Bill de Blasio offers mere claptrap. The New York City regulation bars the average, law-abiding and rational U.S. citizen from transporting their firearms--in a case, ammunition separated from firearm--to a firing range in another locality. Bill de Blasio has the audacity to characterize this with misuse of guns by that of the common criminal. And, who is it that Bill de Blasio thinks he is protecting residents of New York from? When considered beyond the ludicrous rhetoric, Bill de Blasio is describing nothing more than a bizarre belief that the New York City gun transport regulations protect average, law-abiding New York City residents and citizens of the United States from other average law-abiding, rational New York City residents and American citizens--those citizens who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms, as etched in stone in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The absurdity of the Mayor's remarks and, hence, the absurdity of New York City's gun transport regulations, is plain, painfully so.In that article, The New York Times also cites a Constitutional law professor, Adam Winkler who, as with Mayor Bill de Blasio, clearly shows his animus to and strong aversion against, the Second Amendment. The NY times closed the article with Winkler’s sarcastic comment: “The Second Amendment is alive and well in the Roberts court.”Reading comments from antigun zealots, one might think a negative ruling by the high Court would cause mass gun play on the streets of the City. Antigun zealots avoid drawing a bright line distinction between criminal access to and misuse of firearms, on the one hand, and the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens, on the other. This is borne out by the proliferation of antigun laws in this Country and the speciousness of the arguments made in support of them.USA Today, quoting from Respondent City’s Brief, notes:“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against. . . . ‘Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.’”Now really! Bringing up “golf clubs” and “musical instruments”? What does a driving iron or a saxophone or bassoon have to do with the best recognized means of self-defense, a firearm? The incongruity of the comparison is glaring. Further, the descriptor, ‘public safety,’ through overuse, is mere cliché. It has lost all import. The phrase continues more as rhetorical flourish, than as part and parcel of considerate, well-thought through articulate political opinion and journalistic commentary as presented to the public; and it exists as unsound argument, when appearing in legal Briefs presented to the Courts. Over reliance on the phrase, 'public safety,' in public statements, political commentary, and in legal argument defends the most flagrant abuse of Governmental authority, and does a disservice to the citizenry of this Country who honor our sacred Second Amendment. Those who rely essentially or solely on “public safety concerns” to make the case for restrictive gun measures demonstrate intellectual laziness. It is mere makeweight, in the absence of explication and rigorous argument. Reliance on it to support draconian gun measures is intended to appeal less to one's reason and more to one's passions. The goal of most restrictive gun legislation is to separate law-abiding citizens from their firearms. Restrictive gun measures, targeting millions of law-abiding gun owners, do not enhance public safety. These gun measures make the public decidedly less safe—defenseless in the face of ever more crime.Such reprehensible, irresponsible Governmental action is directed to destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But now the City and antigun proponents around the Country are worried, as they contemplate U.S. Supreme Court review of the New York City firearms’ transport measure. They know this draconian measure cannot survive high Court scrutiny. So, the media sounds the alarm with inaccurate, exaggerated reports of danger if the City's firearms' transport measure is struck down.Even the conservative, staid, Wall Street Journal report is misleading. The reporter, Jess Bravin, taking his cue from The New York Times, suggests the case will radically expand Heller and McDonald. It won’t. But, that doesn't stop the reporter from claiming that it does. Jess Bravin says:“The case, a review of New York City regulations that curtail the transportation of guns, offers the court’s newly bolstered conservative majority an opportunity to expand the constitutional right to bear arms beyond a pair of decisions that, beginning in 2008, found the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.”  