IT IS HIGH TIME THE HIGH COURT DEALT WITH GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING REGIMES HEAD-ON

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FOUR

“MAY ISSUE” VERSUS “SHALL ISSUE” A HANDGUN LICENSE ISN’T OF SALIENT IMPORTANCE. GOVERNMENT HANDGUN LICENSING, PER SE, IS.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s “May Issue” concealed handgun carry license “Proper Cause” requirement in New York on June 23, 2022, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen. That much is known among both friends and foes of the Second Amendment alike. And the Democrat Party legislative machinery in Albany, at the behest of New York Governor Kathy Hochul, did strike “Proper Cause” from the State’s Handgun Law, the Sullivan Act.But a comprehensive set of amendments to the Law did nothing to weaken the import of the Act.Hochul and Albany simply rejiggered it, leading immediately, and unsurprisingly, to a new round of challenges.But what accounts for this brazenness of the New York Government? And why is it fair to say the recent set of Amendments to New York’s Handgun Law (the Sullivan Act) is no less in conflict with the right codified in the Second Amendment, after Bruen, than before the Bruen decision?As we argue, the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 (“CCIA”), negatively impact not only the Second and Fourteenth Amendments but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Bill of Rights as well.Moreover, for holders of valid New York concealed carry licenses prior to Bruen, the Amendments to the Handgun Law do not secure acquiring a renewal of their concealed handgun carry license any easier, but create new hurdles for those licensees, no less so than for new applications for concealed carry licenses.And, for those individuals who do acquire a valid New York concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA, its usefulness is jeopardized.Prior to Bruen, the State had established two tiers of concealed handgun carry licenses: Restricted and Unrestricted. That distinction no longer exists. The CCIA collapses the two tiers. Henceforth, all concealed handgun carry licenses are now, in effect, “Restricted.”What is going on here? How has the New York Government come about?One must dig deep into Bruen for an answer, and that analysis must extend to Heller and McDonald. For the three landmark Second Amendment cases operate in tandem.

THE NEW YORK GOVERNMENT HAS EXPLOITED WEAKNESSES IN THE BRUEN DECISION

The New York Government has exploited weaknesses in the rulings and reasoning of Bruen and in the parent Heller and McDonald cases.Consistent with our prior analyses, we continue to delve deeply into U.S. Gun Law.In this and subsequent articles, we unpack and decipher the language of the three seminal 21^st Century Second Amendment cases to gain an understanding of the weaknesses and flaws that have allowed State Government foes of the Second Amendment to flaunt the High Court rulings.Sometimes these Government schemes demonstrate adroitness and cunning. At other times the schemes show ineptitude, appearing crude and amateurish. No matter. Foes of the Second Amendment illustrate, through their actions, unmitigated Government contempt for theArticle III power of the Third Branch of Government, a marked disdain for the natural law right to armed self-defense, and outright hatred toward Americans who exhibit a marked intention to keep and bear arms, consistent with the right guaranteed to them by eternal, immutable Divine Law, albeit contrary to transitory, ever-changing international norms.  High Court rulings do not and cannot transform innate and open hostility toward the Second Amendment, harbored by and exhibited by the legacy Press; a plethora of native Anti-Second Amendment interest groups; the Biden Administration and its toady functionaries; Democrat Party-Controlled State Governments; International Marxist-Communist, and Neoliberal Globalist influences; the fixtures of the EU and UN; the Nation's Political liberals, Progressives, and Radicals among the polity; and international-sponsored NGOs.Reason doesn't factor into the equation. Those forces hostile to the very existence of the Second Amendment remain so. The hostility is attributed to and engendered by the agenda of the Globalist Billionaire Class the goal of which is to bring to fruition a neo-feudalistic corporatist Globalist economic, and financial empire, around which a one-world socio-political Government is to be constructed, through which the Hoi Polloi of the world, amorphous billions, are to be ruled with an iron fist, keeping them corralled and constrained.Constitutions of individual nation-states, especially those of the U.S. that embrace God-Given natural law, beyond the lawful authority of any Government to tamper with, are antithetical to The Globalist end-game. And, so, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are deemed both dangerous and irrelevant.Yet, the salient job of the U.S. Supreme Court is to preserve the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution by interpreting the plain meaning of it as drafted, and, in so doing, constrain malevolent or opportunistic forces that would manipulate the Constitution to serve an agenda at odds with it, whose unstated goal, as has become increasingly apparent, amounts to the wholesale destruction of a free Republic and the Nation’s sovereign people. It need hardly be said, let alone argued, that decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not and ought not to be determined by popular opinion. Inferring the plain meaning of the Constitution, the decisions of the Court are not to be shunted aside due to the fervor of the moment. In any event, public opinion is fickle; easily manipulated. The public, much of it, is easily roused to anger. Now a mob, it is whipped into a frenetic, frenzied rage through the launching of industry-wide propaganda campaigns— elaborate psychological conditioning programs, blanketing the entire Nation. It is in this climate of induced fear and rage toward firearms and toward those of us who intend to exercise our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal right to armed self-defense that the U.S. Supreme Court operates and must navigate in and through, never losing sight of one axiomatic principle enunciated by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, over two centuries ago in the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137 (1803). All first-year law students come to know this case.

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. 

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

See also, the article, The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, on the High Court's website:

“When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: ‘We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.’” This suggests the High Court should never be tentative, circuitous, or vague in its opinions, especially when dealing with the Bill of Rights.Alas, that normative commandment is less objective practice and more unattainable goal. The elusiveness of it is due more likely to stormy conditions in the Court itself, among the Justices, that require them,  at times, to pull their punches.

THE PROBLEM WITH BRUEN RESTS NOT WITH THE RULINGS BUT WITH A  LACK OF CLARITY DUE POSSIBLY TO THE MACHINATIONS OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE (?)

The problems attendant to Bruen rest not with the rulings themselves, but with abstruseness; a lack of clarity. The authors of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, could have closed the loopholes. They didn’t.But the fault does not lie with the late, eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Heller Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion, nor with Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion.The fault, more likely than not, rests with Chief Justice Roberts. Conscious of the political headwinds, and desirous to establish a modicum of common ground between the two wings of the Court, he likely had demanded watered-down versions of the Majority Opinions.Were Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas given free rein, they would have denied to State Government actors and their compliant Courts, an escape route, however narrow, allowing these foes of the Second Amendment to concoct mechanisms to skirt the Heller, McDonald, and Bruen rulings and reasoning that supports those rulings.

A CONUNDRUM RESTS AT THE HEART OF BRUEN AND HELLER AND MCDONALD

On a few major findings, the three landmark cases were patently clear.Heller held firmly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, and the Federal Government is prevented from disturbing that right. McDonald made clear the rulings and reasoning of Heller applied with equal force to the States. Bruen made clear the individual right to armed self-defense isn’t confined to one’s home but extends to the public domain.At each step, the three LandmarkSecond Amendment cases strengthened, in turn, an aspect of the plain meaning of the natural law right to armed self-defense, drawing upon and building upon and then clarifying a central plank of the predecessor case.The foes of these Landmark cases contested findings of law and fact. The arguments invariably began with a false premise: that the U.S. Supreme Court has impermissibly expanded the right embodied in the Second Amendment. The High Court did no such thing. It expanded nothing.The High Court simply laid out what exists in the language of the Second Amendment but that some State Governments fail to recognize or know but fail to acknowledge. And, in their actions, these Governments contort and distort, and inexorably weaken the clear, concise, and categorical meaning of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment.The central thesis of the latest Landmark case, Bruen is this:

WHETHER AT HOME, OR IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, A PERSON HAS A FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONE’S LIFE WITH THE FUNCTIONALLY BEST MEANS AVAILABLE, A FIREARM, A FACT TRUE CENTURIES AGO, AND NO LESS TRUE TODAY.

And, yet there exists a conundrum, a problem, a painful shard embedded in the heart of Bruen—a  carryover from Heller—that begs for resolution in a fourth Second Amendment case that likely is coming down the pike: Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, another New York case.That case is the progeny of an earlier case, Antonyuk vs. Bruen—the first major challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, amenable to the allegations made attacking the legality and Constitutionality of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act, dismissed the case without prejudice, tacitly, but unsubtly, encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk to refile the case.New York Governor Hochul, apparently oblivious to the fact that the dismissal of Antonyuk vs. Bruen did not mean the Court found the CCIA Constitutional, pompously reported the District Court’s action as a win. She should have saved her breath. She would have looked less the fool.The Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, promptly filed a new complaint, and five other holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses joined him as Party Plaintiffs. During the litigation of the case, the Parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay enforcement of the CCIA, and the District Court granted the Motion.The Hochul Government appealed the Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court’s granting of the stay, and the Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. In an unconventional request for a response from the Government to the Plaintiffs’ appeal, the Hochul Government filed its opposition to the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the CCIA case—eventually, recaptioned Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli—and the High Court, in deference to the Second Circuit, did lift the stay, permitting the Government to enforce the CCIA while the Second Circuit rules on the Preliminary Injunction.Having received what it wanted from the High Court and knowing or suspecting the core of the CCIA would likely be overturned on appeal of a final Order of the Second Circuit, the Hochul Government would have every reason to dawdle.The High Court, aware of this, cautioned the Government against this, in its Order, stating that that the Government must proceed apace with the case, and explicitly asserting that Plaintiffs can appeal to the High Court if the Government deliberately drags its feet.Yet, months later, the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, still sits at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

A TENSION EXISTS BETWEEN THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON THE ONE HAND, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE INTENT OF THOSE STATE GOVERNMENTS, THAT ABHOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT, TO OPERATE IN DEFIANCE OF THE DICTATES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND LANDMARK RULINGS OF THE U.S. SUPREME

State Governments—like New York and others—that abhor exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment—will continue to enact Statutes spurning the High Court’s rulings until the Court deals with this conundrum.The central premise of Bruen is that the right to armed self-defense, inherent in the language of the Second Amendment, is not bounded in space or time.A person need not, then, present a reason to carry a handgun for self-defense in public. Self-defense is reason enough, and that reason is presumed in a person’s application for a carry license.It was the presumption of “May Issue” jurisdictions that an applicant for a handgun carry license must show the need for a handgun carry license that the U.S. Supreme Court attacked head-on.Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:  “New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. Aside from New York, then, only California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have analogues to the ‘proper cause’ standard. All of these ‘proper cause’ analogues have been upheld by the Courts of Appeals, save  for the District of Columbia’s, which has been permanently enjoined since 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, 101 (CA2 2012); Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 440 (CA3 2013); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F. 3d 458, 460 (CA4 2011); Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 773 (CA9 2021) (en banc), with Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668, 431 U.S. App. D.C. 62 (CADC 2017).” [Bruen, Majority Opinion]Justice Thomas says Appellate Courts have upheld “May Issue” in six which include New York and the District of Columbia. What Justice Thomas doesn’t say but suggests is that “May Issue” is henceforth unconstitutional in all those jurisdictions because those jurisdictions embrace a“Proper Cause” schema even if the precise phrase, ‘Proper Cause,’ isn’t used in those “May Issue” in the handgun laws of those jurisdictions.Moreover, insofar as the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in those jurisdictions have heretofore held “May Issue” Gun Laws Constitutional, the holdings of those Courts are henceforth overruled to the extent they conflict with Bruen. That means the reasoning in conjunction with and supporting those holdings is to be given no effect.A showing of “Extraordinary Need” is the mainstay of “Proper Cause”/“May Issue.” But, as to what had heretofore constituted this “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” was never defined in New York Statute. So, then, what is this thing, “Proper Cause?” How does New York define ‘Proper Cause’ since the Legislature never defined it?“No New York statute defines ‘proper cause.’ But New York courts have held that an applicant shows proper cause only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” E.g., In re Klenosky, 75 App. Div. 2d 793, 428 N. Y. S. 2d 256, 257 (1980). This ‘special need’ standard is demanding. For example, living or working in an area “‘noted for criminal activity’” does not suffice. In re Bernstein, 85 App. Div. 2d 574, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 716, 717 (1981). Rather, New York courts generally require evidence ‘of particular threats, attacks or other extraordinary danger to personal safety.’ In re Martinek, 294 App. Div. 2d 221, 222, 743 N. Y. S. 2d 80, 81 (2002); see also In re Kaplan, 249 App. Div. 2d 199, 201, 673 N. Y. S. 2d 66, 68 (1998) (approving the New York City Police Department’s requirement of “‘extraordinary personal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety’” (quoting 38 N. Y. C. R. R. §5-03(b))).’”It was, then, left up to the various Licensing Authorities in New York to construct operational rules for “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need.”The expression, ‘Proper Cause,’ means ‘Special Need.’ And the expression, ‘Special Need’ means that an applicant for a concealed carry license must establish a reason for carrying beyond simple ‘self-defense.’A demand that a prospective concealed carry licensee convince the licensing authority that his need arises from an “Extraordinary Need,” i.e., a need beyond that faced by most people is what New York and similar “May Issue” jurisdictions demand. And it is this the U.S. Supreme Court finds both incongruous and repugnant under both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.Justice Thomas points out that “May Issue”/“Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need”—all allude to the fact that the Government licensing authority may exercise discretion in issuing a handgun license. This wasn’t a feature of New York’s Handgun Law Licensing Statute when the State Legislature enacted the Sullivan Act in 1911. “Magistrate” (i.e., Government Authority) discretion in issuing a carry license came about a couple of years later.“In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character” and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.” [Bruen, Majority Opinion] Through the passing years and decades, New York added more requirements, further constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The history of New York’s Sullivan Act illustrates a consistent and systematic course of action by foes of the Second Amendment to frustrate efforts by those individuals who desire to exercise their fundamental right to armed self-defense.  Eventually, as the trend toward ever more elaborate, convoluted, and oppressive amendments continued, the Handgun Law came to embrace several categories or tiers of handgun licensing and became increasingly difficult to decipher.New York’s Courts stamped their imprimatur on these Government actions, opining disingenuously, ludicrously that New York Law did indeed recognize a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but that exercise of that right required the acquisition of a license, and applicants had no right to demand a license of the Government. The Courts stated the obvious—that issuance of a license is a privilege, not a right, and one the New York Government reserved, to itself, the right to bestow or not, and to rescind once bestowed, as a matter of right.Americans who resided or worked in New York had had enough and challenged the legality and constitutionality of the State’s handgun law.  The process of obtaining a New York concealed handgun carry license is especially difficult demonstrating the Government’s callousness toward gun owners and its utter disdain for those civilian citizens who deign to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense.“A license applicant who wants to possess a firearm at home (or in his place of business) must convince a ‘licensing officer’—usually a judge or law enforcement officer—that, among other things, he is of good moral character, has no history of crime or mental illness, and that ‘no good cause exists for the denial of the license.’ §§400.00(1)(a)-(n) (West Cum. Supp. 2022). If he wants to carry a firearm outside his home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an unrestricted license to ‘have and carry’ a concealed ‘pistol or revolver.’ §400.00(2)(f ). To secure that license, the applicant must prove that ‘proper cause exists’ to issue it. Ibid. If an applicant cannot make that showing, he can receive only a ‘restricted’ license for public carry, which allows him to carry a firearm for a limited purpose, such as hunting, target shooting, or employment. See, e.g., In re O’Brien, 87 N. Y. 2d 436, 438-439, 663 N. E. 2d 316, 316-317, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (1996); Babernitz v. Police Dept. of City of New York, 65 App. Div. 2d 320, 324, 411 N. Y. S. 2d 309, 311 (1978); In re O’Connor, 154 Misc. 2d 694, 696-698, 585 N. Y. S. 2d 1000, 1003 (Westchester Cty. 1992).” [Bruen Majority Opinion]Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that demonstration of “extraordinary need” for carrying a handgun in public for self-defense, heretofore inextricably tied to “Proper Cause”/“May Issue”,  is unconstitutional. The Court articulated this point clearly and categorically. But, having taken this action, the Court stopped. It did not take the next logical step. It did not deal with the issue of “May Issue” Handgun Licensing itself.And that is why Bruen leaves us with a disheartening quandary; a diluted, seemingly equivocal opinion, as also occurred in Heller. The Hochul Government recognized this as a weakness in Bruen, and her Government ran with it.This must have frustrated Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Bruen Majority Opinion, along with Justice Samuel Alito, author of the McDonald Majority Opinion.No doubt the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the Majority Opinion in the parent Heller case would register his own frustration and indignation at repeated attempts by some on the High Court, to inhibit the citizenry’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.The basic problem with the Bruen decision, and the source of the quandary, goes to the High Court’s handling of “May Issue” licensing.The Justices must have known that lukewarm handling of “May Issue” would provide the Hochul Government with a loophole—just enough, perhaps—to allow the Government to slither around the fundamental right of the people to armed self-defense at home and in the public arena.Drilling down the problem with“May Issue,” we proceed to the legitimacy of handgun licensing itself.

IS STATE GOVERNMENT “MAY ISSUE” HANDGUN LICENSING CONSTITUTIONAL?

