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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

THE PRETEXT FOR TRUMP’S CALL FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES.

Following the devastating, unconscionable attack by the maniac, Stephen Paddock, on innocent concertgoers, attending a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the evening of October 1, 2017, the gun grabbers wasted little time in turning their attention on what they depicted as the salient culprit of the carnage: a little device called a “bump stock.” It is a device that investigators found attached to semiautomatic rifles Paddock used in his murderous assault.

Antigun groups and antigun politicians immediately called for a ban on the device. But, oddly and sadly, it is President Donald Trump, the seemingly indefatigable champion of the Second Amendment—not the Democratic Party leadership—who gave the gun grabbers what they want: a ban on “bump stocks.”

DONALD TRUMP MAY ACT RASHLY ON SOME MATTERS AND AVOID REPERCUSSIONS; NOT SO, WHEN HE BLATANTLY ATTACKS THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been an early and avid supporter of Trump’s bid for the U.S. Presidency—first during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination, and then during the turbulent first two years in Office, as he was buffeted and roiled on all sides by various factions that sought and still seek to destroy his Presidency. It is alarming, though, when Trump seems to disregard those who support him. Trump had made several promises to the American electorate. Among the most important he promised to build “a wall,” an effective physical structure to keep the multitude of illegal aliens from cavalierly crossing our Nation’s borders, and audaciously claiming the same rights, liberties, and protections that accrue only to American citizens. Trump realizes now, a bit late in the day, that his thoughts of a second term in Office, in 2020, will be undone if he fails to deliver on that oft repeated promise. Just as importantly, Trump made abundantly clear, during his campaign, that he is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. But, what has Trump done to merit his supporters’ continued devotion? So far, two years into his four-year term in Office, we see nothing concrete.

Trump normally “trumpets” his actions, consistent with the importance of, and his belief in, Governmental transparency. That’s a good thing and to be applauded. It is something his predecessor in Office, Barack Obama, said he would do but rarely if ever did, preferring to cloak his own actions in secrecy. The insidious, reprehensible “Operation Fast and Furious” is a case in point; an oblique attempt to undermine the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. But, as for the architects of the policy, neither the Attorney General—at the time, Eric Halder—nor President Obama, was ever called to account for it. Yet, it is Donald Trump now, not Barack Obama, who has deviously and insidiously undermined the Second Amendment, and he is doing so through an aggressive, unconscionable, unconstitutional, unilateral executive act.

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

“The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.” ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Were these just vacuous words, delivered merely to appease supporters at a singular moment in time, and then to be dispensed with once the U.S. Presidency had been secured and when political expediency seemingly required? Apparently, so. After the Parkland, Florida tragedy, the Washington Examiner reported that,

“President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.

‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. “If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.”

The President weaseled, giving only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Obviously this wasn’t a high priority for him. Is it, then, any surprise that, apart from a push by the Republican controlled House in 2017—evidently in spite of the President, not because of him—Congressional action ultimately failed to deliver? Congress got the message. Since preservation and strengthening of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is apparently a low priority for the U.S. President, it was a low priority for Congress—certainly for the Republican-controlled Senate.

A full Roll-Call vote on the Senate Floor was necessary even if the Senate failed to secure 60 votes necessary for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation since the American public would know who, among both Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the measure and those who did not; those Senators, then, who support our sacred Second Amendment right and those who, clearly, do not. 

But, Mitch McConnell never called for a Floor vote, though he could have done so. We will remember McConnell’s disservice to the American people for failing to hold a full Senate Floor vote. And we will remember Trump for failing to make national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation a priority goal. Republicans controlled the Congress—both Houses—along with the U.S. Presidency, from 2016 through 2018. Republicans have now lost the U.S. House of Representatives. The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms took a backseat to both health care and taxes. It should not have, but it did. 

We face a Democratic Party majority-controlled House whose leadership has a decidedly and decisively different, and ominous agenda in store for the American people. It is a safe bet that Gun control and the general weakening of the Second Amendment will not be secondary issues for the Democratic Party leadership once they assume control of the House on January 3, 2019—unlike strengthening the Second Amendment was, obviously and unfortunately, a secondary issue for Republicans.*

The Arbalest Quarrel has written several articles on this critical matter, posting those articles on our website; and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News; and on “The Truth About Guns.” Ammoland posted our latest one, titled, “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity – Last Chance to Act,” on November 27, 2018. In that article, we urged Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to call for a Senate Floor vote on the House he could have done so. There was time before the year-end adjournment. If the Senate did clear the 60 vote threshold, the bill could have been sent immediately to President Trump for his signature. And Trump would have had to sign it even if he were reluctant to do so. For, it would have been, as he insisted, in his remarks to Republicans, that it must be “a separate bill,” subsumed in no other Congressional bill, as it was a separate bill. But, now, we will never know. The bill that passed the House, the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38, will automatically die—as unfinished business of the old Congress—once the new Congress commences work on January 3, 2019.

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

TRUMP IGNORES HIS PLEDGE TO THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORTED HIM; CAPITULATING COMPLETELY TO THE ANTIGUN CROWD, ONCE HE CALLED FOR A BAN ON BUMP STOCKS.

As if the Republican controlled Senate’s failure to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation and President Trump’s failure to push forward a pro-Second Amendment agenda during his first two years in Office weren’t bad enough—a serious failure of omission on the part of both the U.S. Senate and the President—Trump’s ban on “bump stocks”—an act of commission—is even worse. By foolishly, impetuously, acting to ban “bump stocks,” the President demonstrates a dangerous naïvety and ineptitude, along with a disturbingly blithe lack of concern for the well-being of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, inviolate right of the American  people to keep and bear arms. Trump is obviously oblivious to the deleterious impact his unilateral action shall have—not simply may have—on the Second Amendment itself.

President Trump’s failure to cajole Congress to action, to strengthen our most cherished and important right, is unacceptable. That failure deserves our condemnation. But undermining our most cherished right is alarming and unforgivable. That deserves our lasting contempt. With the radical Left urging Democratic Party House members to impeach Trump, upon issuance of the Special Counsel’s, Robert Mueller’s, report that is due out at any time now, the President can ill afford to antagonize his own base; but Trump has done just that with his flagrant attack on the Second Amendment.

Trump should have left the matter of bump stocks to Congress. Congress, acting through its Article 1 legislative power, can, conceivably, lawfully, take such action to ban them, if it sought to do so, assuming—a big “if”—that the law, depending on the matter of its statutory construction, does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But it is not for the President to take that action upon himself under any set of circumstances. We have a system of checks and balances in our Country, and for good reason.

Congress makes the law. That power is within the province of Congress, not the President. The President’s duty is to faithfully execute the laws Congress enacts. Under our Constitution, the President has no authority to make binding law, in lieu of Congress. Unlike Great Britain and Australia, the Chief Executive has no authority to self-execute laws. The President does not serve as both Chief Executive and "Legislator in Chief."

We have seen how Obama has shown a marked, carefree proclivity to ignore the federal Government’s system of “checks and balances” that the founders of our Republic wisely conceived of and assiduously placed into our Constitution. As Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, makes crystal clear, it is the province of Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Obama, as President, and, no less a lawyer and academician, knows this. Yet, that did not prevent him from unlawfully promulgating and implementing his infamous, illegal “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), policy, along with the concomitant mess it left for his successor, President Trump. 

What was Obama’s motive for DACA? As he says, as reported to the Leftist media echo chamber, CNN:  “. . . for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill. That bill never came. . . . “Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question.” Obama proselytizes to Americans, talking down to us as if we were children, suggesting that it is he, Obama,“the Great Father,” who shall teach us all what we ostensibly need to know about law, politics, and morality too, audaciously exclaiming that, as Congress didn’t give Obama what he wants—he—Barack Obama, will make law himself!

Obama’s remarks are a textbook example of propaganda, disseminated to the public by an insincere Press. It is bombastic, simplistic, perfunctory rhetoric; absolute drivel. Obama certainly knows it; but so should the Press. This smug, duplicitous attitude on the part of both Obama and the Press serves to make Obama’s remarks and the mainstream media’s reporting of them all the more diabolical and reprehensible.

One salient, critical duty of the Chief Executive of the Nation, set down in Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws the President is duty-bound to faithfully execute are the laws Congress enacts. The President has no power to issue personal edicts, suggesting they have the force of Congressional law when in fact they don’t; and cannot ever have. As Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes abundantly and absolutely clear: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is nothing in Article 1 or in any other Article of the U.S. Constitution reciting that legislative powers, of some sort or another, also vest in the President. Such powers do not invest in the President; only in Congress.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION CONSISTS OF FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS; NOT SIMPLE PLATITUDES.

Trump, as with Obama before him, has begun to demonstrate a disturbing propensity to ignore precepts of the U.S. Constitution, when he wishes to do so, unmoved by the dictates of either the Constitution or his conscience. His unilateral action banning bump stocks was a calculated move. It is obvious why he took this action. He evidently felt the general public supported it—more of those in favor of it than not. He caved to public pressure to deliver something to the public, because of the worst mass shooting ever to occur in our Nation and an unthinkable tragedy that happened to occur on his watch. That may appear as reason enough to act, by some, but Trump should not have fallen prey to the frenzy of the moment, and with such apparent alacrity, abandon, and smug self-assurance.

The continued existence of the natural, fundamental rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are not properly to be left to public whim, anyway, and never have been. Public opinion is easily manipulated and ever changeable. The founders of our Republic didn’t intend for the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people to be weakened by mere heat and rancor of a given moment in time. That ought to be clear enough to most Americans if they stop to consider this. It should be clear enough to Congress. And it should be clear enough to the President, too; but apparently it wasn’t. And, having taken the action to ban bump stocks devices, President Trump did nothing to make this Nation safer. Having bowed to political pressure--something he is, often and admirably enough, not ordinarily inclined to do, but did so in this instance--he reneged on a salient campaign promise he made to millions of Americans, namely that he, like they, fervently and reverently hold the Nation’s Second Amendment in the highest regard, and that he will do his best to preserve and strengthen it. Yet, a ban on bump stock devices does no such thing. Rather, it makes a mockery of Trump’s promise to the American people. Worse, taking the action he did to usurp Congressional authority and prerogative to make law, Trump did much more than simply undermine a campaign pledge; he undermined the very Constitution he swore an oath to preserve and to protect. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes plain that,

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Trump does not faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by making up his own law as he goes. He doesn’t preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States when he takes upon himself--as did his predecessor Barack Obama--the role the framers of the Constitution reserved alone to Congress, namely the authority to make law. And, Trump certainly doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, when he undermines the fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as codified in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

Whether operating through grandiose self-delusion or blatant deceit, a Chief Executive, who fails to adhere to the limitations on his authority, as our Constitution dictates and mandates, significantly threatens the continued well-being of a free Republic. Under no set of circumstances can suspension or abrogation of our Constitution ever be justified. 

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

TRUMP’S UNILATERAL ACTION, BANNING BUMP STOCKS, IS UNLAWFUL.

Although Trump could have and should have left the matter of “bump stocks” to Congress, Trump’s unilateral action, banning civilian ownership and possession of bump stocks is unlawful. That isn’t an open question. The answer to that question, under Constitutional law, is clear and categorical. Trump cannot lawfully do so. But, he took that action anyway. The danger we now face, given Trump’s rash action, goes well beyond the relative merit or utility of bump stocks, themselves.

Trump’s action calls into immediate question the import of Congressional legislation and the weight to be given to U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements on matters of law. If Trump’s action withstands legal challenge and scrutiny—and David Codrea’s article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News points to several formal complaints that have been recently been filed contesting the constitutionality of the ban—the ‘rule of law’ becomes mere shallow and hollow rhetoric; legislation becomes mere ad hoc artifice, subject to the vicissitudes of fate; and the Bill of Rights loses its inviolability and immutability.

THE DOJ-ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” IS PATENTLY UNLAWFUL.

Two major websites, Ammoland Shooting Sports News and The Truth About Guns, have posted several fine articles on the issue of bump stocks. The Arbalest Quarrel provides its own take on this subject, including an analysis of the law regarding administrative decision-making.

We reach a disturbing but irrefutable conclusion: if the Courts do not strike down Trump’s action, we will continue to see the inexorable whittling away of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, leading inevitably to the demise of civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic firearms, not simply to the demise of firearms pejoratively called “assault weapons.”

We begin our analysis with the language of Trump’s Memorandum, issued on February 20, 2018. The Memorandum is titled “Application of the Definition of Machine gun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” 3 CFR Memorandum of 2/20/18. This Executive Office Memorandum placed the Justice Department on notice of the President’s intent to promulgate a rule criminalizing possession of bump stock devices--all of them, regardless of the nature of operation of any one manufacturer's version of the device--and further ordered the Department of Justice (DOJ) to promulgate a rule, banning those devices. The Memorandum directed to the Attorney General, and signed by Donald Trump, reads:

“After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.

Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns.

Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.

Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.

Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.”

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

There are four points to ponder here. First, through this Memorandum, Trump attempts to make law, not simply execute laws Congress enacted because Congress hasn’t enacted a law banning bump stocks. So there is no law for the President to faithfully execute under Article 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. His remark—“I remain committed to the rule of law”—is what we hear all the time from Democrats. It is a remark he expects the public to accept on blind faith. Politicians make use of it often enough. But, the remark invariably comes across as hollow, flaccid, and pathetic; a useless appendage, demonstrating a lack of conviction at its very utterance, as the action taken belies the seeming veracity of the sentiment underlying it. 

The fact remains: absent express Congressional authorization the Executive Branch of Government cannot lawfully promulgate rules to effectuate the will of Congress if there is no will of Congress to effectuate. And, there is none here.Trump has blatantly exceeded his authority under the Constitution.