These remarks are false. A reversal of the Second Circuit decision would mean only that the City's firearms’ transportation rules contradict high Court precedent, on core Second Amendment matters, and, for that reason, must be struck down. The Wall Street Journal does not, though, see it that way. To bolster the point, the Wall Street Journal, like The New York Times, quotes the same source, Adam Winkler. In that WSJ article, Winkler says, “At issue is ‘the right to have a gun in public. It’s the biggest open question in Second Amendment law today.’” These remarks, cited in the Wall Street Journal, article are false; flagrantly so; and, not so subtly, inflammatory. For, Striking down an unconstitutional firearms’ measure isn’t equivalent to expanding a Constitutional right. Rather, an unconstitutional restriction on an enumerated right, unduly impairs the fair exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. The striking down of an unconstitutional firearm's measure would do no more than operate as an expression of what the plain language of the Second Amendment says; no more and no less. Transporting a firearm, in public, in a locked case, ammunition separated from firearm, is hardly the same as carrying a firearm at the ready, anyway. So, Winkler is wrong. At issue, here, is not the right to have a gun in public. Transporting a firearm in a locked container is not what is meant by having a firearm in public, namely, at the ready. Winkler erroneously conflates the two notions.But, transporting a firearm in a case, in public, does present a peculiar danger of its own: one of theft of a firearm. Such a requirement is also strange and unsettling as the City of New York would permit a licensee the use of a firearm for self-defense at home, but preclude the holder of a restricted “premises” license access to the best means available for self-defense when outside the home. Why should a law-abiding American citizen be limited to location where a firearm may be available for self-defense?  Why must our Nation's citizenry suffer the presence of "Second [and First] Amendment free zones?" Would the framers of our Bill of Rights tolerate this? Indeed, it is often in public, especially in urban areas, where a person is more exposed to danger. It is in an urban environment where a person’s life and safety is more, and conceivably, most at risk. It will be interesting to see whether the high Court broaches these matters in its opinion in this critical Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280).The Arbalest Quarrel will stay abreast of the New York City case and offer detailed analyses of the arguments presented in forthcoming articles. And, we will also stay attuned to media accounts. We expect the Governor of New York, the architect of the awful New York Safe Act, the smugly self-assured and virulent opponent of the Second Amendment, Andrew Cuomo--a person never at a loss for words, especially when seeking to appear well-meaning and pious before the public--will, himself, sound off at some point on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Especially on matters of firearms ownership and possession, the Governor of New York is ever before the cameras!As New York has always led the assault on the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is only fitting for the U.S. Supreme Court to take New York to task. For far too long, people like Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, Bill DeBlasio, and others--in New York's Government Offices,  in Congress, and in Governments around the Country--have held sway over the American citizen’s most sacred right; a right intrinsic to one’s being; a right endowed in man the by the Creator. These politicians dare to relegate a sacred right to mere privilege—a privilege Government may grant at its discretion and revoke at will--as if they themselves have created the right.Government officials have not created the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but continue the pretense that they have. These Government officials continue to infringe a sacrosanct and inviolate right, contrary to and an affront to the Creator's dictate that they should not and must not do so.New York’s myriad, loathsome firearms’ laws, codes, rules, regulations, and procedures must, then, all be scrutinized by the high Court. That is something neither the City of New York, nor the State wants. Neither the City nor the State wishes its draconian firearms laws--ever more onerous with time--to be viewed under magnifying glass of legal scrutiny. But it is happening, nonetheless. It must happen. New York City, a bastion of the new Left ideology has turned away from the principles reflected in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and must be called to account.The Times Ledger reports—and it is mystifying to consider in light of the Leftist leaning of the City today—that New York City was, for five years, from 1785 through 1790, the seat of the Nation’s Capital. It was here in 1789 that the Nation’s first President, George Washington, swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and to safeguard the fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, embodied in that sacred document.But, a new, alien, radical, virulent Socialist belief system and agenda has taken over the City, insinuating itself inexorably and insidiously in the lives of the City’s inhabitants. Socialist ideas and precepts--grounded on inherent distrust of the American citizenry--are painfully evident in the City’s myriad, convoluted, restrictive, unconstitutional firearms’ codes, rules, regulations, and procedures, and in the State’s draconian firearms’ laws. Leftist propaganda is proselytized to the residents of New York, daily. But, a day of reckoning is at hand, both for New York City and for jurisdictions like it, around the Country. It’s about time!________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONNECTICUT HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS AND PROCEDURES: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