Is the practice of “May Issue” handgun licensing constitutional? This is the source of our inquiry here. It is a question that the U.S. Supreme Court must at some point contend with. We hope it does so, and in short order, in the next major Second Amendment case to come before it.In Bruen, the Court Majority doesn’t deal head-on with the matter of the legitimacy, legality, and Constitutionality of Government “May Issue” Licensing of firearms generally and with handguns particularly. The Court touches upon it, tentatively acknowledging the problem, noting that very few States, including New York, and the District of Columbia, are “May Issue” jurisdictions, but does not pursue it. This, to our mind, is a major failing of the case.That failing, a major and pervasive one, and one longstanding, going back fifteen years to Heller, has provided jurisdictions like New York, and others, with a path through which they not only are able to salvage draconian handgun licensing schemes but to strengthen them—all this despite the prominence and impact of Heller and Bruen that would seem at first glance to have closed all loopholes, demanding compliance.It is curious that obtaining a New York “restricted” handgun license for, say, hunting or target practice, is a relatively easy endeavor, at least in comparison to the hoops a person has had to jump through to acquire a concealed handgun “FULL CARRY” License. New York may be construed as a “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdiction apropos of restricted home or business premise licenses. In other words, so long as the applicant does not fall under a disability established in Federal Law, 18 USCS § 922, (and the State embellishes those, making it even more difficult to overcome the disability provisions set forth in the Penal Code), the State licensing authority would issue a restricted handgun premise license. Generally, if the applicant did not meet the State's stringent “PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” requirement, sufficient to acquire a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, the licensing authority would inquire of the applicant if he would accept a highly restrictive handgun premise license in its stead. That would, at least, avoid the need for the applicant to go through substantial time, effort, and expense necessary to reapply for a premise handgun license. And THAT would be the extent of the New York Government's concession to a person who wishes to exercise his right to armed self-defense under the Second Amendment. The only requirement for one to obtain a limited use premise license is that a person isn’t under a disability which would entail automatic denial from legally possessing a firearm at all.Acceding to issue HIGHLY RESTRICTED, LIMITED USE HANDGUN LICENSES amounts to a booby prize. To this day, notwithstanding the Bruen rulings, New York remains a “MAY ISSUE” jurisdiction.The New York State Legislature has made the acquisition of a concealed carry license an extraordinarily difficult endeavor traditionally, and so it remains today. New York disincentivizes the acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses post-Bruen, as it has done pre-Bruen. The process is lengthy, costly, and time-consuming. That doesn’t bother Associate Justice Steven Breyer. He feels acquisition of a handgun carry license should remain difficult, the reason articulated predicated on the prevalence of violent crime in society.He reminds the target audience of a connection between handguns and violent crimes that he and other foes of the Second Amendment invariably draw:“Consider, for one thing, that different types of firearms may pose different risks and serve different purposes. The Court has previously observed that handguns, the type of firearm at issue here, ‘are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). But handguns are also the most popular weapon chosen by perpetrators of violent crimes. In 2018, 64.4% of firearm homicides and 91.8% of nonfatal firearm assaults were committed with a handgun. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, G. Kena & J. Truman, Trends and Patterns in Firearm Violence, 1993-2018, pp. 5-6 (Apr. 2022).” [Breyer, Dissenting Opinion in Bruen]What is interesting about this argument—one routinely made by foes of the notion of civilian citizen armed self-defense—is the implication derived therefrom.The implication is that the lowest common denominator of society—inhabited by the common criminal opportunist, the psychopathic killer, and the psychotic maniac (all of whom Democrat-Party-Controlled Governments allow to run amok), and at times, here and there, the atypical, careless, irresponsible, but otherwise law-abiding, rational adult—should dictate firearms’ policy negatively impacting exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense for the rest of us: tens of millions of the common people, i.e., responsible, sane, trustworthy, law-abiding Americans. Who are these Americans? Roughly a third of the Country, over 80 million Americans. See, e.g., American Gun Facts.There are proven ways to deal with the lowest common denominator of society. Get them off the streets and into prisons or institutions for the criminally insane. But those Americans who consider themselves “Liberals” or “Progressives” and who are, as a group, antagonistic toward the very notion of a natural law right to armed self-defense, focus their energies on curbing or curtailing the right to armed self-defense of the vast commonalty—using a sledgehammer rather than a surgical knife to deal with violent crime posed by a small but virulent element of society.This suggests that intractable violent crime is but a pretext for the accomplishment of a goal: disarming the citizen. One wonders: Is it a pervasive violent crime that motivates Anti-Second Amendment sentiment among those who seek to eliminate the exercise of the right to armed self-defense, or is it something else, something much different: the threat that the armed citizenry poses to an Authoritarian Government? Is it not the latter, rather than the former that motivates and drives the Government to disarm the American public en masse?Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, discussed tyranny but there is nothing in that discussion to cement as a rationale for the “individual right to keep and bear arms” holding—what Justice Scalia points out to be the key point of the Second Amendment for the framers of the Constitution—that the Second Amendment is the final “fail-safe” to prevent or, at least, to forestall the onset of tyranny. Rather, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is tied to a notion of armed self-defense against the criminal element. Thus, the Heller rulings operate as a counterweight to the dissenting opinions' arguments that guns should be removed from civilian citizens precisely because they are often utilized by criminals and lunatics, suggesting erroneously, that the way to prevent Gun Violence from thousands of psychopathic criminals and psychotic maniacs, whom the political and progressive elements in society are loathed to deal effectively with, is to remove guns from the hands of everyone else: approximately a third of the Nation, one hundred million law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens. But then, it is this armed citizenry—upward of one hundred million Americans—whom the Anti-Second Amendment contingent of the Country and one-world-government proponents are really targeting.Tyranny is what the world empire builders have sought for decades and what they intend to accomplish, for that is what a world government means. And the armed citizenry—that which is nonexistent in CCP China and Russia, the EU and in the British Commonwealth Nations, and in almost every other nation or political grouping of nations on Earth, save for Switzerland and Israel—is the one definitive preventive medicine to Tyranny. Our Constitution’s framers knew that. They fought a war over it. And, but for the force of arms, this Nation today would still, more likely than not, still be under British rule, a part of the British Commonwealth.  With the truth of this as a given, all talk of “Gun Violence” is to be perceived as a deflection—a “dodge,” irrelevant. True “Criminal Violence”—if there is any import to the expression equates with “Tyranny.” Armed self-defense against predatory animal and man is understood and need not be stated.The Second Amendment directs one’s attention to the threat to a free people as a whole—a dire threat, posed by Predatory Government. Justice Scalia undoubtedly recognized it. And, in Heller, he surmised that future scholars of U.S. case law would see in the Heller decision that the case is a doctrinal essay on the rationale for the Second Amendment, and, thus, for the central holding—the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, qua the armed citizenry, as necessary for the security of a Free State: Tyranny Thwarted only through the continued existence of the armed American citizenry.It is that idea that is both repugnant to and frightening too and therefore intolerable to those forces both within this Country and outside it, who understand, in these three cases, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, a direct assault on their goals and initiatives. Those goals and initiatives are directed at eliminating, not safeguarding, preserving, and strengthening the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to armed self-defense.This natural law right to armed self-defense is tied to the right of free speech, i.e., the right of the individual TO BE individual: the natural law right of the individual to dissent from Government dictates and mob rule and societal pressures that compel uniformity in thought and conduct; that demand obedience; demand the surrender of one’s will to the will of the “Greater Society,” to the will of “The Hive.”  Those forces that crush entire nations and populations into submission view the U.S. Supreme Court’s 21^st Century Second Amendment rulings in Heller, McDonald, and now Bruen, as an unacceptable and intolerable assault on what they wish to achieve: a Neoliberal Globalist empire. These forces perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as anachronistic, antagonistic, and antithetical to that goal. Individual thought and an armed citizenry cannot coexist in such a reality. Thus, the goals and policy initiatives in vogue today are employed to drive a wedge between the American people and their history and heritage, culture, and ethos. The aims of these forces are directed at eliminating, not preserving and strengthening, the Bill of Rights—especially the natural law right to dissent and to armed self-defense. The New York Government has long resided in the camp of these Globalist, world empire builders.The New York Government under Governor Kathy Hochul—and before her, Andrew Cuomo—is virulently opposed to civilian citizens carrying handguns in the public domain for personal defense.The New York Government, with the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, weathered the previous challenge to the Sullivan Act and New York City handgun rules, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York, 140 U.S. S. Ct. 1525 (2020), but that case dealt only with the constitutionality of certain restrictions on the use of a restricted New York City premise license. The State and the City modified the Handgun Statute and the City modified the Rules of the City of New York to avoid a possible attack on the core of the Sullivan Act, involving the carrying of a handgun concealed in New York. The core of the Sullivan Act, though could not be avoided in Bruen. For, the legitimacy, the legality, the constitutionality of the core of the Sullivan Act was at issue.The Hochul Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany attempted an end-run around Bruen by complying with a superficial aspect of the Bruen holding. The High Court held that,“New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.”So, then, if the High Court found “Proper Cause” to be problematic, the Government would strike the words, “Proper Cause” from the Sullivan Act—which turned out to be a superficial genuflection. The Hochul Government thereupon bolstered the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Gun Law that the High Court mentioned in a cursory fashion in Bruen but did not remonstrate against because “Good Moral Character” had not functioned as anything more than a makeweight. It did not factor substantively into the equation whether the New York Handgun Licensing Authority would issue a person a concealed handgun carry license. What does that mean? How does the Licensing Authority process an application for a concealed handgun carry license in New York? The process of issuing a concealed carry license in New York, prior to Bruen, involved a two-step process. First, the licensing official determined whether the applicant falls under a disability that precludes that person from possessing a firearm at all.If the applicant falls into a category of disability as set forth in the “Crimes and Criminal Procedure” Section of Federal Law, Title 18, Part I (“Crimes”) Chapter 44 (“Firearms”), then that person is incapable of legally possessing any firearm.18 USCS § 922 sets forth:“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2) who is a fugitive from justice;(3) who 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) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a 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) who is subject to a court order that—(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) 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; and(C)(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) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; [and](n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”In the letter of denial, the licensing officer will state the basis for denial and add that in the License Officer’s judgment the individual does not satisfy the “Good Moral Character” requirement. The words, “Good Moral Character” do not add anything pertinent to the letter of denial. For, whether mentioned or not, the applicant cannot lawfully possess a firearm under federal law, once the licensing officer sets forth the ground or grounds of federal disability and/or the State's own grounds, which build on the Federal grounds of disability. For example, the New York Handgun Licensing Officer in New York City, i.e., the NYPD License Division, has routinely denied the issuance of handgun license, whether for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license or a restricted premise license if a person has an arrest record, even without conviction and even if the arrest or arrest and conviction occurred while the applicant was a juvenile, and the arrest or conviction record would likely be under seal, or if the individual has a history of mental illness whether or not the applicant had been institutionalized.It should be noted the NYPD License Division, for one, always denied a person’s application for any kind of handgun license if the individual had an arrest record, even sans conviction, although the denial in that circumstance could often—depending on the nature of the prior arrest or arrests, but not invariably—be overcome through an Administrative Hearing.Assuming the applicant did not fall into an 18 USCS § 922(g) or (n) category and the applicant did not seem, to the licensing officer, to have an “objective” flaw such as an arrest record, or history of mental illness, AND the applicant sought a concealed carry license, the officer would proceed to the second step, to ascertain whether that person satisfied the “Proper Cause”/“Extraordinary Need” requirement. This, traditionally, was difficult for the average applicant to satisfy, as noted, supra.Since the U.S. Supreme Court saw no Constitutional flaw in the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the Handgun Law—and as the Plaintiffs in Bruen did not, apparently object to it—the High Court did not find fault with it either, apart from mentioning it in the Bruen Majority Opinion. It was never seen as an issue demanding resolution.The Hochul Government immediately perceived the “Good Moral Character” as a useful mechanism to maintain the “May Issue” prerogative and jumped on it.After the publication of the Bruen decision, the Hochul Government went to work to transform the “Good Moral Character” Requirement into a de facto “Proper Cause”  requirement. It did this by demanding that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license comply with a host of new requirements that had not heretofore existed in the Handgun Law.Now, under the Amendments to the Handgun Law, “current through 2023,” NY CLS Penal § 400.00(1),“. . . for a license issued under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, the applicant shall meet in person with the licensing officer for an interview and shall, in addition to any other information or forms required by the license application submit to the licensing officer the following information: (i) names and contact information for the applicant’s current spouse, or domestic partner, any other adults residing in the applicant’s home, including any adult children of the applicant, and whether or not there are minors residing, full time or part time, in the applicant’s home; (ii) names and contact information of no less than four character references who can attest to the applicant’s good moral character and that such applicant has not engaged in any acts, or made any statements that suggest they are likely to engage in conduct that would result in harm to themselves or others; (iii) certification of completion of the training required in subdivision nineteen of this section; (iv) a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph; and (v) such other information required by the licensing officer that is reasonably necessary and related to the review of the licensing application.”Requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) are problematic on grounds of legality and constitutionality, and vagueness. Each one is a potential stumbling block—and this is by design.We will delve into each of these in a forthcoming article. In our analysis, we will also attempt to discern the reasoning behind each.But, for now, concerning the new “Good Moral Character” requirements (i), (iii), (iv), and (v), let it suffice to say that, since these requirements were not mandated before the Bruen decision, there is no legitimate rationale for mandating them now other than to maintain “May Issue” through the creation of a new set of hurdles to replace the loss of the “Proper Cause” requirement.These points are important. If true, this would strongly suggest, as applied to New York, that the mere act of striking the words ‘Proper Cause’ from New York’s Handgun Law doesn’t alter the subjective nature of the “May Issue” standard through which a New York licensing authority may, in its discretion, deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That discretion continues to exist under the CCIA.The Legislature in Albany basically transformed the “Good Moral Character” requirement that, prior to Bruen, was essentially redundant—which is why Plaintiffs did not claim fault with it—into a new “Proper Cause” requirement with a litany of new subjective criteria that a New York handgun licensing authority has as its disposal to confound the applicant and through which that licensing authority can effectively deny issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Although the Hochul Government was astute enough to refrain from tying this bolstered “Good Moral Character” with “Extraordinary Need,”  “May Issue” a concealed handgun carry license remains. And that is problematic.The CCIA “Good Moral Character” requirement and the “Sensitive Place” restriction provisions are two principal bases of challenge that have generated, to date, at least two dozen lawsuits in New York. Again, this could have been avoided. Apart from finding New York’s “Proper Cause” requirement Unconstitutional, Justices Thomas and Alito, along with Trump’s nominees, Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett might have made an unequivocal pronouncement that “May Issue” handgun licensing statutes are per se illegal and unconstitutional because “May Issue” jurisdictions allow for improper use of Government discretion. But they forbore doing so.That failure led to the enactment of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act and gave New York handgun licensing authorities the tools to continue to deny an applicant, not under a disability, from exercising his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. The Justices must have been aware of the problem, and they must have seen this coming. They probably realized the New York Government would recognize the weakness in the High Court’s rulings just as they did. In fact, Justice Thomas, alluded to the problem, when, he said, as we iterated, supra,“New York is not alone in requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public. But the vast majority of States—43 by our count—are shall issue’ jurisdictions, where authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability. Meanwhile, only six States and the District of Columbia have ‘may issue’ licensing laws, under which authorities have discretion to deny concealed-carry licenses even when the applicant satisfies the statutory criteria, usually because the applicant has not demonstrated cause or suitability for the relevant license. [Bruen Majority Opinion].So, “MAY ISSUE”/“PROPER CAUSE”/“EXTRAORDINARY” (“SPECIAL”) NEED” lives on—unconditional, unalloyed, absolute Government Discretion to continue to refuse to issue concealed handgun carry licenses, contrary to the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the public domain as well as in one's home.Did Chief Justice Roberts tie the hands of Justices Thomas and Alito in Bruen, just as both he and Justice Kennedy tied the hands of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in the Heller case?Unfettered Government discretion reduces an intrinsic, unalienable, right into a mere privilege: To be bestowed on one or not at the whim of Government, and just as easily rescinded, if once bestowed.New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul and her Democrat Party supporters in the State Legislature in Albany have taken advantage of the weaknesses and vagaries in Bruen, to launch a scheme to keep the core structural scheme of the Sullivan Act.The Hochul Government concocted a set of unconstitutional amendments to the Sullivan Act, referred to, collectively, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Together with a series of other oppressive Anti-Second Amendment Statutes, the State’s Gun Law is as potent and as noxious, and as illegal as it was prior to Bruen. And so, a flurry of new lawsuits ensued.The essence of the problem here isn’t ‘May Issue’ versus ‘Shall Issue’ a handgun carry license. The essence of the problem rests with the very act of requiring a license to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance.There is something deeply disturbing and discordant with State Government requiring licensing as a condition precedent to exercising a fundamental, unalienable right.Drilling down to the bedrock, the question is:  “Is the Act of Government Handgun Licensing Legal and Constitutional, at all?” The majority of States recognize inherent Constitutional problems with licensing, and as of January 2023, most States have established “permitless carry.”The U.S. Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable right is legal and Constitutional. The Court alluded to it fifteen years ago in Heller, and once again in Bruen, last year, but that is as far as the Court went, as far as it was willing to go.But that doesn’t mean the Court condones Government firearms licensing regimes. And so, the legitimacy of State Government handgun licensing remains an open question. And jurisdictions like New York have taken advantage of the Court's failure to take firm and categorical action on this.,The tentativeness of the High Court to address this issue directly and the seeming elusiveness of the conjecture have led some jurisdictions to infer, erroneously, that gun licensing is a legitimate prerogative of the State. It is not, but that doesn’t stop foes of the Second Amendment from making the claim, anyway. And New York has made such a claim.In the New York’s “Brief in Opposition to Emergency Application for Relief and to Vacate Stay of Preliminary Injunction” in Antonyuk versus Nigrelli, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Letitia James, Attorney General, representing the New York Government, made the blanket statement,“Indeed, this Court in Bruen endorsed shall-issue licensing regimes [citing Bruen at 2138 n.9; and Kavanaugh’s concurring at 2161-62.”But is that true? What DID the Court really say?Footnote 9 of Bruen reads, verbatim:“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes, under which ‘a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].’ Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting). Because these licensing regimes do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense, they do not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising their Second Amendment right to public carry. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.’ Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151, 89 S. Ct. 935, 22 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”Letitia James is wrong. Moreover, her remarks are insulting.The High Court HAS NOT endorsed the notion that Government licensing of handguns is Constitutional. To the contrary, the Court acknowledges only that licensing regimes in 43 “Shall Issue” Jurisdictions will be tolerated so long as they do not offend the core of the Second Amendment right. And even there, the Court said, “we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes.”That IS NOT an endorsement of licensing. Furthermore, the Court’s remarks, in dicta, categorically exclude “May Issue” regimes such as New York, which led to the Court’s review of New York’s licensing regime in Bruen, in the first place.Justice Kavanaugh’s remark on page 2162 of Bruen, which James also cites, reiterates the points appearing in FN 9 of the Majority Opinion.A complete analysis of the three seminal Second Amendment cases requires a perusal of Justice Scalia’s remarks in Heller.Scalia made clear that concessions made to State regulation of the Second Amendment do not mean the Court acknowledges an unbridled State right to license the exercise of a fundamental right.Scalia said this:“Apart from his challenge to the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement respondent asked the District Court to enjoin petitioners from enforcing the separate licensing requirement ‘in such a manner as to forbid the carrying of a firearm within one's home or possessed land without a license.’  App. 59a.  The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement, but held only that the District ‘may not prevent [a handgun] from being moved throughout one's house.’ . . . Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with . . . licensing’ and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’  Tr. of Oral Arg. 74-75.  We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance  of a license will satisfy respondent's prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”Keep in mind the last sentence: “We . . . do not address the licensing requirement.” In other words, the issue of the constitutionality of handgun licensing, per se, remains unsettled. It is certainly important, in fact vital. By pointing to it, Scalia suggests the issue will be taken up at a later time. That time is now.The Court cannot continue to evade the central issue: Is State Government licensing of a fundamental, unalienable, right Constitutional? This issue must be addressed and must be addressed soon, and it must be addressed clearly, comprehensively, and emphatically.Foes of the Second Amendment in the States and in the Federal Government are pressing ahead with their agenda aimed at eliminating the exercise of the right to armed self-defense before the 2024 U.S. Presidential election.It no longer behooves the U.S. Supreme Court to simply review this or that provision of a State handgun law. Doing so does not get to the heart of the matter. It only results, as we have seen, in countless more brazen attempts by State Governments to intrude on one’s exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense against animals, predatory men, and, worst of all, the predatory, tyrannical Government.The Founders of the Republic, the Framers of the Constitution, did not envision the kind of wholesale unconscionable intrusion into the sovereign citizens’ exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms that Americans witness and suffer today. And they certainly wouldn't endorse this idea of Government licensing prior to exercising a fundamental right, that is prevalent in many jurisdictions.These unconstitutional, unconscionable actions by State actors must stop here and must stop now.The case Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli, which the Government and the Second Circuit are presently sitting on, in defiance of Justice Samuel Alito’s admonishment to the Government to avoid delay, is likely, at some point, to be reviewed by the High Court.If or when the Court does so, it should not quibble or equivocate any longer on the salient issue of the day but should deal directly with the constitutionality of handgun licensing.That is the only way to impede the inexorable erosion of our Nation’s most important Right—the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms—in the absence of which preservation of a free Constitutional Republic is impossible, and Tyranny in all its horror is inevitable and unavoidable.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

CONTINUATION OF INTERVIEW OF NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO

PART TWO

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

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

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

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART EIGHTEEN

THE NEW YORK HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION'S PROBLEMS ARE OF ITS OWN MAKING. IT WOULD RATHER SPEND ITS ENERGIES AND TAX-PAYER MONIES  FIGHTING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, RATHER THAN FIGHTING CRIME. NEW YORKERS CAN EXPECT MUCH MORE OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, FOUR YEARS OF IT.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its third seminal case law rulings, following Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010. The three cases, taken together, hold the right of armed self-defense is a natural law right embodied in the Second Amendment.These three cases don’t sit well with State and local jurisdictions that abhor both guns and the notion of the right of civilian citizens to keep and bear them. And they have weaseled around the Heller and McDonald cases for over a decade—well before Bruen.Bruen arose as a direct challenge to one of the most restrictive Gun Law regimes in the Nation: codified in N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00 et. seq. The foundation of New York’s Gun Law is its draconian licensing requirement. All handgun licensing interposes the Government between the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government that intrudes upon the exercise of that right.New York’s handgun licensing scheme is among the most intrusive in the Country.Prior to Bruen, a person who sought to carry a handgun had to demonstrate “proper cause” to do so. But the State Government held armed self-defense against a visible threat in public as de facto insufficient “proper cause” justification for issuance of a license to carry.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the right of armed self-defense applies equally outside the home and in it. This ruling isn’t a Court based legal fiction, as Anti-Second Amendment proponents maintain. The right of armed self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment.The Court in Bruen, and in Heller before it, simply illuminated and elucidated upon what the language of the Second Amendment asserts. It did not make new law.The Court thereupon struck down New York’s “may issue” “proper cause” requirement for those people applying for a concealed handgun carry license. Armed self-defense is de jure sufficient reason to carry, and it is presumptive in any application for a license. Therefore the applicant need not be required to expressly assert it.To be sure, New York Federal and State Courts never directly attacked the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms because that was irrefutable natural law, cemented in the U.S. Constitution. And, if the Courts harbored the belief that the right, though fundamental, applied only to one’s service in a militia, the Heller case settled the matter, cadit quaestio.Even so, New York Courts routinely affirmed licensing officials’ denial of handgun carry licenses. The Courts reasoned that, even if a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, the person must have a valid handgun license to exercise the right, and acquiring one is a privilege, not a right, a privilege bestowed upon one by the grace of the State, and a privilege easily revoked. And, because the license serves as a condition precedent to exercising the right, the New York Government effectively created a proverbial “Catch 22.”Thus, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions could continue to offend the Second Amendment guarantee while pretending to pay homage to it.New York’s handgun licensing scheme interferes with the exercise of a natural law right on an elementary level. There’s no doubt about that. That fact is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and irrefutable.The Court simply tinkered gingerly around the edges.But, by failing to strike down the New York handgun licensing, as unconstitutional, it remains rigid, unscathed.Justices Thomas and Alito knew that the Bruen rulings were faulty, that the rulings did not go far enough, and they could not have been happy about that.They would have struck down the entirety of the licensing structure if given a free hand, but Chief Justice Roberts, and possibly Justice Kavanaugh, too, likely prevented them from doing so if they were to obtain their votes.In Heller, the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, had to make concessions to Roberts and to Associate Justice Kennedy to get their votes.Now, in Bruen, Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions once again. That meant they must leave Government licensing of handguns alone.And that was all that New York Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany needed to know. It gave them the edge they needed to slither around the Bruen rulings.The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government machine did strike the words, “Proper Cause,” from State Statute, but that meant nothing. They simply inserted “Proper Cause” into the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the State’s Gun Law. And the High Court in Bruen never struck down that latter requirement from the Gun Law.The “Good Moral Character” Requirement had hitherto existed as an unnecessary appendage to New York Gun Law, affixed to a licensing official’s denial of an application for any kind of handgun license.A licensing officer might for example refer to a person’s past arrest record in denying issuance. In the denial letter, the licensing officer would point to the arrest record as the basis for refusal, adding the redundant phrase that such past arrest record shows the applicant lacks Good Moral Character to possess a handgun.In the package of amendments, referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or “CCIA,” the Hochul Administration’s “Good Moral Character” Requirement serves now as the salient basis for denying one a handgun license of any kind: restricted premise or unrestricted carry license.The applicant for a New York handgun license must now produce a volume of information, demonstrating his internal thought processes, especially his political and social ones.Given the depth and breadth of the Amendments to the Gun Law, the Hochul Government likely had the amendments prepared well in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings—their passage in the Senate and Hochul’s signing them into law operating as a mere formality, taking place scarcely a week after the Court came down with its decision.The challenges to those amendments came just as hurriedly.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the original suit filed against enforcement of the CCIA, without prejudice. But the Court had dismissed the case for administrative, not substantive failings, in the lawsuit. The Court made clear its concern with the law, tacitly encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, holder of a valid New York handgun carry license, to refile his complaint.Hochul, as the scurrilous politician she is, took the dismissal as a win and said in a statement on her website that the Court agreed with the constitutionality of the CCIA. It did not.The original Plaintiff, Antonyuk, along with several other holders of New York handgun carry licenses filed a new lawsuit.This time, they named Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, along with several other New York officials, including the Attorney General of the State.And this time the same U.S. District Court that heard and dismissed the original suit, granted the Plaintiffs a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).Hochul was furious and her Attorney General immediately filed an emergency appeal of the District Court’s order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Not unexpectedly, the Second Circuit did not act on the Appeal, probably because the Midterm Elections were around the corner, and the Court may have wished to wait to see whether Hochul was elected Governor although that should not factor into their decision.The Midterms are now over, and, whether Hochul won the election by hook or crook, she is York’s Governor, and the residents of the State must suffer her for at least four years. And that means, among other things, that she will fervently defend New York’s amendments to its Gun Law. And she has plenty of time to do so. And that raises the question:What will the Second Circuit do? Will it overturn the TRO or allow it to continue? If the TRO were the only matter before the Court, the Second Circuit would remand the case to the District Court that had issued it.The Second Circuit could issue its order keeping the stay in place while the District Court decides the substantive issues. That would benefit the Plaintiffs. Time would be on their side because Hochul could not lawfully enforce the CCIA during discovery and trial, however long that takes. Or the Second Circuit could lift the stay. That would benefit Hochul, as she would be free to enforce the CCIA while the District Court hears the Constitutional challenges to it. That would benefit Hochul and her Administration. They would likely prolong a final resolution of the case as the District Court had made known its antipathy toward the CCIA in lengthy Court opinions.But, as Hochul’s appeal of the TRO order remains still to be acted on by the Second Circuit, the District Court that ordered a TRO against Hochul’s enforcement of the CCIA had recently ruled on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on September 2022. The case is Antonyuk vs. Hochul, (Antonyuk II), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. November 7, 2022)Contributing Ammoland writer John Crump wrote about this in his article posted on Ammoland, on November 7, 2022.The District Court’s impetus for this new ruling on a Preliminary Injunction though might render the TRO moot.Why did the District Court rule on the Preliminary Injunction before the Second Circuit ruled on the TRO?This might be due to the actions of Hochul’s Government, itself.In a caustic, strident, YouTube video, a new Acting Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, replacing Kevin Bruen, threatened New York gun owners. The District Court wasn’t amused. In its comprehensive detailed opinion, the Court commented on Nigrelli’s outburst, saying this:“. . . unlike Superintendent Kevin Bruen in Antonyuk I, here Defendant Nigrelli has been shown to have threatened a ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement of the CCIA. On August 31, 2022, Defendant Nigrelli stated as follows in a YouTube video:‘We ensured that the lawful, responsible gun owners have the tools now to remain compliant with the law. For those who choose to violate this law . . . Governor, it's an easy message. I don't have to spell it out more than this. We'll have zero tolerance. If you violate this law, you will be arrested. Simple as that. Because the New York State Troopers are standing ready to do our job to ensure . . .  all laws are enforced.’Of course, here, Defendant Nigrelli did not limit his YouTube message to Plaintiffs. . . . However, five of the six Plaintiffs were members of the specific group of citizens (concealed-carry license holders) in New York State that was orally and visibly threatened by Defendant Nigrelli on August 31, 2022. The fact that the oral and visible threat occurred by video rather than in person fails to serve as a material distinction here, in the Court's view. For example, the fact that Nigrelli did not personally know yet of Defendant Mann's existence (as he does now) appears of little consequence, given that Defendant Nigrelli's 3,500 State Troopers were ‘standing ready’ to investigate and discover the violators. Indeed, the fact that the threat occurred by video actually increases the potency of it, due to its ability to be replayed. And Plaintiff Mann heard the message. It is difficult to see how one could fairly say that Defendant Nigrelli did not expressly direct his threat, in part, at Plaintiff Mann. In this way, Defendant Nigrelli's statement on August 31, 2022, was more than (as the State Defendants argue) a ‘generalized statement[] made . . . in the press.’ Rather, his statement specifically referenced arrest and was made in a YouTube video aimed specifically at license holders such as Plaintiff Mann who were considering violating Sections 4 or 5 of the CCIA.  As a result, the Court finds that Defendant Nigrelli has been charged with, and/or has assumed, the specific duty to enforce the CCIA.Finally, the Court finds that these threats of arrest and prosecution, or even mere citation and/or seizure of his handgun, are enough to show that Plaintiff Mann faces a credible threat of enforcement of Section 4 of the CCIA, which is fairly traceable to Defendants Hilton, Oakes and Nigrelli [Court documents and Case Citations omitted].”The Court opined that the Government’s message is demonstrative of the Plaintiffs’ concern they would be arrested for carrying a handgun in public—this notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiffs currently hold valid New York handgun carry licenses.The CCIA severely restricts where holders of New York handgun licenses can carry licenses.The Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction in substantial part, introduces a new wrinkle in what has grown into a complicated legal matter, and all due to Kathy Hochul’s stubborn refusal to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, along with her contemptuous attitude toward law-abiding American citizens who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural law right of armed self-defense.Hochul’s team will file a response to the District Court’s November 7, 2022, Preliminary Injunction ruling. No doubt the AG’s Office is working on it at this moment, and it will submit it to the Second Circuit in a few days.Hochul may ask the Second Circuit to suspend a ruling on the TRO in view of the District Court’s new ruling on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.The Second Circuit may itself, on its own motion, sua sponte, suspend a ruling on the TRO or, render the TRO matter given the District Court’s ruling on the Preliminary Injunction.The District Court ruling may have the effect of a final order on the merits. If so, this means the Second Circuit itself might render a final decision on at least a portion of the substantive merits of the issues on the constitutionality of the CCIA.If the Second Circuit affirms the Preliminary Injunction and, further, treats it like a Permanent Injunction that will render those portions of the CCIA affected by the Injunction permanently unenforceable.At that point, the administration's options will be limited. Hochul’s Government could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but she likely wouldn’t do that. Of course, the High Court need not hear the case. The problem is that it probably would, and that would be dangerous for both New York and all Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions.The Court could grant review and use the opportunity to strike down the entirety of the New York handgun licensing structure. The Court would likely be in the frame of mind to do so, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the Court.The Hochul Administration could also ask for an en banc Second Circuit Court hearing. That means the entire Second Circuit would be empaneled to hear the case. Hochul would prefer that option, as the safest strategy. But the Second Circuit need not grant her a hearing of the full Bench. As with the U.S. Supreme Court, an appellant cannot demand a hearing of the full Bench, as a matter of right.There are more wrinkles in this Post-Bruen morass than on a Shar Pei.We’ll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.The natural law right of armed self-defense is coming to an ultimate showdown. At present that showdown is being fought in the Courts. Hopefully, it will not have to be fought in the streets. It need not come to that. Let us all hope it doesn’t.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

WHY DO SOME STATE GOVERNMENTS AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BLATANTLY DEFY SECOND AMENDMENT RULINGS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT?