Second, the Memorandum—a directive to the DOJ—is logically inconsistent. Trump says, at the outset, he simply seeks “further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns,” but then makes clear that it isn’t mere clarification he seeks at all. He tells the DOJ “to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns.”  Trump is kidding no one. He is illegally attempting to promulgate law.

Third, the Memorandum calls for a drastic measure. There is nothing in the Memorandum allowing for the grandfathering of bump stocks in the hands of American citizens. Consider: even the infamous federal assault weapons ban act of 1994 (that expired in 2004) made abundantly clear it did not apply to possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon a citizen happened to lawfully possess before enactment of the Congressional legislation.

The new ATF Rule, though, is far more ambitious than even Congressional legislation that banned new purchases of “assault weapons.” For, under the ATF Rule, Americans who fail to surrender bump stocks or who otherwise fail to render them inoperable are subject to criminal prosecution. There is no exception, and no grandfathering of devices that, before implementation of the Rule, had been lawfully purchased.

Fourth, Trump takes the position—as is clear from the language of the Memorandum—that he can get around the Statutory legal hurdle by claiming to operate within  it; but he does so by tortuously toying with the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include ‘bump stocks.’ Trump does not succeed and he is wrong in his endeavor in attempting to do so. He is unlawfully expanding upon and redefining the clear, concise and precise definition of 'machine gun' as codified by Congress in Federal Statute. Further, Trump's attempt to get around the hurdle of a clear concept of ‘machine gun’ is unnerving. It would have been better—although still legally indefensible--had he simply sought to ban “bump stocks” outright, without the semantic convolutions, gyrations, and machinations.

Trump attempts to convince the public that "bump stock devices" do convert semiautomatic firearms into machine guns. Trump simply pretends to be on a sound legal, logical, and grammatical footing. He isn't. The reason Trump contrives to win over the public is plain. Congress has specifically defined the expression, 'machine gun,'  in Statute; and it has defined the expression explicitly and unambiguously.

In 26 USCS § 5845, titled "definitions," “the term ‘machine gun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 

If ever the language of a Congressional Statute were straightforward and readily understood by a firearm's expert or by a lay person, 26 USCS § 5845 is such a Statute. If an agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government can undermine Federal law so blatantly, as Trump attempts to do so here, then no Federal Statute is safe from abrogation by Executive edict by those in Government who would dare trifle with our Nation's Constitution and laws.

Unless, the concept of ‘bump stock’ falls within the meaning of ‘machine gun,’—and it doesn’t—the Justice Department cannot lawfully promulgate a rule that extends the legal definition beyond the parameters mandated by Congressional Statute. Yet, it has dared to do just that, even as it insists that it has not. Trump has audaciously ordered DOJ to promulgate an illegal rule, and the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has obliged.

THE NEW ATF RULE: A CATEGORICAL BAN ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES

In the Federal Register, 83 FR 13442, the DOJ, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), has proposed a rule change to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), specifically, 27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479.

The proposed Rule, reads: “The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that ‘bump fire’ stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are "machine guns" as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machine gun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machine guns if this Notice of Proposed Rule making (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.”

The ATF has now finalized the proposed rule, amending the first sentence to read:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). . . .”

As a final Agency Rule, it is ripe for judicial review, if challenged; and it is rightfully being challenged.

THE ATF’S REASONING ON BUMP STOCK DEVICES IS FLAWED.

The critical problem with the ATF Rule is this: bump stocks are not machine guns; nor are they accessories for machine guns; and saying they are machine guns, as the ATF categorically and brazenly does say, doesn’t make them so. The rule seemingly complies with federal Statute by iterating the critical point that “. . . such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger." But, the assertion is false, and the Rule must be struck down on that ground alone. The Rule is also a noxious affront to the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right etched in stone in the Second Amendment. The ATF Rule cannot be allowed to stand without doing a disservice to the purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights.

Without amnesty for those who lawfully possessed bump stock devices, prior to implementation of the new DOJ-ATF Rule, 83 FR 13442, a wholesale ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess the devices in clear legal jeopardy. Keep in mind the last line of the Rule: Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.” This retrospective application to existing lawful owners of bump stock devices is outrageous, and, apart from other serious Constitutional issues attendant to 83 FR 13442, the Rule may also amount to a violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which says clearly and succinctly: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”  The Arbalest Quarrel will look into a possible violation of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 in a future article.

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

THE ATF’S ASSERTION THAT BUMP STOCKS CONVERT SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS IS BOTH LOGICALLY AND LEGALLY FAULTY.

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

What is a ‘bump stock,’ really? Who invented it? How long has it been on the market? Why the uproar over it? Is it really the awful object that antigun zealots and the President, too, claim it is? And, most importantly, does a ban on bump stocks place those of us who possess semiautomatic weapons--millions of law-abiding American citizens--in legal jeopardy?

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

Four days, after the Las Vegas concert tragedy, The New York Times looked into this mechanical device called a “bump stock,” reporting, with typical tabloid flourish:

“Gun enthusiasts looking for an extra thrill have long found makeshift ways to replicate the exhilaration of using an automatic weapon — the thrill of the noise and the jolt of rapid-fire rounds — while bypassing the legal hassle and expense of getting one.

They contrived devices using pieces of wood, belt loops and sometimes even rubber bands, to mimic the speed of a fully automatic weapon — even if it meant sacrificing accuracy.

Then came Jeremiah Cottle with an answer. A Texas farm boy turned Air Force veteran, he figured he could do better. He sank $120,000 of his savings into the development of a high-end bump stock, a device that harnessed a rifle’s recoil to fire hundreds of rounds a minute.

He began selling bump stocks in 2010 with the help of his wife and grandparents in Moran, Tex., his small hometown of fewer than 300 residents. His company, Slide Fire Solutions, won approval from federal firearms regulators, and the business moved from a portable building that had once been a dog kennel into a much larger space on the Cottle family farm. Sales exceeded $10 million and 35,000 units in the first year.”

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

Antigun groups, along with the Press provide their impressions of “bump stocks”—offering descriptions from the deceptive and simplistic to the florid and patently absurd.

Following up on the October 2017 story, the NY Times, on February 18, 2018 said this says about the device’s operation:

“A ‘bump stock’ replaces a rifle’s standard stock, which is the part held against the shoulder. It frees the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy from the kickback shooters feel when the weapon fires. The stock “bumps” back and forth between the shooter’s shoulder and trigger finger, causing the rifle to rapidly fire again and again. The shooter holds his or her trigger finger in place, while maintaining forward pressure on the barrel and backward pressure on the pistol grip while firing.”

The NY Times' animation aptly illustrates that one shot, and one shot only, is fired through a single  pull of the trigger. A successive pull of the trigger is required each time in order to initiate an additional shot. 

The Progressive weblog “Trace,” says, “A bump stock is a foot-long piece of plastic capable of transforming a semiautomatic rifle into a weapon functionally indistinguishable from a machine gun. That means a gun fitted with a bump stock can fire up to 800 rounds per minute.” 

This is more than simple hyperbole. The problem with the remark is that the expression, 'machine gun' is defined in federal statute by manner of operation, and not, as the weblog Trace, argues, by rate of fire. Antigun proponents do not, however, appear to concern themselves over, or allow themselves to be constrained by, niceties of law. They are only interested in political results. 

Not to be outdone the NY Times or by the weblog, Trace, Gabby Gifford’s antigun group chimed,  

“In the absence of immediate action by Congress, I urge ATF to finalize its proposed rule clarifying that bump fire stocks, along with other “conversion devices” that enable semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, qualify as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act. And then Congress must act as well—to ensure that manufacturers cannot continue to endanger public safety by designing devices that imitate machine guns and subvert the law. The continued presence of these dangerous devices puts all of our communities at risk, and both Congress and ATF must take action quickly to address this threat."

Whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves "to mimic automatic fire" is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots.

These remarks by Gifford’s organization are purposely incendiary and patently ridiculous. Indeed, even the progressive website, “Vox,” citing an AP News report—albeit claiming that bump stocks offer a "way around the law [pertaining to machine guns]"—felt compelled to admit, if only reluctantly, that bump stock modifications to semiautomatic rifles do not convert those rifles into machine guns.

“The device basically replaces the gun’s shoulder rest, with a “support step” that covers the trigger opening. By holding the pistol grip with one hand and pushing forward on the barrel with the other, the shooter’s finger comes in contact with the trigger. The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, “bumping” the trigger.

Technically, that means the finger is pulling the trigger for each round fired, keeping the weapon a legal semi-automatic.”

One pull of the trigger yields one shot and one shot only, not successive shots. So, whether modification of a semiautomatic rifle, incorporating a bump stock, serves to "mimic" automatic fire, as Gifford's antigun group, and others like it, claim, is, from the legal standpoint, absolutely irrelevant because this kind of modification does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. And, there’s the rub!

EXPERT OPINION EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT BUMP STOCKS MODIFICATIONS TO SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES DO NOT CONVERT THOSE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES INTO MACHINE GUNS, SUBJECT TO FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968 OR THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.

One individual or Company (name and address redacted) contacted the ATF, requesting a formal opinion on whether its device, an “AR-15 Type ‘Bump Fire Stock,’” fell within the federal legal definition of a ‘machine gun’, that “would be regulated by the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

A firearms’ expert, Michael R. Curtis, Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, reviewed the device. He responded, on April 17, 2017, to the query (about six months before Paddock went on his rampage in Las Vegas). In principal part, Michael Curtis said this,

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

One AR-style pistol grip that it attached to and adjustable butt stock by a flat metal bar bent to contour to the buttstock. The pistol grip has two plastic pieces attached by small screws, one is the extension for resting your finger on while firing and the other is a shield to prevent the pistol grip from pinching  the  grip  fingers  of  the  firing  hand.

Your stock is designed to allow an AR-type semiautomatic rifle mounted to it to reciprocate back and forth in a linear motion. The absence of an accelerator spring or similar component in the submitted device prevents it from operating automatically.  When operated, forward pressure must be applied with the support hand to the forward hand guard fore-end of the AR-type rifle mounted to  your stock, bringing  the  receiver assembly  forward  to  a  point  where  the  trigger  can be pulled by the firing hand. If sufficient forward pressure is not applied to the hand guard with the support hand, the rifle can be fired in a conventional, semiautomatic manner since the reciprocation of the receiver assembly is eliminated.

The  FTISB  examination of the  submitted device indicates that if as a shot is fired   and a suU/dent[?] amount of pressure is applied to the hand guard/gripping surface with the shooter's support hand—the AR-type rifle assembly will come forward until the trigger re-contacts the Shooter’s stationary firing-hand trigger finger: Re-contacting allows the firing of a subsequent shot. In this manner, the shooter pulls the receiver assembly forward to fire each shot, each succeeding shot firing with a  single trigger function. . . .

Moreover; we should point out that the addition of an accelerator spring or any other non-manual source of energy which allows this device to operate automatically will result in the manufacture of a ‘machine gun’ as defined in the NFA, 5845(b).”

_____________________________________________

The juxtaposition of an expert’s opinion on bump stock devices and the wording of the ATF Rule stipulating an outright ban on “bump stock” devices, aptly illustrates the critical differences between well-reasoned opinion on the one hand written by a firearms’ expert, Michael Curtis, and, on the other hand, simplistic verbiage, reflected in the new ATF Rule, crafted, no doubt, by people who are not firearms’ experts. Further, the opinion of Michael Curtis is facially neutral; the ATF Rule, politically motivated as it obviously is, is only seemingly facially neutral.

Michael Curtis considers the technical attributes of and operation of bump stocks, calmly and rationally. His findings demonstrate his technical knowledge, and he draws a conclusion as to the legality of the particular device submitted to him, on the basis of the law, as enacted. In the law, as enacted, Congress defines the expression, ‘machine gun.’ That definition happens to accord with industry use of the expression. There is no embellishment. But that is not what we see in the language of the ATF Rule, as promulgated. The drafters of the Rule were only interested in giving the President what he asked for; what he wanted; what he demanded from them; and they did so.

Those who drafted the ATF Rule clearly did not bother to consider the technical intricacies of “bump stock” operation. The Rule is nothing more than a simplistic, ill-informed, technically deficient, politically motivated and mandated edict, posing as a well-reasoned administrative pronouncement, ostensibly having the force of agency law. It is not. Those who crafted the ATF Rule on bump stock devices made no attempt to distinguish among any of them. Their mandate was to create a Rule to ban them—all of them; anything that might conceivably resemble them. The drafters of this agency Rule, insidiously contrived to craft a rule that, by outward appearance—to those who nothing about firearms’ operation—may seem impressive. But, as is often the case, appearances are deceptive, and that is the case here. Those who crafted this Rule had their "marching orders."  They conspired to give President Trump what he wanted; what he asked for; what he demanded of them. They connived, and contrived, and conspired, when crafting their Rule, to place bump stock devices within the orbit of a firearm's accessory that converts a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. If the deception succeeds politically, that is all that matters to the President, and to them; but, as the Rule is logically and legally flawed, it cannot withstand Constitutional scrutiny by the Judiciary, and must be struck down.

Were this Rule to escape Judicial inquiry unscathed, it will invite misuse of Congressional Statute at every turn—merely to achieve a political end, desired by some. Those who crafted this ludicrous Rule meant to deceive the public. Hopefully, the Courts will not allow themselves to be similarly deceived.       

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

APART FROM TRUMP’S RASH, INCORRIGIBLE ACTION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAS CONGRESS DONE TO CURB POSSESSION OF “BUMP STOCKS?”

Curiously, Congress did attempt action to ban “bump stocks,” albeit unsuccessfully. On October 31, 2017, about one month after Paddock’s murderous assault on innocent Americans, Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), sponsored a bill, called, “Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168.

The bill had co-sponsors among both Republicans and Democrats. The stated purpose of the bill was “. . . to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat in the same manner as a machine gun any bump fire stock, or any other devices designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.”

The bill, if enacted into law would amend Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States Code (USCS) of 1986:

IN GENERAL. Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking "and (8)" and inserting the following: "(8) a reciprocating stock, or any other device which is designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon; and (9)".

(b)  Semiautomatic Weapon.—and  Section 5845 [26 USCS § 5845] of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

"(n) Semiautomatic Weapon.— The term 'semiautomatic weapon' means any repeating weapon that—

"(1); utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and

"(2);requires a separate function of the trigger to fire each cartridge."

The bill went nowhere. But, interestingly, the bill, if enacted, would not have redefined or expanded upon the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in 26 USCS § 5845—something the ATF Rule rashly does—but instead would include a definition for ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ which 26 USCS § 5845, at present, doesn’t have. The bill would then ban devices “. . . designed to accelerate substantially the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon.” It would treat bump stocks, “in the same manner as a machine gun,” true, as the language of the bill so states; but that isn’t the same thing as saying that “bump stocks” are “machine guns.” That is an important difference, as the definition of ‘machine gun’ is codified in federal statute. There was nothing in the proposed bill to suggest a Congressional intention to amend or to expand upon the statutory [26 USCS § 5845] definition of ‘machine gun.’

Congress itself obviously had a marked reluctance “to play” with its own definitions, and avoided doing so—a reservation that Trump obviously doesn’t have, when he wholeheartedly took upon himself, the role of both Chief Executive and “Legislator in Chief.”

Still, the Congressional bill was a bad idea at the get-go. Had it passed, antigun zealots could have, and likely would have, used the new law to argue that any new development in semiautomatic weapon technology, as a matter of efficiency, accelerates substantially the rate of fire of the semiautomatic weapon and, so, must be banned. After all, Antigun proponents see little if any difference between semiautomatic firearm on the one hand and machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons on the other, anyway. To these zealots all semiautomatic firearms are “weapons of war,” having no practical civilian use, asserting they—ultimately all of them—should be banned outright.

Antigun proponents have worked for decades to make their goal a reality; and they continue to work toward this end—all with the avid monetary and organizational assistance of wealthy globalists who seek to subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws, and our jurisprudence to a “one-size fits all” set of international norms. If they succeed in that endeavor, the independence and sovereignty of individual nation states will come to a screeching, halt and catastrophic end. All Western nations will all be corralled into a single, centralized and uniform political, social, cultural, economic, and financial system of governance. The EU is the test bed and the basic framework for this system. Even as the citizenry of the individual nations within the EU, realizing that their nations are moving inexorably to dissolution and are beginning to resist that effort, it may be too late for them. But, it isn’t, as yet, too late for us—so long as our Bill of Rights, and, especially, are Second Amendment remains intact. The DOJ-ATF “Bump Stock” Rule is not a neutral rule. If allowed to stand, unchallenged, it can and will have a devastating impact on the continued well-being of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

THE ATF “BUMP STOCK” RULE THAT WE NOW HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE CONGRESSIONAL BILL WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN.

As bad as Representative Fitzpatrick’s bill  [“Closing the Bump-Stock Loophole Act,” 115 H.R. 4168], was, if enacted, the new ATF Rule, as now finalized, is far worse. Indeed, even Congress was reluctant to subsume the concept of ‘semiautomatic weapon’ into the concept of ‘machine gun.’ President Trump has no such reservations. Trump’s Memo to the DOJ suggests that either he has given little thought to the matter or couldn’t care less about the legal consequences of his actions had he thought about the matter at all. The ATF filled with antigun fanatics, delivered for Trump, with unsurprising, characteristic exuberance.

The ATF has laid the groundwork for subsuming semiautomatic weaponry into the category of ‘machine guns,’ even though a clear bright line between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms exists in Congressional Statute. It is a line that Congress has carefully delineated, and it is one which Congress is loath to tinker with. Yet this sharp, distinction between semiautomatic firearms on the one hand and machine guns on the other is one that Trump has cavalierly, and literally, at the stroke of a pen, erased.

This ATF Rule, if allowed to stand, would severely weaken the Second Amendment. Hopefully, the Gun owners of America, that is challenging the constitutionality of the ATF Rule will prevail. GOA must prevail for the good of the Nation; for the sake of the American citizenry; and for the continued well-being of our Nation’s inviolate rights and liberties.

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

THE ATF BUMP STOCK RULE DEMONSTRATES THE DANGERS INHERENT IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.

AGENCY RULES MUST BE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY BY THE COURTS FOR THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION.

The American public has historically given little thought to the relationship between Congressional legislation and Administrative action. That must change. The new ATF Rule makes clear that the public must become aware of the intricacies of Governmental action lest the American people lose their sacred fundamental rights and liberties. The American people should have learned long ago of the danger posed to a free Republic through the insinuation of so-called “elites” into the political process. What ensues is oft, appropriately referred to, as “the tyranny of experts.”

How has this come about? It has come about due, paradoxically, to the manner in which our Federal Government operates. The only true “checks and balances” in our Nation are those that rest in the enumerated rights and liberties of the American people, and singularly in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If we lose that basic, inherent right, we have lost everything. That is not hyperbole. That is fact.

Congress makes law, yes. But, in faithfully executing Congressional statute, the Executive Branch must turn Congressional legislation into operational rules. That is the job of Executive agencies.

Congressional legislation provides the mandate through which agencies act. Agencies promulgate rules, allowing for implementation of law. However, that mandate isn’t open-ended. Congressional legislation establishes the parameters beyond which the Executive Branch must not venture. Yet, with disturbing regularity, we see the President, through the Executive agencies he presides over, overstepping his Constitutional authority.

In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard of Court review of agency interpretation of statute. The case is abstruse. The majority of Americans probably never heard of it. Yet, among legal scholars, the U.S Supreme Court Chevron case is likely the most often cited case. Hundreds of academic articles have been written about it. Hundreds more will probably be written. And our case law is legion with references to it.

In Chevron, the high Court wrestled with the amount of discretion that federal Courts—the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government—should give to administrative agencies when those agencies interpret law to promulgate operational rules through which Congressional acts are effectuated. The question for the Courts turns on whether statutory language is ambiguous. If the language is ambiguous, Courts will defer to the agencies—the experts—to resolve the ambiguity, unless the Courts determine the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. But, then, the Court is itself interpreting statute: hence the conundrum for the Courts.

But that is not the case here, with the ATF Bump Stock Rule, and that is because the definition of ‘machine gun,’ in Congressional Statute, is clear and unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as our common language, English, can be. The ATF Rule is particularly exasperating as it blatantly ignores the Congressional Statutory dictate in order to promulgate a rule to cohere to a political goal—thereby making a mockery of our system of laws and the very concept of the “Rule of Law” that politicians love to cite but rarely, if ever, actually adhere to.

The ATF Rule, as promulgated, sets forth that bump stock modifications of semiautomatic rifles convert semiautomatic rifles into machine guns because only one pull of the trigger is required to initiate multiple firing of the weapon. But, that statement is either true or it is false.

If true, then the semiautomatic firearm is, in fact, a machine gun. If not, then, the semiautomatic firearm remains a semiautomatic firearm because it is semiautomatic in operation. Rate of fire is irrelevant. Michael Curtis, supra, points out that, in the absence of an “accelerator spring,” a bump stock device—in its usual form (and keep in mind that the ATF Rule fails to consider and appreciate that bump stocks may have different configurations and operate in different ways)—requires one trigger pull for each successive shot. Performance is not a factor, as NRA clearly and correctly points out; the manner of operation is the only factor that comes into play.

Thus, unless Congress enacts legislation to redefine the expression, ‘machine gun,’—redefining it in a way that is contrary to industry use—the President of the United States, through the DOJ-ATF is not lawfully permitted to do redefine 'machine gun' on its own, which, it audaciously has done, even as the language in the Rule says otherwise. The DOJ-ATF action amounts to ad hoc rule-making; ad hoc rule-making, subject to the whims of political pressure, but presumptuously finalized as enforceable law. The DOJ-ATF Rule is nothing more than illegal Executive Branch edict. Its presence makes a mockery of law. It is a travesty. If allowed to stand, it amounts to the usurpation of our entire system of laws and justice, and legal jurisprudence.

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

THE NEW ATF RULE BANNING “BUMP STOCKS” PORTENDS A TOTAL BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

If allowed to stand, this ATF Rule dangerously undermines the Second Amendment because the Rule unlawfully conflates semiautomatic firearms and machine guns. If rapidity of fire becomes the de facto if tacit but clearly salient factor and new rule-made—as opposed to Congressional enacted—definition of ‘machine gun,’ which presently defines the expression,' machine gun,' in terms of manner of operation, not performance, then all semiautomatic firearms will inevitably and invariably be subsumed into the nomenclature of ‘machine gun.’ Indeed, the mainstream media—comprising stooges and political hacks posing as journalists who know nothing about firearms’ operations and who have no desire to gain such knowledge—merely echoes the sentiments of antigun zealots. The mainstream media routinely argues that no appreciable difference exists between machine guns and semiautomatic firearms, anyway. The running narrative of these organizations is directed to motivating the public to demand, of Congress, the annihilation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The purpose of these “news” organizations has nothing whatsoever to do with news reporting. The Press, today, delivers propaganda masked as news. There is no appreciable distinction anymore between what appears in the Op-Ed sections of these “news” publications or in  what is purportedly presented as “real” news, neutrally presented.

We have seen how antigun zealots create, through the artifice of the ‘assault weapon,’ a useful fiction through which semiautomatic firearms can be ostensibly lawfully banned. President Trump has, consciously or not, but certainly ill-advisedly and uncritically, created, through the DOJ-ATF Bump Stock Rule, a re-branding of semiautomatic firearm as machine gun based, essentially, on performance, albeit deliberately creating vagueness as to whether "bump stocks" necessitate one-trigger pull for every shot or multiple shots with one trigger pull in an attempt to "get around" the lack of any vagueness or ambiguity in the statutory definition of 'machine gun.'

If Trump and the DOJ-ATF are allowed to get away with this subterfuge, then it is but a small step from a total ban on “bump stocks” to a total ban on all semiautomatic firearms, since rate of fire—utilized as the salient and subjective basis for elimination of firearms in the hands of civilians—will now provide the “ammunition” antigun zealots can and will latch onto in their unyielding zeal to continue to weaken the Second Amendment.And it is Trump, now, not Schumer or Pelosi, who has given them a vehicle they can and will use to destroy at once the citizen’s best means of self-defense and destroy, as well, the one truly capable defense in the citizen’s possession, to prevent or at least deter the onset of tyranny.

__________________________________________

*As reported in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, John Crump, NRA instructor, has launched a petition drive to urge President Trump to reverse his position on Bump Stocks. A reversal of Trump’s position requires the rescission of the ATF Bump Stock Rule, which Trump should be able to accomplish. As Chief Executive, the President is sole head of all Departments, bureaus, and agencies of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Trump ordered creation of the rule banning bump stocks. He should be able to demand the rescission of it. Trump can and should assert that, after further consideration, he realizes his Memorandum to the DOJ, requesting a Rule banning bump stocks, was issued in error with little foresight; that the Memorandum he issued is administratively ill-advised, logically flawed, and legally unsupportable, and that, upon reflection, the President realizes the DOJ-ATF Rule does not serve the best interests of the American public, and, further, that the President realizes the Rule is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Arbalest Quarrel supports John Crump’s worthy effort. The founders of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog have added their names to the petition. We urge all Americans who, like us, cherish and exalt our Bill of Rights, and especially our Second Amendment, to do the same. At the moment only a few thousand individuals have signed the petition. That is unacceptable. The petition calls for 100,000 signatures. There are tens of millions of guns owners. Where are their voices? They have not been heard.

Remember this: Nothing serves better to destroy our sacred rights and liberties than public apathy. If those among the public—deluded though they be—are encouraged to yell louder for ever more “gun control” measures than do those who continue to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then Congress will deliver the head of the Second Amendment, on a platter, to the destroyers of our sacred rights. And, the framers of our Constitution and founders of our Free Republic will have given their blood in vain. It is up to you!

Let us avoid the ill-fated national concealed handgun carry reciprocity measure. With the Democrats reclaiming control of the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Democratic Party leadership will be doing everything in its power to weaken the Second Amendment; and we can expect a flurry of anti-Second Amendment bills in the first few months when Congress commences business. We don’t need President Trump assisting them in this effort, whether he is doing so consciously or not.

Once you sign the petition, we also urge you contact the White House. Contact phone numbers are:

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

You may also write to the President. Information may be found at the White House website:

________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

LEAHY DEFIES GRASSELY BY HOLDING JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OBAMA’S THIRD U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: MERRICK GARLAND

"And it proves, in the last place, that liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other departments." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, 1788"If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.... A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government." Alexander Hamilton, Essay in the American Daily Advertiser, Aug 28, 1794

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT SENATE DEMOCRATS ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE STRUGGLE TO CAPTURE A FIFTH SEAT, LIBERAL-WING MAJORITY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, TO RIP APART THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat-Vermont, Ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, held an open hearing on Merrick Garland’s nomination. This hearing is the one Leahy had alluded to last month.No, this wasn’t a confirmation hearing on Obama’s third appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Charles Grassley, Republican-Iowa and Chairman of the Committee, didn’t preside over the hearing; nor did he appear. No other Republican member appeared. No member of the Committee, Republican or Democrat, should have appeared because Senator Grassley didn’t sanction a hearing on Garland—any hearing. Yet, the Ranking Member of the Committee, Patrick Leahy, held a hearing anyway. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Chairman of the Committee. He held the hearing in defiance to the will of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican-Kentucky.Senator Leahy admitted: “I can’t convene a confirmation hearing,” adding, “We’re in the minority.” The “minority” Leahy refers to include: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons. They all pressed for Garland’s nomination.Why did Senator Leahy hold a hearing against Senator Grassley’s wishes? What did Leahy and other Judiciary Committee members and members of the Democratic Party hope to carry out?Senator Leahy and other Democratic Party members of the Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing not simply to air personal grievances. They did so to push a personal agenda—one inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Senator Leahy and the Democratic Party Senators virulently oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Understand, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary doesn’t merely consider U.S. Supreme Court nominations, Appellate Court nominations and District Court nominations. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has other important roles. “The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in the consideration of nominations and pending legislation.” Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee draft legislation to obstruct “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” They draft legislation to defeat the Second Amendment under the pretext of serving the citizenry. They hoodwink the public. The goals they aim toward do not serve Americans’ sacred rights and liberties. They watch Americans’ behaviors, habits, and actions to control and constrain Americans. They treat Americans like wayward children. These Legislators are deceitful. They lure us in with pious words. They are America’s betrayers.So, who appeared at Leahy’s unsanctioned, May 23, 2016 “open hearing?” Those whom you would expect: Feinstein, Schumer, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Franken, Klobuchar, Durbin, and Coons appeared. They all support and press for Garland’s confirmation; and they all oppose “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THE POSITIONS OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS CLEAR, CATEGORICAL AND CERTAIN. THEY DARE TO SPEAK FOR ALL AMERICANS, PROCLAIMING:  AMERICANS DO NOT NEED AND OUGHT NOT HAVE FIREARMS.

Leahy’s position on the Second Amendment is no secret. For years Leahy pushed Obama’s antigun agenda. The New York Times reported on Leahy’s strategy in 2013. It said, “The view of Mr. Leahy, a Democrat . . . is crucial because the work of his Judiciary Committee will be central to advancing any new gun legislation.” The Committee “will hold hearings on potential gun legislation this month [January] proceed[ing] with Mr. Obama’s request to push legislation that includes a renewal of an assault weapons ban, a limit on magazine size and universal background checks.”Sheldon Whitehouse also signals hostility toward the Second Amendment. During Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican-Oklahoma tried to get her to issue an opinion on whether gun owners have a fundamental right to bear arms.” She wouldn’t make a pronouncement.” Sheldon Whitehouse came to her defense. He said, “he was worried that the judge had been pushed too far, perhaps, in a lobbying way, to expound on an issue that is probably going to come before the Supreme Court. He suggested that a message was being sent that nominees need to signal how they will rule on gun-rights cases. He called it almost unseemly to seek commitments on future cases.”As you might expect, U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are a charade. Leahy isn’t kidding anyone. If Garland received a confirmation hearing, he would say nothing to reveal his antipathy toward the Second Amendment. We know U.S. Supreme Court candidates hide their personal jurisprudential and philosophical predilections during confirmation hearings, as coached, to avoid offending anyone, thereby strengthening their chance at confirmation. Justice Sotomayor hid her antipathy toward the Second Amendment at her confirmation hearing. Judge Garland would do so at his confirmation hearing, were one scheduled. Senator Grassley isn’t planning one. For, if a confirmation hearing were in the offing, Senators Whitehouse, Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer and others would come to his aid, lest he reveal his aversion toward the Second Amendment. Senator Grassley certainly knows this.Thus, Senator Leahy’s intimation that confirmation hearings are effective at eliciting truth is dubious and disingenuous. At the May 23, 2016 hearing, Leahy asserted, “what bothers me is because he [Garland] does not have a hearing and they’re not allowing him to have a hearing, his record is being smeared by outside groups, some of these Pacs, and others. Senate Republicans are denying a distinguished public hearing and a fair opportunity.” "No," Senator Leahy. Judge Garland's record as revealed in our letter to you isn't a smear. It's the plain, unadulterated truth--truth the American public would not learn at a public hearing. That's why Garland won't receive a confirmation hearing; and that's why Garland shouldn't receive one. No person deserves a seat on the high Court who does not respect, in fact, revere our Bill of Rights--all Ten Amendments. Obama and the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats’ Trifecta bet is: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland. Obama is two for three. He aims for all three. For these three the Second Amendment is an anathema. Obama knows this. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have considered them. He wouldn’t have considered them if they were merely neutral on the Second Amendment, much less a proponent of the Second Amendment. Obama wants fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. He wants individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court who share his hostility toward the continued existence of our Nation's Second Amendment. Ranking member Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also want fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court. These cohorts of Senator Leahy willingly support and do their part to promote Obama's antigun agenda.If Garland secures a seat on the high Court, the liberal-wing gains a fifth vote. The liberal-wing then has its majority. The liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court strenuously opposes the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment.Let’s consider Senator Dianne Feinstein’s position on the Second Amendment. Does the American public truly harbor any doubt? Feinstein’s resentment toward the Second Amendment is well-known, her remarks against gun ownership, legion. She took personally the failure of her bill to ban over two thousand types of firearms but continued undeterred. Charles Schumer also attacks the Second Amendment with passion. In 1994, then “Representative” Schumer, with the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Democrat-Ohio,  “introduced a ‘kitchen-sink’ bill that covered everything from licensing to lists of weapons to be prohibited. It proved politically ahead of its time.” Richard Blumenthal uses sporadic shooting sprees to couch attacks on the Second Amendment. He said, “he hoped that the latest [2014 Santa Barbara] shooting would ‘provide an impetus to bring back measures that would keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who are severely troubled or deranged, like this young man was.’” Blumenthal’s remark may sound sensible. But, the remark carries dangerous implications. Millions of American’s would lose their Second Amendment rights. Even if Legislators carefully tailored a law, can Americans trust the federal government to interpret the law narrowly? Not likely! Consider, too, the difficulties in defining English words. How do we define the word, ‘severely,’ as a modifier for the word, ‘troubled’? How do we define the word, ‘deranged?’ Medical doctors don’t use these words. They are not medical terms of art. Lawyers don’t use these words either. They aren’t legal terms of art. They are rhetorical words. They merely suggest but point to nothing.Before we exclude a group of Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights, give the matter thought. Millions of law-abiding Americans may lose their Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms” simply because their doctors prescribe an antidepressant for them.What can we glean from Al Franken’s record on the Second Amendment? Franken is cagey, but his contempt for the Second Amendment is obvious. Sure, he sounds like a supporter of the Second Amendment. He says, “Minnesota has a long tradition of gun ownership, and I support Minnesotans’ right to own a gun for collection, protection, and sport. I also believe that the Second Amendment protects that right against both the federal government and the states. But the right to own a firearm is not one to be taken lightly. I believe Minnesota has struck the proper balance, for example, by requiring background checks and live firearms training for carry permits.” Let’s parse one phrase in that passage.We ask, “what does Al Franken mean here by ‘proper balance’ as applied to law-abiding Minnesota residents?" What does Al Franken mean by 'proper balance' as applied to all law-abiding Americans? Franken means strict gun control Consider: Al Franken “voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.” In 2008 Franken said he supports a federal ‘assault weapons’ ban but then oddly claims he supports the Second Amendment. The claim means nothing. It’s a trick. Antigun zealots employ it, continuously, to keep proponents of the Second Amendment at bay, guessing. But Americans recognize the ploy. Antigun zealots won’t rest until the Second Amendment ceases to exist. Franken reiterates antigun sentiment through rehearsed talking points, lacking substance.Senator Klobuchar sponsored an antigun bill, heralded by Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” Klobuchar suggests she, too, supports the Second Amendment. But, she doesn’t. She asserts, “I would do nothing to hurt hunting”  but she also says she voted for bans on “assault weapons” and on “high-capacity magazines”—those magazines holding over ten rounds.Senators Klobuchar and Franken don’t understand their actions belie their words.Senator Richard Durbin fiercely attacks the Second Amendment. His distaste for the Second Amendment is as virulent and venomous as Feinstein’s.To his shame Senator Durbin defends U.N. efforts to repeal our Country’s unique and sacred Second Amendment. He voted, “no,” on “Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State’s International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.” Previously cited. Senator Vitter, Republican-Louisiana, pointed out, that SA 2774 “is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens’ guns.” Previously cited. Plainly, the UN’s bold attack on America’s Bill of Rights doesn’t offend Senator Durbin. He supports UN efforts to undermine our Bill of Rights.Last, let’s not forget, Senator, Chris Coons position on the Second Amendment. Coons urges President Obama to use executive action to undermine the Second Amendment. Imagine, Coons would sacrifice the Second Amendment and Congressional Article 1, Section 1 Legislative authority to the U.S. President simply to continue a partisan antigun agenda.

A PANEL OF GARLAND SUPPORTERS GATHERED TO BUTTRESS ANTIGUN JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND’S NOMINATION

Ranking Senate Judiciary Committee Member Leahy and fellow Senate Democrats on the Committee contacted associates of Judge Merrick Garland. The panel comprised a former jurist, a law professor, an appellate law attorney and former judge, and a former U.S. Attorney.Each spouted the usual praises: “wonderful judge,” “eminently qualified,” “wonderful human being” “engaged and committed parent,” “sharp, analytical mind,” and so on. Fine traits, yes wanted of all who aspire to sit on the high Court. We have heard them before; we hear them now, constantly. But Judge Garland’s finer qualities aren’t in dispute. His judicial record is.The hour-long hearing comprised a multitude of flowery pronouncements, empty oratory, and, from the Senate Democrats, spiteful insults, criticisms, and whispers.Senator Feinstein piously declared a concern over a Supreme Court constrained, “for a substantial period of time” by a “tie,” “a four to four position.” Senator Leahy says the failure of the high Court to act on cases—given the present 4 to 4 tie—places the Federal Appellate Courts “in limbo.” But Leahy’s statement isn’t true. Feinstein’s remarks and Leahy’s lay bare an agenda, underscored by their assertions. They seek a five to four liberal-wing majority on the high Court. They say consistency among the Circuit Courts is necessary, but is it?Do we want consistency if U.S. Supreme Court rulings weaken Americans’ rights and liberties throughout the Country? Do we Americans want consistency among the Several States if U.S. Supreme Court rulings reflect foreign law antithetical to our traditions and values, and inconsistent with our Bill of Rights? Wouldn’t Americans find judicial rulings peppered and laced with alien jurisprudence and philosophy singularly bizarre? Wouldn’t Americans detest U.S. Supreme Court opinion that undermine their rights? Is not the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s philosophy and jurisprudential approach to U.S. Supreme Court decision-making worth preserving? If so, Senator Leahy’s remark we need a “fully functioning [nine Justice] Supreme Court”—with a five-to-four liberal wing majority—is to wrongheaded.Tie votes are not necessarily a bad thing. If a tie vote occurs, the decisions of the Appellate Courts remain valid. Yes, conflicts in the Circuits exist absent a U.S. Supreme Court decision. But conflicts always exist. The high Court hears only a handful of cases. A liberal wing majority would decide cases contrary to the well-being of the Bill of Rights. A liberal wing majority would also canvass cases to hear—cases involving matters best left to the States under the Tenth Amendment. Consider the remarks of Justin Driver, Professor of law at the University of Chicago. He clerked under Judge Garland from 2005 to 2006. Driver said, “The [U.S. Supreme] Court views itself as articulating general applicable principles, not merely resolving a dispute between a few parties.” How do we square that remark with Professor Driver’s other assertions? Professor Driver asserts, Judge Garland “avoids grand sweeping pronouncements, and keeps the opinions narrow,” that Judge Garland “is measured in his approach to the law,” and that “he honors existing precedent”?How might Judge Garland’s jurisprudence as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit translate to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment issues? A fifth liberal-wing vote would weaken or overturn, outright, the Heller and McDonald case holdings?

A QUESTION ABOUT IDEOLOGY ON THE SUPREME COURT

Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee self-righteously assert a hostility toward ideology. They proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court must remain pure, empty of “politics.” Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court, as the third Branch of Government, is, a political institution. Politics exists in the third Branch no less so than in the other two. Ideology, too, exists. Ideology is not necessarily a bad thing. Ideology defines every person. Each jurist espouses an ideology, and that ideology suffuses each jurist’s decisions. Judge Merrick Garland expressed his ideology toward the Second Amendment in the Parker and Reno cases.

JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND MUST NOT SECURE A SEAT ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

We know Judge Garland’s position on Second Amendment issues. We looked at his record. With Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the high Court—a jurist who espouses a philosophy hostile to the Second Amendment—the assault on the Second Amendment continues. The Arbalest Quarrel amply shows Garland’s hostility to the Second Amendment in multiple articles.The conclusion is plain. If Judge Merrick Garland secures a seat on the high Court, we know he would undermine the Second Amendment. The high Court’s liberal wing would have a majority and would undo Justice Scalia’s legacy.If Judge Garland sits on the high Court as Justice Garland, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a sacred individual right, will come under renewed assault. Protection of our sacred rights and liberties ought to take precedence over presumed Senate protocol. Senator Leahy doesn’t think so, despite his remarks. He insists a confirmation hearing for Garland is proper. Perhaps for him, not for us. Leahy doesn’t speak for most Americans; neither does Hillary Clinton.In a May 24, 2016 editorial, the Wall Street Journal editorial staff said, “Mrs. Clinton did criticize the Supreme Court [in Heller] for being ‘wrong on the Second Amendment.’” The editorial staff also said, “Mrs. Clinton knows that four liberal Justices dissented from Heller. . . . Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters, told a luncheon of the Harvard Club in 2009 that their dissent was crafted with an eye to helping a ‘future, wiser court’ overturn Heller.” Previously cited. The editorial staff added, poignantly, “If Mrs. Clinton selects Antonin Scalia’s replacement, she knows the Court’s liberals with get their opportunity to overturn Heller. The Second Amendment really is on the ballot this November.” Previously cited.Senator Leahy and other Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee want a jurist on the high Court who represent their ideology—one antithetical to the Second Amendment. Hillary Clinton won’t disappoint them if elected U.S. President. Judge Garland is their man. He isn’t ours.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.