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

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

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

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

SUBPART FIVE

COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

In the previous segment of the ROAD TRIP series, we commenced a detailed analysis of the application process for obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. Mr. Wright, an American citizen and successful businessman has applied for several handgun carry licenses. He has done this because he conducts business in several jurisdictions and he carries with him substantial business assets when he travels to and through various States. He is a tempting target for thieves. Mr. Wright knows that the best defense against assault, when he is on the road, is through possession of handgun. Mr. Wright is thoroughly trained in the safe handling of a handgun and he has had special training in the use of a handgun for self-defense in critical life-threatening situations.We laid out for you, in the previous segment, SUBPART FOUR, all the documents the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police provides in the information and application packet. In this segment, SUBPART FIVE, we take a close look at the formal “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION." This Application is four pages in length—two pages folded over, in dark blue heavy stock paper. The first page lays out the instructions. There are three columns: one, “Instructions for State Pistol Permits,” (which applies to residents of Connecticut); two, “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits;” and, three, “Instructions for Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Pistols or Revolvers and/or Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.”As we are following the procedures for completing applications for handgun licenses that Mr. Wright—a law-abiding U.S. citizen and successful businessman who we use as our example in this exercise—followed, we see Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security consultant, reviewing the application. Since Mr. Wright is a non-resident, Mr. Wright first checks off the box for a “Non-Resident State Pistol Permit.” Turning the page, Mr. Wright fills out the usual information requested—which he has done many times before, when completing applications for handgun licenses as issued in other jurisdictions. He sets forth his complete name, date of birth, vital statistics, namely, sex, height, and weight, race and sex.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE UNDERGONE SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY OR WHO WISH TO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS TRANSGENDER AND WHO IDENTIFY WITH A SEX OTHER THAN THEIR BIOLOGICAL (BIRTH) SEX.

Given changing societal norms, matters that have, for decades, never been an issue but that are slowly manifesting as new issues in employment, in schools in the military and in government, generally may create conundrums for applicants.It goes without saying that those parties authorized to prosecute applications for firearms’ licenses and permits are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, national origin, and that likely includes sexual orientation. Now, the matter of sex identification is a complex subject. Much legislation and litigation is or will be ongoing for some time to come. So, prior to specific legislation and Court rulings on the matter of sex, how should a person who, say, was born a man, but who identifies as a woman, complete an application for a firearm’s license or permit, when that person is instructed to set forth sex?For those who have not undergone sex reassignment, one should check the box that refers to their sex at birth—namely, their biological sex. Even for those who have undergone sex reassignment, it is probably best to indicate one’s sex at birth. Remember, the purpose here is to obtain a handgun license. Do not attempt to get into a philosophical fight with the firearms’ licensing official. You will lose. Nor should you leave the entry pertaining to sex, blank. The licensing official will assume that you had simply forgotten to enter your sex and this will delay prosecution of one’s handgun license. That goes for the issue of one’s race. A person may not wish to check off the appropriate box. There are six categories for race, and they include a category for “unknown.” Do not refrain from checking off at least one box on the application form. For, once again, if you leave this category blank, that will only delay prosecution of the application.If there is any doubt as to the appropriate course of action, you should contact a licensed attorney.For, Mr. Wright, the completion of this section on vital statistics was simple enough to complete. Mr. Wright is male, and white. He completed the entry for his height, weight, date of birth, place of birth and Country of Citizenship. Mr. Wright is a citizen of the United States.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTRY.

For those individuals who do not reside in this Country legally, do not attempt to complete this application. The licensing official will deny your application. If you do reside in this Country legally, there is a box on the application form requiring you to set forth your “alien registration number.”

RESIDENTIAL AND MAILING ADDRESS AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

In this section of the Application, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requires applicants to provide residential address—which includes addresses for the last seven years, from the date of the application, if the applicant has changed residences, and a mailing address (if different from residential address). Note, if residential address and mailing address are different, this may cause the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer to flag the application.The applicant must also provide the name, address, and telephone number of one’s employer. If the applicant has had several employers, then the applicant must list the name, address, and telephone number of each employer that that applicant worked for during the last seven years. Be specific and do not refrain from listing every employer.Mr. Wright, for his part, is self-employed and has been self-employed for many years. So, Mr. Wright listed his Company as employer, the address of his main business offices, and his business phone number.

"PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION”

Every section of the Application is critical. But, some sections raise red flags. This is one of those sections. This section of the application requires the applicant to indicate whether he or she has had an application for a firearm’s permit “denied,” “suspended,” “revoked,” from any jurisdiction. Mr. Wright has several firearms’ permits and licenses issued by appropriate licensing authority from multiple States and, as required, from various jurisdictions within a State—as is the case with the State of New York, as Mr. Wright has handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing authority for New York City and for Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Mr. Wright has never had a firearm’s license permit, denied, suspended, or revoked and he checks off the appropriate box to indicate that fact.For those individuals who have applied for a firearm’s permit or license and a permit or license has been denied, suspended, or revoked, you must indicate that fact and give the particulars, by identifying the jurisdiction that denied, suspended, or revoked the application, the date of denial, suspension, or revocation, and the reason for the denial, suspension, or revocation.DO NOT LIE! And, do not refrain from indicating a denial, suspension, or revocation, that you might have, for that is tantamount to lying on the application. While admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation does raise a red flag, this does not constitute an automatic denial of your application. Lying does. You will find that The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police unforgiving of outright lies. On the other hand admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation of a handgun license does not mean that you will not receive a permit. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police is mindful that, in some jurisdictions, securing a handgun license or permit is very difficult and that this is due to the fact that some jurisdictions are “MAY ISSUE,” not “SHALL ISSUE,” where a person seeks to secure a handgun carry license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut is certainly mindful that denial of a handgun carry permit or license may not be due to a “disability”—such as a felony arrest record—but simply due to the fact that a person does not meet the stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun carry license. Now, even though Connecticut is, itself considered a “MAY ISSUE” State for handgun carry permits, the issuance of a handgun carry permit is, for qualified individuals, much less stringent than is the case in a jurisdiction such as New York City. For, in Connecticut, the stated reason of “SELF DEFENSE” constitutes good and sufficient cause for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified person. In New York City, on the other hand, “SELF DEFENSE,” as a stated reason for issuance of a handgun carry license is patently insufficient.If an individual’s application for a firearm has been denied due to “DISABILITY” that individual must indicate that fact. If an individual’s firearm’s license or permit has been suspended or revoked after issuance, the date of suspension or revocation and the reason therefor must also be stated. Once again, DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING EACH AND VERY OCCURRENCE OF A DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF A FIREARM’S LICENSE OR PERMIT! Be advised, too, that the Connecticut Application makes reference in this Section of the Application to “FIREARMS.” So don’t try to be cute and suppose that, if one had applied, in another jurisdiction for a long gun—that is to say, a rifle or shotgun—and that person has been denied issuance of a permit or license for a long gun—a person may refrain from mentioning that fact simply because he or she is applying, in Connecticut, for a handgun license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police has used the term, ‘Firearm,’ for a reason, when it asks an individual to indicate whether that person’s application for a license or permit, in any jurisdiction, has been denied, suspended or revoked. If the Special Licensing Unit had indicated an interest in determining whether an individual’s application for a pistol or revolver had ever been denied, suspended, or revoked, it would have made specific reference to the denial, suspension, or revocation of one’s pistol or revolver license or permit. The use of the general term, ‘FIREARM,’ here is meant to be all-inclusive.