Scarcely eight years had passed since ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788 when the question of the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court came to a head in the famous case of Marbury versus Madison. The High Court made its authority felt in a clear, cogent, categorical, and indisputable language in this seminal 1803 case.The facts surrounding the case are abstruse, generating substantial scholarly debate. But what some legal scholars discern as having little importance to the logical and legal gymnastics the Court at the time had to wrestle with, and upon which legal scholars, historians, and logicians have directed their attention today, has become a cause célèbre today:“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . . This is of the very essence of judicial duty.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; Cranch 137 (1803)Article 3, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution establishes the powers of the Court:“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution. . . .” The Constitution’s Framers sought to make the import of the articles and amendments to it as plain and succinct. And they did a good job of it.Even so, ruthless, powerful individuals in the Federal Government and in the States ever strive to thwart the plain meaning and purport of the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of their own selfish interests, imputing vagaries to language even where the language is plain and unambiguous to serve their own selfish ends to the detriment of both Country and people. And that ruthlessness extends to those who, with vast sums of money at their disposal, influence these “servants of the people,” in pursuit of and to achieve their own nefarious interests and goals.Back then, over two centuries ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Marbury vs. Madison, the Court deftly side-stepped the delicate political and legislative issues of the day that gave rise to the case and carved out the Court’s own territory.The High Court made two points abundantly clear:One, the U.S. Supreme Court does not answer to either the Executive or Legislative Branch. It is not to be perceived as a poor stepchild of either of those two Branches. It is a Co-Equal Branch of the Federal Government.Two, on matters impacting the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, neither the U.S. President nor Congress can lawfully ignore the Court’s rulings. This means that, where the Court has spoken on challenges to unconstitutional laws, finding particular laws of Congress to be unconstitutional, Congress has no lawful authority to ignore and countermand those rulings, or circumvent those rulings by enacting new laws that purport to do the same thing as the laws that the Court has struck down. Nor can the U.S. President cannot override the Constitutional constraints imposed on his actions.The States, too, are forbidden to ignore Supreme Court rulings, striking down unconstitutional State enactments. Nor are the States permitted to repurpose old laws or create new laws that do the same thing—operate in violate of the U.S. Constitution.  Jump forward in time to the present day.The Federal Government and all too many State and municipal Governments routinely defy the High Court’s rulings, engaging in unconstitutional conduct.But this defiance and even contempt of the High Court rulings leaves an American to ponder, “why?”Even cursory reflection elucidates the answer to that question. The answer is as plain as the text of Article Three, Section 2 of the Constitution, itself.The High Court has neither power over “the purse” that Congress wields, nor power over the Nation’s “standing army” the Chief Executive controls.Yet, the fact remains the U.S. Supreme Court is the only Branch of Government with ultimate say over the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, as Marbury made clear, well over two hundred years ago. To say what the Constitution means, when conflict or challenge to that meaning arises is within the sole province of the High Court.Unfortunately, without the capacity to withhold funds over the operation of Government, nor power to enforce its judgments by force of arms, the Court’s rulings are all too often, blatantly ignored or cavalierly dismissed.As if this weren’t bad enough, the mere fact of the Court’s authority is now actively contested.Audaciously, some individuals in Government, in the Press, and in academia, have recently argued the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to say what the law is, should not be vested in the High Court, regardless of the strictures of Article Three, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution.Consider, an Op-Ed, titled, “Should the Supreme Court Matter So Much?” The essay appeared in The New York Times, and not that long ago, in 2018, written by Barry P. McDonald, an attorney and Law Professor no less who exclaims:“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the Court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the Court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” The question of interpreting the Constitution is the subject of some debate? Really? Apparently, this Law Professor, Barry McDonald, has wholly forgotten the import of Marbury versus Madison, a case burnt into the mind of every first-year law student. His remarks are eccentric, disturbing, and disheartening.If the Framers of the U.S. Constitution really had such a low opinion of the High Court, they would not have constructed a Government with a Third Branch but would have subsumed it into one of the first two? Obviously, the Framers thought enough about the singular importance of the U.S. Supreme Court, to include it in the framework of the Federal Government, and as a co-equal Branch of that Government.It is one thing to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings because of an antipathy toward those rulings and claim the Court can’t do anything about it anyway because the Court hasn’t power to enforce its rulings. That is bad enough. But it is quite another thing to argue the Court has no reason to exist, ought not to exist, and thereupon rationalize doing away with the Third Branch of Government or otherwise reducing its authority to render rulings to a nullity by Executive Branch or Legislative Branch edict.Application of alien predilections, predispositions, and ideology to the Nation’s governance is a path to abject tyranny; to dissolution of the Republic; defilement of the Nation’s culture and history and heritage; destruction of societal order and cohesion; and abasement and subjugation of a sovereign people. The Nation is on a runaway train, running full throttle, about to make an impact with a massive brick wall.The New York Times just loves to publish articles by credentialed individuals who hold views well beyond the pale of those held by their brethren if those views happen to conform to, and strengthen, and push the socio-political narrative of the newspaper’s publishers and editorial staff.Use of such dubious, fringe views to support a viewpoint is a classic example of “confirmation bias,” an informal fallacy.There are dozens of informal fallacies. And the American public is force-fed ideas that routinely exemplify one or more of them.This defiance of State and Federal Government actors to adhere to the Court’s rulings and even to contest the authority of the Court is most pronounced, most acute, and, unfortunately, most prevalent, in matters pertaining to the import of fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people—and none more so than the citizen’s right of armed self-defense.Consider——In the first decade of the 21st Century, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled clearly and unequivocally in Heller versus District of Columbia that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority opinion.Among its other rulings in Heller, the High Court held the District of Columbia’s blanket ban on handguns impermissibly infringes the core of the Second Amendment. It thereupon struck down the D.C. ban on handguns as unconstitutional.And the Court also held a person has a right to immediate access to a handgun in one’s self-defense. Not surprisingly, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions disliked these rulings and were intent on disobeying them, and arrogantly defied the Court.Looking for an excuse to defy Heller, these jurisdictions argued that Heller applies only to the Federal Government, not to them. That led to an immediate challenge, and the High Court took up the case in McDonald vs. City of Chicago.Here, Justice Alito writing for the majority, opined the Heller rulings apply with equal force to the States, through operation of the Fourteenth Amendment.Did the Anti-Second Amendment States abide by the Court’s rulings, after McDonald? No, they did not!They again defied the Court, conjuring up all sorts of reasons to deny to the American citizen his unalienable right to keep and bear arms in his self-defense.The States in these Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions claimed that, even if a person has a right to armed self-defense inside his home, the right to do so does not extend to the carrying of a handgun outside the home.The State and Federal Courts in these jurisdictions conveniently misconstrued the Supreme Court’s test for ascertaining the constitutionality of Government action infringing exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. These Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions also placed bans on semiautomatic weapons, fabricating a legal fiction for them; referring to them as “assault weapons.”  American citizens challenged the constitutionality of all these issues. And many of these cases wended their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, only to be thwarted because the Court could not muster sufficient support among the Justices to deal with the flagrant violation of Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning.One of these cases was the 2015 Seventh Circuit case, Friedman versus City of Highland Park, Illinois.The liberal wing of the Court didn’t want the case to be heard. That was no surprise.But, apparently, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy didn’t want to hear the case either.Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were furious and said so in a comprehensive dissenting opinion.Had the Court taken up the Friedman case, Americans would have been spared this nonsense of “assault weapon” bans. The Court would have ruled these bans unconstitutional on their face, in which event the Federal Government and Anti-Second Amendment State governments would be hard-pressed to make a case for wasting valuable time and taxpayer monies dealing with an issue the High Court had ruled on. Unfortunately, the Friedman case and many others were not taken up by the Court.Americans are compelled to continue to spend considerable time and money in challenging a continuous stream of unconstitutional Second Amendment Government action. And often, this is a futile expenditure of time, money, and effort, albeit a noble and necessary one all the same._________________________________________

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL UNFAZED BY CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK GUN LAW: “GO FOR IT,” SHE RETORTS!

One of the most persistent and virulently Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions, that has spurred numerous challenges to unconstitutional and unconscionable constraints on the Second Amendment through the decades, is New York.In 2020, four years after Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, under disturbingly suspicious circumstances, and shortly after Justice Anthony Kennedy retired from the Bench, and the U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s first nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, to a seat on the High Court, the Court took up the case, NYSRPA vs. City of New York—often referred to colloquially as the “NY Gun Transport” case. An extensive explication of that case is found in a series of AQ articles posted on our website. See, e.g., our article posted on April 27, 2020, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on the same date. A second U.S. Supreme Court case, coming out of New York, NYSRPA versus Bruen, officially released on June 23, 2022, ruled New York’s “proper cause” requirement unconstitutional.New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany thereupon struck the words “proper cause” from the State’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act, codified in Section 400.00 of the State’s Penal Code. But, doing so served merely as a blind.Had the Hochul Government refrained from tinkering with the rest of the text of the Statute and other Code sections, it might well have avoided further constitutional challenges from justifiably irate New Yorkers. It did not.Hochul and Albany did not stop with the striking of “proper cause” from the Gun Law. It went well beyond that. Her Government and Albany wrote a detailed set of amendments to the Gun Law. The package of amendments, titled the “Concealed Carry Law Improvement Act,” “CCIA,” do not conform to the Bruen rulings but, rather, slither all around them. On a superficial level, deletion of the words “proper cause” might be seen by some, as Hochul and Albany had perhaps hoped, to forestall legal challenge. But, if challenge came, time would be, after all, on the Government’s side. And Hochul knew this.The Government has money enough to fight a protracted Court battle. The challenger, more likely, does not. Even finding a suitable challenger takes considerable time, exorbitant sums of money to file a lawsuit, and substantial time to take a Second Amendment case to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it is far from certain the Court will review a case even if a petition for hearing is filed, for the Court grants very few petitions.For well over a century the New York Government has inexorably whittled away at the right of armed self-defense in New York. And it has successfully weathered all attacks all the while. The New York Government wasn’t going to let the U.S. Supreme Court now, in the Bruen case, to throw a wrench into attaining its end goal: the elimination of armed self-defense in New York. Much energy went into the creation of the CCIA. It is a decisive and defiant response to the U.S. Supreme Court and furthers its goal to constrain armed self-defense in the public sphere.Likely, given the length, breadth, and depth of the CCIA, the Government saw Bruen coming, long before the case was filed, and had ample time to draft the contours of the CCIA a couple of years ago. A clue that another U.S. Supreme Court case, challenging New York’s Gun Law, would loom, presented itself in Associate Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.  Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch had made known their strong disapproval of the way the “Gun Transport” case was handled, after the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh cast their lot with the Anti-Second Amendment liberal wing of the Court, allowing the case to be unceremoniously and erroneously shunted aside, sans review of the merits of the case. A day of reckoning with New York’s insufferable Gun Law was coming. The Government of New York could not reasonably doubt that. The core of the Gun Law would be challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court would hear that challenge. The Government likely worked up a draft response to an antagonistic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the core of the Gun Law in 2020, shortly after the New York “Gun Transport” case ruling came down. That draft response would become the CCIA.The Government likely completed its draft of the CCIA well before Bruen was taken up by the High Court. The Government had only to fine-tune the CCIA immediately after oral argument in early November 2021. And the Government did so. Hochul almost certainly received advance notice of the text of the majority opinion within days or weeks after the hearing before the New Year had rung in. Nothing else can explain the speed at which Albany had passed the CCIA and Hochul had signed it into law: July 1, 2022, just eight days after the Court had released the Bruen decision, June 23, 2022.The CCIA amendments to the Gun Law integrate very nicely with and into other recent New York antigun legislation, passed by Albany and signed into law by Hochul. Thus, contrary to what the Governor’s website proclaims, the amendments were not “devised to align with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.” Rather these amendments were devised to align with other New York antigun legislation. What does this portend for New Yorkers? Those New Yorkers who had hoped to be able to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license with relative ease will now find procuring such a license no less difficult than before the enactment of the CCIA.Most hard-hit are those present holders of New York City and New York County unrestricted concealed handgun carry licenses. The “proper cause” hoop that present holders of such concealed handgun carry licenses were able to successfully jump through is of no use to them now. These renewal applicants must now satisfy a slew of new requirements—more draconian than the original ones they had previously successfully navigated. All New York concealed handgun carry applicants are now in the same boat. And meeting the new requirements are exceedingly difficult. Despite the clear intent of the Bruen rulings, to make it easier for more Americans to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, it is now harder. Likely, very few individuals will be able to successfully pass through the hurdles necessary to obtain a New York license the CCIA requires. Thus, getting a license will remain a coveted prize, difficult to gain as previously, and likely even more so.And the few individuals who do happen to secure a valid New York concealed handgun carry license will find themselves in a precarious situation for all the troubles they had in getting it.These new license holders will find exercise of the right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, in the public realm, full of traps and snares that did not previously exist. And there is something more alarming.The mere act of applying for a concealed carry license—whether the license is issued or not—now requires the applicant to divulge a wealth of highly personal information that, hitherto, an applicant never had to divulge, and the licensing authority had never asked an applicant to divulge. And, if a person fails to secure a license, his personal data will remain in his State police file, indefinitely, and will likely be turned over to the DOJ, DHS, ATF, IRS, and/or to a slew of State or Federal mental health agencies. All manner of harm may be visited upon the person that otherwise would not have occurred had the individual not bothered to apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license in the first place. To apply for a New York concealed handgun carry license, an applicant may unwittingly be alerting both the New York Government and the Federal Government that he is a “MAGA” supporter, and therefore a potential “Domestic Terrorist.” And, if so, he is then targeted for special treatment: surveillance, harassment, exploitation, or extortion. And he cannot claim a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because he voluntarily relinquished that right when he applied for a concealed handgun carry license.If one thinks this is farfetched, consider the excesses committed by the Biden Administration directed to average Americans in the last several months.We explore these troubling matters, in connection with the application requirements for a New York concealed handgun carry license, in the next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

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

MULTISERIES

PART ELEVEN

“‘PROPER CAUSE’ IS DEAD”! “LONG LIVE ‘PROPER CAUSE’”?

Any State that would denigrate the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a throwback to monarchical tyranny—the very thing the founders of our Republic fought against. New York is one such State of the Union that operates as a throwback to monarchical tyranny.How did this animosity toward the Second Amendment come to pass in New York? Truth to tell, it had been so for a very long time.New York has fought against recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms for over one hundred years. And the State is all the worse for it. Even as New York ostensibly extols concern for democracy and claims regard for the oppressed in society, it arguably harbors a scarcely disguised bias against the common man. New York’s Sullivan Act, the progenitor of the present oppressive and repressive Gun Law, codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), effective September 2, 2022, has a legacy of iniquity behind it:“An ethnic bias lurked behind this act. There had long been an association in New York of Italians and crime, and, starting in 1903, the police routinely denied Italians permits for the carrying of pistols. In 1905 the state legitimated this bias by outlawing the possession of firearms in any public place by the foreign born (New York State 1905). The police wanted more authority to prevent the carrying of concealed handguns. Even with the existing weak legislation, the police seized 10,567 handguns between 1907 and 1910, or seven a day. The assassination attempt against Mayor William J. Gaynor in 1910 riveted the city's attention and brought renewed calls for the regulation of handguns. . . .A new Democratic member of the state senate from New York City, Timothy D. Sullivan, immediately proposed legislation regulating the purchase, possession, and carrying of firearms throughout the state. That ‘Big Tim’ Sullivan, one of Tammany Hall's most prominent figures, would promote such legislation seems a sure indication of its popularity. The only hostile testimony came, not surprisingly, from gun manufacturers and sellers. The bill received broad support from the cultural and economic elite of New York, which saw it as a necessary part of the civilizing process. The Senate passed the Sullivan Act by a vote of 37 to 5 and the House by 123 to 7, and Governor John A. Dix signed it into law on May 29, 1911 (Weller 1962). The Sullivan Act reinforced older legislation on weapons other than firearms (slingshots and such) and limitations on the ownership and carrying of firearms by aliens and minors. The Sullivan Act instituted three additions to existing firearms acts: it added pistols to section 1897 of the criminal code, making it a felony to carry concealed weapons; required residents of cities to get a permit to carry concealable firearms—though failure to do so only constituted a misdemeanor; and required those who sold pistols to first examine a permit and to keep a record of the sale recording the purchaser and firearm. In an effort to contain the spread of the ‘$ 5 specials,’ the cost of these permits was fixed at $ 10. The bill also retained the prohibition of firearm possession by aliens (New York State 1911). Based on letters and editorials in the leading newspapers, the public reaction was overwhelmingly positive.” ~“Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview,” 28 Crime & Just. 137 (2001), by Michael A. Bellesiles, Professor of History, Emory University.As if the Sullivan Act, as originally drafted and enacted, wasn’t bad enough, through time it became worse. Just two years after Sullivan was enacted, the Legislature amended it “in 1913 to provide the proper-cause standard for the issuance of public carry licenses throughout New York.” ~“The Constitutional ‘Terra Incognita’ Of Discretionary Concealed Carry Laws, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 909 (2015), by Brian Enright, J.D. Candidate, University of Illinois College of Law.Until Bruen came down, ruling that New York’s “proper cause” requirement is unconstitutional, the inclusion of “proper cause” in New York’s gun law precluded issuance of a handgun carry license to a license applicant in the absence of a convincing showing of it. The expression, ‘proper cause,’ is not defined in the Sullivan Act itself. The Judiciary was left to fill in the gap. As explained by the Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel, “The text of the Sullivan Act simply requires that a person have ‘proper cause’ to possess a carry permit. In New York City, lawful self-defense is not a ‘proper cause’ unless a person has a ‘special need’ that is different from the rest of the community, a standard that was first upheld in a 1980 decision, Klenosky vs. N.Y.C. Police Department, 428 N.Y.S.2d 256 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980). Aff’d, 421 N.E.2d 503 (N.Y. 1981).” ~“Gun control and the second amendment: developments and controversies in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and Mcdonald v. Chicago: Article: The Great Gun Control War Of The Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today,” 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527 (October 2012), David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. The law remained on the books, uninterrupted, for one hundred and ten years after enactment.New York’s “proper cause” requirement became a “cause célèbre” of Anti-Second Amendment proponents who abhor the notion of civilian citizens carrying firearms in public, as the application of it has effectively precluded the vast majority of people who sought to carry a handgun for self-defense from doing so. The inanity and insanity of New York’s “proper cause” requirement reverberated and rippled up to the present time, culminating in the Bruen case. The New York Government’s arrogant insistence on it provoked the ire of Justice Thomas, et. al.  Yet, New Yorkers who cherish the unalienable, natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms, didn’t wait for a chance to defeat “proper cause” through the Bruen case. They saw an opening after the High Court came out with the McDonald decision in 2010—which followed its sister, the Heller case in 2008.  The insidiousness of the insertion of a “proper-cause” requirement in the Sullivan Act cannot be overstated. For over one hundred and ten years—New York did not recognize a right of armed self-defense outside an interior dwelling—i.e., outside one’s home, or place of business. To this day, the New York Government refuses to acknowledge or recognize a right of armed self-defense outside one’s home or place of business, notwithstanding that the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, deleted the “proper cause” requirement in response to the Bruen case decision, effective, shortly, on September 2, 2022.To understand what is transpiring here it is necessary to step back and take a close look at the New York case Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), forKachalsky is critical to understanding the modus operandi of New York Gun Law both Pre-Bruen, since 1912, when “proper cause” was added to the Sullivan Act, and defended in the and Post-Bruen, when the Hochul Government developed a workaround to maintain the import of “proper cause” sans the verbiage. Kachalsky, citing for support the earlier 1980 Kenosky case, referred to supra, dealt directly with the “proper cause” requirement, shooting down any suggestion that the State’s “proper cause” requirement is somehow unconstitutional.

KACHALSKY

In Kachalsky v. Cacace, 817 F. Supp. 2d 235, (S.D.N.Y. 2011), Plaintiff Petitioner Kachalsky, a citizen who resides in Westchester County, and several other individuals similarly situated, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Respondent Cacace, the Police Licensing officer for denying Plaintiffs’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. The Plaintiffs specifically challenged the constitutionality of “proper cause,” the vehicle through which the handgun licensing authority denied issuance of an unrestricted handgun carry license to the Plaintiffs.The District Court explained the facts as follows:“In May 2008, Plaintiff Kachalsky applied for a full-carry permit to be able to carry a concealed handgun while in public. In his application, Kachalsky asserted that he believed he satisfied Section 400.00(2)(f)'s ‘proper cause’ requirement because he was a U.S. citizen and therefore entitled to ‘the right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment, [stating] ‘we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others,’ and he was ‘a law-abiding citizen’ who had neither ‘been convicted of a crime’ nor ‘assaulted or threatened to assault another person.’ Upon reviewing Kachalsky's application and completing a corresponding investigation, the Department of Public Safety recommended that the permit be denied. The application, investigation file, and recommendation were forwarded to Defendant Cacace, who, acting as licensing officer, reviewed those materials and issued a decision and order, dated October 8, 2008, denying Kachalsky's application. Cacace observed that Kachalsky failed to state ‘any facts which would demonstrate a need for self protection distinguishable from that of the general public,’ and that ‘based upon all the facts and circumstances of this application, it is my opinion that proper cause does not exist for the issuance of an unrestricted 'full carry' pistol license.’” [references to pleadings redacted]In finding for the Police Licensing Officer, against Plaintiffs, the Court said, “To establish proper cause to obtain a license without any restrictions—the full-carry license that Plaintiffs seek in this case—an applicant must; demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession.’ There is a substantial body of law instructing licensing officials on the application of this standard. Unlike a license for target shooting or hunting, ‘[a] generalized desire to carry a concealed weapon to protect one's person and property does not constitute ‘proper cause.’”  Good moral character plus a simple desire to carry a weapon is not enough. Nor is living or being employed in a ‘high crime area.’” [citations omitted].The reader should note the District Court in Kachalsky opined that a showing of “good moral character,” while necessary to obtain a carry license in New York, isn’t sufficient to warrant issuance of a carry license. This is a salient point. And AQ will come back to this when we discuss “good moral character” in depth. Suffice it to say, at this time, having struck out “proper cause” from the Sullivan Act, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq. as amended (2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 1B), the Hochul Government has bolstered the “good moral character,” requirement, essentially refabricating and reframing it to do double-duty, operating like the old “proper cause” requirement to drastically cut the number of individuals who, although under no Federal law disability to own an possess firearms, would still be denied exercise of their fundamental right.Governor Hochul and Albany have altered “good moral character” to make it a challenging obstacle to overcome. The “good moral character” remains as vague as ever, but the Hochul Government has mandated that new applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license, and renewals as well, must include information that casts a bright light on one’s personal political, social, and religious beliefs. With this information, the licensing official can ostensibly deduce psychological aspects of one's character as well as his ideological and socio-philosophical leanings. To ask for such information is unconscionable and unconstitutional. An applicant is thus faced with a dilemma, a veritable, proverbial Hobson choice.Most everyone today has some sort of social media account and has commented on websites or has created a website of one’s own. The information conveyed on these sites can likely touch upon personal sensitive financial and medical information. On these websites, one's hopes, wishes, prayers, fears, and reveries may be laid bare. Government and employers, gaining access to this rich body of data, have used it to deny employment, or to fire a person from employment. And the Federal Government is soaking up petabytes of information on individuals. One can only wonder at the amount of data that the NSA is compiling on everyone and everything and storing in its colossal information holding tanks in Bluffdale, Utah. See, e.g., Fox News article and article in The Guardian. Most all records are electronically digitalized and available on the world wide web. If an applicant provides this information to a Government handgun licensing official, such information may become part of a Government public record. This information will certainly become the basis to deny a person a concealed handgun carry license if, for example, the licensing officer happens to disagree with one’s political, social, or religious viewpoints and leanings. And the information will likely be forwarded to police authorities throughout the State and to the Federal authorities as well, including, DOJ, DHS, and the FBI, organizations that have a very dim view of individuals who are deemed “social and political conservatives.” This is not a theoretical concern or “conspiratorial musing.” It is real, as recent events confirm.Especially concerning and disconcerting is that such private information will make its way to the DOJ/FBI and CIA, where an individual can be scrutinized and marked for special treatment. Our Federal Government's Departments, Bureaus, and Agencies are slowly and inexorably taking on the characteristics of horrific secret police and intelligence gathering organizations reminiscent of the Third Reich's Gestapo/Kripo police organizations and of the secretive Sicherheitsdienst-SD (Security Service of the SS); and of the secret police of the interior ministry of the Stalin Government, the NKVD. One is reminded of Senator Chuck Schumer's remark, as reported in The Federalist, “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” It is an idiotic assertion to be sure, but more so because Schumer comes across as a fawning jackass for the intelligence community; boasting of its power; conveying to the public his admiration of it,  rather than acknowledging that it has gotten out of hand and needs to be controlled. In that regard, isn't Congress supposed to monitor and control the police and intelligence apparatuses of the Nation? After all, Congress created these things. It has ultimate oversight authority over them. Yet, rather than keeping these things on a tight leash, Schumer would allow these creatures to run amok, or worse, admits that Congress can't do a damn thing to control them. And, instead of attempting to do so, he would rather stand stupified, in utter awe of them.And then there is the illustrious Attorney General.The DOJ/FBI, through statements and actions of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, has made plain that those Americans who happen to have a “conservative” political and social mindset are construed as exhibiting deviant thought and behavior. So the DOJ/FBI treats such American citizens as “Domestic Terrorists,” or certainly as potential “Domestic Terrorists”—and a “Domestic Terrorist”  or one who is deemed by the “woke police” to have the wrong psychological attributes, i.e., one who doesn't accept the new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” and who isn't a proponent of the rules-based neoliberal international order isn't the sort of person that a handgun licensing authority would deign to issue an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license too, anyway. In fact, why should any proper thinking civilized human being want a gun anyway? Aren't those people who cherish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and who desire to exercise that right a throwback to a time long since past and best laid to rest? Wouldn't that be nice, or so the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists would have Americans believe? And, if they can seduce enough Americans, perhaps then, they can dispense with the muddy problem, and one fraught with considerable peril, of attempting to remove hundreds of millions of firearms and millions of rounds of ammunition from over one hundred million Americans. 

THE CATCH-22 OF HANDGUN LICENSING IN NEW YORK

The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government sees guns as troublesome and gun owners as inherently troubled individuals, and New York's Gun Law, as conceived, and implemented conveys that idea. Succinctly stated it is this: “You can have a concealed handgun carry license if you don't want one because you are sane to not want one, and all you have to do to obtain one is to file an application to get one, and then you can carry a handgun. But, then, if you do file an application for a handgun carry license that must mean to us that you do want one, which is apparent through your filing an application to obtain one. But, then, you must be insane and must therefore be denied one because the State cannot abide a person carrying a handgun who is insane.”

_________________

“There Was Only One Catch And That Was Catch-22, Which Specified That A Concern For One's Safety In The Face Of Dangers That Were Real And Immediate Was The Process Of A Rational Mind. Orr Was Crazy And Could Be Grounded. All He Had To Do Was Ask; And As Soon As He Did, He Would No Longer Be Crazy And Would Have To Fly More Missions. Orr Would Be Crazy To Fly More Missions And Sane If He Didn't, But If He Was Sane He Had To Fly Them. If He Flew Them He Was Crazy And Didn't Have To; But If He Didn't Want To He Was Sane And Had To. Yossarian Was Moved Very Deeply By The Absolute Simplicity Of This Clause Of Catch-22 And Let Out A Respectful Whistle.‘That's Some Catch, That Catch-22,’ He Observed.‘It's The Best There Is,’ Doc Daneeka Agreed.” ~From the novel, “Catch 22,” by Joseph Heller, first published in 1961

_________________

Of course, a person ostensibly willingly divulging a wealth of personal information to a police licensing officer, which, under the Governor's newly reconfigured, convoluted, consecrated  “good moral character” requirement, one must do, makes the work of police investigation of compiling dossiers on everyone in New York, substantially less time-consuming and expensive. The applicant does the “dirty work” for the police. He or she is forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination with little chance at best, anyway, of receiving the coveted prize: an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license by which one might be able to adequately defend life and limb in the concrete jungle that New York has degenerated to.There is no upside to any of this for the average citizen, and there is certainly no upside in the release of vast stores of personal data, highlighting one's personal thoughts, beliefs, and idiosyncrasies to the State Government.In the end, the applicant is left in a worse situation than before the filing. He or she is denied a concealed handgun carry license, and the State Government has a veritable cornucopia of personal data on a person as there is nothing in the amendments to the Sullivan Act that require a licensing officer to destroy the information obtained after the officer denies the application. The Government holds onto that information, and can, thereafter, use it to keep tabs on the individual and for extrajudicial, nefarious purposes that a person can only guess at. And, if the applicant refuses to divulge such information, what then? The handgun licensing authority will immediately refuse issuance of a concealed handgun carry license on the ground of failure of the applicant to comply with Sullivan Act requirements that the applicant divulge personal social media information and any other data the officer, in his discretion, demands so that the officer can properly assess one's personal, psychological makeup.Hence, the applicant is placed in an impossible situation—the proverbial Hobson Choice—i.e. no tenable choice at all. After September 2, 2022, when the amendments to the Sullivan Act take effect, the Hochul Government will start to use “good moral character” like the “proper cause” requirement before it, a veritable brick wall. The new requirement will operate much like and as well as the old requirement: to deny to the vast majority of individuals seeking a valid unrestricted New York State concealed handgun carry license the ability to lawfully carry a handgun in the State.This is in keeping with New York Government tradition that does not recognize armed self-defense outside the home or place of business, as a fundamental natural law right. Nothing changes. And it is consistent with New York Governor Hochul's Press Release, released on the day the U.S. Supreme Court officially released the Bruen decision. New York would go through the pretense of complying with the High Court's rulings, but, in practice, the amendments to the Sullivan Act are designed to make it difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license, and, in fact, the amendments make it more difficult, not less so, for the average citizen to obtain one. And, for those individuals who presently have a valid New York City or State concealed handgun carry license, the amendments place renewals of existing licenses on an equal footing with first-time applicants. A pro forma exercise for renewal applicants is a thing of the past. The application process for a concealed handgun carry license begins anew for everyone. And that raises another issue: the operational rules, implementing the amendments to the Gun Law have yet to be finalized. In fact, one might ask if the Government bureaucrats have even drafted them yet. That is a big if! So, where does that leave current handgun licensees in the interim, whose licenses for renewal are imminent?The simple fact is this: The New York Government will defeat any attempt by those who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right of armed self-defense outside the home. At the very least, the changes to New York’s Sullivan Act will create as many obstacles as it can get away with to frustrate those applicants who seek to carry a handgun outside the home or place of business. Thus, in New York, the Bruen decision will do little to assuage difficulty in obtaining a concealed handgun carry license.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE STRUCK DOWN NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME

How do Governor Hochul and the Legislature in Albany get away with this? They are able to do so because the main mechanism of defeating the Second Amendment remains unscathed. New York, like several other jurisdictions around the Country is a handgun licensing jurisdiction. The average civilian citizen cannot lawfully possess a handgun anywhere in New York unless one secures a valid license from the appropriate licensing authority in New York. That is the source of the present problem in New York.The High Court did not go far enough. The Court did not strike down, as unconstitutional, the licensing of handguns. Handgun licensing regimes are inherently incompatible with the Second Amendment guarantee. No other fundamental right requires the acquisition of a license before an American may lawfully exercise a natural law right. One doesn't need a license to exercise his right of free speech or to practice religion or to associate with those people or groups one wishes to associate with. It would be bizarre to require a Government issued license before one might lawfully do so. Similarly, to acknowledge a right of the people to keep and bear arms and at one and the same time to recognize the licensing of handguns as a privilege and a condition precedent to the exercise of the basic, unalienable right is inconsistent with the very nature of natural law, God-given rights. These rights exist intrinsically in the person. They are not priviliges bestowed on one by the grace of the State. They are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and eternal. That the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that licensing of handguns or any firearm a condition precedent to exercise of a fundamental natural law right is a major flaw of the Bruen case, as it was a major flaw of Heller and McDonald before it. None of these seminal Second Amendment cases dealt head-on with this. And jurisdictions like New York will continue to use licensing of handguns and other firearms as a difficult obstacle to overcome or, for most people, an impenetrable barrier, preventing one from exercising the basic, natural law right of armed self-defense.  Licensing of handguns, operating as a condition precedent to the exercise of a fundamental, unalienable, natural law right, is legally indefensible. And the practice is irreconcilable with basic principles of elementary logic. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito must have been aware of this fatal flaw in the Bruen decision. One must wonder: Did Justices Thomas and Alito concede the constitutionality of handgun licensing to obtain Roberts’ vote and that of Kavanaugh? Was that the price Justices Thomas and Alito had to pay to obtain the acquiescence of Roberts and Kavanaugh? If so, that brings disturbingly to mind the price the three Associate Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—had to pay to get Roberts and Kennedy on board, in the Heller case. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had to openly acknowledge the right of State Governments to continue to impinge upon the core of the Second Amendment. But doing so guaranteed continued Court action as Governments would always find ways to frustrate the citizen’s exercise of armed self-defense, and citizens, for their part, would find it necessary to continue to file lawsuits against unconscionable, unconstitutional Government action—an expensive, time-consuming, frustrating, and physically and psychologically tiring, exhausting ordeal. And a favorable outcome for the would-be gun owners can never be assured.Of course, State Governments know all this, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany certainly know this. Letters have already been sent to Government officials around the Country, contesting the “good moral character” requirement. For, these jurisdictions are using “good moral character” as they had heretofore utilized  “proper cause,” as an effective means to deny a person a coveted handgun carry license. And lawsuits are being prepared. And, once again, ever again, Americans face the same frustrations, when it comes to the exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense.Litigation is to be avoided if possible. There is a better way; more effective; substantially less time-consuming; and certainly more cost-effective. In New York, voters have a chance this November to overturn the present oppressive and repressive handgun licensing regime and  their oppressive, unresponsive Government. They can accomplish this by electing, as the new Governor of New York, Lee Zeldin. Unlike the present Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, Lee Zeldin is a true and fervent advocate of one’s right of armed self-defense. And he is also something that Kathy Hochul is not. He is a law and order Candidate for New York Governor. Lee Zeldin would also take definite steps—rather than rely on the same tiresome words and the same lame excuses to rationalize an inability or, worse, a clear lack of will—to come to grips with the intractable, horrific crime problem plaguing and engulfing New York, especially the City of New York.Many New Yorkers understand this. Will political independents and a sufficient number of Democrats take a leap of faith and vote for people who have their best interests at heart this November? Will they forbear from voting for people who say they care about the well-being of New York and of the residents in it, but, through their actions, make clear they do not?Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and Democrat Party Legislators in Albany do not represent the interests of New Yorkers. They represent the interests of a small group of billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” and Neo-Marxist cultists. And the aims of these people are not the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, as becomes more evident with each passing day, its destruction.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRUEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEEDED BUT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

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

MULTISERIES

PART FOUR

As we alluded to, in our earlier articles on Bruen, the High Court’s decision is meant to redirect the actions of those jurisdictions that have misread and misapplied Heller.As one reads the Bruen Majority Opinion, and the Concurring Opinions, it becomes clear that the salient purpose of the Court’s Majority is to redirect those jurisdictions toward a proper understanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as explained in Heller and McDonald. Bruen is intended to instill Courts with an appreciation of the proper standard of review to be used when reviewing Courts are called upon to test the constitutionality of government actions that impact the Second Amendment.Too many jurisdictions have, heretofore, intentionally, and stubbornly, or accidentally and carelessly, failed to heed the dictates of the two seminal Second Amendment holdings that impact all Second Amendment cases—Heller and McDonald. Henceforth, in the 21^st Century, this failure to heed Heller and McDonald is not acceptable. The Bruen decision as propounded is meant to correct serious irregularities in the judicial standard those Courts have heretofore employed— “intermediate scrutiny”/ “interest-balancing”—when reviewing the Constitutionality of Government actions impacting the Second Amendment.But truth to tell, this wasn’t the salient reason the High Court took up the case. And, notwithstanding that the conservative wing of the Court reviewed the case at all, this was not by wish of the liberal wing of the Court. It required the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, and his faithful colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well, if the case were to be reviewed at all. In that regard, Bruen is just like Heller. For Heller to be accepted for review, it required the cooperation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Their votes were necessary if the conservative wing—at the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—were to be able to hold, finally, what had always been plain: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is not connected to one’s service in a militia. The dependent clause provides a rationale for the right—a mechanism to forestall tyranny of Government from taking root—but it is not at all to be considered a limitation on the exercise of the right. That would make no sense, on logical grounds alone, for it would reduce the right to a nullity. But, just as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to get both onboard in Heller, so, similarly, Associate Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice and to Justice Kavanaugh to get them onboard in Bruen. Doing so ultimately made for a debilitated Bruen. And, as we explain in our continuing comprehensive exposition, Bruen is a markedly weak case. Bruen is much less than it could have been and much less than it should have been. That is to say, the entire handgun licensing structure of New York should have been struck down. But it wasn't. The Court could have done this in the New York City “gun transport case” if the Court had decided the case on the merits as both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wanted. That didn’t happen. Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court, didn’t want that to happen. And Justice Kavanaugh acquiesced to the wishes of the Chief Justice in that case. Similarly, in Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court might have struck down the handgun licensing structure of New York that had existed for over one hundred years as it is an affront to the natural law right of armed self-defense. But the liberal wing didn’t want that to happen, and Justice Roberts didn’t want to see that happen either. Yet that was the raison d’être why Bruen came before the Court. If but tacitly, Petitioners, nonetheless, sought to strike down the entirety of the handgun licensing regime in New York, as it is an abomination. It was, in its very design, intended to severely hobble those Americans who reside in New York, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. New York intended to inhibit exercise of those citizens who reside in New York of their God-Given natural law right of armed self-defense.Chief Justice Roberts didn’t want to see the handgun licensing structure of New York struck down, and he cajoled Justice Kavanaugh to join him in preventing a holding in Bruen that would see the Court doing just that: striking down the one hundred-and eleven-year-old Sullivan Act—the progenitor of the entire handgun licensing structure of New York—which has only grown more robust and egregious through time. And the liberal wing of the Court certainly didn’t want to see the handgun licensing regime of New York collapsing. For their goal is to see an end to the Second Amendment. The Sullivan Act is consistent with that goal.Bruen, unlike the New York City gun transport case that preceded it, was decided on the merits, but the ruling of the Court—there really was only one ruling—did not do much for Americans who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms unimpeded by Government. To the contrary, it made matters worse—much worse for present holders of New York City concealed handgun carry licenses. Thus, because Justices Thomas and Alito were prevented from striking at the core of New York’s handgun licensing regime, they spent most of their energies laying out the Heller standard for review. If one stops to think about that, the standard of review that Courts are supposed to apply and are supposed to adhere to was never a major issue in the case, and that it existed at all, was only as tangentially related to the key concern: the unconstitutionality of New York’s entire handgun licensing scheme. In other words, if New York Courts had applied the appropriate standard in reviewing Government actions impacting the Second Amendment, as the Courts should have been doing all along, on their own initiative, then Bruen would never have been necessary. The New York Courts would have themselves struck down the New York handgun licensing regime a long time ago, as blatantly unconstitutional, and Petitioners in the Bruen case, and many other American citizens residing in New York, would have, long ago, been able to exercise their right of armed self-defense without Government interfering with their inalienable right to do so. And that in and of itself would have taken care of the notorious crime wave impacting the City of New York, in particular. That New York Courts have failed to do so and that they, in fact, have embraced the unconstitutionality of New York Government harassment of those citizens who simply wish to exercise their right of armed self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so in Bruen, and that would make sense after methodically going through application of the Heller test. Yet, the High Court stopped short of doing that. The Court left the handgun licensing scheme intact. It is our belief that Associate Justices Thomas and Alito would have liked to have been done with it, for the last time, and would have done away with it, but for reluctance on the part of the Chief Justice himself, and, on the part of Justice Kavanaugh as well, apart from the liberal wing of the High Court.  For far too long, all too many Federal and State Courts have mangled Heller and McDonald, wrongly reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right”—a point Justice Thomas made in his comment to the 2015 Friedman case that the Court failed to grant certiorari on, and that he pointed to again in Bruen. Justice Thomas emphasized that the States cannot reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right.” But many State Governments have done just that. And the State and Federal Courts in those jurisdictions had routinely held such Government actions as Constitutional when they were not.More inclined to adopt Dissenting Justice Breyer’s argument and reasoning and that of other liberal wing Justices in Heller and McDonald, rather than the sound judicial reasoning and rulings of the Majority, the lower Courts were legally bound to follow, those Courts had slowly eroded Heller and McDonald. Through time this resulted in the production of a substantial body of case law that has the invidious and insidious effect of striking down Heller and McDonald majority opinion rulings and reasoning. Thus, the lower federal and state Courts replace Majority Opinion Conservative wing rulings, respectful of the Second Amendment, with liberal wing musings, disrespectful of and abhorrent of the Second Amendment, as is plain from a perusal of liberal wing dissenting opinions—a serious injustice, establishing erroneous precedents across the appellate Court landscape. The United States Supreme Court did have many opportunities for more than a decade to redress the Constitutional irregularities of State and municipal Governments. Plenty of cases came to the High Court requesting review, but the liberal wing of the High Court did not want that. Those Justices that detested the Heller and McDonald holdings would have much preferred the de facto, or even de jure, erasing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And they would have been well on their way to the attainment of that goal if Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland had acquired a seat on the High Court. The liberal wing Justices were and are always of one mind on matters impacting the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t want to strengthen, or reinforce, or extend the rulings of Heller and McDonald as a review of those cases would have done if Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy were onboard with that. At the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have done just that But, without the support of Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Kennedy, that wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy most certainly were not prepared to do anything that might strengthen or extend the Heller and McDonald case rulings. It tells a person much about the jurisprudential makeup of the Chief Justice and about Justice Kennedy.So, Heller and McDonald languished. And, the death of Justice Scalia, and Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to seats on the High Court, wouldn’t change the equation. The excruciating painful disembowelment of the two seminal Second Amendment cases was inexorable and inevitable. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were powerless to do anything about it unless they had the votes to prevent this. But, without Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy—and thereafter, Roberts and Kavanaugh—on their side, they didn’t have the votes. This meant that many Americans, in the interim, were systematically denied the right guaranteed to them in the Second Amendment.That all changed with the Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who, it is safe to say, supports a robust Second Amendment, consistent with the framers’ intent. With Barrett onboard, Roberts and Kavanaugh would have to lend their support to the Conservative wing, or they would be found out for the imposters they were and are. But they could not be caught operating as devoted companions of the liberal wing of the Court who seek to make mincemeat of the Bill of Rights. That would never do, especially for the Chief Justice to be in the minority on any decision, and certainly not on one impacting a fundamental right of the American people. Now that the Court did at least somewhat strengthen Heller and McDonald, with the Bruen decision, has this rectified the situation for Americans? Have States begun their slow reassessment of the Second Amendment? Have they begun to treat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a “first-class right” and not a “second-class right”? Perhaps so. Time will tell. Some jurisdictions in fact appear inclined to do so. But, in New York—from where Bruen sprung—not so. Definitely not so! And we will explore why that is in the next several articles on Bruen._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose.  Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige.  And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it.  The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website.  It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov.  A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from.  The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of  tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.  Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.  And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association.    The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed.  Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well   as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved   

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

QUOTATION LEAD-IN TO ARTICLE

“It is time for us to think outside the box and form two countries. Instead of civil war I propose civil separation. We are two countries, so ideologically opposed that each feels victimized and dominated by the other. Political leaders need to step up and brainstorm next steps. Clearly lay out the two ideologies and give each state a vote as to where they belong.” ~“Opinion Letter” from reader of The New York Times posted on June 5, 2022, responding to May 27, 2022 “America May Be Broken Beyond Repair,” by the Political Progressive Columnist for the Times, Michelle Goldberg. The letter writer, Dawn Menken, a Psychologist, from Portland, Oregon, is the author of “Facilitating a More Perfect Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders,” published in 2021*

THE CONCEPT OF ‘PRIVILEGE’ ISN'T AT ALL THE SAME THING AS AN ‘UNMODIFIABLE, FUNDAMENTAL, IMMUTABLE, ILLIMITABLE, AND ETERNAL GOD-BESTOWED RIGHT’, BUT THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE OFTEN, AND ERRONEOUSLY, CONFLATED

If the American public didn’t know the truth before, it knows it now: the battle for the very Soul of the Country is on the line, and Ground Zero of that battle isn’t Uvalde, Texas. It’s New York City, New York.The Nation is indeed “two Countries,”—no less so now than at the time of the American Civil War: friend against friend, brother against brother, uncle against cousin, father against son. But, what is different today is that ideologies cut across and into the very notion of what it means to be an American. There are those who hold to the meaning and purport of our Nation as set forth in our Constitution and especially in the Nation's Bill of Rights. And there are those who wish to jettison all of it in the erroneous belief that our Nation is at its core,  immoral, even evil. They wish to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic. These adherents of the ideology of Collectivism have, with the aid of nefarious and shadowy and powerful forces, residing both here and abroad, gained control over much of the Federal Government. And having gained control over much of the Press and of media, as well, they propagate their message to the American people incessantly and vehemently. But one thing these Collectivist overseers have not gained control over: America's armed citizenry. And that disturbs and perplexes them and places them in a quandary as to what to do about it. For doing something about that, these Collectivists must. One cannot destroy a Nation if one cannot gain control over those who have the will and means to effectively resist the insinuation of tyranny over them.But, how does one go about separating an estimated 400 million firearms (according to American Gun Facts) in the hands of one-third of the target population. According to a November 2020 Gallop Poll, thirty-two percent of Americans possess firearms. See also report of the Rand Corporation, a 2017 report of the Pew Research Center, titled, “the Demographics of gun ownership,” and an SSRN 2021 “National Firearms Survey.” Seditious newspapers, like the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, and seditious Cable and Broadcast news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR disparage guns and gun ownership so frequently and so vehemently that a person is led to infer that their business models are designed around that one narrative. The amount of air time and Press coverage these news organizations devote to defensive use of arms is so scarce as to be essentially nonexistent. Such mention that is made of effective defensive use of arms to thwart criminal because of too much internet chatter regarding it, is given curt treatment with the hope that it will eventually dissipate on its own. Instead the American psyche is bombarded with viral memes. Injected with and subjected to verbal and visual memes on a daily basis, the American develops a phobic reaction toward guns and toward those who possess them: word phrases such as Gun Violence, Gun Culture, Mass Shootings, Assault Weapons, AR-15 Rifles, Weapons of War, Large Capacity Magazines, when coupled with images of violence operate as visual and auditory cues, that induce a neurotic reaction in the target population. This is to be expected; in fact this is intended. The goal is to create in the mind of the target a feeling of physical revulsion and repulsion toward guns.But, is it really a concern over the safety of innocent people that motivates a vigorous response against firearms and firearms' ownership, misguided though that be, or is there something more sinister at play? If it were the former, one would expect a harsh response toward the massive wave of everyday criminal violence infecting our Country, especially in the major urban areas. But, we see no such response. Those State and municipal Government officials and legislators who rabidly attack guns in the hands of average, rational, responsible, individuals handle rampant violent and vicious crime infecting their locales with an air of casual indifference and diffidence. So, it cannot be violent crime generally or violent gun crime committed by drug-crazed lunatics, psychopathic and psychotic gangbangers, and by garden-variety criminals that motivate these officials. What might it be, then? Why would Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Government officials, along with their compatriots in the Press, go off half-cocked whenever a rare occurrence, invariably avoidable, of "mass violence" arises, occasioned by the actions of a solitary lunatic? Why would Government officials and legislators shriek for more nonsensical gun laws, targeting tens of millions of average Americans, predicating the need for it on the lowest common denominator among us: the lone wolf psychotic. The answer is plain. The actions of the lone wolf psychotic merely provide a convenient pretext. It isn't the criminal actions of the lone wolf malcontent psychotic that Government is concerned about. For that lone wolf doesn't pose a viable threat to a Government. Rather, it is the armed citizenry that poses a threat to Government and by the very fact that the citizenry is armed. But, why should Government fear its own citizenry? It shouldn't and wouldn't unless Government seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the citizenry, as it clearly aims to do.A perspicacious Tyrant would know it is a Tyrant. But this Federal Government doesn't know it. So entrenched in Tyranny is this Federal Government through years and decades of usurpation of the authority rightfully belonging to the American people, that it has grown oblivious to its unlawful usurpation of power and authority. The Federal Government has amassed power and authority that doesn't belong to it, and never did belong to it, believing, wrongly, that the power it has usurped from the people is rightfully its own. And the Government has become jealous in guarding this power, hoarding it all for itself.It then stands to reason that the Federal Government would come to perceive the armed citizenry as a potential rival to crush, rather than as a master to serve. But, even in that the Federal Government, as Tyrant, is really but a caretaker to those bankers and financiers who are plotting the demise of this western Nation-State and all western Nation-States.Americans celebrate July 4 every year, since July 4, 1776, the Day America's first  Patriots declared their independence from tyranny. The Declaration of Independence was a righteous but defiant act. It led to war. It was a war hard fought. And the seeming underdog vanquished the mighty British empire. July 4, 2022, is just around the corner. But every year, since the turn of the 21st Century, Americans have had cause for concern, whether this July 4th Celebration would be our Nation's last.The founders created a Republican form of Government, having considered and dismissed many others. the American people would themselves be sovereign rulers where their representatives would serve and represent their interests. A Republican form of Government as envisioned and as created is antithetical to a Dictatorship, where Government is sovereign over the people.The British monarchy would eventually come to terms with loss of the American colonies. The Rothschild clan, on the other hand, would not forgive nor forget the loss of those colonies, and the loss of financial riches across the Atlantic Ocean. With the help of other financiers they realized it best to use subterfuge rather than arms to defeat the colonialists descendants. With the creation of the Federal Reserve System and with the seeding of money to the representatives of the people, to do their bidding and not that of the American people, and with their control over vast levers of power of Government, and with their control of the Press—the mechanism of dissemination of information—the Rothschild clan and its captain have gained back in two hundred and fifty years all that they had lost in eight years of the American Revolutionary War—but for one thing:

UNLIKE THE PEOPLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE AN ARMED PEOPLE

A Tyrannical Caretaker Government for the Rothschild and Soros Financiers and Globalist Billionaire elites cannot gain control over a citizenry that has the requisite will and the means to effectively resist oppression and subjugation.Americans are well aware that the loss of their Republic, their Sovereignty, of their God-Given Rights and Liberties is at hand—but for the fact that Americans are armed.The senile, corrupt, weak-willed, and weak-kneed puppet of the Globalist elites, signed a flurry of executive orders on a wide variety of matters, rescinding and countermanding the gains made by Donald Trump in returning our Nation to prosperity and prominence on the world stage. But, the policy-makers wisely refrained from taking any action, curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The puppet masters knew that they would need time to consolidate their power even with the feeble, frail Biden puppet and legions of other lackeys at their disposal. And time they now had with Trump removed from Office. And they knew that it would be just a matter of time before some lunatic with a gun would create a furor that the Press could pounce upon. Perhaps, they even had a hand in prepping their psychotic robots to instigate the events that would serve as the quasi-plausible pretexts upon which to launch a flurry of new anti-gun legislation.All of this would be necessary. A new soci0-political-economic paradigm embracing the entire world is an ambitious project. And the remains of the United States is a vital component for bringing that project to fruition. Pragmatic concerns mandate this. But emotions probably also play a part. The Rothschild clan could see, not only in the demise of the United States, but in the manner of that demise—Americans denigrating their own history and heritage, destroying their own monuments, disparaging their own Founders—a malicious joy in that undertaking would be something the Rothschild clan and George Soros et. al. would chuckle over.The nascent American people effectively resisted tyranny once before, long ago, against immense odds, and overthrew a tyrannical Government, the British Empire. That empire was nominally ruled by a Monarch, George III. But it was  effectively ruled by the Rothschild Banking Cartel.George III was long laid to rest. The present British Dynasty, the House of Windsor, is decadent, effete, corrupt, and a major expense to the English people. Once Queen Elizabeth dies, the monarchy will quickly wither under King Charles if he becomes King at all. The English Parliament, like the monarchy operates more by empty ritual. The real power resides in the Bank of England, just as the Federal Reserve presides over the Government of the United States.The United States Supreme Court will soon release its decision in Bruen, and the puppet masters and their minions in the Press and in Government are worried; frantic, really. What claim can they make on the Nation if sovereignty over it continues to rest, not in them, but in the American people?Much more concerning to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor as it was designed to do—is retention by the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.That abhorrence isn’t grounded on mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns. It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. The Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people.In colorful language, The NYTimes explains this frustration, rage, and fear—one borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights. The Times says:“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.That aforementioned article came out in late May. Two weeks later, ten U.S. Republican Senators, “Ten Little Indians”,** broke ranks. They betrayed their Oath to their Constituents. That was bad enough. But, they also betrayed their Oath to Country and to Constitution. That was worst of all. For, in doing so, they betrayed their Faith and Allegiance in the Divine Creator in daring to circumvent Divine Will. They have joined the ranks of the Democrat Party Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Satanists. These “Ten Little Indians”—these ignominious United States Republican Party Senators, ten in number—should, properly, justifiably, suffer the fate of those “Ten Little Indians” of poem.The Hill reports, “A bipartisan group of senators announced a deal Sunday on framework legislation to address a recent surge in gun violence in the U.S.The proposed legislation includes funding for school safety resources, strengthened background checks for buyers under the age of 21, incentives for states to implement their own red flag laws, penalties for straw purchases of firearms and increased protections for domestic violence victims.The bipartisan group was made up of 20 senators, including 10 GOP lawmakers, many of whom are strong supporters of gun rights and political allies of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).”With support from those 10 Republicans, the legislation likely has the votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. And what caused these 10 Republicans to take affirmative action against preservation of an absolute and essential fundamental Right—the Natural Law Right of Armed Self-Defense? What caused these Republicans to capitulate to the Neo-Marxist Democrats: Bribes of Money? Desire to appease an angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist lunatics? Fear of physical assault from this angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist fanatics and lunatics if these Republicans failed to bow down to the mob and to a renegade Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Congress and to the powerful and ruthless forces that control them both? Or, were they of that mindset all along:The Destroyers of our Nation don’t even deign to refer to gun possession as a Basic Right—the most basic Right: one grounded on personal survival, be it from predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather they utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it. Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something wonderful that some people attain by dint of birth advantage or connection made or acquired—but that most do not.This substitution of words is no small thing. To be sure, the words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. For example, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary——“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.” Yet, a “Right’, i.e., a “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

• “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
• “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”  
• “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
• “All rights are essentially property rights.”
• “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

This distinction between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the root of  Bruen, whether one knows this or not, and therein rests its singular importance for Americans.And the Bruen case is more important to the preservation of a free Republic than many Americans can truly appreciate or the legacy Press and Government will let on.In its Brief for review, on December 17, 2020, the Petitioner presented the issue thus:“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center. Heller made clear that a person has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But, the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The tacit implication is this: exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute.In an attempt to lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioner, the Robert’s Court limited the scope of the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:“Whether the state of New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”John Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted to chop off the legs of the issue at the knee: reducing the reviewable issue merely to the constitutionality of  NYPD procedures.In light of the recent Uvalde, Texas incident, an incident that the Harris-Biden Administration, along with a Democrat-Marxist-controlled Congress and seditious Press, has irresponsibly, reprehensibly, unconscionably, shamelessly and incessantly focused the public's attention on and magnified to further its goal—the eradication of the Nation's Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the toppling of a free Constitutional Republic—the Bruen case takes on heightened importance. This Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist abhorrence of the armed citizenry is borne of outright fear. The Tyrant always hates and fears an armed citizenry. But, what might Americans expect from the High Court apropos of Bruen.In a worst-case scenario for the puppet masters and their minions who seek the dismantling of our free Republic, the Court will strike down the entire handgun licensing regime. If that were to happen, the impact would be felt across the Nation.Americans would immediately commence filing lawsuits challenging restrictive concealed handgun licensing regimes across the Nation, as well they should.The Bruen case was/is primed to do just that. And, after more than a decade— and with Marxist/Globalist Government's continuing consolidation of power, methodically and inexorably stripping the citizenry of its Fundamental Rights and of its sovereignty over Government—it is high time for another seminal Second Amendment case. Only through the preservation of the armed citizenry can America's Patriots ever hope to preserve the Founders hard-fought victory over oppression and Tyranny. Only through steadfast defense of the meaning, and purpose, and  the American Revolution of 1776, can Americans effectively repulse the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Open Society/EU/UN/New World Order Collectivist Counterrevolution of the 21st Century.___________________________________

DON’T RELY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE FORTHCOMING BRUEN DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE MORE DISAPPOINTMENT THAN JOY—JUST LIKE THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION THAT CAME BEFORE IT.

Even the most politically naïve of Americans and even the most devout of the Democrat Party faithful must now have serious misgivings about the future well-being of our Nation. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—after Trump—is not what they counted. It is not what they bargained for. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—this Federal Government—does not serve their interests and that it does not have their life, safety, and well-being at heart: quite the opposite in fact. The Executive Branch and the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress are two institutions serving the interests of the lunatic fringe Neo-Marxist Cultists and Neoliberal Globalist Billionaire Bilderberg Group Clubbists, only.The shared aspiration of both is to witness the demise of the United States as an independent sovereign nation-state; the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic; the annihilation of a once proud and sovereign American people and their concomitant debasement and devolution to subjugation, and servitude. And all that is occurring swiftly.Nor should Americans pin their hopes on the High Court—the Third Branch of the Federal Government—to save them from the mess deliberately propagated by the first two. If Americans believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will surely preserve and protect the Constitution and staunchly defend their Bill of Rights, they will surely be sorely disappointed.If the New York City gun transport case is a harbinger of things to come from the rulings in Bruen, then Bruen is likely to be a hollow victory at best. Less a third seminal Second Amendment case building on Heller and McDonald, Bruen is likely to read more like the Roe v Wade abortion case—a sorry attempt to satisfy everyone, it will likely do little to satisfy anyone. And, why do we say this:First and Foremost, Consider——The Roberts Court's reconfiguration of the issue in Bruen was meant to forestall  a cataclysmic ruling that would put a stop to the very notion of open-ended “gun regulations”—the bane of the Second Amendment—that would serve to buttress and strengthen the Heller and McDonald rulings. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court wanted none of that. And the restructuring of the  issue in Bruen was meant to guarantee that noxious, heavy-handed and clearly unconstitutional handgun licensing schemes, would be here to stay, at least in some jurisdictions. Thus, it behooves the American Patriot, to be wary of High Court meddling, no less so than Executive and Legislative Branch meddling in the matter of fundamental, immutable, absolute—yes, absolute—Rights. The Third Branch of the Federal Government—this Roberts Court, sans Scalia— no less than the first two Branches, will not zealously defend the Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the integrity and fortitude and intellectual  acumen of Justices Thomas and Alito. For they are only two stalwart American Patriots remaining now that Justice Scalia is no longer with us. But, then, the Framers of our Constitution, with Divine guidance, did intend and did provide, through inclusion of God-Given Absolute Rights, existent inherently in man, that the American citizenry would be wanting if bereft of support from any one or more or all three of the three Branches of the Federal Government. The American people require not assistance in defense of the Nation's elemental Rights and Liberties, for the Federal Government cannot excise them away. The Executive Branch cannot issue Presidential edicts or Bureaucratic Rules to blunt the exercise of them. The Legislative Branch cannot enact laws to nullify them. And the Judicial Branch cannot issue opinions to deny their import. All attempts to modify, repeal, abrogate, dismiss, ignore, or reinterpret God-Given Rights by Governmental artifice is unlawful from the get-go. The plain, succinct, categorical language of the sacred Rights of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution makes transparent, the immutable, illimitable, eternal, non-modifiable, absolute nature of them and demonstrates the irrationality and incongruity of any attempt by the Government or by its proxies to diminish them.But, then, should Americans ever have placed faith in this Federal Government, above their faith in Divine Natural Law. Of course not! Does not this Federal Government, not unlike any other Government in history, have, within it, the seeds of repression, oppression—in a word, 'tyranny'? Assuredly so!Truly, to defend Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty, the onus will always rest, as it has in the beginning, and as it must in the end—on the people themselves— to defend their Liberty, Freedom, and sovereignty against all threats whether emanating outside the Country or writhing within its very bowels.Thus, Americans should not place, their hopes and dreams in the High Court as their main, much less their sole, source of and mechanism for their salvation. That Branch of Government, as with the other two, is ultimately a "political organization," as unreliable and as conniving as the other two. Sure, Justices Thomas and Alito are known quantities: men of unparalleled principle and ethics. But, only the late Justice Scalia had sufficient, formidable strength— capable of standing up to Chief Justice Roberts; keeping both Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court in check.But the eminent Justice Antonin Scalia is, unfortunately, no longer with us. He died under mysterious circumstances: circumstances never resolved, events not adequately explained; circumstances unlikely ever to be resolved or adequately explained to the public's satisfaction.So then, what will Americans likely see from the upcoming Bruen decision? The U.S. Supreme Court will strike down New York City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses, and it may do so on grounds of vagueness or arbitrariness; but that will still leave the heart of “may-issue”/“proper cause” in force. Stephen Breyer and the other liberal wing Associate Justices will file their lengthy and vehement dissents. And Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—with Amy Coney-Barrett, perhaps—will probably file concurring opinions. And, if so, they will likely point to, explicate, and expound upon the illegal and illogical “may-issue”/“proper cause” construct. But the concurrences as with the dissents will be dicta only. They will not have the force of law, i.e., they will not operate as binding holdings/rulings.The case holdings/rulings will, then, likely come up short. Given a reworking by the Roberts Court of the issue, as presented in Petitioners' Brief, it is unlikely  the Conservative Court majority will be able to strike down the entirety of concealed handgun licensing structure of New York even if Justices Thomas and Alito would be willing and prepared to do just that. For, if that were to happen, it would implicate and therefore jeopardize similar handgun licensing regimes in other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions. Justice Roberts and the liberal wing would never allow that to happen. And Justice Scalia isn't here to see that it would happen.See, e.g., article in Syracuse News, where one New York  District County attorney predicts that the Court's ruling in Bruen will be very narrow.

“Locally, law enforcement officials don’t expect the decision will affect the policing of guns or safety.

'I think (the court is) going to take the narrowest route possible' said Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick.”

Strong concurrences by Justices and Alito and Thomas would only operate as dicta, not actionable case rulings/holdings. Thus, a minimalist Bruen decision would hearken back to the limp and lame New York City handgun transport case. That would be a blow to the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The validity of New York's concealed handgun licensing regime, along with the underlying methodology/paradigm model of “may-issue”/“proper cause” will remain intact. But that is what we will see. The Arbalest Quarrel hopes we are wrong in our estimates. We would be surprised but pleased if that were to happen, but we don't expect that it will.A minimalist High Court ruling in Bruen would also disparage the import of the Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. The Nation’s enemies would be pleased. America's Patriots, rightfully, would not.Such a paltry ruling would not bode well for the continued security of a free State, especially in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate.But, even a minimalist ruling favoring the Bruen Petitioners will not be good enough for Anti-Second Amendment news organizations such as CBS News, whose doom and gloom prognostications only see the upending of the entire New York State concealed handgun licensing regime:“The Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on a case that could overturn New York state's gun carry law. Records obtained by CBS2 show as many as 20,000 more guns could inundate the streets of the Big Apple, following such a decision.”That isn't likely to happen even on a best case ruling scenario. For, contrary to this reporting, the constitutionality of the entire New York State concealed handgun carry regime isn't at issue. The issue on review goes to the procedures created by the NYPD Licensing Division. Chief Justice Roberts saw to that. So, we know where his sentiments rest, even if, as a matter of logic alone, and not law, the Constitutionality of the entire New York handgun licensing regime is impacted. As we expect, the underlying handgun licensing structure will remain unscathed, consistent with the restrictions made by the Roberts Court on the issue to be decided in Bruen.Suppose, then, that consistent with the constrained issue, the Court's majority does strike down the City's concealed handgun carry license procedures, only, leaving intact the salient structure of the State's handgun licensing regime. That won't do much for Petitioners' rights; at least not immediately, and, perhaps, not ever.New York State and New York City will take their good time in developing and  instituting new concealed handgun carry license procedures for issuance of unrestricted and restricted handgun carry licenses both in the City and across the State.CBS News, of course, sees a slow-walk as a good thing, as they assert in the afore-referenced article:“. . . a high-ranking source tells CBS2's Marcia Kramer it could take the city years to comply.”See also articles in other Anti-Second Amendment sources such as Gothamist and in the seditious CNN and NY Times.And the New York Government would take its own good time in concocting a new set of arbitrary procedures to replace the ones struck down. New Yorkers would then be back to square one. America’s enemies would breathe a collective sigh of relief. There is no doubt about that! The NY Times reported on June 6, 2022, the following:“In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said that she would consider calling a special session of the State Legislature if the law were overturned. And after a shooting in Buffalo last month in which a teenager motivated by racism killed 10 Black people at a grocery store, she brought up the law unprompted, saying that her administration was ‘preparing our state for what could be a Supreme Court decision that allows people to carry concealed weapons. We’re ready.’A spokeswoman for the governor declined to elaborate further on the preparations.”One need not wonder of the impact the Uvalde, Texas Elementary School shooting incident will have on Hochul. She will only become more entrenched in slow-walking or sabotaging, outright, a Bruen High Court decision that strikes down the New York City' Police Department License Division's procedures for issuing concealed handgun licenses.More importantly is the question what impact the recent shooting incident will have on the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Has the Court made changes to the majority, and concurring, and dissenting opinions, as a result of that incident in light of immense news coverage of it and Congressional action on it?Americans will no doubt see the liberal-wing in rare form, writing political and public policy tracts disguised as legal opinions. And, don't be surprised to see Chief Justice Roberts doing the same. The danger here is that Roberts and Kavanaugh may, at the Eleventh Hour, do a one-eighty switcheroo and join the liberal wing of the Court. That would give the liberal wing of the Court the majority it needs to rule for the Respondent New York, against the Petitioners. New York’s unelected Governor, Kathy Hochul, true to form—hateful of the Second Amendment—is going ahead full throttle to destroy the Right of the people to keep and bear arms as if Bruen never existed, even though a decision in the case is imminent. She has made this patently clear in a flurry of Anti-Second Amendment legislation she has very recently signed, as well as in her executive orders.And the New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, is 100% onboard with Hochul, as he backs her continuing control of the State. An affiliate of NBC News, 4NewYork News, reports:“New York City Mayor Eric Adams endorsed New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for a full term on Wednesday, praising her as 'an amazing governor' who deserves a full term.Adams, a centrist Democrat like Hochul, told supporters at a Manhattan union hall that voters need someone who can 'get stuff done in the state of New York.' Hochul, the former lieutenant governor, is running to keep the job she has held since August 2021 when Andrew Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, which he has denied.”The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Federal Government and the Soros backed and funded Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist State and Municipal Governments across the Country do nothing to hide their visceral contempt for the American people or their outright loathing of the Bill of Rights. One sees all of this through their failure to comply with the strictures of this Nation's body of laws and its Constitution. Worse, one sees increasing intimations of brazen seditious meddling with and offending of Bill of Rights imperatives. Nothing  constrains the actions of the Collectivists' insinuation of tyranny throughout the Republic, much as they, together with CCP China, consolidate their control over the nation-states of the EU and over the British Commonwealth Nations.Still, the United States has one thing no other Nation or group of Nations or other political construct has: a true Bill of Rights that incorporates the preeminent Right: that of Armed Self-Defense. But, how many firearms are in private hands is not known, only guessed at, and that is a good thing.Government is not in the business of and should never be in the business of knowing or attempting to know who among the citizenry is armed and the manner of their armament. That fact goes hand-in-hand with the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.The armed citizenry is the singular source of this Nation's strength, vitality, and well-being; the basis for the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic; the necessary condition through which that free Republic may be maintained; and, the ground upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured and upon which tyranny is resisted, restrained, and repulsed.The High Court should keep all of this in mind when deciding Bruen. But, even a ruling in favor of Petitioners against New York, will not of itself secure the Republic against encroaching Tyranny. For the forces that seek to impose it are powerful, well-organized, and deeply entrenched in our private and public institutions.Governor Kathy Hochul has powerful, ruthless, and inordinately wealthy allies, who will support her if she does not comply with the High Court's rulings, striking down New York City's concealed handgun carry procedures. Indeed, they will certainly dictate policy for her as they have done all along, just as they are doing for New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. The public simply sees in Hochul's policy aims and actions an inkling of the face that hides in the shadows, dictating her policy aims and actions. Hochul's stubbornness, in failing to heed U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, will certainly tell all Americans, but especially those residing in New York, everything they need to know of the unbridled contempt both she and those that pull her strings have for our people; for our Republic; and for our Nation’s Constitution.Disdain toward High Court rulings does not bode well for the continued security of a free State in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate. We have seen this abject disdain played out by State Governments and lower Courts toward Heller and McDonald. Much the same disdain will be played out again in Bruen. That is why Americans must stay true to the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially when it comes to matters of armed self-defense against Tyranny. At the end of the day, the Bill of Rights is all that they have to assert their will on a renegade Government. For the Nation's first Patriots, a firm conviction in the righteousness of their cause, a blanket refusal to surrender their firearms to tyrants, and a valiant will to use those firearms against tyranny, sufficed to vanquish a mighty but ignoble foe. At the time, the Bill of Rights was inchoate. But, the germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day.  The germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day against seeming insurmountable odds. Today, the Bill of Rights is manifest, and we, the armed citizenry, are legion. We descendants of the first Patriots should be able to repulse tyranny that once again threatens a free and sovereign people. Can we do so, if the need arises? If we have the will and wherewithal to resist tyranny, then we, Americans, will have all that is necessary to vanquish tyranny once again._____________________________________________*Menken’s book purports to be a guide for political leaders on how to bring the Country together to resolve the Nation’s differences. Yet, one year after publication of her book, it is clear from her NYTimes letter Times, that Menken has had a change of heart; surrendered to the truth that reconciliation is impossible. That should have been obvious to her. It wasn’t. How can there be a meeting of minds?There are two antithetical ideologies at play. One ideology is grounded on the principles, precepts, and tenets laid down in our Nation’s sacred documents. The other intends to set it all aside. One ideology was forged in the Nation’s struggle for independence from tyranny. The proponents of that ideology seek to preserve the Natural Law Rights and Liberties of the people. They intend to maintain and preserve the success of the American Revolution.The other ideology, grounded on the principles, tenets, and precepts of Collectivism, much in evidence today, seeks to upend the hard-fought battle for Independence from tyranny. For Collectivism is predicated on Tyranny. It is inextricably tied to it. In our website, we discussed all of this in several articles some time ago. See, e.g., our article posted four years ago, in 2018, titled: “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”At the very birth of the Nation, the enemies of a free State, went immediately to work to waylay and destroy it. These enemies, the Globalist Banking Cartel, commenced a quiet Counterrevolution to dismantle a free State and to usurp the authority of a sovereign people, bending them to their will.The descendants of the Nation’s enemies, the international financiers and their minions, alongside rabid Neo-Marxist radicals, residing inside and outside the United States, are dead-set on destroying this free Republic, as assuredly and as thoroughly as would occur by overt military conquest.Theirs is a Collectivist Counterrevolution. Utilizing modern tools of information and computer technology, psychological conditioning, organizational acumen, inexhaustible reserves of money, and control over Government and over the levers of commerce, media, and finance. They intend to destroy the political, social, economic, and juridical foundations of the Country, merging its remains into the nascent EU/UN super-state that is taking shape throughout the world._______________________________**The poem: “Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were Nine. Nine little Indian boys sat up very late; One overslept himself and then there were Eight. Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon; One said he'd stay there and then there were Seven. Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks; One chopped himself in halves and then there were Six. Six little Indian boys playing with a hive; A bumblebee stung one and then there were Five. Five little Indian boys going in for law; One got into Chancery and then there were Four. Four little Indian boys going out to sea; A red herring swallowed one and then there were Three. Three little Indian boys walking in the Zoo; A big bear hugged one and then there were Two. Two little Indian boys were out in the sun; One got all frizzled up and then there was one*. One little Indian boy left all alone; He went out and hanged himself and then there were none. (*In some versions Two Little Indian boys playing with a gun; One shot the other and then there was one.) ~From IMDB, referencing the afore-recited poem, Ten Little Indians, from the 1965 mystery film thriller by the same name.”___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved  

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

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OPERATES MORE AS AN ADVOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT POWER THAN AS A PROTECTOR OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

On January 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case Biden vs. Missouri. The formal issue before the High Court in that case as set forth on SCOTUSblog was “whether the Supreme Court should issue a stay of the injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri blocking a federal rule that requires all health care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption.”Missouri and other States filed a direct challenge to the autocratic Harris-Biden Administration’s demand that all Health care workers—22 million as of April 5, 2021, whose medical facilities participate in Government funded Medicare and Medicaid programs, according to the Government census report—accede to Government demands that health care workers obtain COVID-19 vaccinations.The States contested this broad Government mandate against liberty and the rule of law. Missouri, in its Brief, stated at the outset, that the “Secretary of Health and Human Services’ sweeping and unprecedented vaccine mandate for healthcare workers threatens to create a crisis in healthcare facilities in rural America. The mandate would force millions of workers to choose between losing their jobs or complying with an unlawful federal mandate. But for the district court’s preliminary injunction, last year’s healthcare heroes would have become this year’s unemployed.” The Government for its part, argued that its mandate is a response to “an unprecedented pandemic that has killed 800,000 Americans.”The Government retorted that “the Secretary of Health and Human Services exercised his express statutory authority to protect the health and safety of Medicare and Medicaid patients by requiring healthcare facilities that choose to participate in those programs to ensure that their staff are vaccinated (subject to medical and religious exemptions).”Does the Government have this broad legal authority? Is the exercise of that authority consistent with the Constitution, or is it a direct infringement of it? Is the Administration truly concerned about the health of Americans or is it using the Pandemic merely as a convenient pretext to take control of the States and the people?The unstated but underlying issue, in this case, is whether the Harris-Biden Administration is engaging in an unprecedented power grab to exert control over the States and the American people.One expects this from an autocratic Government and an autocratic Congress, controlled by the Pelosi and Schumer stooges.That leaves the American people with one Branch of Government to place constraints on unlawful moves of Congress and the Executive Branch. And that Third Branch of Government is the U.S. Supreme Court.Unfortunately, the High Court consists of a few people, who don’t seem to concern themselves with defending the Nation and its people from the throes of autocracy and, hence, tyranny. One such person is Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. For whatever reason, Justice Sotomayor asserted—didn’t ask the attorneys for the Government or for the State of Missouri—during oral argument, that 100,000 children have been hospitalized and are on ventilators.As reported in the National Review, Sotomayor claimed that“‘We have hospitals that are almost at full capacity with people severely ill on ventilators. We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators.’” This was a grossly inflated figure. In the same article, the National Review pointed out that,“The current number of confirmed pediatric hospitalizations with Covid in the U.S. is 3,342, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services released on Friday. The average number of children admitted to the hospital per day with Covid was 776 as of Tuesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”Why did Justice Sotomayor make such a spurious claim during oral argument? She must have known that a straightforward declarative assertion could be and would be fact-checked as, in fact, it was. The legacy Press itself jumped on this falsehood. Fox News points out that even the Washington Post said the claim deserved “four Pinocchios” for the “absurdly high” figure.We suspect that Justice Sotomayor knew that her remark was unsupported, and that she was not acting as a neutral Justice, attempting to elicit comment from the Advocate for the Government and the advocate for Missouri, but was herself operating as an Advocate for the Government.This behavior on the part of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is not only shameful, it is dangerous to the well-being of the Republic and the Constitution. A decision in this case will be forthcoming, but there are other High Court decisions expected  in the weeks and months ahead.Any decision of the High Court involving an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution has major repercussions for the Nation. No decision is more important to the well-being of the Republic than those involving the Bill of Rights.A decision in the Bruen case is expected in early Summer if not sooner. The Bruen case is the most important case on the Second Amendment since the Heller case of 2008 and the McDonald case of 2010. Given the nature of the issue before the Court, constricted and restricted as the Roberts’ Court made it, the Bruen case is unlikely to have an impact beyond the jurisdiction of New York. Nonetheless, the American people can expect that Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will take the opportunity to draft opinions that hearken back to the Stevens and Breyer dissenting opinions in Heller, in a shameless attempt not only to denigrate Bruen, but to weaken Heller.Likely the outcome of Bruen will be supportive of the Second Amendment, but it won’t be as far-reaching as it could have been in support of the Second Amendment—as far-reaching as the issue in Petitioner’s Brief sought: whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the domain of one’s home.The three Liberal-wing Justices will likely reassert their false argument that the right codified in the Second Amendment is always subject to Government restraint and constraint and that, notwithstanding Heller and McDonald, the Government has the lawful authority to place stringent checks on the exercise of the right as it sees fit. For Justices like Sonia Sotomayor and others, the American citizen’s ownership, possession, and utilization of the right codified in the Second Amendment is more akin to a glorified “privilege,” than a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA—PAVED WITH NOT-SO-GOOD INTENTIONS

WHEN DO AMERICANS BEGIN TO REALIZE THEIR COUNTRY NO LONGER BELONGS TO THEM?

PART FIVE

Take a moment to ponder a portion of President Donald Trump’s last State of the Union Address. Consider his most important remarks to the Nation, as reported on, and poignantly elucidated by Rebecca Walser of Fox News Business, on February 19, 2020, eleven months before the corrupt, senile store-window manikin, Joseph Biden, was sworn in as the 46^th President of the United States:“Who would have ever thought that any president of these United States of America would have to stand before Congress—and before the American people—and publicly declare that the United States is a free country, standing for liberty.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Trump made an unequivocal pronouncement against the multiplying cries for socialism in America.‘Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,’ the president said. ‘America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.’ [Emphasis added.]Unsurprisingly, many on the Democratic side of the chamber did not stand in unison to agree, nor did they even clap. No, no, they have the wheels of the socialism freight train started now, and they will give not an inch to stop it in its tracks.Free lunch? Yes please, that sounds nice. Hmm, how about a free education with a side of free health care?  Why don’t we even throw in student loan forgiveness, free housing, a guaranteed job, or forget the job, and let’s just give – you guessed it – free universal basic income while we are at it.America’s unique origin in escaping an overbearing, oppressive and overly-taxing government is likely the reason we have historically supported more freedoms, including economic freedoms, than our European cousins. But that is undeniably changing now.The shifting political winds are reflective of an underlying new positive attitude toward socialism in America. A recent Reuters poll found that 70 percent of Americans support Medicare-for-all, which includes a majority of Republicans. (A new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found support drops, however, when participants were told the plan could lead to higher taxes.) . . . .This is our failure America, in not holding our government accountable. They have been allowed for too long to fake it, to spend money that we do not have to pay for services we cannot afford on a sustainable basis.For the last three decades, we have spent significantly more than we have collected in tax revenues resulting in a federal debt of $22 trillion.This has been carried out for the last 30-plus years such that the American people have been lulled into believing that we can spend without end, without the pain of an European tax scheme (40 percent to more than 60-plus percent). So why shouldn’t we add Medicare-for-all, free college education and even UBI – universal basic income?But it is all an illusion. . . .Others say that you can just print more money, but inflating our way out of this economic hole is a non starter, since both Social Security and Medicare make inflation-adjusted payments. This means that if we try to inflate our way out, the costs of our biggest social programs just go up proportionally—solving nothing.Economic equality comes at the heavy price of freedom (yours). People logically act in their own self-interest even if it is to their long-term detriment, like a bug sucking its host dry. Most will take advantage of the government’s offer for "free" anything – thus the reason the road to America is packed while the road to Venezuela is empty.But let’s be clear – ‘free’ is not free to our country. The great Roman empire imploded and collapsed under the weight of their own debt and extreme taxation. Are we determined to go down that same road?Let us have renewed hope today that President Trump stands to say no.”Unfortunately, eleven months after this story and analysis broke, Trump is no longer President. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” along with their sidekick, the Neo-Marxists, that together share achieving their common goal of a one-world, uniform Super-State governmental scheme, with the U.S. to be unceremoniously merged into it and consumed by it, made sure that Donald Trump would never serve a second term in Office, and, more to the point, would never be permitted to serve a second term in Office, which might also explain why powerful Neoliberal Globalists have continued to attack him and to attack over a third of the Nation that had voted for him in the 2020 General Election. And the prognostications of Rebecca Walser as laid out in her 2019 Fox Business Report, have eerily, and uncannily, and no less dishearteningly, come to fruition.The American people are disillusioned and disenchanted. And the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a Socialist Country, despite Trump’s remarks to the contrary.So, then, was Trump wrong in his assertion—at once a sacred promise to Americans and a pronouncement of defiance to the Neo-Marxists of all stripes among the Democrats—even as Pelosi in a choreographed fit of pique, rips up her copy of the President’s address, thereby demonstrating her utter contempt for the U.S. President, the Country, the American people, and the Constitution.No, Trump wasn’t wrong. Yet, there is an unintended, unplanned, unforeseen irony in Trump’s assertion “that America will never be a socialist Country,” insofar as the Country is headed in that direction under a Neoliberal Globalist and Marxist-Controlled Congress and a Neoliberal Globalist controlled Executive Branch. The U.S. is in fact turning inexorably, and possibly inevitably and irrevocably toward Socialism. But if that should happen, if that would befall our Country, then the COUNTRY WILL NO LONGER BE AMERICA, for our Country will no longer be a free Constitutional Republic, and so THE COUNTRY WILL CEASE TO BE.Indeed, the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists don’t even refer to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; never did. Back in 2018, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, did say, of course, that:“We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is” which makes the Neoliberal Globalist “capitalist” monopolists happy to hear, who, for all that, eschew true competitive capitalism.But, has Pelosi ever been heard to reaffirm our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic?” In fact, has the infirm, corrupt, senile Joe Biden or the vacuous, opportunist Kamala Harris ever reaffirmed our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic? Has anyone in Biden’s Cabinet or Administration affirmed our Nation as a “free Constitutional Republic?”It stands to reason that the current crop of Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists in control of two Branches of Government have little if any regard for the Constitution. At best they give lip service to it, as they go about operating in the denigration of it. And no one in the legacy Press calls them to account for their abject failure to heed to the dictates of it. And we, Americans, are all the worse for it.________________________________________

HOW MANY AMERICANS APPREHEND THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?

PART SIX

It may be remarked—nay, must be proclaimed loudly, passionately, continuously as all too many Americans lose sight of the fact—that the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t mere supposition. It is fact.Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know this to be true, but they have no use for the Constitution as it intrudes upon their ability to consolidate economic power for themselves across the globe, at the expense of the economic well-being of the American people and at the expense of the well-being of the Country.And the sworn enemies of the U.S. Constitution and of a sovereign American people, America’s transnational Neo-Marxists, know this to be true as well because the U.S. Constitution is grounded on the tenets of Individualism, embracing the core notions of personal freedom and liberty—tenets and precepts and principles antithetical and anathema to those of Collectivism, upon which classic Marxism, and the spawn and shades of Marxism spring from. But they all come from one cloth, and they are all vehemently opposed to Individualism.For the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, alone form the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, and they are inconsistent with and in clear contradistinction to those of Collectivism that insist on the subordination of the human will, soul, and spirit to and that demand obsequious devotion to and subservience of the individual to the State. That explains why the callous, caustic, fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists and the idiosyncratic, cold-hearted Neo-Marxists are both of one mind in their stated objective to rid themselves of it.And so, with Trump out of the way, and as the Neoliberal Globalists and as America’s Neo-Marxists have brazenly, audaciously taken over the institutions of Government and of the Press and of much of society, they have begun in earnest to consolidate their power over the Nation and over the citizenry, in defiance of the plain import of the Constitution.And now they feel that the political and social and economic climate of the Country has changed to such an extent in their favor, that they feel no reticence in openly questioning the continued need for it. They have even gone further than that, questioning the very legality of it, and withal, cloaking their anathema to it and animosity for it, rebelling vociferously against it—the academia especially expounding through more and more rhetorical flourish and through sophistry, posing as a sound erudite argument, their naked abhorrence of it.See, e.g., the 2013 Article, in Harper’s Magazine, titled, “Constitution in Crisis;” and an article in The Atlantic, titled, “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here’s How to Write It.” And, in a lengthy New York Times’ Op-Ed, the paper has tacked together several essays by various legal scholars who propose amending the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Articles. A simple web search keying in the words, “do we need a constitution,” brings up a plethora of articles challenging the continued need for the U.S. Constitution—the blueprint of a free Republic that ceases to exist the moment the Constitution ceases to be.The reader should note that all or virtually all these articles arose in the most recent decade of the 21^st Century, and several of them within the last few weeks or months.But what explains this flurry of articles, and essays coming to the fore now? This cannot be accidental. Indeed, it isn’t.If the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists thought the Constitution was simply irrelevant, they likely would have given little thought to it, would simply ignore it, and in the actions of the Harris-Biden Administration, the American people have witnessed just that: the blatant failure of Biden to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as required of him, spurning his Presidential duty under the “take care clause” of Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This failure goes beyond an arguable difference of opinion as to the President’s duty, or to incompetence of which Biden has more than an ample supply. It is much more than that.Biden’s actions amount to outright subversion and sedition. And the Neoliberal Globalists and International Neo-Marxists are perfectly content with this. They have expected it of Biden. More, they have demanded it of him. And, he has delivered, doing all that his handlers expect of him, even as he makes a fool of himself during the few times his handlers allow him, albeit reluctantly, to appear before the public, hewing to script—at least to the extent that a person suffering from dementia can.Perfunctorily dismissing Congressional enactments such as the Nation’s immigration law, in direct defiance of the Legislature’s Article 1 authority, see irli.org, and dismissing out-of-hand U.S. Supreme Court rulings on evictions, demonstrating his contempt of High Court Article 3 authority on questions of law, if he ever thought about it, to the extent he is capable of coherent thought at all. See article in christianaction.org and article in theweek.com. Biden has not only defied the authority of two other co-equal Branches of Government, he has also spurned his own duties under the “take care clause” of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.But there’s more to the Constitution than the Articles demarcating and limiting the authority and powers of the three co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, critical as those Articles are to the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic.Even as few give little thought to it, there is one set of laws that preside even over that of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution. It is Law bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. It is the Law of Natural Rights, and there is no inconsistency in averring the authority of and the awesome power of natural law above even the U.S. Constitution. The framers of that great document, the Constitution of the United States, conceded as much, through the codification of Ten Amendments to it thereby embracing and enshrining Divine Law within it, an integrated part of it, inextricably bound to it, so there is no inconsistency between the import of Divine Law and ofthe U.S. Constitution’s deference to Divine Law.

THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Bill of Rights is of paramount importance to, and a singularly critical component of the U.S. Constitution, both shaping the nature of a free Republic, and establishing the role of Government vis a vis the American people, subordinating Government to the people.It is the Bill of Rights, especially, that has provided the U.S. Constitution with its true staying power; and that has allowed the Country to survive and thrive as a free Republic. The Bill of Rights is one feature of the U.S. Constitution that cannot be readily ignored or dismissed out of hand by the Neoliberal Globalists and the Neo-Marxists, much as they wish to do; much as they try to do.The Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic can, truth to tell, continue to exist, at least for a time, even where a corrupt Executive Branch and a corrupt Legislative Branch give little heed to limitations built into their own authority and duties under the Constitution. And, that is true of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, as well.The Bill of Rights, though, exists and operates on another plane; another order of magnitude; well beyond even the Articles, a human construct, and well beyond such man-made procedural Amendments that came thereafter. For, the Bill of Rights codifies Divine Law.The contents of the Bill of Rights isn’t a human construct because it isn’t a mere compilation of man-made law even though some there are who might perceive it to be such, namely the Neoliberal Globalist corporatist “elites,” and the transnational Neo-Marxists, and other Collectivists who, all of them, deny this, of course. Even to describe the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights as little more than an elucidation of and edification of man’s greater potential fails to hit the mark as to their true significance and purpose. For, it is only by the grace of Divine Providence that man can, a priori, recognize the Creator’s gifts to him, bestowed on man by the Creator as the supernal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect Being. These God-given Rights and Liberties, Natural Law, preexist within man, exist, then, prior to the creation of Government by man.It is not given to man, by mere experience, a posteriori, through man’s five sense organs, that man comes to know of his true Nature made in God’s own image but, through man’s non-physical Spirit that the fact of and nature of the fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Rights come to be apparent to man. How, then, can man’s nature be lawfully subordinated and subjugated to State control and dominance, since Government is a man-made construct, and such manmade device offends and subverts the will of the Supreme Creator, where man’s will, and soul, and spirit are quelled and suppressed?Such a Government transgresses God’s will and such Government that dares to subvert the integrity and sanctity of man’s spirit and soul is heresy, and this heresy is the goal of this new, obscene non-American Governmental scheme that has begun to take root in the Country, and it is growing apace, to be merged into a new world order, to bring man low. Americans must fight the attempt with all the power they can muster. The way they can do this is to insist that their fundamental rights are not subject to negotiation or compromise. That which is given to man by the Divine Creator cannot lawfully be revoked by the State, and cannot be contracted or purloined away.______________________________________

AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SOCIALISM CANNOT TAKE ROOT.

PART SEVEN

Only through exercise of the peoples’ fundamental rights can the citizenry hope to withstand the onslaught from those disparate evil forces consisting, inter alia, of a heterogenous assortment of Neoliberal Globalists, Corporatist Monopolists, Internationalist Neo-Marxists, Government Neoconservatives, liberal Progressive and Marxist members of Congress and of the Federal Bureaucracy, the seditious legacy Press, and Marxist elements in academia, all hell-bent on disassembling the United States, transforming the Country from its root structure as a free Constitutional Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State into an autocratic lackey of a larger autocratic super-structure, embracing the entire world.On some level the combined power of these terrible, ruthless, amoral and immoral forces operating both inside the United States and outside it, Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists alike, adopting a common Collectivist ideology, an ideology incompatible with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, driven by a singular lust for amassing wealth and power—of benefit to themselves at the expense of the American polity—continue to plot, connive, conspire, and machinate toward realization of a similar goal: the creation of a one-world transnational super State; a mammoth transformative political, social, economic, and juridical construct; a global totalitarian regime embracing and subsuming all present western nation-states; erasing all geographical boundaries; eliminating and eventually erasing from the memory of the polity any sense of a once-shared national identity, a once-shared history and heritage, a once-shared civic culture, a once-shared Christian ethos and a once-shared Judeo-Christian ethic. It would all cease to exist. Yet, for the U.S. to become merged into this transnational one-world, totalitarian Super-State, it is essential that the U.S. Constitution first be abrogated, and that means abrogation of the citizens’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties. All of it must go. But there is a tenaciousness to the Constitution, especially that part of it that speaks to the fundamental, unalienable Rights and Liberties of the citizenry: the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Even with vast sums of money spent behind a massive propaganda campaign to denigrate the Nation’s revered history, heritage, and culture, and to challenge the inviolability of God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, set in stone in Nation's the Bill of Rights, most Americans maintain and exhibit a deep attachment to and devotion to their Country and to their fundamental Rights and Liberties upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is preserved. And, on some level all American citizens understand that God-given Rights and Liberties cannot be simply ignored and dismissed out-of-hand, if the Nation is to survive as a free Constitutional Republic; and the American people will not long abide usurpers in Government who betray their Oath to the United States Constitution, whether it be the President of the United States who betrays the Oath of Office he is required to take, pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;”whether it be those in Congress who betray the Oath they are required to take, pursuant to Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; or whether it be those in the Civil Service or uniformed services of Government who betray the Oath they are required to take, to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 3331. The solemnity of the Oaths of those sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution are not to be taken lightly. And, if these betrayers of their Oath think there will be no accounting for an act of betrayal to the Constitution of the United States, the American people shall demand an accounting, as they are the sovereign rulers of the Nation as established by the U.S. Constitution. Those who serve in Government are the servants, not the masters of the American people, and the ultimate enforcement power that the American people wield over Government is made abundantly clear not in the electoral system through which the American people have a say only in the vote they cast for this or that servant of the citizenry, but in one especial fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Right: the inviolate Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.______________________________________________

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS CANNOT BE LAWFULLY APPROPRIATED OR COMMANDEERED  BY THE STATE; AND IT ISN’T FOR SALE!

PART EIGHT

The Bill of Rights cannot be easily supplanted, ignored, dismissed out-of-hand, as the fundamental rights and liberties are engrained deep in the psyche of most American citizens and they are loathed to surrender their sacred God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, knowing that, to do so, means the loss not only of their Country but of their own Soul.One natural, God-given right, in particular, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, codified in the Bill of Rights as “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is Divine Law that happens to have been codified into law by man. More to the point, this Divine Law is written into man's Spirit. That is what makes the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Divine Law, and not mere man-made law. This Divine Law serves to prevent the takeover of the Nation’s Country by tyrants. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, isn't for sale!The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, is subsumed in a more elemental Divine law: The Right of Personal Self-Defense, against a predatory animal, whether that predatory animal hops on two legs or runs on four, and against a predatory, tyrannical Government. Further, the Natural God-bestowed Right of Personal Self-Defense is itself subsumed in the God-bestowed Right of Personal Autonomy, for it is through Self-Defense that man is able to preserve and has the solemn duty and cardinal responsibility to preserve and secure from harm not only his physical well-being but his psychological and spiritual well-being; his individuality; the sanctity of Self-hood; the inviolability of his Soul, sanctified by the Divine Creator.If unable to exercise the God-bestowed Right of Self-Defense, of which the firearm is the most efficient means of Self-Defense, man cannot effectively persevere against those forces that would dare crush his will and spirit into submission; would not be able to effectively defend against those forces at work in society today that compel uniformity and conformity in all thought and conduct; would not be able to resist evil forces that insist on transforming a Nation of individual Souls into a collection of mindless, senseless drones, an obsequious, obedient, formless glob—a monstrosity, a thing created by evil forces in clear defiance to the Creator's will. For the Creator intended for man to be noble, that he might, through his individual Soul, be a demi-Creator in his own right, set out on his own path, realize his full potential as an independent creative Spirit; for he is made in God's Image.Yet, it is a thing strange that, given the plain meaning of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in clear, precise, concise words in the U.S. Constitution, it would come to pass that an American citizen would find it necessary to petition the Judiciary to secure for him a God-given Right that Government or private enterprise interests—artificial constructs of man—would dare deny him. Yet for decades, before the seminal Second Amendment Heller case was heard, ignoble forces were at work to subvert the plain meaning of the Divine Law, arguing that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was not an Individual Right at all, and certainly was not to be perceived as a Natural Right, but one bound up in service to a collective, a militia. This idea is false on its face, and, when one realizes that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in the Second Amendment, isn't a man-made law at all, but Natural Law, of Divine Origin, pertaining to the Individual Self, to the Individual Soul, to one’s personal autonomy, then any notion that the Right is to be understood as, to be taken as, something that applies to and has meaning only in the context of groups, to a collective, falls apart of its own weight as a matter of logic, as well as of law. One comes to realize that the mistake of law and logic that arises from the conclusion that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has meaning and purport in the context of one's service in a militia, in the context, then, of one's service in a group, is due to problematic, false assumptions. The mistake of law and logic that some academic scholars as well as the lay public fall prey to commences from an assumption, taken as axiomatic, as self-evident, that the Bill of Rights, is simply a creation of man, an artificial construction of the government, an arbitrary formulation by State actors in Government, not unlike the Articles of the Constitution, or later procedural amendments to it, and not unlike other man-made common or codified law. In that case, grounded on acceptance of false assumption and illogical reasoning, one draws the illogical conclusion that fundamental rights are no more than privileges to be bestowed onto this one or that one, or to this group or to that group by the grace of the State, and, just as readily, rescinded by the State, as the sole creator of the Right. Through acceptance of the false assumption that the Bill of Rights is really a set of State created privileges, all sorts of inanities arise therefrom, such as the idea that the Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights can readily be amended no less so than the Articles of the Constitution or the procedural amendments subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution or just as readily repealed. But, the Bill of Rights is no mere collection of Rights and Liberties, for they were not created by man. They are codifications of Divine Law. As such, they existed prior to any artificial governmental construct of man. As Divine Law, not man-made law the Bill of Rights cannot be lawfully amended, modified, abrogated, or ignored. The Rights codified in the Bill of Rights exist internally in and eternal in man. They aren't creations of the State, of Government, of man. This fact, the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Counterrevolutionaries both inside Government and outside it, will not accept—indeed cannot accept—for the idea that some Rights exist beyond the lawful power of the Government to whittle away at, to reinterpret the import and purport of, or to nullify outright, frustrates these evil forces to no end, as that idea makes impossible the realization of their goal of a one-world transnational governmental regime in which man is subjugated to the dictates of Government, as the State, alone, to these Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists, is to be perceived as god, having power of life or death over the men they rule.__________________________________________

LOOKING BACKWARD TO HELLER AND MCDONALD AND FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING BRUEN (CORLETT) CASE

PART NINE

The late, eminent Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, announced in Heller, what was always patently clear, but often denied: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The clear language of the Right should have been enough to evince the Omni-expansiveness of it; the elemental inalienability, immutability, and illimitability implicit in it. Yet, from the inception of Heller, there was hesitancy and arrogance among many academicians and Government functionaries that compelled them to disavow the plain import and purport of the Right, grounded most likely on jealousy to concede the obvious import of the Right, having no desire to admit that sovereignty over Government is not a shared power or one that belongs only to those who serve in Government, but is sovereignty that rests solely with the American people. The servants of Government exercise such limited authority that the Constitution provides for and that authority is exercised only with the consent of the citizenry. That consent can be withdrawn. And the servants of Government well aware of the limitations inherent in their power constantly seek to constrain the sovereignty of the American people and they have been at work, enacting countless laws, rules, codes, regulations, and ordinances to constrict and restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding the reaffirmation of the import of the right as categorically stated in Heller.And Anti-Second Amendment State Governments, as well as the Federal Government, are always looking for a way to avoid the import of Heller to affirm the legality and Constitutionality of State Action infringing the core of the Right protected. The first major attack against Heller took shape in the Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction of Chicago, Illinois, with the City pointedly arguing that the Heller rulings pertaining to the right of Americans to utilize handguns for self-defense in their own homes, only operates as a constraint on the Federal Government, not on the States. Justice Alito who penned the majority opinion in the second major Second Amendment case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, set forth at the outset of his remarks, the nature of and extent of Chicago’s defiant stance on the matter:“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City. . . . They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners' argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent.”The McDonald case made clear the rulings in Heller applied to the States too. In pertinent part, Justice Alito, wrote:“. . . we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. . . .Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.  Explaining that ‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home . . . we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family. . . . ‘[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon’). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted ‘to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”Heller makes it clear that this right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. . . . Heller explored the right's origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.’Blackstone's assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III's attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760's and 1770's ‘provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.’The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.In Heller, we held that the protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.”Yet, the apparatus of Anti-Second Amendment forces in Government remained undeterred. These forces continued their efforts to find ways around Heller and McDonald through more and more comprehensive and Government licensing schemes.State and local Government firearms’ licensing schemes became progressively bloated through time, and with that bloat the language of them became increasingly vague and ambiguous; and, in the worst instances, became convoluted, inconsistent, and incoherent. Anti-Second Amendment Courts continually, blatantly misinterpreted the rulings of Heller and McDonald, setting down their imprimatur on unconstitutional Government actions.Perhaps the most voluminous Anti-Second Amendment regime to be constructed and one of the earliest, and one of the most insidious; a regime that was continually expanded and revised through time, is that one emanating from New York.Not surprisingly, the first major case the U.S. Supreme Court accepted for review, almost a decade after the seminal Heller case, was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York And The New York City Police Department-License Division, commonly and colloquially referred to as the “New York City Gun Transport Case.”The case held a lot of promise for Americans who cherish their right of self-defense and the right of personal autonomy, for having granted Petitioners’ writ of certiorari, these Americans expected quite reasonably that the U.S. Supreme Court would apply its precedents in Heller and McDonald to affirm the unconstitutionality of the constraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, outside the home, at least for the purpose of transporting a handgun to a locale outside the environs of New York City. New York’s Courts had hitherto placed burdensome constraints on transportation of handguns outside the home for those New York residents who held valid but restricted handgun premise licenses.Although some Americans might see the New York Gun Transport case as a win for those who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it wasn’t. Rather, it was a lost opportunity. Consideration of and a decision on the merits of the case were sidestepped. Now Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right are looking to a second New York case, NYSRPA vs. Corlett (now captioned, NYSRPA vs. Bruen*) on which to pin their hopes for reaffirmation of the significance of the Heller imperative. The case will be heard in November 2021 and decided probably at some point in early summer, 2022.Our concern is whether and to what extent—even with a complement of three new Justices, all Trump nominees, who would seem to adhere to the methodology of the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, when analyzing and deciding cases—the Bruen case will be decided in a manner that will reinvigorate and clarify the rulings and holdings and reasoning of Heller and McDonald.To get a good handle on the New York Bruen case, and to assess various outcome scenarios, it is necessary to understand what transpired in the earlier New York Gun Transport case, along with a few major post-Heller D.C. gun cases and others.Our focus going forward will be directed to the elucidation of four matters:

• THE IMPORT OF GOVERNMENT FIREARMS’ LICENSING SCHEMES GENERALLY AND THOSE OF NEW YORK PARTICULARLY
• THE FRAMING OF THE SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUE BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE BRUEN CASE
• STANDARDS OF REVIEW EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS AFTER HELLER
• A PERSPECTIVE ON THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACHES OF THE JUSTICES

As for the first bullet point, firearms licensing schemes are a fact, and Heller’s position on them isn’t crystal clear. The mere fact of them and the propensity of Courts to align themselves with Government to stamp their imprimatur upon them are inherently in tension with the import and purport of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, a tension that Heller did little rectify.As for the second bullet point, the Court has recast the issue for review. This recasting of the issue is critical to the decision to be reached and we will speculate on why the Court recast the issue and analyze what that may portend.As for the third bullet point, many lower Courts have routinely fallen back on judicial standards of review that majority opinion in Heller considered and rejected. The High Court may wish to clarify the standard that should be employed in Second Amendment cases where the Government actions impact the core of the right.As for the fourth bullet point, while the legacy Press constantly refers to the High Court as comprising 6 Conservative-wing Justices and 3 Liberal-wing Justices. That is an incorrect statement by the legacy Press and it is one constantly projected by the Press to express the need, as the Legacy Press sees it, for a contingent of new Justices, in the mold of the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and in the mold of the three remaining liberal Justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. These liberal-wing Justices, as often described by the Press, all ascribe to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a “Living Constitution,” (See, e.g. Acton Institute Article), which really calls for the death of the U.S. Constitution. These liberal-wing Justices' utilize a methodology for deciding cases that looks beyond the original text of the Constitution. These Justices believe in an expansive view of Constitutional analysis that routinely interjects ever-changing international law and international norms into their juridical pronouncements. This analysis is antithetical to and anathema to the methodology employed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who realized that to interject international law and normative views of foreign countries into judicial decision-making is to denigrate the U.S. Constitution, subordinating the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States to that of a Global initiative and Global objectives, at odds with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers of it intended. Thus, these liberal-wing Justices find a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, for example, to be inconsistent with international law and norms and, so, rather than reject international law and international norms and standards, they would reject the language of the Constitution. This is most blatantly illustrated in their desire to reduce the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as codified in the Second Amendment, to a nullity. Thus, they seek to undercut the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings and holdings, and their opinions demonstrate their clear animosity to the methodology employed by the late Justice Scalia in deciding cases: originalism and textualism. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito also adhere to the methodology of originalism and textualism, which demands strict adherence to the plain meaning of the Constitution and especially of that critical component of it: the Bill of Rights.Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wields considerable power as the Chief Justice, is not to be seen as an avid proponent of the Second Amendment, and, apart from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, whose commitment to the defense of exercise of the Right embodied in the Second Amendment is established beyond doubt through a large body of Supreme Court Opinions, the commitment of the newest members of the Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the sanctity of the Second Amendment and to the other Nine Bill of Rights is not firmly established. And, as for Justice Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, their dubious commitment to the preservation of the Second Amendment is manifest from a perusal of their handling of the New York Gun transport case. These latter two Justices demonstrate significantly less commitment to and decidedly less ardor toward the Second Amendment than do Associate Justices Thomas and Alito and as did the late esteemed Associate Justice Scalia. This is expressed in their failure to adhere unerringly to the methodology of originalism and textualism that serves to preserve the Constitution as written, upon which the continued existence of the Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, necessarily depends.Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh do not employ—with the same devotion as do Justices Thomas and Alito, at any rate—the juridical methodologies of textualism and originalism, heralded by the late Justice Scalia; nor do they apply Supreme Court legal doctrines, uniformly and evenhandedly. This is apparent from their handling of the legal doctrine of “mootness,” which led to a less than optimum result in their handling of the New York Gun Transport case as a consideration of and decision on the substantive merits of the case were dispensed with.We discuss these matters in-depth in our upcoming articles._________________________________*When the Corlett case first wended its way up through New York’s Court, the Defendant, Keith M. Corlett, happened to be serving as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, the 16th Superintendent. But at some point, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the “Corlett” case for review, Kevin P. Bruen replaced Corlett as the New York State Police Superintendent: the 17th Superintendent of the New York State Police. The case now reflects Bruen as the proper Defendant-Respondent and properly the case should be referred to as the Bruen case even though many journalists who discuss the case continue to refer to the case as originally captioned. See New York State Police website.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, AT LAST!

After an eternally long hiatus, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a Second Amendment case. And it is only right this case should come out of New York after the Court majority’s disastrous handling of the “gun transport” case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020).  As you may recall, The Petitioners in the “gun transport” case challenged a New York City rule pertaining to the transport of firearms outside the home. The Federal District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that routinely find for the Government on Second Amendment matters, rejected the claim. Petitioners appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.Stunned by the High Court granting review, and evidently knowing the New York City law violates the Second Amendment guarantee and aware, too, that a finding on the merits against the government would have negative repercussions extending far beyond the confines of the City and State of New York, the anti-Second Amendment forces attempted to waylay a what would have otherwise resulted in a certain reversal the Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision. The State of New York amended its firearm licensing Statutes and the City amended its rules so petitioners could henceforth transport their firearms to a second home or shooting range.The gambit paid off. It gave Chief Justice Roberts just such the excuse he needed to side with the radical left-wing of the Court. But his vote wasn’t enough. Roberts must have cajoled the newest member of the Court, who at the time was Brett Kavanaugh, to play along. It worked. Kavanaugh sided with the majority but, likely having felt put upon, wrote a singularly bizarre concurring opinion, ostensibly to shore up the idea, as conveyed during a tumultuous and rancorous confirmation hearing, that he does, after all, support the Bill of the Rights. But does he? Kavanaugh’s concession, reluctant though it may well have been, gave Roberts and the radical left-wing of the Court the fifth vote, necessary to nullify a hearing on the merits which undoubtedly would have gone to the petitioners.Now, one year after the “gun transport” case was shunted aside and the Court did not take up another 2A case before the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the High Court will take up, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Corlett, 140 S. Ct. 1525. The Corlett case is no trivial Second Amendment case if any Second Amendment case can ever be considered trivial. The implications of Corlett extend far beyond the “gun transport” case, if the Justices agreed to hear the merits of it because the issue in the “gun transport” case was directed to the import of the City’s highly restrictive “Premise Residence” and “Premise Business” handgun licenses. But, in Corlett, the High Court must zero in on the notion of “good cause.” New York requires applicants who seek to acquire a concealed handgun carry license to proffer a reason sufficient—in the mind of the licensing officer—to justify the issuance of one.Because the issue in Corlett attacks a central pillar of the New York State firearms’ licensing scheme, the New York State and City Governments cannot weasel their way out of a hearing on the substantive merits as they did in the “gun transport” case, by amending New York firearms’ laws and regulations. To do so here would require New York officials to gut New York’s dubious and nefarious firearms licensing scheme—something Anti-Second Amendment zealots would never do, as the salient issue in Corlett strikes at the very heart of government licensing of firearms: that government officials have legal, binding authority to place arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of a natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable right.To obtain a concealed handgun license in New York, an applicant must overcome two hurdles. First, the Applicant must demonstrate he or she does not fall into a disability that precludes the Applicant from lawfully owning and possessing firearms. That hurdle is essentially an objective one. Once over that hurdle, the applicant faces another, much more difficult hurdle. The applicant must demonstrate “good cause” for the issuance of a concealed carry license. This is a subjective test.The police licensing official has substantial discretion to grant or deny the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. And, since New York traditionally frowns on civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms, the vast majority of applications for concealed carry handgun licenses, are routinely denied. Most individuals fail to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a license under New York law.The applicant can, of course, appeal an adverse administrative decision to the Court. But, if the applicant expects to successfully challenge a denial in Court, that applicant must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, abuse of discretion by the licensing official; and this hurdle, too, is difficult to overcome. Moreover, a Court review of denial is time-consuming and inordinately expensive.In Corlett, the petitioner unsuccessfully applied for a concealed handgun carry license in Steuben County, New York. The denial letter of the County judge and handgun licensing officer was general in content and condescending in tone. It read, “‘the decision [was] based upon concerns expressed in the Sheriff's investigation,’ specifically ‘concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol’ and concerns ‘that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society.’”Note the barely tacit implication in the denial letter: the interests of the Hive outweigh the interests and needs of the individual. This, in a nutshell, describes the nature of the internal, taxing war now upon us: the tenets of Collectivism, upon which totalitarianism is grounded versus the tenets of Individualism, upon which our free Constitutional Republic is grounded.No less than the Nation’s Bill of Rights itself is on trial. It will be interesting to see how the so-called “Conservative” Chief Justice Roberts will rule on this case and whether Associate Justice Kavanaugh will follow Roberts’ lead.

HOW ARE MAJOR NEWSPAPERS HANDLING THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

Well, one leading newspaper, The Wall Street Journal recognizes the importance of this case: a landmark case that will serve either to strengthen Heller and McDonald or will whittle them down.Another newspaper, The New York Times, is notably and noticeably silent. Apparently, the newspaper that boasts of reporting “All the News That’s Fit to Print” doesn’t feel that the most important Second Amendment case to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court since the seminal Heller and McDonald cases isn’t worth a mention in today’s newspaper, and notwithstanding this is a 2A case coming out of New York. Still, the paper’s publisher, and editors, and reporters know of it, and can’t be happy about it. And, even as they would like to ignore it, at some point, they must acknowledge it.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: OUR BEST HOPE OR OUR WORST NIGHTMARE?

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

PART SIX

CAN AMERICANS TRUST THEIR U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DEFEND OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS?

Of the three Branches of the Federal Government in our federal system, the U.S. Supreme Court is either our best hope for preserving the U.S. Constitution and strengthening the Bill of Rights, or it’s our worst fear realized, if the High Court endangers the Constitution and weakens the Bill of Rights, abandoning the American citizenry to an awful fate.In his concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020)) Justice Kavanaugh asserts, inter alia, “I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”If Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is meant to give Americans a modicum of hope, he failed miserably. He has merely raised suspicion as to his true motivations and jurisprudential leanings apropos of the Bill of Rights generally, and of the Second Amendment, particularly.The word, ‘should,’ that Kavanaugh uses, in his concurring, doesn’t mean ‘shall,’ nor does it even mean ‘may.’ U.S. Supreme Court Justices are extremely careful in their choice of words, as every word has legal import and significance as Supreme Court cases carry a substantial impact on the lives of all Americans, even as it comes to pass how many lower Court jurists blithely, and more, unconscionably ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as we see over and over again, in the way that all too many lower courts, especially federal courts, namely the United States District Courts and United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, routinely render opinions that contradict the rulings and reasoning of the seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, and these lower federal courts do so with crass impunity. It is little wonder, then, that Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and a recent member of the High Court, Neil Gorsuch, are furious over these actions of the lower Courts that constitute no less than mutiny, as serious an offense in the judicial sphere as it is in the military sphere. If one peruses the dissenting comments of these Justices, in those cases infringing the core of the Second Amendment the High Court fails to garner four votes necessary to secure review on, one can detect, also, the conservative wing's frustration with the liberal wing of the Court that routinely votes against hearing Second Amendment cases because the liberal wing does not recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right that accrues to the individual, but only to the militia, i.e., the Collective, and doesn't wish to be placed in the position, a predicament for them, to overturn a lower Court Second Amendment case that fails to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.So, then, what does the word, 'should,' mean? A short English lesson is in order. As one grammar website explains: “After English students learn the four types of conditionals with if-clauses and figure out when to use each one, they are told that there are other words and patterns to indicate the conditional mood, such as unless, even if, and should.” “Students often struggle with the conditional should (also called should-inversion) for a few reasons. First, the pattern differs from other conditional patterns, and second, the meaning is unrelated to should as a modal of advice. It is also quite formal, so students don’t come across it all that often.But much like any grammar target in English, the conditional should can be explained and learned fairly painlessly using patterns and examples.Conditional should and modal should have very different meanings.Students first learn that should is a modal of advice. The meaning of modal should is a suggestion.

• You should pay attention in class.(I suggest that you pay attention in class.)

Conditional should means if and is used for hypothetical situations.

• Should you need anything else, please call this number.(If you need anything else, please call this number.)” 

Justice Kavanaugh's use of the word, 'should,' in his concurring opinion, in the New York City gun transport case, rather than his use of the word, 'shall' or 'will,' or 'must,' or 'may,' is no accident. The use of the word, 'should,' operates, then, as a mere gesture of hope, nothing more. But, by that token, the U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up any of the two dozen cases that came up for review, in the ten years since the McDonald case decision came down. The Court didn't. Kavanaugh seems to be saying that "I would really like for another Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court." But, Kavanaugh's personal feelings are irrelevant to case analysis. What is relevant is a jurist's decision in a case, and the reasoning the jurist uses to reach a decision--even if such reasoning amounts to simple rationalization--but Kavanaugh doesn't provide any analysis in his concurring in the New York City case. If he were to provide analysis, we would like to see that analysis for deciding to vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court in finding the gun transport matter moot.  Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch), explained in depth why, specifically, the New York City gun transport case is NOT moot. One would expect that a Justice who troubles himself to write a concurring opinion at all would have realized the necessity of responding to Justice Alito's highly detailed, precise, unequivocal, unambiguous objections to the Court majority's decision on the mootness issue.  Justice Alito's criticisms of the majority's position of the mootness issue in the New York City gun transport case cry out for a response. There is nothing in the Majority opinion to suggest Justice Alito's objections are incorrect and there is everything in Justice Alito's dissenting opinion that establishes why the majority decision is incorrect. Having specifically responded to the majority's argument, the majority, in turn, should have responded to the Justice Alito's criticism of their decision. There is everything in Justice Alito's meticulous dissent that begs for a reply. But, the majority is silent. And, Associate Justice Kavanaugh who writes a concurring opinion is silent as well. Why bother to write a concurring opinion merely to assert that he agrees with the majority. Having drafted a concurring, why didn't Justice Alito tackle the issue of mootness head-on, if for no other reason than to clarify why he decided to cast his lot with the majority rather than with the dissent? That he failed to address Alito's objections at all is itself revealing. Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion bespeaks a man who appears desperately desirous of having Americans believe he unabashedly, resolutely supports the exercise of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even as he defers to Respondent City. But that does not justify the writing of a concurring opinion. Having done so, Justice Kavanaugh clearly demonstrates a willingness to toy with the Second Amendment, to play with it--going along with a liberal wing that detests the Second Amendment and signing up with the Chief Justice whose own jurisprudential leanings, apropos of the Second Amendment, is muddled or neutral at best, and, at worst, manifestly diverges from the jurisprudential leanings of Associate Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch who strongly adhere to the Founders' adoration of our God-given natural, elemental, immutable, unalienable rights--rights that these Founders lovingly, and with clear conscience and conviction codified in our Bill of Rights, lest Government ever dare attempt to deny or ignore such sacred rights of the American people.Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is not to be taken lightly. No opinion of a United States Supreme Court Justice is to be taken lightly. Nothing a United States Supreme Court Justice asserts in opinion is to be taken lightly. All High Court opinions, be they majority opinions, or concurring opinions, or dissenting opinions are to be taken lightly. All high Court opinions carry weight and they exist in our body of law forever. Sometimes silence is the better avenue to pursue. Chief Justice Roberts realized that. Justice Kavanaugh did not. And, his absurd and vacuous concurring will now remain, forever, as a testament to one Justice's sheepish attempt to shore up support from, and the trust of, the American people. The American people will now remain justifiably in doubt over Associate Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudential leanings toward the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights, and, in doubt, indeed, toward the entirety of our Bill of Rights and toward the very sanctity of such things as natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights, bestowed in the very soul of man by the loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Divine Creator.Given the reluctance of the High Court to hear any Second Amendment case, even, and especially, those infringing the very core of it, the prospect of the Court actually taking up another Second Amendment case in the near future is more improbable than likely. Why is that, really?

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWS VERY FEW CASES

First, the Court has limited time, given the number of cases that come before it during any term. As set forth in the SCOTUS Blog: “In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.” Since the High Court reviews only a fraction of the cases brought to it in any given term, and, since the High Court is averse to hearing Second Amendment cases, it will only be on a wing and a prayer that the Supreme Court is likely to take up any Second Amendment case, given the Court’s present composition. And, if it does so at all, it will likely deny review on the heels of the New York City gun transport case, any further Second Amendment case this Term because the Supreme Court Term is effectively over in late June, hardly more than one month from now as of the posting of this article.Note, “A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. . . . The Term is divided between ‘sittings,’ when the Justices hear cases and deliver opinions, and intervening ‘recesses,’ when they consider the business before the Court and write opinions. Sittings and recesses alternate at approximately two-week intervals.” Moreover, as the site, U.S. Courts.gov points out: “The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October. . . . The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April [and] All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court’s term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.  

SUPPOSE THE HIGH COURT DOES SECURE FOUR VOTES NECESSARY TO REVIEW A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, WHAT THEN?

Second, even if, by some strange happenstance the Supreme Court does grant review in one of the pending Second Amendment cases, in the next few weeks, especially given the impact of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus, one may justifiably ask when will that case be briefed; when will it be argued in oral hearing before the Court; and when might the case be decided? And, most significantly: how will that case be decided?Given that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh both sided with the liberal wing of the High Court on the New York City gun transport case, that fact alone is a matter for deep concern.In any event, all of this—from voting to hear a case, to the releasing of a decision in that case—takes an inordinate amount of time and, with a General U.S. Presidential election coming up in November 2020, an election just around the corner, both the liberal wing and conservative wing of the High Court may have their own good reasons for not taking up another Second Amendment case this Term. Consider the ramifications of the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, both on the eventual composition of the Supreme Court and on the manner in which a Second Amendment case would be decided.Supreme Court Justices, no less than average citizens, do surely manifest deep concern over the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. And whom it is that wins the election will be able to actuate one or the other of two alternate, incompatible, radically distinct visions for the Nation.One vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Individualism, championed by the Founders of our Free Republic, and actualized in the Constitution that the States, in existence at the time, had ratified. That Constitution is the blueprint of the structure of our Nation, where the people themselves are sovereign: a notion manifest in no other nation in the world despite talk, for example, by the rulers of the EU, holed up in Brussels, who govern the nations comprising the EU. These so-called “elites” talk endlessly, and disingenuously, and deceptively of the EU’s liberal democratic values. But that is nothing more than flimflam and flummery. The second vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—a term that is wending its way more frequently into political discourse, as the Radical Left talks carefully, non-critically, and often glowingly, about the benefits of life in both the EU and in the Autocratic, Communist Collectivist regime of Xi Jinping of China. See Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies, posted October 6, 2018.” Note: In that article, we point to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, at the time of the posting of the article, had just occurred. Would that we knew then what we know now, having seen Justice Kavanaugh’s insipid, seemingly groveling, duplicitous Concurring Opinion in the New York City Gun Transport case. We said, at the time:“With Brett Kavanaugh now on the High Court, the Individualists’ vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the High Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a “Living Document,” susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country’s independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.”

THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF THE LAST TWO CENTURIES IS UPON US

The principles of Collectivism were anathema to the founders of our Nation; and those principles are wholly incompatible with the Constitution the framers designed, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, the foundation of our Nation. The two political and social philosophies, Individualism and Collectivism, cannot be reconciled. And those who wish to implement the principles of Collectivism in our Nation know this. That is why they talk openly of major amendments to the Constitution.Indeed, some Collectivists talk of doing away with the U.S. Constitution altogether, as it would be far easier to draft a new constitution grounded on the principles of Collectivism than to try to reconfigure the original Constitution, grounded as it is on a completely different set of precepts: those of Individualism. And we will be headed in a very disturbing direction if the Collectivists do succeed in taking firm control over the reins of Government._____________________________________________

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY EVERY CITIZEN REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

Since an armed citizenry operates as the one true signifier and test of the sovereignty of the people over Government, and the only effective vehicle through which the sovereignty of the people over illegal Government usurpation and accumulation of power is contained, the armed citizenry is truly the sine qua non of a Nation founded on the tenets of Individualism. And in only one such Nation are the people truly sovereign: the United States. Consider: For all the lofty talk of human rights and with all the “rights” delineated in the EU’s “Charter of Fundamental Rights,” as one prime example—and there are over six dozen of them at last count—you would be hard-pressed to find any assertion of the right of the people of the EU to keep and bear arms. There isn’t one. Do you think the omission was an accident? 

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT EXTOLS THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE EU, NOT THE U.S.

Several U.S. Supreme Court Justices such as, and particularly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have little regard for the U.S. Constitution, as they consider it to be as she says, “rather old” and, therefore, archaic, reminiscent of an earlier time and earlier values that they also perceive as archaic, mutable, irrelevant, and even counter to the Collectivist political and social orientation they support or sympathize with. Their vision of this Country does not include the presence of an armed citizenry. Thus, they, understandably, would express reservation, hesitation in voting to grant review of another Second Amendment case at this time: one that truly impacts the very core of it. These liberal wing U.S. Supreme Court Justices are awaiting the installation of a Collectivist as U.S. President, as are all those who espouse the principles and tenets of Collectivism.If the Radical Left Democrats defeat Trump in the upcoming November 2020 general election, might not that embolden Roberts to join the liberal wing of the Court, to take up another Second Amendment case for the express purpose to weaken the central holdings of Heller and McDonald, if not to overturn the central holdings of those cases outright?After all, it only takes one Justice, say, John Roberts, to join the liberal wing, to defeat a Second Amendment case. And, what  Justice Kavanaugh would do with it is anyone’s guess, given his awkward, almost servile, and definitely odd concurring opinion in the recent New York City gun transport case.The liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court Court has made their deep animosity toward the Second Amendment known. The Liberal wing of the High Court therefore fervently relishes the opportunity to overturn Heller and McDonald. Make no mistake about that. The liberal wing of the High Court has made clear its deep hostility toward and its visceral loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That isn’t a secret.This is predicated on the temperament of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan—a psychological temperament that informs their methodological approach to High Court case analysis; a methodological approach and jurisprudential philosophy that predisposes them to undercut the Second Amendment, always maintaining that the right of the people to keep and bear arms amounts to a collective right if such a right exists at all; conferring no individual right to own and possess firearms.The liberal wing of the High Court long ago opined that both Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided. At the time Heller was decided in 2008, the dissenting Justices included: Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. And, at the time McDonald was decided, the dissenting Justices included: Breyer, Stevens, and Sotomayor.Ostensibly a jurisprudential conservative who retired in 2009, Associate Justice David Souter, nominated by then-President George H.W. Bush, turned out to be a major disappointment. His replacement, Elena Kagan, nominated by Donald Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, would come as no surprise. One needn’t guess her jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment, all of which is predicated on the temperament of the liberal wing of the High Court that now comprises Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan—a psychological temperament that informs their jurisprudential philosophy and a methodological approach toward case analysis that is wholly unlike that of the late eminent Justice Scalia and that Justices Thomas and Alito.The liberal wing of the Court abhors the very idea that Americans have a fundamental and immutable and unalienable, natural right to own and possess firearms. If they vote to hear a Second Amendment case, it will only be with a view toward undercutting the Second Amendment and they will only vote to hear a Second Amendment case once they feel they have sufficient support to compose the majority opinion on the matter.The New York City gun transport case was the most innocuous of Second Amendment cases for the High Court to take up when compared to other cases that had come before it. Perhaps that was one reason they granted review of the New York City case.Moreover, the New York City case invited the New York City Government to amend the law to encourage the liberal wing of the High Court to avoid deciding the case on the merits.And so, the liberal wing did find the case mooted by a change in the law. No surprise there. And Chief Justice Roberts readily jumped on board. No surprise there either. But the decision of Justice Kavanaugh, joining the liberal wing and Roberts majority rather than the dissenters, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—that was a surprise and far, far from a pleasant one.Who is it that Justice Kavanaugh thinks he is fooling? He knows damn well how difficult it is for a Second Amendment case—any Second Amendment case—to be heard. Americans can rest assured that Justice Thomas clued Kavanaugh in on that if Kavanaugh harbored any doubt about that. And Americans are supposed to sit on their hands, and hold their breath waiting for the next Second Amendment case to be taken up by the Court, gaining sustenance from a conjecture tucked away in an absurd Concurring Opinion?Unfortunately, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh isn’t the only person on the High Court infected with St. Vitus Dance, ever meandering, weaseling, tap dancing around the Second Amendment rather than giving it the attention and respect it deserves, dealing squarely with it, to protect the core of it.And the Third Branch of Government isn’t our only concern.Recall how the Republican-controlled House and Senate failed to enact national concealed handgun carry into law. Republicans could easily have enacted 115 H.R. 38 into law if they really wanted to. But they didn’t. Back on November 30, 2018, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote, in our article titled, “As Deadline Draws Near, Supporters Of Second Amendment Demand U.S. Senate Vote On National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity,”“The Senate Judiciary Committee has been sitting on the bill that was sent to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, last December 2017, when it passed the Republican-controlled House. The version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity that passed the House is designated, 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Once Senator McConnell received it, he sent it immediately to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, for action. Clearly, no work was done on it; and a year has gone by since the Judiciary Committee had received it.” Nothing was done by the Republican Controlled Congress in 2017, at that time, to strengthen Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. And, now, at this juncture—with the decision of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh, having joined the liberal wing of the High Court, in the New York City gun transport case—nothing yet has been done to preserve and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right.Do you think, perhaps, that all too many legislators and jurists, adherents of Collectivism, who claim to support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, really don’t? Is talk of support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms just that: merely talk? Is preservation of our Bill of Rights merely a will-o’-the-wisp, an elaborate play, the purpose of which is to placate a rightfully embittered American electorate, facilitating the slow, inexorable, erasure of the very notion of fundamental, immutable, God-given rights that fall beyond the lawful power of Government to denigrate and eradicate?As we have pointed out in our previous article, some Collectivists in the U.S. suggest that no constitution is necessary. Taking their cue from Great Britain which is said to have an “unwritten constitution” (which really means NO constitution), the Collectivists surmise that changes to Government and changes to the relationship of the people to Government should always be flexible, malleable—subject to change in accordance with the whims of those who wield power. For these rulers, adherents of Collectivism, any constitution is too restrictive and any rights afforded the populace must always be subject to modification or abrogation as the rulers dictate. And, they have made that plain. The Collectivists seek to rewrite portions of the Articles, and they seek to rewrite, or to torturously and tortuously reinterpret, or to abrogate altogether, or simply to ignore portions of our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural rights—our Bill of Rights—giving special attention to the Second Amendment that they perceive as the greatest single threat to their illegal, unconscionable usurpation of power.The American people must not let these Radical Left Collectivist insurrectionists succeed.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WILL THE SECOND AMENDMENT SURVIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DESTROY IT?

PART FIVE

WHAT WILL BECOME OF U.S. SUPREME COURT HELLER AND MCDONALD PRECEDENT?

Commentators and readers—pro, con, or ostensibly neutral toward the Second Amendment—presume the U.S. Supreme Court will soon take up, on review, one or more of the several pending Second Amendment cases awaiting a vote by the Court. But will they?SCOTUS Blog reporter, Amy Howe, reported, on April 28, 2020, that, “We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.”But, as of the posting of Part Five of this multi-series article on the Arbalest Quarrel, AQ has not yet heard whether the High Court will be reviewing any of the aforesaid cases, even as CNBC News reported, on Sunday, May 17, 2020, that,“The Supreme Court is looking eager to weigh in on the Second Amendment weeks after it punted on its first substantial gun rights case in nearly a decade.”Eagerly looking forward to weighing in on a Second Amendment case? Really? Well, apart from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had previously written or joined dissenting comments asserting strong displeasure for the failure of the Court to take up any one of several cases, to date—and, we presume, apart from Associate Justice Samuel Alito who had penned the McDonald majority opinion, and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had penned the dissenting opinion in Heller II when he had served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, before joining the U.S. Supreme Court as an Associate Justice—the idea that the liberal wing of the High Court and the idea that the Chief Justice, himself, John Roberts, also relish the opportunity to review any Second Amendment case, except to rein in the fundamental, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, if they have the opportunity to do so, is a bit of a stretch. The only other Justice who would, if he could, had a strong desire to review another Second Amendment case would be the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who had penned the majority opinion Heller rulings and holdings.The U.S. Supreme Court has had many opportunities to do so since the Court’s majority handed down the seminal rulings in the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald cases. But, apart from the quasi Second Amendment Voisine case and the recent New York City Gun transport case, the Court never did review a Second Amendment case. Concerning those two cases, Justice Thomas remarked of the former, that, while the Court did review Voisine, it never did address the Second Amendment issue, which might explain why the Court decided to hear the case at all. And, as for the latter—the New York City gun transport case—the High Court’s majority, comprising the Anti-Second Amendment liberal wing, along with Chief Justice Roberts, and, surprisingly, Associate Justice Kavanaugh, the recent addition to the Court, both ruled against allowing the case to proceed to the merits.Can Americans be so certain that another Second Amendment case is going to be taken up soon? Consider how many writs of certiorari come before the High Court during any term.On the U.S. Supreme Court site, supremecourt.gov, we are told:“The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court. This is a substantially larger volume of cases than was presented to the Court in the last century. In the 1950 Term, for example, the Court received only 1,195 new cases, and even as recently as the 1975 Term it received only 3,940. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review. The publication of each Term’s written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, can take up thousands of pages. During the drafting process, some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.” Do you honestly think one of the pending Second Amendment cases will garner the four votes necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to review it, and relatively soon?With a clear schism between, on the one hand, the entrenched liberal-wing of the High Court that detests any notion of a God-given, fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and vehemently disagrees with the majority’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, and, on the other hand, the entrenched conservative-wing Constitutionalists of the High Court, consisting of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch who are adamant in their desire to preserve the Second Amendment as the framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended, it is to be seen whether Americans will henceforth be able to continue to own and possess firearms as a fundamental and unalienable right, rather than as a mere Government privilege. It will all come down to how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh decide any such Second Amendment case.Keep in mind, it only takes one vote, either Roberts or Kavanaugh, to rule with the liberal wing of the High Court to affirm the rulings of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld unconstitutional government actions, counter to the rulings of Heller and McDonald, striking a flagrant blow to Supreme Court precedent. But, it takes two votes, both Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the conservative-wing, to reverse or, otherwise, to modify, or vacate and remand, a badly decided lower court ruling.Our guess is that, with a U.S. Presidential election approaching this year, which will, as well, also decide whether Democrats maintain majorities in the House and secure a majority in the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court would prefer to await the outcome.If Democrats win the Presidency and take control of the Senate, the liberal wing of the Court may be willing to provide the four votes necessary to hear a Second Amendment case. The liberal wing of the Court would do so not to chastise the Federal Circuits for failing to adhere to Heller and McDonald precedent, but to overturn those precedents, or, at least, to weaken Heller and McDonald, as they always took the position that the majority had wrongly decided Heller and McDonald. Of course, if the four members of the liberal wing of the Court do decide to vote in favor of reviewing a Second Amendment case, it would do so only if they feel confident they would obtain a “conservative” wing majority, meaning that both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh must join Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, to reverse outright a Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld a government action infringing the core of the Second Amendment.But, whatever the High Court decides to do with this new batch of Second Amendment cases, it behooves us to take a moment and proceed down memory lane to contemplate those cases the Court could have reviewed, should have reviewed, but failed to secure even four of nine votes necessary to review a case implicating the core of the Second Amendment: cases decided by U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that blatantly, defiantly, arrogantly, egregiously denied and defied Heller and McDonald precedent.

CASES ATTACKING THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR

Because the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in cases discussed infra, had blatantly ignored and dismissed Heller and McDonald precedent, Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia, and, later, Justice Gorsuch, were visibly annoyed, angered really, at the failure of the High Court to take up any of the cases, as evidenced in several dissenting comments.Those Justices were confident that, had any one or more of the below cases secured the four votes necessary for a Second Amendment case to be heard, Justice Roberts, and, at the time Justice Kennedy, would have been compelled to join the Conservative wing, reversing the decision of the Circuit Court.Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy would have been required to join the conservative wing even if they had a predilection against doing so, based on their own obvious lukewarm regard for the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. They would have had to overturn any U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that clearly attacked the core of the Second Amendment, as the below cases attest to. They would have been obliged to do so, consistent with Heller and McDonald precedent, and, more particularly, consistent with those Justices own decisions in Heller and McDonald, having joined the majority in those decisions. And, given that imperative, they evidently decided to take the “safer” course of action. They refused to hear any one of those cases.These cases include:Silvester vs. Becerra: Petition for certiorari denied on February 20, 2018“Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions.” California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers remains in effectJustice Thomas was livid:The ABA pointed out: “Justice Clarence Thomas asserted the Second Amendment is ‘a disfavored right’ in the U.S. Supreme Court when he dissented Tuesday from the denial of certiorari in a gun case.Thomas said the Supreme Court should have heard Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. His dissent starts on the 34th page of the Supreme Court order list.In upholding the law, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used rational basis review, though it claimed to be using intermediate scrutiny, Thomas said.‘If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.’”In his dissent for failure of the high Court to hear the case, Justice Thomas said with particularity and with righteous indignation:The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own ‘common sense.’ Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,” Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, I would have granted certiorari in this case.Drake v. Jerejian: Petition for certiorari denied on May 5, 2014No hearing; no comment“Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a ‘justifiable need’ for doing so.”The weblog, outside the beltway, had this to say about the case:“Well it’s official. The Supreme Court has abdicated the Second Amendment.No Second Amendment right, in New Jersey, to carry a handgun outside the home; and proof of “justifiable need” to carry handgun outside the home for self-defense remains in effect in New Jersey“Today, the Court denied cert in Drake v. Jerejian, the New Jersey carry case. This case offered a perfect vehicle to test whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. It was relisted a few times, which this term has been a prerequisite to cert. Yet, it was denied today.Since the Supreme Court decided McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, they have not deigned to take a single Second Amendment case. Not one. Several have been relisted a few times, but all ultimately denied, with not even a statement concurring or dissenting from denial of cert.As I noted in this post, this strategy of ‘deny, deny, deny’ is reminiscent of the absence of Cert grants in cases concerning Guantanamo Bay. There, the Court seems content to let the D.C. Circuit rewrite habeas law. I suppose, in a similar fashion, the Court is happy with a plethora of nation-wide Circuit splits about the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.” Jackson vs. City & Cnty. of San Francisco: Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015 “Issue: Whether San Francisco’s attempt to deprive law-abiding individuals of immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes is any more constitutional than the District of Columbia’s invalidated effort to do the same.”Requirement to keep handguns inaccessible in home remains in effect in San Francisco.(Thomas dissenting; Scalia joins dissent) Thomas with righteous indignation, writes:“‘Self-defense is a basic right’ and ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment’s  guarantee of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. McDonald v. Chicago 561 U. S. 742, 767, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (emphasis deleted). Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it ‘ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.”Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois:Petition for certiorari denied on December 7, 2015 “Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected ‘arms’ that includes the most popular rifles in the nation; and (2) whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that number in the tens of millions and make up nearly half of the nation’s total stock of privately owned ammunition magazines for handguns and rifles.Semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons,’ even if in common use remain illegal in City of Highland Park, IllinoisThomas dissenting: “The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons.” See Highland Park, Ill., City Code §§136.001(C), 136.005 (2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, 71a. For instance, the ordinance criminalizes modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semiautomatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a.The City gave anyone who legally possessed ‘an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine’ 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. §136.020, id., at 73a. Anyone who violates the ordinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both. §136.999, id., at 74a.Petitioners — a Highland Park resident who sought to keep now-prohibited firearms and magazines to defend his home, and an advocacy organization — brought a suit to enjoin the ordinance on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City.A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel majority acknowledged that the prohibited weapons ‘can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot than larger-caliber pistols or revolvers,’ and thus ‘[h]ouseholders too frightened or infirm to aim carefully may be able to wield them more effectively.’ 784 F. 3d, at 411.The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller ‘holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates’ the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Heller’s rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald ‘leave matters open’ on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: ‘[W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, . . . and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.’ Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted).Judge Manion dissented, reasoning that ‘[b]oth the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald.’ Id., at 412.We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment ‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’ Heller, supra, at 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657; see also McDonald, supra, at 767-769, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-916. We excluded from protection only ‘those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’ Heller, 554 U. S., at 625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 677. And we stressed that ‘[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.’ Id., at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 682 (emphasis deleted).Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by ‘the political process and scholarly debate.’ Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that ‘since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.’ 554 U. S., at 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: ‘Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.’ Id., at 634-635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683.Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ 554 U. S., at 582, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2792, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 651.The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’ 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657, 678-680. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that ‘Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2802, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 662 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered ‘whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,’ and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because ‘[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that ‘Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,’ it thought that ‘Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.’ Id., at 411.That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 678-680. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624-625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815-2816, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 676-677. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767-768, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-915; Heller, supra, at 628-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 679-680.The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’  — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’ Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’ Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.’ Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.IIIThe Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), ‘in name only’); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an ‘understandable’ double jeopardy holding that nonetheless ‘r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.Kolbe vs. Hogan: Petition for certiorari denied on November 27, 2017No hearing and no comment Issues: (1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.Maryland’s ban on ‘military-like’ ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines upheld. To provide ostensible legal support for an inherently unconstitutional State Government action, the Fourth Circuit Court majority said, in pertinent part,‘Being satisfied that there is substantial evidence indicating that the FSA’s prohibitions against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines will advance Maryland’s goals, we conclude that the FSA survive intermediate scrutiny. Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the  FSA and Maryland's interest in protecting public safety. And, as for plaintiff’s equal protection claim, the Fourth Circuit said: ‘The Supreme Court has recognized that equal protection ‘is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.’ [citation omitted] Thus, a plaintiff challenging a state statute on an equal protection basis ‘must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.’”In other words, the average person is just a peasant. If one dies at the hands of a predator because he could not adequately defend himself, he can rest in peace knowing that every other peasant may well receive the same end: as the lives of all peasants receive equal treatment: the lives of all peasants are equally worthless.Peruta vs. California: Petition for certiorari denied on June 26, 2017Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.California law denying law-abiding citizens the Second Amendment right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in the absence of a showing of “good cause” remains in effect.Thomas Dissenting; Gorsuch joins dissent:The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.’ At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.ICalifornia generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing ‘good cause,’ among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted ‘good cause’ to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff’s policy specifies that ‘concern for one’s personal safety’ does not ‘alone’ satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show ‘a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.’ Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ‘[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.’ Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens,’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on public carry violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:09-cv-02371, (SD Cal.) ¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150-1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172. The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically asked for the invalidation of the sheriff’s ‘good cause’ interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus declined to ‘answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.’ Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).IIWe should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.’AThe en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (‘Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in public places’); id., ¶74 (‘States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense’). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff’s restrictive interpretation of ‘good cause’—it also requested ‘[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.’ Id., ¶152. Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that ‘the heart of the parties’ dispute’ is whether the Second Amendment protects ‘the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed manner.’ Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, ‘[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing   scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.’ 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners ‘focu[s]’ their challenge on the ‘licensing scheme for concealed carry,’ this is ‘for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical avenue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.’ Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners ‘base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and ‘do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.’ 824 F. 3d, at 927.BHad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” 554 U. S., at 584, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 141 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (‘To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court’); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period,  and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153-1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6-16. For example, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840) (‘A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional’).Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that ‘self-defense’ is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.’ 554 U. S., at 599, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be ‘most acute’ there. Id., at 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. ‘Self-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,’ and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).CEven if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2134, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1124 (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 422; 187 L. Ed. 2d 281 (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___, 569 U.S. 918, 133 S. Ct. 1806, 185 L. Ed. 2d 812 (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800-802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785-786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this  case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 447; 193 L. Ed. 2d 483 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (136 S. Ct. 447; 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 484) (‘The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions’); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 2799; 192 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___, 135 S. Ct. 2799; 192 L. Ed. 2d 865, 866) (‘Second Amendment’ rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document’). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”Justice Thomas is absolutely right.Justice Thomas is absolutely right. He asserts over and over again: The Second Amendment is not to be treated as “a disfavored right.” It isn’t a “second-class right.” “Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.”  “This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.” And, still, the liberal wing of the High Court does just that. Because the liberal wing of the Supreme Court finds the fundamental, unalienable right embodied in the Second Amendment personally distasteful, it allows itself to embrace the pretense, or more likely the delusion, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be expressed today as something less than the fundamental, unalienable right that it in fact is; indeed, that the right embodied in the Second Amendment isn't to be treated even as a minor, non-fundamental right, but, rather, as nothing more than a minor concession, a privilege, to be bestowed on American citizens at the whim of Government; something even less than “gender rights” that Radical Left groups, such as overbrook.org would dare raise to the level of a fundamental right, contorting, distorting, twisting the U.S. Constitution to such an extreme extent that it becomes unrecognizable as the sacred, immutable document it once was and was forever intended to be, becoming a horrible mutation; a grotesque travesty of what was once something profound, beautiful, sublime.Radical Left and New Progressive elements in American society today, prefer to call the U.S. Constitution, as they choose to perceive it today, a so-called “Living Constitution,” grounded on what some legal scholars and academicians refer to as “living Constitutional theory;” a theory opposed to “originalism,” the latter theory of which seeks to preserve the U.S. Constitution as written, and that seeks to preserve a free Republic as the Founders of the Nation intended. See, e.g., “Living Constitutional Theory,” by Andrew Coan, Duke Law Journal, Volume 66, June 2017. Not surprisingly, proponents of so-called living Constitutional theory would attempt to buttress this new living constitutional theory by denigrating originalism, and its corollary textualism, by misquoting the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.It is one thing for a lower Federal Court to abdicate its responsibility to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. It is quite another thing for the U.S. Supreme Court to do so. Yet the lower Courts take their cue from the Highest Court in the Land. If the U.S. Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility, it should well expect the lower Courts to do so. And, they have.______________________________

POSTSCRIPT———

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS DEAD WRONG: SOME JUSTICES DO WORK IN A POLITICAL MANNER

OVERTLY POLITICAL LIBERAL-WING OF SUPREME COURT INTENDS TO CONSTRAIN AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Given the substantial opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to review several U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that upheld facially unconstitutional Government decisions, infringing the very core of the Second Amendment, it is remarkable that the  High Court failed to take up any one of them. One would have thought the High Court would have done so, would have been compelled to do so, consistent with their Oath to do so. And one would have thought the High Court would relish doing so, given blatant lower Court hostility toward the Second Amendment and a dismissive attitude toward clear, categorical Supreme Court precedent as laid down in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald cases. But, many Justices obviously were not content to do so. That the Supreme Court failed to garner even four votes on any one of a substantial number of cases, coming on the heels of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court cases, where State, County, or Municipal Governments visibly, defiantly, blatantly, defiantly attacked the very core of the Second Amendment, this necessarily bespeaks a decided, decisive, and unruly antipathy expressed by many Justices on the High Court, toward the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas rightfully, justifiably, and clearly articulated his frustration with both the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in his comprehensive, dissenting comments in several of those Circuit Court of Appeals cases.If the High Court had taken up any one of the myriad Second Amendment cases within the first few years that Heller and McDonald were decided, it is likely the writs filed in many of the cases, mentioned and discussed, supra, would never have been filed; would never have to be filed, as the U.S. District Court Judges and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges would be loath to attract the righteous ire of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, as the High Court routinely refuses to hear any one of many egregious U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, these Courts, not surprisingly, continue to dismiss the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, just as blatantly dismiss out-of-hand the rulings of the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.Of course, the normally reticent Chief Justice, John Roberts, doesn't normally interject remarks outside the Court setting but felt no reluctance to do so when, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, correctly exclaimed how political the Supreme Court is.The New York Times, always a media source that can be counted on to incessantly, viciously attack the President and laud those who do the same, was quick to jump on the remarks of the Chief Justice in late 2018, reporting: 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary on Wednesday, rebuking President Trump for calling a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy “an Obama judge.”

The chief justice said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role.“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”The Times took another dig at the U.S. President, when, almost one year later, they again reported with glee, on Chief Justice Roberts' further jabs at President Trump, reporting:

“We don’t go about our work in a political manner,” he told an audience of some 2,000 people at the Temple Emanu-El’s Streicker Center in Manhattan.

Asked about President Trump’s attack on a decision he said had been rendered by an “Obama judge” and a recent brief from Democratic senators that questioned the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, Chief Justice Roberts said he had no objection to criticism of the court.

“We probably do a better job criticizing ourselves in our dissents than anybody else could,” he said.

But he added that the outside criticism did not affect the court’s independence. “A lot of the criticism is based on a misperception,” he said.

People often note that the court is made up of five Republican appointees and four Democratic ones, he said, and they expect predictable 5-to-4 decisions along those lines.

“Last year,” he said, “we had 19 5-to-4 decisions, and seven of them were divided with the five justices appointed by Republican presidents in the majority and the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents in dissent.”

“That shouldn’t come as a surprise because we don’t go about our work in a political manner,” he said.”“That shouldn't come as a surprise”? There is something else that doesn't come as a surprise, but would be a nice indeed surprise were it to come about, namely, the judicial philosophy and attitude of Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, toward the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The American public knows where those Justices' allegiance rests when it comes to the Second Amendment. They seek to defeat it at every turn. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't bother to direct the public's attention to that disturbing and hardly incidental fact about them; a fact that is anything but anomalous. This isn't a matter of judicial independence, where each Justice does whatever he or she wants. This is a matter of personal integrity, judicial restraint, the obligation to one's Oath, and reverence toward the sanctity of our natural rights, to be understood and applied to the facts of a case in controversy in strict accord to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, as written, and as ratified, as the Framers intended.The Oath of the Supreme Court Justice is set forth in Statute: 28 U.S. Code§ 453. Oaths of justices and judges:Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SUPREME COURT MAJORITY SIDES WITH NEW YORK CITY IN GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION

PART ONE

SUPREME COURT DECISION BAD FOR NEW YORK AND BAD OMEN FOR REST OF NATION

The U.S. Supreme Court just released its decision, April 27, 2020, in the New York “Gun Transport” case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), and it isn’t good. You can read the decision here on the SCOTUS website.

WHAT WAS THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE ABOUT?

“Petitioners [NYSRPA] sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari.  586 U. S. ___ (2019).  After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint.”New York City changed its law, fearing the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.Cuomo has threatened to destroy the Second Amendment to the Nation many times in the past. In a previous AQ article, titled, “Andrew Cuomo Seeks To Impose New York’s Restrictive Gun Laws On The Entire Nation,” published on our site, on March 31, 2019, we pointed out that,“In January of 2019 . . . Cuomo announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,’ and he chortled, ‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation. . . .’ ‘[t]he rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the Safe Act gun control. . . . ’” The high Court’s gun transport case decision gives Cuomo and others who seek to destroy the Second Amendment” confidence that the high Court will be doing nothing to rein them in.

HOW DID INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES VOTE?

As you may have suspected, the liberal wing of the Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the City, to dismiss the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.Curiously and disturbingly, Trump’s second nominee to the high Court, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing, but filed a “Concurring Opinion” acknowledging that Justice Alito’s concern over some State and federal Court mishandling of Heller and McDonald warrants high Court review but that the Court can do so in other cases pending before the Court.The high Court remanded the case to the New York Court of Appeals but only to discuss Petitioner’s argument for damages. But the issue of damages is of no consequence. It is injunctive relief the NYSRPA wanted. Anti-Constitutional forces in government consistently, unconscionably, and contemptuously enact laws designed to infringe the core of the Second Amendment without regard to the Heller and McDonald rulings. The NYSRPA wanted and expected the high Court to stop this. The gun transport case would have operated as a good test case. But the Court’s majority folded. What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms?

JUSTICE ALITO'S DISSENTING OPINION

The Majority decided the case in a two-page decision. Justice Alito, who penned the McDonald decision, wrote a thirty-one page Dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. In his opening remarks Justice Alito began his Dissent with a blanket rebuke of the Majority’s Decision. He says:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.  Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests. On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

The Supreme Court Majority did not want to deal with the Second Amendment if that would jeopardize the Heller and McDonald precedents. The liberal wing of the Court for its part would wish to avoid a review if the outcome would serve to strengthen the Heller and McDonald precedents.Of course, the liberal wing never agreed with or accepted the Heller and McDonald rulings, and has consistently gone along with government actions to infringe the Second Amendment as if Heller and McDonald rulings never existed.But, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have had enough.Alito made clear New York City’s rescission of the transport gun case rule simply amounts to City’s acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the rule and that the high Court would overturn it.Justice Alito said, in closing:“In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type.  The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern. This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold.  I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief.”The liberal wing of the Court consistently legislates from the Bench. They abhor the Second Amendment and if they were confident that they could overturn Heller and McDonald, they would do so in a heartbeat. At the moment, they cannot.Chief Justice Robert’s decision comes as no surprise. Justice Kavanaugh’s vote does, however. His concurring opinion reflects that his heart and mind are with Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, but he went along with Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court anyway. Why did he do this? To say that the Court will have other opportunities to deal with unlawful attacks on Heller and McDonald doesn’t explain why he would pass on dealing with an outright attack on those seminal cases with a clear opportunity to do so with the gun transport case before him.  That is a “cop-out” pure and simple and Kavanaugh, a careful, perspicacious legal thinker and writer must be called out for an obvious act of frailty, unbefitting him.Is Kavanaugh so really afraid the Radical Left will impeach him, as they have threatened? Does he think they will make good their threat if Biden defeats Trump in the upcoming General Election and if the Democrats not only hold onto the House, but win a majority in the Senate, too? Is the New York City gun transport case just an anomaly or does it signal what we may expect from Kavanaugh in the future: currying favor with the Radical Left and betraying intellectual honesty to halt an impeachment proceeding and trial?On January 24, 2019 AQ wrote an extensive article on the New York gun transport case that, at the time, the high Court agreed to take up. Mayor DeBlasio and The New York Times were fearful and furious. You may read our article, “U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”In a forthcoming article AQ will analyze Alito’s dissenting opinion, along with Kavanaugh’s odd, evasive concurring opinion. We will deal with the issue of mootness which deserves serious attention; and will examine how dangerous this decision is for the entire Nation._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

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