MEDICAL HISTORY, CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND MILITARY HISTORY

The third page of “THE PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” is the most critical section, for it is the true “RED FLAG” portion of the Application.In the “MEDICAL SECTION” of the Application, the applicant for a Connecticut handgun carry permit must check the appropriate for each of the following:

CONFINEMENT TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS BY ORDER OF A PROBATE COURT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been confined in a hospital for mental illness in the past sixty (60) months by order of a Probate Court?” There is a check box for “yes” and for “no.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no” as he has never been confined to a hospital for mental illness by order of a Probate Court. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THE QUESTION PERTAINS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS AS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITMENTS REQUIRE AN ORDER OF COURT. NO ONE CAN BE LAWFULLY CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS OR HER WISHES ABSENT AN ORDER FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY HAVING BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL DEFECT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been discharged from custody within the past twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of a mental disease or defect.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as the question asked is inapplicable to him. He has never been charged with a crime and, so, has never been in the position of having been found guilty of a crime where a court might have found him not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect. Mr. Wright now proceeds to the next section of the Application.

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been voluntarily admitted to a hospital for mental illness within the past six (6) months for reason other than solely for alcohol or drug dependence?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as he has never had reason to voluntarily commit himself to a hospital for mental illness or, for that matter, for any reason, relating to mental illness, or for alcohol or drug issues. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright then proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THIS QUESTION, UNLIKE THE FIRST QUESTION, REFERS TO A VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARILY ADMITS HIM OR HERSELF TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT FOR A MENTAL ILLNESS OR FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG ISSUE RELATED TO OR UNRELATED TO AN UNDERLYING MENTAL ILLNESS.If the applicant has voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for treatment for alcohol dependency or for dependency on drugs, whether those drugs be illegal or through lawful prescription, but the treatment does not entail “mental illness,” then the applicant can reasonably check the corresponding check box, “no.” This is tricky, though. If the applicant voluntarily commits himself to a hospital, within the six months preceding the date of application for a Connecticut, handgun carry permit, for treatment of an alcohol and/or drug related problem, the applicant may also be treated for a mental condition as alcohol and/or drug related problems may subsume a mental condition. If there is doubt about this, the applicant who has voluntarily committed himself or herself to a hospital for alcohol and/or drug related problems within the last six months should take a look at his or her medical record to ascertain whether the record indicates a mental disorder as it is incumbent on the applicant to be certain what his or her medical record says.“NOTICE: “DESPP HEREIN NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT, PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 29-28 THROUGH 29-30b, DESSP WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIXTY (60) MONTHS BY ORDER OF PROBATE COURT, OR IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS WITH THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SOLELY FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE.”This “NOTICE” is to alert the Applicant that, regardless how the Applicant answers the questions of this section, DESPP will contact the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. So, under no circumstances should the applicant think that, by lying on the application, the DESPP, will not find out whether an applicant has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a hospital for treatment. DESPP will also be contacting the FBI, to ascertain criminal record of the applicant if any and if an individual was found not guilty of a crime due to mental illness or mental defect, that is likely to be in the FBI data bases as well.

PRIOR ARREST RECORD

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been ARRESTED for any crime in any jurisdiction?”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.For those individuals who do have an arrest record and therefore must check off the box, “yes,” the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police instructs the applicant to list all arrests, indicating charges, locations, dates of arrest and dispositions.“NOTICE: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE GBEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 46-b-146, 54-142a. IF YOUR CRIMINAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO ONE OF THESE STATUTES, YOU MAY SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED. CRIMINAL RECORDS THAT MAY BE ERASES ARE RECORDS PERTAINING TO A FINDING OF DELINQUENCY OR THAT A CHILDE WAS A MEMBER OF A FAMILY WITH SERVICE NEEDS (C.G.S. 46b-146), AN ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (C.G.S. 54-76o), A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR NOLLED, A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY, OR A CONVICTION FOR WHICH THE PERSONA RECEIVED AN ABSOLUTE PARDON (C.G.S. 54-142a).”“WITH REGARD TO CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION ARISING FROM JURISDICTIONS OTHER THAN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF THE OTHE RJURISDCITION. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARREST ARISING FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION IF YOU ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION TO SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.”The Section pertaining to criminal history too, gets tricky. The applicant with an arrest record must, of course, be completely honest. Failure to admit an arrest record when required to do so, will not likely fool the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. And, even if a handgun carry license should issue because a mistake was made, don’t think that you have “pulled the wool over the eyes” of the Licensing Official. For, at some point the truth will come out. You will lose your firearms; you will lose your handgun carry permit; and you will face federal prosecution and possibly State prosecution as well on the ground of unlawful possession of firearms contrary to law because of disability. On the other hand, whether you can properly check the corresponding check box, “no,” regarding ARREST RECORD, notwithstanding that you DO have an arrest record, this comes down to whether you fall within an exception as noted above. READ THE "NOTICE" CAREFULLY. The safest course of action for those applicants who do have an arrest record, whether or not it is apparent that the applicant falls within an exception to acknowledging the arrest record on the application, is to contact a licensed attorney before completing and sending in the application packet. That will prevent a multitude of sins if you make an error, intentionally or not, in filling out this section of the Application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit. For mistakes in accurate reporting have negative ramifications, not only in Connecticut, but in any other jurisdiction where a person is considering applying for a handgun carry permit or license.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been CONVICTED under the laws of this state, federal law or the laws of another jurisdiction?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate check box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: TO THOSE APPLICANTS FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME EITHER IN CONNECTICUT, OR IN ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, THAT APPLICANT MUST LIST ALL CONVICTIONS, INCLUDING, CHARGES, LOCATION , DATE OF ARREST, AND DISPOSITION.THE APPLICANT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION TRUTHFULLY, AND MUST PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS. THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT WILL OBTAIN RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE APPLICANT RESPONDS, BUT THE LICENSING OFFICIAL IS LOOKING FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR VERACITY ON THE PART OF APPLICANTS FOR HANDGUN CARRY PERMITS. IF AN APPLICANT IS LIAR, THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF ONE’S APPLICATION, FOR LYING ON THIS APPLICATION CONSTITUTES OVERT ADMISSION OF BAD CHARACTER, AND INDICATION THAT SUCH A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

PROBATION, PAROLE, OR WORK RELEASE

Other than arrest or conviction of a crime, or concomitant with arrest or conviction of a crime, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Are you currently on probation, parole, work release, in an alcohol and/or drug treatment program or other pre-trial diversionary program or currently released on personal recognizance, a written promise to appear or a bail bond for a pending court case?"Mr. Wright responds, truthfully, answering, “no,” by checking the appropriate check box and proceeds to the next section of the application.NOTE: THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS SET FORTH IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY, CHARGES, LOCATION OF COURT, AND SPECIFIC DISPOSITION. THE QUESTION APPEARS MORE OPEN-ENDED, PARTLY, PERHAPS, BECAUSE PROBATION, PAROLE, WORK RELEASE, AND OTHER COURT ORDERS, RESPECTING SPECIFICALLY DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT ,REQUIRE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF CONVICTION AND ARREST IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS AND HAVING TO REPEAT THOSE IS REDUNDANT.

PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Within the past five (5) years, have you been the subject of a Protective Order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”Mr. Wright truthfully answered, “no” to this question, checking off the appropriate box on the Application. He then proceeded to the next question.NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING DIVISION ISN’T INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, BUT MERELY FACT OF IT AND, IF AN ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SET FORTH, ON THE APPLICATION, THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER.

MILITARY HISTORY

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Were you ever a member of the Armed Forces of the United States?” And, if so, the Applicant is requested to provide a copy of the applicant’s “DD-214”—the Discharge Documents.Mr. Wright was never a member for the Armed Forces, so he truthfully, responds by checking the appropriate checkbox, “no,” and he proceeds to the next section of the application.If the applicant were a member of the Armed Forces, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police pointedly asks:“Were you ever discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a less than Honorable Discharge?” The Applicant must respond with either, “yes,” or, “no,” checking off the appropriate check box.

AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS

The “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” doesn’t state, but an individual applying for a pistol permit in Connecticut—or in any other jurisdiction for that matter, should be advised that, under FEDERAL LAW, specified grounds exist that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. That means the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police cannot and will not issue a handgun carry permit to anyone who is not permitted under federal law—wholly apart from the requirements of Connecticut Law—from possessing a firearm. Under Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 44 (Firearms) of the Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1)  is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2)  is a fugitive from justice;(3)  is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4)  has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5)  who, being an alien—(A)  is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B)  except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (26));(6) [who] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7)  who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8)  is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)  was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B) (i)  includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii)  by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9)  has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”If you fall under any one or more of the above categories, then do not apply for a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Save your money. The Firearms and Special Licensing Division will deny you a permit to carry and you may be subject to federal and State criminal penalties for attempting to gain possession of a firearm by lying on the application. Worse, if you lie on the application and a permit is issued to you, and through the issuance of a permit you obtain a firearm, you are now in criminal possession of a firearm and subject to immediate arrest. AND, Be advised that, if a handgun permit is erroneously issued to you, because you lied on the Application, the DESPP will eventually become aware of the error. Don’t think that you will be able to fool the DESPP—that no further investigation won’t be done specifically to spot errors on an application. Further, suppose you are truthful in answering each question on the Application and yet you are under a disability that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit Officer fails to spot, still, under federal law if you are not permitted lawfully to own a firearm, then the mere assertion you told the truth when completing the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION and that it is the fault of the DESPP in issuing you a handgun carry permit will not protect you from criminal liability. For, intent to be truthful is not a defense to the litany of disqualifications of Title 18. If a person isn’t permitted under federal and/or State law from possessing a firearm, then the fact that he or she has been issued a firearm’s license or permit erroneously will not provide one with a defense to the discharge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

PROOF OF TRAINING

On page 4, the last page of the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION, the applicant must attach a copy of his or her handgun training certificate, setting forth the agency that offered the training and issued the certificate, along with the Instructor’s name and ID Number.Mr. Wright made a copy of his Certificate and completed the application with the information requested.

DECLARATION

The Applicant must attest that the information he has provided in the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION is truthful and that the Applicant understands that an untruthful statement will void the Application. This DECLARATION is UNDER OATH. So, the Applicant must swear before a Notary Public and the Notary Public must duly notarize the Application.Mr. Wright duly signed his name and swore, before the Notary Public, that the contents of the Application that he completed were truthful. Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security expert then made sure that the Application packet contained all documents that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESPP required, that all portions of the Application that Mr. Wright had to complete were in fact answered, and that the Application packet contained Mr. Wright’s personal checks to cover the processing of his Application.Mr. Wright waited a few weeks. His attorney checked with the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit, regularly, to make sure, first, that the Licensing Unit did receive the Application, and subsequently, that Mr. Wright’s Application was complete and, lastly, that the Application was being prosecuted.Mr. Wright was eventually contacted by the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. Mr. Wright was required to travel to Connecticut to receive his Connecticut Pistol Permit.

NOTICE: APPEAL PROCESS FOR PERMITS

The final section of the Application provides the Applicant with the process for Appeal if his or her Application is denied. Further discussion of the appeals process.In the concluding segment of analysis of Connecticut handgun carry permit application procedures, Subpart Six, we discuss renewals. Although renewals are generally a relatively easy and painless process, they do take time and they do require more outlay of cash. Furthermore, each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewals. This causes a busy entrepreneur like Mr. Wright more than a little frustration. Renewals of handgun licenses must not be taken lightly. Missing a renewal date means that the license or permit holder will have to go through the entire ordeal of obtaining a permit again with the concomitant monetary outlays, aggravation, and delays in the processing of the application.National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation will go a very long way in streamlining the process of obtaining and renewing a handgun carry permit, as, if Congressional Legislation is drafted well, then the handgun holder of a valid handgun permit or license will only be required to have on his person, when carrying a handgun, just one valid handgun carry permit. That means, too, that the permit or license holder will only need to renew one handgun license and not several that many license holders must now carry—that Mr. Wright must, at present, hold.We conclude our discussion of Connecticut handgun licensing laws and procedures with the next installment of the Road Trip Series: Part Four, Subpart Six, a Postscript. We will then move to a detailed analysis of Massachusetts handgun licensing laws and procedures, as we continue the Road Trip Series of articles.____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved