Search 10 Years of Articles

5/21/23 5/21/23

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

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

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

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

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

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

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

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/3/22 11/3/22

NEW YORK’S KATHY HOCHUL DOES NOT SEE PHYSICAL SURVIVAL AS A BASIC HUMAN INSTINCTUAL NEED, NOR SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT. WHY IS THAT?

The most basic instinct of every living thing, from the lowliest creature in God’s creation to the Divine Creator’s loftiest, man, is that of physical survival.No amount of prodding can convince any lowly creature otherwise. And man understands this as well on a basic instinctual level, apart from any reflecting he might do upon it.The act of self-defense is the natural response to a threat to life.All creatures understand this instinctively, as does man. But man understands self-defense also as a normative ethical prerogative, apart from the raw, innate instinct of any living creature to defend itself from mortal danger to the physical self, whether that danger comes from a creature, from another man, or from the tyranny of Government—the last of which poses the gravest danger to physical self and to Selfhood for members of a community.Yet, man, for all his intellect and, oddly enough, because of it, is oddly susceptible to denying the right to self-defense and, thence, denial of the instinctual urge to self-preservation.The framers of the U.S. Constitution engendered to extoll the absolute right of individual self-defense, knowing that the strength and fortitude of a Nation come from recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of each individual over that of the collective group. Once a Nation loses recognition of the singular importance of the right of the individual to be individual, the Nation has, then, within itself, the seeds of its own demise.The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, unlike such document of rights that other nations might have, recognizes the singular importance of the individual over the group.The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought mightily to avoid any intimation of the United States as akin to an ant colony or beehive, where commonalty counts for naught, where only the life of the ruler, King or Queen, and the lives of the immediate entourage of that ruler are sacrosanct and inviolate. The framers conceived the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, in the purest sense, not as a meaningless jumble of words. In our free Constitutional Republic, Government serves the people.The American people themselves are sovereign rulers over the Government. But this idea is anathema to those transforming our Nation to tyranny. Unsurprisingly the agents of the Nation’s destruction have implemented policies designed to curb the exercise of natural law rights, especially those that pertain directly to the recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of Self.The adoration of “Selfhood” in the United States embodies the sanctity of one’s physical self, to be sure, but includes and transcends that basic right to the sanctity of one’s inner Self: his Psyche, Spirit, and Soul. That is consistent with the love the Divine Creator bestowed on man.But, the Destroyers of our Nation will have none of that. They do not accept. this. Such is their disdain for the Divine Creator and his Creation that they dare impose Godhead upon themselves and demand that Americans worship them, a false idol.The right of armed self-defense, in the United States, through the codification of the natural law right in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Nation’s Constitution, is not of a different species from the general notion of self-defense, but recognition of, and acknowledgment that the Government cannot lawfully deny to a person the best means available to preserve his life and well-being. The natural law right of armed self-defense also embodies the natural law right of Selfhood—THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO BE INDIVIDUAL.The two rights—the right of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms work in tandem to exemplify the sovereignty of the American citizen over the State. The expression of those ideas, i.e., the exercise of them, is the source of our Nations’ strength and success.The attempt to emasculate these rights serves only to weaken the Country from within.Ruthless, malevolent, forces at work today both in our Federal Government and in many State and local governments, and through their agents in the private sector have attempted to dampen and restrain the exercise of the right of expression of thought and the right of armed self-defense. The reason to do so is plain: to weaken the Country.And the policy decisions giving rise to the slow strangulation of this Country are not difficult to ascertain. The results are prevalent and unmistakable:Destabilization of Society and Confusion and Demoralization of the American People.To deny an American citizen the natural law right to defend Self is to deny both the sanctity of the American’s Life, Spirit, and Soul, and to break down the Security of a Free State.Rampant crime in our major urban areas is endangering both.Unfortunately, the jurisdictions with the worst possible violent and property crime problems are also those that do not recognize the right to armed self-defense. This means, by logical extension, such jurisdictions do not acknowledge one’s instinct for the unalienable right to self-preservation, individuality, and the safety and security of the community. This should be self-evident. But, it isn't.How far removed is this radical Collectivist Federal Government and the radical Collectivist State and local governments that adhere to and proselytize to the masses an alien set of tenets, precepts, and principles—antithetical to those expressed in our Constitution? Truly beyond all imagining. But through the application of destructive policies, incrementally, many Americans are oblivious to the true extent of the destruction of our Nation.The Biden Administration, along with the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress, and Democrat-Party-controlled State and local governments, following the Administration’s lead, fail utterly to acknowledge or even to recognize the natural law right to self-defense, neither armed nor unarmed, and they even constrain the police from providing a modicum of protection for the community.A radical Democrat Party-controlled Federal Government and Democrat Party-controlled state and local governments have as a matter of policy chastised, handcuffed, shunned, demoralized, discredited, and even debased community police forces and traditional community policing. As a result, police have left in droves, in cities around the Country, and their ranks, are difficult to fill.Those police officers who remain on active duty can do little, to protect the community, given the policy and legal constraints now infecting traditional policing.The police often are not permitted to arrest lawbreakers who commit property crimes and even violent crimes. And when or if they do, the criminal justice system immediately releases these miscreants. That frustrates the police and endangers the community.As for the psychopathic criminal element and the psychotic maniacs who perpetrate violence, they have taken notice of the Governmental policy changes that not only tolerate destructive behavior but actively encourage it. The results are immediate and dire, impacting not only major urban areas but surrounding suburban communities as well.Take New York City. The present Democrat Mayor, Eric Adams, is ineffectual. But those New York City residents who voted for him bear responsibility now that he is in office and remains there. But every New York City resident pays the price for that.And then there is New York State. The unelected Democrat Lieutenant Governor, Kathy Hochul, who took over the reins of Government when the Democrat powerbrokers had tired of Governor Andrew Cuomo, forcing him to resign, bears singular responsibility for the carnage occurring throughout the State. Yet, she is dismissive of it and disparaging of those who dare call her out for it. The results are not surprising.New York State and its largest City, the Financial Capital of the Country, has hemorrhaged residents, 1.4 million people since 2010, and has, concomitantly, lost substantial tax revenue, further compounding the problems of servicing the State. See spectrum news article.And the website, the center square, reports:“The Internal Revenue Service this week released more troubling data for New York, with the federal agency showing more high-earning taxpayers leaving the state.Tracking returns filed in 2019 and 2020 showed that 479,826 people left New York for another state or country in those years. Over the same timeframe, just 231,439 people moved to the state. That means the state suffered a net loss of 248,387 residents.And, of course, those people took their money with them. The IRS figures show the moves generated an economic exodus of more than $19.5 billion.”This loss of population and concomitant revenue did not bother Andrew Cuomo.Back in 2014, Cuomo exclaimed, as reported by the New York Post, that he——“. . . has a message for conservative Republicans—you don’t belong in New York.Cuomo said Friday that members of the GOP with ‘extreme’ views are creating an identity crisis for their party and represent a bigger worry than Democrats such as himself.’‘Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,’ the governor said on Albany’s The Capitol Pressroom radio show.‘Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.’”But, even at that time, well before the ravages the CCP China COVID pandemic unleashed on the Country and the world, severely weakened the world’s economies, Cuomo carefully, added, at the end of his 2014 diatribe,“. . . moderate Republicans, such as those in the state Senate, ‘have a place in their state.’Cuomo hammered Republican activists whose views he said were out of step with the majority of New Yorkers and said the party has to back moderates to have any hope of winning seats in this fall’s elections.‘You have a schism within the Republican Party,’ Cuomo observed. ‘They’re searching to define their soul. That’s what’s going on . . . It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington.’” Id.Andrew Cuomo was mindful of his words and the threat of lost revenue if many took him seriously and left the State. So, he carefully avoided ostracizing Republicans simply for being Republican.But eight years later, Democrats now see all Republicans as beyond the pale, after the Party threw Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney into the dustbin.Liz Cheney is someone best left to memory. She will always be remembered for serving as a flunky, on behalf of Democrats, for Pelosi’s absurd and nauseating January 6 Panel. See recent October 23, 2o22 Washington Times article. Romney, though, is more dangerous. And, he recently, infuriated Senate Republicans for refusing to endorse Mike Lee’s reelection bid in 2022. This could jeopardize a Republican Senate majority in November. See the article in Breitbart. Romney supports the faux Republican, Ed McMullin, running against Mike Lee. See the article in the Federalist.Apparently seeing that Republicans are not going to play “pretend Democrats,” Hochul, taking her cue from the Neoliberal Globalists, treats all Republicans now as persona non grata, and, in so doing, forsakes Andrew Cuomo’s simulacrum of tact and commonsense.With Eric Adams standing next to her, as a crutch, she unleashes a torrent of invective and contempt against those New Yorkers whom she cannot influence and therefore does not trust—every Republican. She will not take her cue from Cuomo, who attempted to distinguish, even if only for show, the so-called “moderate” and therefore “good” Republicans, from the immoderate bad Republicans whom Biden refers to as “MAGA” Republicans. See the article in the New York Post.“Gov. Kathy Hochul, who hasn’t proven shy about issuing orders, had one for the state’s Republicans this week — all 5.4 million of them: ‘Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong, OK?’ she said. ‘You are not New Yorkers.”If you can move beyond the frankly disgusting political partisanship and intolerance, her message is fiscally irresponsible, even dangerous. The governor probably already knows this, but the state’s extensive public sector is heavily reliant on personal income taxes paid by residents, and with nearly $14 billion in projected budget gaps over the next five years, it can’t afford to lose any taxpayers, let alone 5.4 million of them.The Empire State has already lost 1.5 million residents in the past decade, and there’s no sign of that trend letting up. In fact, more than 350,000 New Yorkers relocated during the 12 pandemic-plagued months leading up to July 1, 2021.”Florida will be more than willing to oblige Hochul. Her loss is Florida’s gain, both in American citizens and in revenue. See the article in the center square.“New Jersey and Florida were the biggest beneficiaries. More than 84,500 people moved from New York to New Jersey and took $5.3 billion. By contrast, only 37,127 New Jersey residents moved to New York and brought $2.2 billion in income.The numbers were even starker between New York and Florida. Over the two years, 71,845 New Yorkers flocked to the Sunshine States and took $6.4 billion. Meanwhile, 26,902 former Floridians moved up north. Those individuals had a combined income of $1.2 billion.”Hochul would rather lose votes and retain her status as a puppet for the Neoliberal Globalists who fund her campaign for Governor against Republic Lee Zeldin than admit that maybe she should think more for her State and for the Country than for her own personal lust for power, kowtowing to interests that don’t cohere with those of the Country and the citizenry.If Hochul spent more time doing something productive about the out-of-control property and violent crime problem and acknowledged the fundamental and unalienable right to armed self-defense, she might garner millions of votes that she now has irretrievably lost, endangering what, months ago, she took for granted, have assumed her victory at the polls a sure-thing, a done deal.New York City, unfortunately, must contend with Eric Adams for three more years. But New York residents need not suffer Hochul. They can send her packing on November 8, and, for the sake of the State and the Country, let’s hope she goes. That will place Mayor Eric Adams in an unenviable position. Governor Lee Zeldin won’t be in his corner.

HOW IS IT THAT AMERICANS ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE LED BY POLITICIANS WHO SEEK THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, OUR SOVEREIGNTY, OUR HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, AND OUR ETHOS?

Unscrupulous politicians, aided by an army of malicious “loudspeakers” seduce much of the public to deny the horrors they see around them or convince the public that better times are just around the corner.The Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic know this. They have convinced many Americans they represent all that is good and right and proper for America—all in pursuit of shameless goals: the dissolution of society; the destruction of a sovereign, independent Nation; and subordination of a free and sovereign people, to the dictates of a tyrannical government.In those pursuits they have brought devastation to the Republic:

The upheaval of our Nation’s institutions;
Promotion of moral decadence and degradation even unto the Nation’s seed corn;
The psychical malaise of the public soul and psyche;
The deliberate inception of physical violence and economic strife;
The insinuation of alien cultures and influences upon Americans;
Graft and corruption in the public and private sectors of an unprecedented scale;
incredible wastefulness of the nation’s tax dollars;
The physical opening of the Nation’s borders to over five million illegal wayfarers looking for handouts, and with no end in sight as they keep coming—a tidal wave of disease and dependency the American public can ill afford; and,
Expensive foreign escapades, both extravagantly expensive and extraordinarily dangerous to the well-being of the Nation and the world.

A veritable hailstorm has overtaken this Country. It has progressed subtly at first, but it has gathered steam and it is undeniable. Yet, for all the horror that Democrats have unleashed upon us, and that all too many Republicans have placidly acceded to or even actively conspired in, Americans are contemptuously treated to incomprehensible messaging.The horrors unfolding are dismissed out-of-hand, blatantly denied outright, or extolled as good and proper: the necessary growing pains for a better America and a better world, we are told. It is a damnable lie.Still, Americans are urged to conform actions and thoughts to the dictates of those who would destroy both them and the Country.Too few people remain alive today who would remember the Pied Piper of Hamlin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His Presidency should be studied. He sought to turn the Nation into a Socialist welfare State. How did that come about?Manipulation of public thought existed at that time, no less so than today. And it came by way of a composer’s catchy jingle coupled with a songwriter’s sprightly lyrics, and eloquently sung by a popular jazz singer and soon, as hoped and expected, became a useful campaign slogan: “Happy Days Are Here Again.”The public bought into the lies and voted into Office a man who sought to turn the Nation into a massive socialist enclave.For anyone who cared to notice, the propagandists had demonstrated the effectiveness of mass conditioning on the national stage, notwithstanding that, back then, during the first third of the 20^th Century, the world only had radio and newspapers and a smattering of periodicals to convey the Socialist messaging to a large audience.The Biden Administration's goals for the Country are the same as that of FDR, whom Biden emulates, and has not disguised that fact. See the article in the Hill.But tools for mass psychological conditioning, although in their infancy, along with the means for delivering those devices, although rudimentary by today’s standards, were still effective in seducing the masses.How far we have come. Today’s propagandists have available to them sophisticated tools of neurophysiological and neuropsychological conditioning, and with devices like smartphones, now ubiquitous, they have the means to deliver the messaging to the masses instantaneously.The immolation of American society is at hand, and it is indisputable, but many Americans are blind to it or are otherwise resigned to it. A few, even, are on board with it; relish the extinction of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, favoring a stateless geographical region, open to millions for the taking. Have they considered what that might do to their own welfare? Or are they too far gone to even care?Rising, raging violent crime, especially in our major urban cities, is emblematic of destruction.How can rational Americans be cavalier about this?How is it that the public allows this to exist?How is it that Americans have a predilection for voting into Office—undoubtedly through the help of massive electoral subterfuge—deceitful leaders: seen in the mayors of cities, governors, and legislators of states, and in the Nation’s Congressional leaders, including a manikin in the highest Office of the Land?At some level, every American must know the Country is dying from within, even as much of that “assistance” is coming from ruthless forces from the outside.Many Americans, resigned to this, accept it. Several others have deluded themselves into the belief that matters will correct themselves of their own accord. And a few soulless types relish the demise of the Country.New York is a testbed of denial. Severe property crime and violent crime are rampant.The New York Governor hopeful, Lee Zeldin, has made the problem of crime a linchpin of his campaign. And notwithstanding all the money at Hochul’s disposal, she must contend with this upstart who is embarking perilously close to her domain.To be sure, New York, and especially New York City, has traditionally supported liberal, left-wing candidates. But the extent and scope of crime are now affecting too many New Yorkers, and even a dollop of wishful thinking is not sufficient to mask the seriousness of it.Hochul is compelled to admit the fact of it, to her dismay, and she is not happy to do so, for that means she plays into Zeldin’s strong suit and in accordance with his rules, his game plan, and that pains her to do so. To do so is also an admission that Zeldin is correct, and that weakens Hochul's campaign, and therefore weakens her standing as the preeminent candidate who should be setting out the pressing issues for consideration. See the article on law enforcement today.The entire House of Cards the Democrats carefully constructed is in danger of collapsing—across the Country. Could it be any other way? Even with their almost total control of messaging and of communication resources across the Country, how can these toadies of the wealthy, powerful, ruthless Neoliberal Globalists and of the out-of-control Neo-Marxist cultists, together with the absurdities of socio-political and economic Collectivist ideology and bankrupt normative ethical systems grounded in utilitarian consequentialism that view morality in terms of group dynamics, instead of individual will, motive, and need, honestly expect Americans to discard the precepts of our Constitution and over two thousand years of Christian deontological ethics extolling the sanctity of each individual human soul, and the self-evident truth of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, morally perfect, and benevolent Divine Being for an irrational belief system—one that, both in logic and in its effects, is contrary to the well-being of Americans and the Nation? It is the height of arrogance and erroneously presumes that mass psychological conditioning will win the day over one's deep, abiding innermost thoughts bespeaking the nature of right and wrong, on an elemental level, and of the inviolability of one's Being as a creation of God.Notwithstanding propagandist control of most communication venues, they have heretofore demonstrated little that can be deemed a success, and have found few converts to their cause and to their way of thinking. They have constructed narratives and manufactured false issues out of whole cloth: narratives and the issues concerning racism, climate change, abortion, and “green energy.” They have buttressed and magnified these ludicrous narratives and issues and fabricated an equally ludicrous new dogma—a veritable religion—to push these idiotic narratives and false issues to the fore, around which they seek to replace our culture with the new one: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” They have few takers.Concomitant with this, the Democrat toadies of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists have also sought to deemphasize issues that are critical to the strength and well-being of the Country and its people. These include the depletion of our energy reserves, runaway inflation, wasteful government spending, engaging our Nation in dangerous, wholly unnecessary military escapades, and systematically dissolving the integrity of the Nation’s geographical borders. But these issues are less policy, per se. Rather they are the accumulated effects of bad policy that beg now for solutions. And the solutions must come from Republicans. There is much work to be done to mend the corruption wrought by the Biden Administration, and by a Democrat-Party-controlled Congress, and by corrupt Democrat-Party-controlled State and municipal governments that have taken their cue from a despicable, despotic Federal Government. The responsible people must be investigated and brought to justice.The profound decay and ruin that has occurred throughout our Nation and on so many levels will take time to rectify. And to do this Americans must understand that the disintegration of our history, heritage, culture, ethos, and strength is not the result of mere ineptitude. Would that it were so. No! The decay and ruin are deliberate. They are the aims and goals of ruthless forces both here and abroad that have taken over the Democrat Party. They have taken over many of the agencies of the Federal and State Governments and many major businesses. They have taken over the Press and many of the Nation's institutions. And they seek to corrupt the minds of Americans: men, women, and even children. No one is safe from the corruption these ruthless, malevolent, malignant forces have perpetrated. Corruption has permeated all of America. Most Americans know this intuitively, innately, as well, and experientially. But, Americans feel powerless to do anything about this. And that, feeling of powerlessness, contributing to societal malaise is also by design. Americans must regain inner strength to do battle with the corrupters of our Nation.Failure of Americans to take charge of their life and national destiny will result in the further crippling of the United States. In a weakened condition, the Nation is inexorably, inevitably, susceptible to complete, and irrecoverable societal collapse. That means the Nation will cease to exist as an independent nation-state. And with that, the remains of the Country can be easily merged into a neo-feudal political, social, and economic world empire, ruled by an “elite “ few who, alone, will benefit from this. That is the endgame. That is what Trump saw, and that is what Americans saw who voted for him. And he sought to prevent the decay; to halt it; and then to turn the Country around. and, for a time, he did. That explains why Democrats, from the corrupt, demented Toady in Chief, Joe Biden, on down, have attacked Americans who supported Trump. That is why Democrats attack the slogan and policy goal, "Make America Great Again." They treat it as if it were an obscenity.Democrats have also sought to erroneously conflate matters that should not be conflated. This is best exemplified in discussions of immigration/naturalization: Illegal excursions into our Country by millions of people around the world. Illegal entry by millions of people is not equivalent to legal immigration. The U.S. already takes in more people legally than any other Country on Earth. And naturalized citizens resent, justifiably so, those millions who get a free ride into the U.S. Democrats. Democrats have consistently faulted Trump for his immigration stance, claiming erroneously that Trump was against immigration. He wasn’t. He never said that. What he did say was that he is against “illegal immigration.” But, for Democrats “illegal entry” into the Country is subsumed in “legal immigration.” That is inconsistent with both logic and law. But no matter. It is also odd to consider that ten to twenty years ago, Democrats, themselves also attacked illegal entry into our Country. That seemingly miraculously changed. What caused this sudden about-face?Democrats' control of the Press and social media gives the illusion of credibility to their narrative fiction. But, the result is devastation to the health of the Country. How do we rid ourselves of millions of illegals in our Country in the space of two years, with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands more pouring into the Nation every month? The short answer is, we can’t. Not easily. And that’s the point. They’re here to stay.And Democrats conflate violent crime, which they tolerate and even enable, with guns. They refuse to accept the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a natural law fundamental right, that Democrats loathe and wish to eventually outlaw. It is not by mistake that Progressive or Marxist Democrats, such as the present Governor, Kathy Hochul, remarks erroneously and absurdly that crime is simply a function of guns; ergo “criminal violence” reduces to “gun violence.” Kathy Hochul and all Democrats routinely, indeed, invariably eschew the phrase “criminal violence” in all of their remarks. They always use the expression “gun violence.” For, it is guns, in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding citizens whom the Democrats wish to abolish, not criminal violence which serves their end goal to destabilize society, thereby making way for the dismantling of the United States as a free, sovereign, independent, Nation-State. The soci0-political regimes to which they seek to attach the remains of the U.S., merging the remains of the U.S. in an amorphous neo-feudal empire, do not, and never did recognize armed self-defense as a fundamental right. The Progressive, Neo-Marxists, and Neoliberal Globalists intend for our laws, rights, and jurisprudence to mirror the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" adopted by the Council of Europe and the loose "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights" as adopted by the European Union. These all reflect and cohere with the "Declaration of Human Rights" promulgated by the United Nations. Notable in its absence in those documents is any reference to the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their own defense and to thwart tyranny. In fact, there is no mention even of a general individual right of self-defense. position papers of the UN. Any reference to a notion of self-defense is limited to that ascribed only to nations, who have a duty—more in the nature of a prerogative—to protect their native populations. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, dealing with this, titled, "Tyranny, Fundamental Rights and the Armed Citizen," posted on December 2, 2021.The concept of individual rights is reduced to a seemingly noble but, in analysis, vacuous recitation. One wonders if the EU and UN and Council of Nations drafters of these tracts, and documents of ostensible "Human Rights," take seriously the rights their tracts and documents recite. Of what use are these things in the absense of the means for the individual to enforce them? This question is rhetorical. For, the EU and UN and British Commonwealth of Nations, too, do not recognize the sanctity of the individual as an independent singular living Being. The rights espoused belong to the group—to a collective, to the Hive. The criminal element, there as here, understands this all too well, and preys at will on innocent lives. And, they use whatever means Criminals use whatever means they can to commit their crimes. In Democrat-run jurisdictions, in the U.S., the criminal's use of guns in the commission of their crimes is pleaded out, and the remaining felony count is then reduced to a misdemeanor. The criminal is let loose from pretrial detention to create more mayhem before his trial on the first crime even commences.This horrible situation is what New Yorkers face under the Hochul/Adams regime, and it won’t go away if Hochul is elected Governor. Her answer to criminal violence is to take away handguns from the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding adult citizen. She takes as axiomatic that guns as a numerical factor are responsible for the scope and ferocity of criminal behavior, irrespective of whom it is that wields a gun. This idea is flawed on both empirical grounds and as a matter of pure logic. She recites it anyway. Apparently, it makes for good messaging to those who have a phobic aversion to guns. And Hochul, and others of her kind, play and prey on that aversion. It means nothing. Violent crime continues unabated, sometimes through the use of a gun, often, then, by a gangbanger, and, more often by any of a variety of implements, whatever is at hand: knives, axes, baseball bats, hands and feet, hammers, even automobiles.Hochul spent the summer expending her energies, not on dealing with the explosion of violent crime, by working out and implementing crime reduction measures, but, rather, on defying U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the Bruen case, handed down at the end of June 2022. Her target is not violent crime reduction, but on oppressing law-abiding citizens, residents of the State, who merely wish to exercise their God-given right to bear arms in their own defense, as it is plain enough the police can't protect them, notwithstanding that the police do not have a duty to guarantee the life and safety of individuals anyway. But, now, the police in New York, in this post-George Floyd era, are constrained from even protecting the community at large.Like all Democrats, Hochul loathes the idea of implementing a policy that adheres to the natural law right to armed self-defense outside the home as well as inside it. In a jurisdiction that has degenerated into marked lawlessness, by design, it is reprehensible that Hochul would dare defy the U.S. Supreme Court unless she felt she could get away with this. She can’t, and, to date, she hasn’t. And it could well be the end of her after November 8, 2022. One can only hope.And let us hope that the majority of New Yorkers, even those who consider themselves social and political liberals or progressives, will come to their senses and recognize that Hochul does not have a plan to protect New Yorkers. The question is: Does she even care about the life and well-being of New Yorkers? Likely, not. Her actions speak louder than and belie her words. But, to fringe "Neo-Marxist cultists," the life of the individual counts for nothing. A million years of evolution begs to differ. The instinct for Self-Preservation does not abide by odd fads that deny the truth and strength of the instinctual need as pronounced in the actions of the lower animals.And the moral prerogative of self-defense derives as a natural law right baked into the Being of man by a Loving and all-powerful, Creator who created Man in His Own Image. But, the Cultists deny both God and the sanctity of the Individual Soul.The natural law right of armed self-defense is but an aspect of the general natural law right of defense. A person has the right and duty to protect him or herself with the most effective means available. At first, the most effective means available were the knife and sword. And for several hundred years thereafter, and currently, the best means available to protect oneself in imminent extremity, is the firearm, not the social worker. The natural law right to armed self-defense is coextensive with one’s instinct for survival.In an environment that at once eschews police protection for the welfare of the community and denies one the basic right to defend self against violent attack, it is little wonder that many New Yorkers, especially those that have hitherto extolled the Democrat Party tradition against guns, would have second thoughts about voting into Office, for four years, a person whose cavalier attitude toward the life, safety, and well-being is painfully in evidence.Lee Zeldin who sees that freedom from violent crime and the right to armed self-defense are not mutually exclusive but, to the contrary, go hand-in-hand, is in a good position to defeat Kathy Hochul. Hochul is a person who takes for granted that the concerns of a violent criminal or lunatic supersede the concerns of a law-abiding, innocent citizen, and she refuses to acknowledge the right of the individual to armed self-defense, even where an institution no less than the U.S. Supreme Court so ordains, consistent with the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment.Hochul’s ideas concerning crime and criminals and her abhorrence of the right of armed self-defense, together with her reluctance to allow the police to engage in traditional policing to defend life and property, cannot be viewed in a vacuum. These ideas, attributable to a faulty ethical system, odd moral imperatives of interest, and a predilection toward defying laws she happens to disagree with would be of interest to scholars in the fields of law and government studies, and in the fields of philosophy and psychology. Unfortunately, Hochul is, at present—and hopefully only for a few more days—the New York Governor. Her personal beliefs have expression in reality. They are not consigned simply to academic literature.Hochul’s ideas concerning crime and criminals and armed self-defense are not, then, mere “ideas.” They are policy choices, and those policy choices affect the nature of the society that a New Yorker must live and work in. They have real-world consequences. And those real-world consequences are not pleasant ones to behold.New Yorkers have taken notice. And they aren’t happy with what they see. This slow turn of events, now gaining in speed, obviously confuses and frustrates both Hochul and her wealthy donors. It shouldn’t but it does. That they are arrogant and jaded makes them sloppy. But, that is a good thing. It makes them easier to defeat.New Yorkers and Americans around the Country have awakened to the illogic of Democrats’ worldview. Democrats treat Americans like children who should not be permitted to think for themselves. Such is the condition of people who live in tyranny.Americans are rebelling against attempts to treat them like wayward children who must be led about. Americans won’t allow themselves to be governed by tyrants, whether those tyrants tend to see themselves as benevolent dictators or not.Since taking over the mantle of Governor in August, New Yorkers have obtained a good look at the New York Hochul envisions for them. Let’s see if enough New Yorkers, in the few days remaining before the election, make plain their displeasure with Hochul, and rid themselves of this petty tyrant, once and for all, at the polls.Those residents of New York who choose not to leave or cannot leave the State for “greener pastures” can turn things around for New York or they can accelerate the pace of societal decay and further endanger their life.The cutesy limerick, “A vote for Hochul is a vote for the same, but a vote for Zeldin is a vote for change to save New York,” is a bearer of a serious, dire message despite its tone.Hochul, who owes her allegiance to her donors, wealthy Neoliberal Globalists bent on destroying New York to satisfy their own interests and insatiable greed, together with the Neo-Marxists who have made no attempt to hide their disgust for the U.S. Constitution, and for the founders of our Free Constitutional Republic, and for our history, our heritage, and for our Christian heritage, and who deny the very concept of natural law rights, have—in Kathy Hochul—an agent to bring about the financial, economic, and social collapse of New York. Just look at the ruin of a once great State she has “accomplished” in the short time, she has been in office. Do New Yorkers want four years of this? If so, New York will be unrecognizable, and not in a good way!___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

8/12/22 8/12/22

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

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

MULTISERIES

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

NEW YORK OPENLY DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN DECISION

PART NINE

PREFACE TO DEEP ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK’S RESPONSE TO BRUEN DECISION

The Arbalest Quarrel (“AQ”) has, in the last few weeks, spent, and will continue to spend, considerable time on the recent case NYSRPA vs. Bruen, for a few important reasons.

FIRST: THE BRUEN RULINGS ARE VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

Bruen is the first major Second Amendment case decided by the High Court in twelve years and it is the most important U.S. Supreme Court case to be decided this term, October 2021 through October 2022.Not even the recent “abortion” case, Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization comes close to the import of Bruen. And there is a simple reason for that: There is no fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of abortion even as Congressional Democrats, along with the Biden Administration and proponents for it, in the Country at large, insist otherwise. The High Court made that point clear, in its decision released on June 24, 2022, overturning Roe vs. Wade.Contrariwise, armed self-defense against predatory animal, predatory man, and predatory Government is a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal natural law right even as those same Democrats chime in that it is not. And the High Court made that point clear, too, in its decision released one day before Dobbs, on June 23, 2022. In Bruen, the High Court reaffirmed and clarified its decisions in Heller and McDonald, and pointedly held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms extends beyond the boundaries of one’s home into the public sphere. That means the natural law right of self-defense, generally, and armed self-defense, particularly, isn’t limited in space and time. To hold otherwise is empirically wrong and even nonsensical. Because a firearm provides a person with the best means of defending one’s life, the right of armed self-defense, as subsumed in the natural law right of self-defense/personal survival can't be lawfully proscribed by Government. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court’s Majority, in Bruen, made this point emphatic: “. . . confining the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself. . .’ [adding] ‘Although we remarked in Heller that the need for armed self-defense is perhaps ‘most acute’ in the home, we did not suggest that the need was insignificant elsewhere. Many Americans hazard greater danger outside the home than in it.”Nothing is more essential to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and to the maintenance of the sovereignty of the American people over the Nation and its Government than the natural law right of armed self-defense.Bruen therefore demands our close attention and scrutiny.

SECOND, NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” GUN LAW REQUIREMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IT IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

Bruen came to the U.S. Supreme Court as a challenge to the core of New York’s handgun law. Therefore, New York’s response to the Bruen decision will be scrutinized by two groups of Americans: those who support and cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and who wish both to preserve and to strengthen that fundamental, unalienable right; and those who do not, and who desire to constrain exercise of this essential natural law right.This latter group that seeks to dismantle our free Constitutional Republic cannot do so for soever as long as an armed citizenry exists. Therefore, they seek de jure or de facto repeal of the right. This isn’t hyperbole. Retired Associate Justice John Paul Steven demonstrated his animosity toward an American armed citizenry in a combined Stevens-Breyer dissent to Heller. And, after he retired from the Court, this U.S. Supreme Court Justice went further. Stevens called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment—something he dared not suggest while serving as a Justice—for the duty of a Justice is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not tear it down. But the repeal of the Second Amendment is something Justice Stevens profoundly felt. See, e.g.,John Paul Stevens Op-Ed in the New York times, titled, “John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment,” published on March 27, 2018.

THIRD, AN ARMED CITIZENRY IS VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT: THE DISRUPTION OF IT IS MEANT TO T

Our free Republic cannot continue to exist in the absence of America’s citizen army. Those who exercise the right know this as axiomatic. And those powerful forces that seek to destroy the Republic also know this to be self-evident true. But, apart from a few individuals—and most notoriously, John Paul Stevens—few people do not boldly pronounce this. Instead, the legacy Press proclaims disarming the public is all about ensuring public safety, public order, and public harmony, adding as an afterthought, that constraining the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ostensibly for the good of society, does not mean erasing it. But the appeal to public safety is mere deflection. Yet many Americans fall into the trap—all too willing to sacrifice their natural law rights, believing erroneously that this is for the good of society. It is absolute control over the commonalty of this Country that the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists want and intend to attain. The continuation of an armed citizenry is inconsistent with that goal. That can't come about as long as an armed citizenry exists in the Nation.

FOURTH, THE BRUEN CASE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE TOO MANY STATES AND COURTS REFUSED TO COHERE TO THE STRICTURES OF HELLER AND MCDONALD

The Bruen decision is one more salvo in a continuing war for the soul of the Nation. The Hochul Government, for one, has openly defied the U.S. Supreme Court. Why has Hochul done this?The “why” is obvious. Kathy Hochul, who once received an “A” rating from NRA, now works for the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist “elites” who fund her bid for Governor in 2022. These are the same wealthy and powerful people who had continuously funded her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo’s campaign. See article in the New York Post. The notion of an armed citizenry is incompatible with the goal of the interests of those people who are funding her campaign. These people are Globalists. They seek an end to our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation-State. They perceive the Bill of Rights as inconsistent with their goal of a one-world government devoid of nation-states and devoid of citizen armies. So, Kathy Hochul no longer supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But in classic politician-fashion Hochul doesn’t acknowledge the inconsistency in her position, nor does she allude, much less assert, to what and to whom she now owes allegiance. Rather, she maintains her position has “evolved.”

THE BRUEN CASE DEMANDS THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION LEST THE PUBLIC LOSE BOTH THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHT AND THEIR COUNTRY

How is it that Hochul and the New York State Legislature continue to offend the Second Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court?The “how” unlike the “why” is not obvious and demands thorough attention.The “how” unlike the “why,” apropos of the changes to New York’s gun law, isn’t obvious and it is not easy to understand. It demands explication so Americans who cherish the right of the people to keep and be armed understand what it is they are up against. A new round of lawsuits has recently been filed. This, unfortunately, is a disturbingly familiar pattern-scenario—costly, time-consuming, and wearying on Americans. AQ’s contribution comprises a series of articles to explicate New York’s Gun Law considering Bruen and to provide both first-time prospective New York handgun licensees and those applicants seeking renewals of existing handgun licenses, a roadmap as to what to expect and how to proceed. In that vein, one should keep in mind that, although the Hochul Government has signed new amendments into law, those amendments aren’t operational rules. The City of New York and the Counties, and the State Police must work out what those rules are, to implement the changes in the Gun Law. To that end AQ looks at what Heller, McDonald, and Bruen require apropos of what the New York Government has done to create further obstacles for New Yorkers. A complete treatment requires not only an exploration of the recent New York amendments to its Gun Law in specific response to Bruen, but also a consideration of a panoply of recent changes to and additions to the Gun Law and to the entirety of New York’s elaborate handgun licensing regime that goes back to the Safe Act of 2013, and even before that—to the Sullivan Act of 1911, the progenitor of handgun licensing in New York. Given the present urgency, AQ will spend its energy reviewing both the recent amendments to the Gun licensing regime apropos of Bruen, and amendments to New York’s handgun regime Pre-Bruen that complement the Post-Bruen changes. A full discussion must include a consideration of New York’s recent “Red Flag” law that Hochul and Albany have incorporated into the Post-Bruen amendments, and which further endangers a citizen’s exercise of his or her unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

WHAT IS BRUEN ALL ABOUT?

AQ has heretofore laid out the basics of Bruen. In an earlier segment (Part 2) of our analysis, we pointed out: There are two key components to the Bruen Majority Opinion. One key component involves the test Federal, and State Courts must employ when they review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.The second involves the matter of “proper cause” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and was the central topic at oral argument in Bruen, held on February 2022.AQ now deals with those two key component parts in depth, turning first to the “proper cause” aspect of the Bruen ruling, which we get to in the next segment of our Post-Bruen case series analysis._______________________________________________

PROPER CAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS IN NEW YORK GUN LAW BUT ITS REPLACEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 2^ND, LEAVES NEW YORKERS WORSE OFF THAN UNDER THE PRESENT GUN LAW

PART TEN

The “proper cause” issue is what Governor Kathy Hochul’s Administration, along with the New York State Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, had to contend with, once the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” requirement of the Gun Law, as unconstitutional. Hochul made clear in her statements to the Press that New York would not buckle under to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her remarks are both seditious and provocative. The Governor’s remarks are seditious because the amendments to the Gun Law demonstrate the State’s disregard for the Court’s rulings, even as Hochul claims to adhere to them. She has made clear, on the official Governor's website, that there will be no immediate changes to gun policies and the permitting process. The Governor’s remarks are also disrespectful and presumptuous. See these remarks as well as published on the Governor's official website. Hochul’s Administration and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature, and their respective teams of lawyers, meticulously crafted a set of amendments to the New York handgun law. The amendments they crafted serve not only to preserve the law—the Sullivan Act of 1911, long since codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq.—but, as with the New York Safe Act of 2013, the amendments bolster New York’s stringent gun laws. The amendments exemplify Hochul’s resolve to defeat the impact of the Bruen rulings, notwithstanding the elimination of the “proper cause” requirement and make acquisition of a concealed handgun carry license even more difficult than it had been since the Legislature enacted a “proper cause” requirement. In a feat of legerdemain, the drafters toughened, did not ease, the standard for obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Clearly, Hochul doesn’t want to make acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses an easy procedure. To frustrate that process, her Government wishes to continue to offer a restricted license as a “booby prize.” Yet, even in that, an applicant will find that obtaining a restricted handgun license is no longer a sure thing either.The amendments to New York’s Sullivan Act negatively impact all categories of handgun licenses, restrictive and unrestrictive. Thus, the stringent character of New York’s Gun Licensing regime remains intact. To fully comprehend and appreciate how the State maneuvered around Bruen, pulling a switcheroo on both the U.S. Supreme Court and those who may have thought it easy now to obtain an unrestricted New York concealed handgun carry license, we peruse the language of the handgun law, comparing the law as it presently exists and the changes to it, effective September 2, 2022.

THE NEW YORK GUN LAW IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

One first notices that New York’s Gun Law is confounding and mystifying. There is a dizzying array of handgun licenses. The full array of handgun licenses is set forth in NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) of New York’s Penal Code. It is titled, “Types of Licenses,” and it reads:“A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession; . . . .” You would think that the three seminal Second Amendment case holdings, Heller, McDonald, and now, Bruen, would have swept away NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) but for NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) (f)—a handgun license to “have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession.” But, surprisingly, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) remains in its entirety, thus demonstrating the Anti-Second Amendment fervor of New York’s Governor and that of the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature. If the Hochul Government had sought to cohere to the Bruen rulings, she would have called upon the Legislature in Albany to draft the Gun Law to eliminate handgun license categories as redundant, except for the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license category, and she would have liberalized the standard in acquiring an unrestricted handgun carry license. After all, why would a person wish to acquire only a restrictive handgun premise license since the U.S. Supreme Court held the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the home?Yet, Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-Controlled Legislature in Albany had other ideas, and the multi-tiered hierarchical handgun licensing structure remains intact.

THE TAKEAWAY

That the whole of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) still exists after Bruen, demonstrates not only the tenacity and stubbornness of Anti-Second Amendment politicians to thwart both the Bill of Rights and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, but their ingenuity and cunning in subverting the rulings of the High Court. The amendments to NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (2) make acquisition of a handgun license tortuous and as difficult to come by as before Bruen.In the next segment, AQ explains how New York’s Anti-Second Amendment Government has exploited a seeming loophole in Bruen to defeat compliance with the Court’s ruling on “proper cause.”_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

7/9/22 7/9/22

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER ATTACK IN THE U.S.

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?In the countries of the EU, it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.Forget about those Countries of the British Commonwealth and the EU. They are lost.But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.The Neoliberal Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Neo-Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But so long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense, i.e., the natural law right of a person to defend him or herself against predatory attack whether from predatory four-legged beast, two-legged beast, or predatory Government.Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And so, it remains.And, as the forces that crush have garnered more sophisticated weapons to destroy body, mind, and spirit, so, too, have the commonalty of the United States acquired the weaponry and technology necessary to repel attack.Through the years, we have written extensively on this. See e.g., article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen.”See also article in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.In a world moving closer and closer to Armageddon, in the form of transnational tyranny, and as CCP China and western neoliberal Globalist overseers carve up the world between them, the U.S. as a free Constitutional Republic cannot long remain separate and apart from the emergence of a one-world neofeudalistic governmental empire unless the American people assert their sovereign authority over Government. This should not be difficult but, through time, it has become so, for many Americans. Why is that? It is for these major reasons, among others:

Consolidation of information organs into one massive organ of propaganda, targeting the public on an industrial scale;
Incessant, noxious surveillance of the movements of the mass population;
Consolidation of federal police, military, intelligence apparatuses into one uniform command structure;
Merging of Federal Executive and Legislative Branch functions; and attempts to merge the Judicial Branch into the fold; and
Governmental Social Engineering and Psychological Conditioning Campaigns aimed at confusing, and demoralizing, and inducing fear and hysteria in the polity.

Thus, the forces that crush slowly whittle away at the integrity of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation and slowly soften the resolve of vast swaths of the polity that would otherwise enable the polity to ably resist both the inexorable march toward tyranny and usurpation of the peoples’ sovereignty over Government.The founders of our Nation fought against one tyranny, a long time ago, and, despite insurmountable odds against the British empire—through the titular monarchic head, King George III, and via the true head of Government, the Bank of England, run by the Rothschild banking family—won their freedom from despotism.The Rothschild clan and their henchmen have, through the ensuing years, decades, and centuries, fought to take back what they had lost to what they perceived as merely a ragtag band of colonists.With the aid of technology and advances in the art and science of mass social engineering and psychological conditioning, their despicable efforts have been made appreciably easier. And these Obstructors and Destructors have made vast strides in corrupting the Nation from within, eschewing use of military, at least for the moment; operating surreptitiously; slyly; always in the shadows.In a feudalistic nation that America is becoming, devolving into, the common man—today’s serf—counts for naught.How does one come to see this, to know this? He does so by realizing that the average citizen can no longer, as a matter of natural law right, exercise that natural law right of armed self-defense or, for that matter, self-defense at all. Armed self-defense is not a privilege to be bestowed on one by the grace of Government. It is a natural law right bestowed on and in man by the Divine Creator. It is a right intrinsic to one's very Being. See recent Arbalest Quarrel article published on June 16, 2022, when we discuss this matter at length.The natural law right of self-defense, armed or not, is under attack by a tyrannical Government and by a compliant, obedient legacy Press. This failure to recognize the natural personal right of self-defense and, indeed, to attack the very idea of it, is not happenstance. It is consistent with anti-natural law philosophy as long promoted by and that is a mainstay of the UN, the EU, and of the Council of Europe and which the Biden Administration wholeheartedly complies with, adheres to and endorses, as is clear from the Administration's words and policies. It would be futile to look for any mention of a personal right of self-defense, let alone any mention of a personal right of armed self-defense in the writings of the UN, EU, and Council of Europe. There is none. See Arbalest Quarrel articles on this, especially, our article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen,” cited supra; article of February 23, 2022, titled, “Martial Law in Canada; Can it happen in the United States?”; and article posted on March 4, 2022, and article posted on May 1, 2020.A transnationalist, post-nation-state world view—manifesting as a unified global technocratic, corporatist, neofeudalistic empire embracing the world, where the populations of the world are reduced to servitude and must comport with uniform and rigid standards of thought and conduct—is incompatible with the precepts of Individualism, upon which the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic is grounded. Thus, the Biden Administration, as the Obama and the Bush Administrations before it, must be circumspect and devious in devising and implementing policies and initiatives that are antithetical to the strictures of the United States Constitution, and, especially, those of the Bill of Rights—that component of the Nation's Constitution upon which the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood and personal autonomy is predicated and guaranteed, and upon which the sole sovereignty of the American people over Government is promised and upon which that sovereignty rests.But as the Rothschild henchmen in control of the levers of the Federal Government and of the Press and of the multinational corporations have sown the seeds of our Nation’s destruction—even impacting the States, through the efforts, and money, and organizational acumen of the Henchman in Chief, George Soros, who has, alone, done much damage sowing the seeds of our Nation’s destruction down to the regional and even local levels—there will come a time, which is rapidly approaching, where the puppet-masters, through their legions of pawns, will make known and transparent, the elaborate plans and machinations heretofore prepared in secret, feeling, perhaps concluding, that stealth and concealment is no longer necessary and, in fact, is no longer possible.Consider the circumstances surrounding the prosecution—more to the point, the persecution—of a young American Patriot, Kyle Rittenhouse. Here is a man who sought merely to protect a small corner of society from destruction; such instability, and violence, and destruction that the Neoliberal Globalist Billionaires and Neo-Marxist internationalist Obstructors and Corrupters of our society concocted, funded, organized, and promoted; and then, through command of their "attack dogs," an assortment of dangerous, fanatical, and deranged agitators, unleashed on American society to create fear, and chaos. And, of course, the Kenosha police stood on the sidelines, but they did so because they wanted to let radical Marxist psychopaths tear down the City? No! Their training and instincts would be to protect the City and its residents from riots spawned by the Government lackeys of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet masters who needed a pretext for a controlled political riot, consistent with their aim to destabilize society and to demoralize the polity. Fox News laid this all out. See Fox News Commentator, Tucker Carlson, explaining the circumstances that led to the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the news account titled, "Tucker Carlson: Why did the people in charge let Kenosha be destroyed?" The news story was published on November 17, 2021.Carlson says, in pertinent part:“So it's worth pausing for a moment to ask, how did we get here? Well, here's one summary that caught our eye. Today, a Hill staffer called Billy Gribbin summed it up in the following way, 'We're waiting to see if riots break out because of media lies about a case from a riot that happened because of media lies.'Well, that's nicely put and it's totally true. The August 2020 riot in Kenosha wasn't really a riot in the way that we understand riots. It was an outbreak of political violence. It began three days after the Democratic convention. That was the context for it. It was, in fact, one of many riots that summer across the country, all of which were explicitly supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party. We're not making this up. Look it up. What was the point of these riots? Big picture, the point was to unseat Donald Trump. In the specific case of Kenosha, we know exactly the chain of events that led to where we are today. A man called Jacob Blake was shot by the police. Immediately, the media and the Democratic politicians they serve lied about what happened. So they told us that a cop shot Jacob Blake in the back for no apparent reason – and by the way, Jacob Blake was unarmed, he was helpless, they just pulled him out of a lineup and shot him because that's what America is like.Based on the first false stories from the news media told intentionally, our leaders suggested that these riots in Kenosha were somehow justified and then allowed them to continue. So this is what Kenosha looked like the night that Kyle Rittenhouse arrived to help defend local businesses. You can't allow that because if you do allow that, people get killed – as they did. But local police, you should know, did virtually nothing to stop any of the things you just saw. From the very top of the power structure, the state of Wisconsin, the word was let it happen. Various scenes of vandalism, looting, arson and riotingWell that's not a civil rights protest, that's not people fighting back against oppression, systemic racism. That's just people destroying things they didn't build. That's people wrecking our civilization. In no normal country would that be allowed, it would be put down immediately with force. That's why we have police. “The governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, turned down an offer from Washington to send federal officers in order to help get Kenosha under control, to save the city. That was a shockingly irresponsible decision, it was an immoral decision. But Tony Evers still defends it, 'I have no regrets.'” Really? That's because he doesn't live in Kenosha. Downtown Kenosha burned. It will never be rebuilt. Talk about a city that doesn't deserve any of this. Kenosha is just a town of 100,000 people, many of them Hispanic, if that even matters. But it's true, they're not rich people who live there.Kenosha is far past its prime. It was part of the industrial base that built this country that built the modern world. Now it's suffering even more than it was before the riots because a bunch of entitled antisocial lunatics broke things for no reason. Because our leaders allowed them. A city official estimates the damage from last summer's riots at about $50 million. That's a lot in Kenosha, in fact it's about more than half the entire municipal budget for the city of Kenosha.” Only Fox News bothered to delve into the circumstances of the riot. The seditious legacy Press, on the other hand, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, along with major Cable News organizations including CNN and MSNBC never did bother to ask why the Police had allowed rampant disorder to occur in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It wasn't the fault of the police. The fault rests solely on the State Government and specifically on the Governor, who, after the fact, brazenly. incomprehensibly asserted that he has 'no regrets.'The Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, a Democrat, ordered the police to stand down and refrained from accepting assistance that the Government in Washington, D.C.,Evers not only allowed a City in Wisconsin to burn and allowed residents of the City to be terrorized. He condoned it. In fact, he enabled it. He wanted this to happen.A rational person must therefore conclude that it wasn't mere incompetence that led to the destruction of a City. It was a deliberate act on the part of Government to allow for this; to enable this; to want this to happen, as Governor Evers was aware of the imminence of the danger to citizens and to businesses in Kenosha.So, it was left to an armed citizen to take upon himself the responsibility that the police, whose duty, and obligation it was to preserve and protect public order in the community, had instead consciously, deleteriously, and unconscionably relinquished, surrendering meekly, abjectly to a psychopathic and psychotic mob.For his troubles—this American Horatius, guarding "The Bridge" in Kenosha, Wisconsin—Kyle Rittenhouse, was charged with several felony counts; the most serious involved his shooting of the psychotic animal, Joseph Rosenbaum. Video evidence alone made clear beyond a reasonable doubt to the public and to the jurors who sat in judgment of Kyle's actions, a case for justifiable homicide, grounded on the legal right of self-defense—a long held in law and well-recognized—defense to threat against one's life, and an absolute defense, when the individual asserting the right is not the aggressor. And, despite the imbecilic prosecution of Kyle in which the prosecutors sought to treat Kyle, inter alia, as the aggressor, rather than the victim, the jury saw through the prosecution's ruse and wouldn't buy into it. The incident occurred back in 2020.Yet, the puppet-masters demanded the head of Kyle Rittenhouse because Rosenbaum and others were, consciously or not, tearing down the fabric of American society in furtherance of the nightmarish Soros/Rothschild goal to destroy the Nation. For, once that was accomplished, the remains of the United States may be merged effortlessly and seamlessly into a greater neoliberal international world order a.k.a. new world order a.k.a. the Soros “Open Society.” The puppet-masters had to make an example of Kyle Rittenhouse. When the puppet-masters order the destruction of Towns and Cities in America, those who attempt to defend against the destruction of those American Towns and Cities are the criminals—not the psychopathic and psychotic destroyers of the Towns and Cities—for they are the tools of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet-masters, doing the bidding of them and for them. None of those rioters were ever charged with a crime, and Wisconsin' s Governor was never called out for greasing the skids, enabling for the riot to happen. Only Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with a crime: several crimes, in fact, including the worst of crimes: murder. Defense of self against psychotics and psychopaths intent on killing one count for nothing against a charge of murder, when those psychopaths and psychotics are working on behalf of Government, that itself is the progenitor of destruction of America. It is a topsy-turvy Country, indeed, that we live in when it is innocent 21st Century American Patriots that are the one treated as the scourge of society, rather than the actual would-be destroyers of it.Fortunately, for both Kyle Rittenhouse and for the rest of us, a jury of his peers did not buy into the moronic insult. The jury realized the right of armed self-defense for them, no less than for the man on trial, realizing that all Americans were on trial here. The message is plain: self-defense is not considered a legal defense against a charge of homicide when the perpetrators of violence and the aggressors in a confrontation are treated as the non-aggressive victims, and the true victim is, himself, treated as the violent aggressor.The incident here occurred in 2020. The trial—itself a travesty—demanded by the Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters—should never have taken place and would never have taken place if the rotten weeds that Soros had planted at the local and regional levels had not taken root. See Arbalest Quarrel article on the Kyle Rittenhouse case, published on November 19, 2021.More recently, an innocent man, a naturalized citizen from the Dominican Republic, Jose Alba, was immediately arrested for killing a vicious predator, a creature with a lengthy rap sheet, Austin Simon.Alba, like Rittenhouse, had successfully defended his life against predatory attack from an unrepentant, serial criminal. See, e.g., article in the New York Post. For his trouble, having had the audacity to defend himself against a psychopath and surviving the vicious attack, found himself, oddly and absurdly, on Riker’s Island, courtesy of a Soros backed and funded prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney.One cannot but wonder: if the tables were turned, and the psychopath, Austin Simon had killed Jose Alba, would Bragg have sent Simon immediately to Rikers Island? Judging by Bragg’s performance to date, protecting predators, which would never have happened. See article titled, “Self-defense is Now Murder,” in the Daily Sentinel.See also Tucker Carlson’s news coverage and video on Fox News.Bragg’s audacious attack on a citizen who defended himself with a knife makes patently clear that the incessant attack by the legacy Press, by the Democrat Party-controlled Congress, and by the Harris-Biden Administration about “guns” isn’t really about guns at all. The public is recognizing an assault on the natural law right of self-defense itself against predatory man, predatory beast, and, most importantly—for survival of a free Republic—predatory Government. If a man has a lawful, Constitutional right to repel tyranny, that fact vindicates the right of self-defense. But a tyrant can never allow for that, hence the attack on the natural law right of self-defense.Had Alba defended his life with a firearm, rather than a knife, the Manhattan DA’s handling of the case would not have been different. But Bragg and the Press would have inserted the issue of guns into the narrative if they could. In the Alba case, they couldn’t do that, even though in some instances, the seditious legacy Press does interject discussion of guns even if doing so is discordant.But the fact that an instance of self-defense occurred, via knife, and not a firearm in this instance is telling. It points to the fact that Government, be it Federal, State, or municipal—when under the thumb of the ultra-wealthy and powerful Neoliberal Globalists and wild and rabid Neo-Marxists, in league with the Globalists, as they happen to share the common goal of dismantling a free Republic—does not recognize the sanctity of Selfhood, the right of a person to be free from Government intrusion on one's autonomy of Personhood. What better evidence of this invasive, arrogant assault on the inviolability of body, mind, spirit, and soul, than for Government to usurp for itself an individual's natural law right of personal defense and doing so without reference to firearms as a factor in the story's telling. Might the Press not wish to talk now about banning knives? Great Britain has done so because the Nation has already banned guns; so, the next weapon to ban from the commonalty, lest the common people have the mind to rebel against tyranny, must need be the "knife." See article by Thomas Xavier, writing about UK Knife prohibitions and restrictions, citing to the UK website, reciting UK "Knife laws", a draconian over-the-top response—but, more likely, simply a pretext—to "rising knife crime" in the UK.So, knives are the next in a natural progression to keep the public defenseless and fearful in the UK and, just as likely in the U.S. down the road as well, if or when guns are banned. This would require the American public to look only to the Government for succor and safety—succor and safety that is always in short supply in Government and doled out sparingly, in major part to keep the public in a constant state of fear and tension. It isn't a pleasant scenario for the British, and certainly would not be a pleasant scenario for Americans. Neither a ban on guns nor knives should a Country, namely the U.S., conceived in freedom and liberty, wish to emulate of the British subject. But we are moving inexorably and rapidly in that horrible direction. The actions of the Soros installed Alvin Bragg as Manhattan District Attorney, in audaciously arresting Jose Alba, and initially charging him with murder for defending himself against a threat to his life by a psychopathic serial criminal— and the bizarre Courtroom arguments of Kenosha County District Attorney, Thomas Binger, charging Kyle Rittenhouse with serious felonies, including, inter alia, first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless homicide and prosecuting him for those crimes, despite incontrovertible video evidence supporting a finding of justifiable homicide on the basis of self-defense—are scenarios both pointing to a disturbing development and trend in our Nation's jurisprudence.Americans are witnessing confounding but irrefutable evidence of Government antipathy toward the sanctity and inviolability of one's Selfhood—too prevalent and too conspicuous to ignore or to perfunctorily dismiss.The recognition that the State doesn't recognize one's natural law right of self-defense logically entails the proposition that the State no longer recognizes and will not acknowledge that one's life is truly one's own. The actions of the Kenosha and Manhattan District Attorneys point to this outrageous and deeply troubling revision of centuries of American jurisprudence and clear renunciation of the central tenet of the Bill of Rights: In America, one's life belongs to the State by tacit State edict, not to oneself, by grace of the Divine Creator. This means that it is the State, and the State alone, not the individual who decides whether one lives or dies; whether one has a right to life or not; and whether the taking of the life of another is to be declared lawful or not. Thus, the Biden Administration that would at once deny an American citizen's right to use a firearm in one's own defense and would, simultaneously, declare that it is the will of the State to decree whether an unborn child has the right to life, substituting its will for that of the Divine Creator. These are incredibly obtuse and pompous ideas.The Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin takes on clarity and renewed importance in view of the recent Jose Alba case, in New York City. The Alba case in the news draws a narrow focus on self-defense sans guns. The issue transcends the matter of armed self-defense, which is subsumed in the more general God-Given Right of Self-Defense itself. The issue of "Right-to-Life" be it the unborn child or the right of one born are equivalents: THE RIGHT TO BE. The core natural law right and legitimacy of self-defense, THE RIGHT TO SURVIVE IN BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT, is at stake, irrespective of the means. The State/Government has fixated on firearms only because the State/Government as the ultimate, dangerous predator recognizes that it is most threatened itself by the armed citizenry. Unarmed individuals pose little threat to THE TYRANT. Numbers by themselves are of little concern to a Tyrant State/Government backed by a massive standing army, equally massive paramilitary police force, a massive intelligence apparatus, and a massive propaganda/media organ. But one hundred million well-armed citizens pose a clear and present danger to the Tyrant' power and control over the citizenry. This explains the constant media attention spent not only on the armed citizenry but on the nature of the firearms, component parts of firearms, and the kinds and extent of the ammunition held by that armed citizenry. There is constant gibberish over "assault weapons," "weapons of war," "large-capacity magazines," 50 caliber ammunition, armor-piercing ammunition, suppressors, body-armor—anything and everything that the State/Government infers to pose an imminent and existential threat to its own vast power and control over the citizenry. Yet, one should stop and think for a minute that the framers of the Constitution intended the armed citizen to be equipped with personnel "weapons of war" precisely to operate as a counterweight to the State/Government precisely because of the tendency of the State/Government to usurp the sovereignty of the American people and become the master rather than the servant of the people. A free Constitutional Republic has nothing to fear from its citizens. A Tyrant, on the other hand, has everything to fear from its citizens, as well it should fear its citizens, in that eventuality.Is it coincidence this present Federal Government has taken a much more concerted stance against the right of the people to keep and bear arms of late? Should the public not prick up its ears at this disturbing series of Government bravado and action?The aim of the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist push to destroy the Nation from within is insidiously directed to rendering the citizenry helpless while the forces that crush, plot and machinate to devastate the economy, mock America’s Christian faith, and promote societal decay. But total societal collapse cannot occur and will not occur so long as Americans remained armed and armed to the hilt. That is our winning hand: a royal straight flush. And the would-be destroyers of a free Republic know this. A truly free Constitutional Republic as the framers of the Constitution had designed for us need not fear its armed citizenry. In fact, the Federal Government should welcome it, take pride in it. The fact that it does not and openly fears this armed citizenry should tell the citizenry much of where this Government intends to take us. And it is not a good place.The Majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is aware of the dire state of our Republic, and it intends to remind Congress and the Biden Administration and the Corruptors of our Nation that the American people are still sovereign over their Nation and over this Government, and they intend to remain so. The Government and the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists don't want to hear this and they are pushing back, they are pushing back hard; doubling down on their efforts to consolidate as much power as they can prior to the November Midterm elections to weaken a Republican Party sweep of Congress.So it is that, even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms gains support through most members of the U.S. Supreme Court, the pawns of the puppet-masters will continue to thwart the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as long as they can to the extent that they can.One of the puppets, New York Governor Hochul, has made plain that she doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bruen. In fact, New York’s recent enactment of amendments to its concealed handgun carry license structure set forth in Penal Code Section 400.00 now makes it even more difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license than before the Bruen ruling.The Governor’s defiance and that of the New York State Legislature in Albany is so blatant, so arrogant, so odious, so all-encompassing as to draw incredulity but for the fact that it is not merely rumor or extravagant musing. It is all etched in stone—and we lay all of that out for you in our next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

4/13/22 4/13/22

CORRUPTION AND UNFAIRNESS PLAGUE THE NYPD LICENSE DIVISION

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND ON PROBLEMS ATTENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY'S CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SCHEMA

PART FOUR

New York City’s handgun licensing rules are bloated and absurd as written and adopted, and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in their application. This engenders abuse of discretion. Even worse, the City’s handgun licensing scheme has, in recent years, invited outright criminal corruption in those NYPD officers whose job it is to administer the licensing process.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-author of this article, co-founder of the Arbalest quarrel, and a decorated veteran police officer with the NYPD, pointed all this out when queried about the present licensing scheme in a 2016 CNN Money article, titled, “Only in New York: Bribing cops for a gun license.”The reporter, Aaron Smith, wrote in pertinent part:“Buying a gun in America can be an expensive ordeal. Or it can be cheap and easy. It depends on where you live.Bribing cops for gun licenses could only happen in a place like New York. In most other parts of the United States, licenses are not even required for handguns.‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D'Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D'Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.‘What they're doing is they're creating a privilege for having a gun and licensing it and they're creating this prohibition style system where people are paying someone off to get a gun,’ he said.”The CNN report wasn’t the only piece on NYPD corruption in the License Division. The Daily News published, on April 25, 2016, an article by New York attorney and former NYPD Trial Commissioner, Arnold Kriss. The article is titled, “Massive questions behind the blue wall: We need an independent commission to probe NYPD.” Arnold Kriss said,“For the first time in over 60 years, top NYPD officials are accused of taking money and gifts for favors. Where this will go when the ship-jumping begins and the brass and others start talking to federal prosecutors — non-stop — is anyone’s guess.This is potentially department-shattering stuff.” And, one year to the day after the Daily News article came out, WSJ came out with its story on License Division corruption in an article titled, “Former NYPD Officers Face Federal Bribery Charges”: “Three ex-officers and a former Brooklyn prosecutor are accused of swapping gun licenses for cash, prostitutes, guns and more.In the scheme, so-called expediters, or individuals who charge clients to help them get gun-license approvals, bribed officers in the NYPD’s gun licensing division, according to prosecutors. These officers then approved or expedited more than 100 gun licenses, including for people with criminal histories, prosecutors said.”Outright criminal conduct in the NYPD License Division may have been cleaned up, yet serious problems attendant to the awarding of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York remain. These core problems can only be resolved through a massive restructuring and transformation of the entire concealed handgun NYPD licensing structure in the City.The task ahead is immensely difficult if not well-nigh impossible because the problems that beset the NYPD License Division are inextricably entwined in New York's historical landscape. New York City's present Mayor Eric Adams, isn't the man to take on the task, as he hasn't the will to do so. In fact, his sympathies rest with leaving matters as they are. Even as the City continues to burn, Eric Adams' message doesn't change when it comes to the issue of guns, for he continues to conflate criminal violence with gun violence. Back on January 24, 2022, the Mayor said, as reported by Fox News,“‘We are in the middle of a crisis with guns,’ said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the weekend. ‘You carry a gun in our city, there is no apology to you,’ Adams added.New York state and city have some of the most strict gun laws in the country, prohibiting most people in the state to openly carry, but Democratic leaders point to guns coming in from other states as a culprit behind the skyrocketing shootings.”One should take note that Adams doesn't draw a distinction between guns as carried by average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens for self-defense, and the lunatics and criminals who injure or kill innocent people, regardless of the means employed by these lunatics and criminals. Arming the citizen is not on his radar. From Mayor Adams' perspective, the armed responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen is as much a threat to the well-being of the City as are the lunatics and psychopaths who prey upon them. The problem is that New York City is far removed from being a tranquil, idyllic paradise. It is a hell-scape. Everyone knows it. Certainly, the Mayor does. But he refuses even to consider the fact that arming tens of thousands of innocent people, who wish to take responsibility for their own life and well-being, as is their fundamental right, might succeed in securing for New Yorkers a truly safe environment that, to date, has stubbornly eluded and resisted remedying. The Mayor surely desires to reduce the plague of incessant violent crime that has gripped the City for years. Or does he? Is it just gross incompetence, or is it a cultivated habit and predilection against guns that prevent him from trying something new, trying a new tactic that accounts for his failure to get a handle on violent crime that has a vise-grip on the City? Or is it something more alarming and disturbing that prevents him from relaxing the draconian standards that, to date, preclude the mass of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens from securing, for him or herself, a concealed handgun carry license, enabling the citizen to lawfully purchase a handgun in New York, thereby providing the citizen with the means—the only truly effective means—by which that citizen can protect him or herself against violent, irrational, unprovoked, and random, predatory attack? Does Eric Adams have a latent or calculated desire to take an active role in destroying a free Constitutional Republic? And does that latent or calculated desire inform the Mayor's actions and the actions of political leaders like Eric Adams who seem to be incapable of providing for the welfare of the people of his City? Is the placement of Eric Adams in the Office of Mayor of New York City, by the perverse machinations of Neo-Marxist Internationalist Neoliberal Globalist elites, all by design?Is Eric Adams, not unlike the Chicago Mayor, Laurie Lightfoot, and myriad others, who, operating at the behest of creatures like George Soros, see the need for and who tolerate or who even encourage a complete breakdown of America's institutions and societal order that a new, seemingly better global order can take root and eventually supplant all western nation-states? And, to that end, is it not the armed citizen, rather than the armed and crazed criminal or lunatic that these Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists perceive as the true problem? If that is the case, then lunatics, and psychopaths, and garden-variety criminals, and the tens of millions of illegal aliens looking for and promised free goodies at expense of the American taxpayer, and the well-funded, international drug and sex-trafficking cartels hopping into and out of the Nation's Southern Border, at will, all serve a purpose. It is these sordid elements that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see as useful, even necessary tools—operating on their behalf, albeit unconsciously—to hasten the end of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. And it is the armed American citizen whose presence—indeed, whose very existence—prevents the accomplishment of their goal, whom these ruthless forces that crush view as their one true, intractable and formidable foe. So it is that the message about guns and the tone, coming out of the Mayor and coming out of the tools like him, such as the current President of the United States, Joe Biden, are always the same. The explicit message is that it is guns that are bad; guns that are evil; guns that are the root cause of society's problems—that are the root cause of the Nation's problems. The tacit message is that it is guns in the hands of the citizenry that is the root cause of the Nation's woes; it is the armed citizen who is a danger to Nation and Country, and to “democracy.” And who are these armed citizens? It is those people—those Americans who seek to exercise the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is those people who pose a genuine threat, an insistent threat, to “democracy.” It is those political “conservatives,” those “white supremacists and racists,” those members of organized “militias”—in fact, any American who happens to hold to a vision of America as reflected in the Nation's Bill of Rights, who view our Nation as the founders of the Republic viewed it; who hold true to that vision, and who fervently desire to preserve the history, heritage, culture, values and core Christian ethos upon which a new Nation rose and rapidly became the most prosperous, powerful, and vigorous Nation on Earth. It is these people whom the hordes of Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” abhor and fear. And it is guns wielded by tens of millions of average Americans that the Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” must contend with, must constrain, must defeat so that the United States can be brought low, and the Nation's remains can be inserted into a new western international order, the “Open Society” that the Globalist kingpin, George Soros, has been entrusted to bring to fruition. But none of this is spoken about by the leaders, the flunkies, the placeholders of high Government Office. Instead, they deflect attention away from the campaign to systematically dismantle a free Republic and entrap and enslave tens of millions of Americans. The matter of Ukraine is a convenient vehicle to direct the American public's attention. Discussion of Ukraine serves that purpose, as it has nothing to do with us, Americans, but serves as a useful mechanism for the forces that crush, providing them with a made-to-order safety valve through which to vent and divert the public's justified attention and concerns over the fate of their Country. The forces that crush have successfully diverted public attention away from the Nation's economy, away from the systematic destruction of the Nation's institutions, away from the industrial scale corruption in Government and its failure to uphold the laws and Constitution of the Nation, and away from the usurpation of the sovereignty of the people over Government, that becomes more and more obvious with each passing day. But, the problem of guns in the hands of tens of millions of citizens remains an intolerable, insufferable problem for these Marxists/Globalists. And a different tack is employed to deal with that: continually attack guns and attack criminal violence through the use of guns. But, as for the criminal or lunatic or psychopath who is responsible for violent crime—that person gets a pass.And as for the issue of guns, the focus is on New York City—as a microcosm, a stand-in for the rest of urban America. It is guns, in the City, then, rather than the individual who misuses them that are responsible for criminal violence; not the sentient mind—not the criminals and lunatics and all the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that are agents of violence occurring throughout the City, who reasonably bear sole responsibility, sole responsibility for that violence. And, even there, the tale of woe in the City isn't about guns—not really. For if the creatures causing the mayhem in New York City and in other major urban areas around the Country are simply—albeit unconsciously—working at the behest of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites who seek to hasten the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, then talk about guns as THE problem is really nothing more than a makeweight; or perhaps, not even that. The issue of guns and so-called gun violence is itself simply a deflection. It is a distraction—a distraction away from a discussion of crime and away even from guns, and toward a discussion, tacit as it is, of the armed citizenry, and of the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of the armed citizenry. And, is it mere coincidence, that the Stooge in Chief, the corrupt, demented Joe Biden keeps coming back to the issue of guns, and to the need to curtail them, now especially, with the midterm elections steadily approaching, and with the Democrats/Marxists/Globalists concerned that they are about to lose their tenuous control of Congress?And Eric Adams, himself, may not really fathom the extent to which he, too, is but a useful tool of secretive, powerful, ruthless elements and interests, whose singular goal is the destruction of the most powerful symbol of true freedom and liberty still existent in the world: the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic. So, it is no accident that Eric Adams doesn't even suggest arming the innocent person to combat rampant, violent crime in the City. The whole object is to disarm that person. Better, it is, then—even as it is unstated—to accept the intractable violence. As this state of affairs benefits the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists and their agenda; better it is to accept intractable violence, even use it to advantage, so that citizens remain unarmed and those that are armed—disarm them by any means, legal or not, to effectuate that result. Thus, Eric Adams will not deign to allow innocent New York City residents and workers and visitors to the City, to defend themselves against increasing random violent crime, even as that alone would offer immediate respite for a tired, anxious City, from the mayhem—the “orchestrated” mayhem. But, at least New Yorkers can rest easy knowing that their illustrious Mayor is well protected even if they, themselves, are not. Protecting the Mayor from the orchestrated violence is the first and last order of business. New York residents and workers, and visitors to the City, don't factor into that equation. As reported by Politico,“[t]he NYPD increased security for Eric Adams Tuesday [April 12, 2022], after complaints about the mayor surfaced on social media in the wake of the subway shooting that wounded 23 commuters. . . .Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said from NYPD headquarters in Lower Manhattan, where she was joined by police brass and a representative from the FBI. ‘In an abundance of caution, we are tightening the mayor’s security detail.’ Sewell said the references to Adams, while not direct threats, were concerning enough to lead her to beef up the mayor’s security detail, which is currently overseen by his brother.”So, then, what does this report tell you: one, that, Mayor Adams' plan to tackle violent crime hasn't done a damn thing to curb violent crime one bit; two, that the Mayor's well-hyped plan for dealing with violent crime hasn't made a dent in it and, in fact, the City's violent crime only worsens; and, three, that the beefing up of the mayor's own security detail only serves to emphasize the horrific criminal violence, running rampant in the City—which, apparently, is a thing expected; tolerated; even welcomed—as it hastens the destruction of American society and the birth of a globalized slave community of billions of souls.So, the public shouldn't expect to see a paradigm shift in the City's tackling of violent crime; certainly not any time soon—and for the reason set forth above. The salient reason why violent crime in New York City will continue unabated is because that disruption of society is all calculated; it is all by design. It is in strict accordance with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan: one that started with Bill Clinton; continued under the regimes of George Bush and Barack Obama; and would certainly have continued under a Hillary Clinton Presidency but for the unexpected loss to Donald Trump in 2016, who, despite incessant attempts to sabotage his Presidency and railroad him personally, actually and remarkably brought a measure of stability to the Country, at least for a time; but, then, Trump was cast aside by ruthless and powerful forces both inside and outside the Country. The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist returned to its agenda, and made up for four years of lost time; continuing apace under the corrupt, effete, emotionally, and intellectually weak and demented Joe Biden—just the unbelievably ridiculous stooge the forces that crush needed and wanted to unravel Trump's accomplishments that served to strengthen and stabilize the Country on all major indicators of health: social, economic, and geopolitical.And, where is this Country now? Economically, socially, and geopolitically, the Country is weak; stagnant. It is in a state of precipitous decline, as intended.Now, more than ever, the Nation's citizenry must be attuned to the wreck of their Country. They must retain control of their weaponry. There may come a time in the not too distant future that the armed citizen will be all that's left to keep the Republic intact. But, as for Cities like New York, the armed citizen, a force otherwise to be reckoned with, will not be tolerated. Fortunately, New York City and several other jurisdictions are beyond the pale. It must be left to the U.S. Supreme Court—the last bastion of hope among the three Branches of the U.S. Government—to preserve the Republic. And the Court's handling of the Bruen case gives the Court ample opportunity. But, will the Justices be up to the task?The belief system of many people in major urban areas that are beset by uncommon violent crime is to reject out-of-hand, recourse to firearms in the hands of the commonalty. And, so, denizens of New York aren't going to see a transformation in attitudes or policies toward civilian citizen ownership. And Mayor Adams, for his part, will continue to reinforce, rather than change, the public's attitudes toward armed self-defense, even in the face of intractable violent crime. That must now be left to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that Branch of Government has also been under attack. The recent Senate confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson is a move in the wrong direction. Her methodology for reviewing cases, and her philosophical predilections are wholly distinct from that of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, and that jurisprudential philosophy is altogether inconsistent with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution as written, and, so, as conceived by the framers of it. It is not expected that Brown will render an opinion on the Bruen case, as a decision on the case is expected in early summer. But, Justice Breyer intends to step down until the current term ends in late June or early July, as reported by Forbes. And that is cutting it close. The danger is that Breyer will leave prior to a decision being handed down in Bruen. Although neither Breyer's bizarre notion of the import of the Second Amendment nor the methodology employed in case analysis is expected to comprise part of the majority opinion if the Conservative wing holds firm, still his jurisprudential philosophy is a known quantity and will be reflected in his dissenting opinions which will comport with his dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald. But dissenting opinions do have weight, and the analysis therein can be adopted in future case decisions if the liberal wing of the Court secures a majority. As an internationalist, a dissenting opinion in the Bruen case, composed by Ketanji Brown Jackson, is likely to be much more radical than one composed by Breyer. She is likely to imbue her views of guns and the Second Amendment from the standpoint of international law and international norms—that law and those norms fashioned by the United Nations and the EU, and thereby ignore or even refute the principle that High Court decisions involving natural law rights codified in the Bill of Rights—must adhere to the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights which, means, then, the application of American norms, to case law analysis, and must not impose international norms on BOR analysis and decisions. More people like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the High Court will result in a radical contravention of U.S. Supreme Court case review. The Constitution, thus interpreted by international law and international norms standards, which are completely alien to us—that do not, for example, even recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, unalienable, eternal, immutable right—would invariably, irreparably damage and upend the Nation's Bill of Rights, upon which individual autonomy, individual liberty, and American sovereignty over the Government rests and upon which a free Constitutional Republic can only hope to survive.How, then, would Ketanji Brown Jackson rule in the Bruen case? One need only look at the presence of New York City's absurd and unconstitutional concealed handgun carry regime to get an inkling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's view of the Second Amendment Right, which she would defend, and which she, no less than the Mayor of New York City, himself, would refrain from ever tampering with.That bizarre mindset—alien to the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as reflected in its Constitution, and particularly, in the Nation's Bill of Rights—won't change for the following reasons:First, the idea of arming civilian citizens so that they may take an active role in tackling the intractable violence plaguing the City remains more repugnant to the Mayor, and to tens of thousands of frightened New York City residents who voted for him, than is the presence of legions of lunatics and psychopaths who have taken over the City and who continually, and with impunity, prey on, and who pose a constant threat to the millions of innocent people who reside in and/or work in the City. The fear of guns and gun ownership and possession is deep-seated, unconscious, difficult to dislodge from many a New York resident's psyche.Second, reformation of the concealed handgun carry license schema in New York City is difficult—indeed well-nigh impossible—because the regulatory regime is itself a product of, grounded in, and inextricably bound to and entwined in the actions of the New York State Legislature, in Albany. Third, the actions of Albany are tied to New York's historical landscape that bespeaks a long-standing aversion to, and even pathological abhorrence toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fourth, over a hundred years of New York case law is directed to and devoted to the destruction of the natural law right of armed self-defense. The United States Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, do nothing to dispel the New York Courts antagonism toward the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, the State and Federal Courts engage in bizarre jurisprudential contortions, distortions, and confabulations that serve at once to dismiss Heller and McDonald rulings and reaffirm old Second Amendment New York rulings that perpetuate historical prejudices about the Second Amendment and are wholly inconsistent with Heller and McDonald.In our next article, we explain in detail the nature of the difficulties attendant to reforming New York City's concealed handgun carry licensing regime.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

12/14/21 12/14/21

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

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

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

PART TWO

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

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

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

PART FOUR

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

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

PART FIVE

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

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

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

PART SIX

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

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

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

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

PART EIGHT

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

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

PART NINE

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

12/2/21 12/2/21

TYRANNY, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AND THE ARMED CITIZEN

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

PART ONE

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? That is the crux of an ongoing debate for many people in the United States. It shouldn’t be but it is.The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes clear that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right. If anyone harbors doubt about that, the United States Supreme Court settled the question in 2008, in the seminal Second Amendment case, Heller vs. District of Columbia.The late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, opined “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”This means armed self-defense is not to be perceived as a thing apart from the broader notion of self-defense, but, rather, is subsumed in it. The sole issue in Heller was “whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”In ruling that an outright ban on the use of a handgun for self-defense in one’s home does violate the core of the Second Amendment right, the majority also held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This ruling is consistent with and is implied in the Court’s ruling on the salient issue.Moreover, the High Court made patently clear that Government didn’t create the right of armed self-defense but simply codified it, for the right of armed self-defense exists intrinsically in one’s being.The Court said,“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment like the First and Fourth Amendments codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”The recent Kyle Rittenhouse case is a textbook study of the utility of a firearm in effective defense of self against aggressive predatory attack.But this idea doesn’t sit well with Anti-Second Amendment proponents:“Gun rights are not human rights.”So says “democracy and human rights advocate,” Rukmani Bhatia who had served in the Obama Administration.Her assertion is posited not as a thesis to be proved but as an assumption to be accepted as self-evident, true, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the High Court’s rulings in Heller.No matter——Bhatia makes the assertion in a “Report” published by the George Soros funding Marxist think tank, “Center for American Progress,” on August 12, 2020.The Report is titled, “Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights,” and is subtitled, “Peddling False Rights, Profiting Off Fear.” Bhatia writes, in pertinent part,“Today, alongside this rights-based narrative, a parallel narrative exists that is perpetuated by the U.S. gun industry as part of a multifaceted effort to increase gun sales. This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.”From her remarks, dubious and outlandish as they are, one detects a note of irritation and frustration, borne of a deep-seated ethical or aesthetic abhorrence of guns and of the citizen’s right to keep and bear them. But there is more to be gleaned from this account.The Marxist antagonism directed to armed self-defense, as reflected in Bhatia’s “Report,” hides a sinister agenda.It is an agenda at loggerheads with the sanctity and inviolability of personal selfhood and one inconsistent with the preservation of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic.Grounded on the tenets and precepts of Collectivism (See e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article on the differences between Collectivism and Individualism), the Marxist intends to thrust their vision of reality on the entire Nation. Most Americans find that vision disagreeable if not thoroughly reprehensible and repugnant.The Marxist isn't unaware of this and resorts to artifice and chicanery to seduce the polity. The Marxist relies on the legacy Press and social media to assist in making it palatable to the public policy goals designed to transform a free Republic into a Marxist Dictatorship.Marxists mask their disdain for the dignity of man by disingenuously claiming to venerate it.At the outset of her Center for American Progress Report, Bhatia cites Article 1 of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (“UDHR”) a document crafted by the United Nations, where, citing Article 1 of the UDHR and then expanding on the sentiments of it, Bhatia writes,“Every human life has inherent value and dignity, and every person has the right to life, liberty, and personal security. These truths are codified in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was historic, with nations coming together to explicitly recognize the need to protect and preserve these fundamental rights, structuring constitutions to explicitly defend their citizens’ human rights, and particularly their rights to life, freedom, and security. The protection of human rights continues to be a defining pillar to secure a stable, peaceful liberal world order. But in the United States, some groups—such as the gun lobby—are seizing upon this rights-based narrative to justify, dangerously, the right to bear, carry, and use firearms.”The United Nations says this about the development of the UDHR:“Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and. . . is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels. . . .” Extolling the sentiments of the UDHR, as Rukmani Bhatia does in her Center for Progress Report, is all well and good. But how is one expected to effectively confront an aggressive, vicious attack that emanates from the predatory beast, predatory man, or the tyrannical, predatory Government if not through armed self-defense? The Marxist, Bhatia, doesn’t say, which begs the very question at issue in her Report. Is Bhatia not aware of this? Perhaps, she is aware of this but consciously chooses to slither around it, hoping no one perceives the gaping hole that she has left open in her Report.In an attempt to avoid dealing with the question, head-on, Marxists, like Bhatia, simply take the easy way out. They deny the essence of the problem, claiming, as Bhatia does, and as she argues, that the threat of harm isn’t real, was never real, but is and always was grounded in an unwarranted fear of harm.But the threat is real, and the fear isn’t unwarranted, and Americans are witnessing all of it. And it is painfully evident through the inaction and empty posturing of effete and impotent Federal and State Governments to the harm generated.Either the Marxist-controlled Federal Government and similar Marxist-controlled State and local Governments are simply inept and incompetent and, so, wholly unable to deal with the harm, or they welcome, even encourage, the attendant harms to the citizen and society alike. Likely it is a combination of both.The framers of the United States Constitution had the answer to the threat of harm caused by predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory Government, an unwelcome one for these Marxists, to be sure, as they aim to break apart American society and culture so that they can rebuild society in accordance with the strictures of Marxism.The answer rests in the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR), specifically in the citizen's exercise of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This, more than anything else, is the answer to the bedlam and mayhem wrought by those that seek the Country’s undoing. Small wonder, then, that these Marxists desire to destroy the Right._______________________________________________

THE UNITED NATIONS IGNORES ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; THE UNITED STATES EMBRACES IT

PART TWO

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations crafted a document, titled “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The document is a litany of 30 Rights (“Articles”) that ostensibly proclaims the dignity of the human being and his right to life, liberty, and security.The Preamble of the United Nations’ UDHR sets forth: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,Now, therefore,The General Assembly,Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” These are all noble sentiments, as articulated, of course. But there is a major problem the UDHR fails to address: How is a human being supposed to secure these lofty ideals for him or herself? The drafters of the United Nations’ UDHR fail to say.In the litany of over two dozen fundamental rights set forth in the UDHR’s “Articles,” there is no mention whatsoever of a right of armed self-defense. In fact, there is no mention in the UDHR of a right of self-defense, armed or otherwise.By failing to acknowledge self-defense, and its corollary armed self-defense, as basic human rights, the United Nations’ UDHR undercuts “the inherent dignity and . . . equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” that it claims pompously to venerate.The UDHR is intentionally deceptive; a ploy of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism. It is designed to seduce nations into forsaking their independence and sovereignty, reducing both nation and population to misery and servitude, all the while claiming to promote the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” But note: even in this seemingly clear, unambiguous exposition, there is a sinister uncurrent. The UDHR speaks of purported inalienable rights to be enjoyed by the human family in a group capacity, that is to say, as a collective. There is no suggestion, no intimation these rights are to be enjoyed by human beings in an individual capacity.

WHERE ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS ABSENT, TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) mentions, in its Preamble, that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”The American public hears much about the importance of “the Rule of Law” from Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists. The EU also makes much use of this phrase, as does the UN in reference to human rights as noted supra.Supposedly Government’s application of “the Rule of Law” operates as a hedge against encroaching tyranny. But does it? Vainglorious are those who make constant reference to it—U.S. politicians in particular. But, what does ‘rule of law’ really mean? The appeal to it is subterfuge, dissembly.In the absence of a useful definition, the expression, ‘Rule of Law’ is vacuous. And, that is just the way politicians want to keep it. Don’t ask them to define the expression. They have no idea what it means and would be thunderstruck if anyone were to ask them to provide a definition. A declaration of human rights that avails itself of the words “Rule of Law” as the primary or sole check against the tyranny of Government is devoid of substance.The UN’s UDHR is deceptive. The claim of sanctifying human rights is belied by the emptiness of the gesture. How are human rights to be actualized or, if need be, how are they to be vindicated? In the “Rule of Law?” Really? How is one to understand this “Rule of Law?” And, from whom is one to receive “Rule of Law” relief from tyranny? From that very Government that imposes tyranny on the populace?Yet, the United Nation’s UDHR relies on the ‘Rule of Law’ as the check on tyranny. That is all one obtains from the UDHR; that is all the UN delivers to “the human family” that it claims to care so deeply about.The United States’ BOR, unlike the UDHR, doesn't expect the citizen to place his reliance on arcane nomenclature to provide a check on the tyranny of Government. A check on the tyranny of Government rests in the physicality of the armed citizenry, not on empty pompous verbiage.The framers of the Constitution wouldn’t waste ink on ‘Rule of Law’ when preparing the Bill of Rights. The framers of the BOR did not expect the ‘Rule of Law’ to protect them from the tyranny of George III of England. They placed their faith in the force of arms, not in arcane, abstruse concepts to release them from tyranny. And they would place the future security of a free Republic in nothing less than dint of arms.The only functional check against the tyranny of Government is the physicality of “armed self-defense.” Armed self-defense is what worries, even terrifies, the Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist, and with good reason. For the aim of these internationalists is to create a top-down autocratic Government, that is to say, “Tyranny.” But Tyranny is not able to gain a foothold in a nation where the citizenry is armed.The Tyrant fears Tyrannicide at the hands of the armed Citizenry and, so, demands that the Citizenry surrender its arms to the Tyrant. The Citizenry fears Democide at the hands of the Tyrant's agents, and, so, refuses to surrender its arms to the Tyrant.The United States, as a free Republic, must never forsake the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment. To do so would be tantamount to the destruction of the Republic and enslavement of the populace.The American people must never for one moment trust the Government or its propagandists who proclaim that for the public harmony, safety, and order it is in the best interests of the polity to surrender its firearms. The day the citizen does so will be the day the citizen should be prepared to sacrifice his autonomy, his dignity, his soul, and his life.___________________________________________

THE CITIZEN MUST BE EVER ON GUARD OF GOVERNMENT THAT PROMISES HARMONY, SAFETY, AND TRANQUILITY IF HE BUT SURRENDER ALL ARMS TO THE STATE

PART THREE

Unlike the United Nations that doesn’t mention a natural right of armed self-defense in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), our Nation embraces it.The States ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR) on December 15, 1791.The BOR predates the UDHR by over one hundred and fifty years even as the UN heralds its own UDHR as “a milestone.” In codifying the right of armed self-defense in the BOR, the Framers of it at once proclaimed the sanctity of Personal Selfhood and provided a rationale for it: the need for the citizen to remain wary of the tyranny of Government.The Second Amendment provides both a stark warning to the Government and a categorical prohibition on Government apropos of it.The people need not and must not abide by the tyranny of Government, and Government is prohibited from tampering with this perfect fail-safe mechanism by which the American people may effectively resist the inception of tyranny.The language of the Second Amendment to thwart tyranny is self-executing. In fact, the clearest indication of the Government’s slide into tyranny is through the unlawful attempt to eradicate the American citizenry’s exercise of the right embodied in it.The only reason the Government would dare to take such action to eradicate the exercise of the right of armed self-defense would be to preclude the citizenry from exercising the means by which it is well capable of repelling the insinuation of tyranny on the citizenry.The danger of ever-present tyranny is manifest in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment—pointing to “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” And the subsequent independent clause of the Second Amendment provides the ultimate fail-safe mechanism of which the citizen shall avail himself if Government devolves into tyranny: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The framers of the Bill of Rights recognized that man cannot secure his life, safety, and well-being from the predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory government in the absence of an effective means to do so—as only a firearm provides.Superficially, the United Nations’ UDHR and the BOR may seem similar, as both documents point to and allude, in their language, to the higher aspirations and Rights of man.But, on the crucial matter of self-defense, the principal difference between the two is laid bare.The United Nations doesn’t presume or countenance individuals as having the wherewithal or even the right and responsibility to provide for the defense of Self.The United Nations only makes reference to ‘self-defense’ in its Charter, signed on June 26, 1945. And in its Charter, self-defense is referenced only in one of its Articles, and, then, only in relation to the rights of nations, not in respect to the populations of those nations.Article 51 of the UN Charter says,“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”Self-defense remains a prerogative and responsibility of the UN apropos of nations, whether in an individual or collective capacity. The UN does not recognize “Self-defense” as a right intrinsic to individual human beings, whether in an individual or in a collective capacity.Moreover, the rights promulgated in the UDHR, noble aspirations though they may appear to be, as articulated, are understood by their crafters, to be man-made constructs. Thus, they do not even operate in the UDHR as true fundamental rights. The suggestion is mere pretense. And that is another major failing with the UDHR. Fundamental Rights are Natural preexistent Rights—existing intrinsically in man. They aren’t creations of man.The “Articles” qua Rights, delineated in the UDHR, are considered mutable and limitable. They are not to be perceived as—and were never intended to be perceived as—independent of the dictates of the United Nations, but were, in their creation, considered subordinate to the UN's dictates.This is evident from a perusal of Clauses 2 and 3 of Article 29 of the UDHR:“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”Article 29 demonstrates the vacuity of the entire enterprise.Unlike the Rights codified in the U.S. Constitution’s BOR, the Rights delineated in the UDHR remain subordinate to the crafters of it, who retain ultimate and exclusive authority over it: to keep it, modify it, or erase it, as they wish.Yet, a declaration of purported human rights that cannot stand on its own, independent of the sanctioning authority that created it, is an edifice built on sand.The Bill of Rights, unlike the UDHR, is the genuine article, not a vacuous simulacrum of noble aspirations.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is to be understood as a codification of natural law rights, not man-made conventions. That point is significant.The framers took as axiomatic that natural law rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and illimitable. As such, they are not lawfully subject to modification, abrogation, or abandonment by the Government; nor can Government perfunctorily dismiss them.The implication of this is clear: ultimate power, authority, and sovereignty rest solely in the American people, not in the Federal Government.Any attempt by the Government to limit, abrogate, or deny to the American people the unalienable exercise of their fundamental Rights amounts to an unlawful intrusion on and unlawful usurpation of power belonging solely to the American people, and an unlawful encroachment on the sovereignty of the people over Government.An assault by the Government on the sovereignty of the American people over Government constitutes Tyranny of Government. Tyranny of Government is Treachery of Government. And, Treachery of Government is Treason by Government directed against its own people.Armed self-defense is the best hedge against the most serious danger to a free man: the predatory, tyrannical Government. In dicta, the Heller majority acknowledged this, citing for support, The Federalist 29: “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”Since the Marxist vision of Government and the citizen’s relationship to it requires subordination of the will of the citizen to Government, Marxists abhor the very notion of the “armed citizen.”Not by accident, then, is there any mention of “self-defense,”—armed or otherwise—in the UDHR. A laundry list of Rights (“Articles”) never so much as alludes to one’s unalienable right of armed self-defense or even of a general right of self-defense.But, if a man isn’t allowed the exercise of the fundamental right of armed self-defense—if in fact, the very notion of self-defense is not to be perceived of as a basic human right—wherein, then, shall a man look to secure the “inherent value and dignity” of his life that the UN crafters of the UDHR talk so floridly about? In Government? In the new “liberal world order” qua “new world order” that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists proclaim to be a good thing? Please!The American people must resist subtle and overt coercion by these Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists who urge them to forsake their elemental right of armed self-defense. To do so will imperil both their own lives and well-being and that of a free Constitutional Republic.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

11/2/21 11/2/21

NEW YORK TIMES UNLEASHES ATTACK DOGS IN OP-ED ON EVE OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN BRUEN

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument today on the Second Amendment case NYSRPA vs. Bruen (previously captioned NYSRPA vs. Corlett).This is the first major case to come before the High Court after Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the Liberal wing of the Court, punted on last year’s New York City Gun Transport case. Let’s hope the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kavanaugh don’t get cold feet this time.But there are enough Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, including, unfortunately, jurists and attorneys, waiting in the wings, to castigate the Justices if they should—horror of horrors—actually strike down unconstitutional laws.One can perhaps understand the “walking dead” among the living who pay too much attention to the nonsense spouted by jackasses in the Government, in the Press, in social media, and in Hollywood—allowing others to do their thinking for them. And the message is always the same:“Surrender your firearms and peace will rain down upon you from the heavens.” And “the walking dead” nod their heads in mindless, senseless bovine agreement.At one time the fiction might have been somewhat believable, even though patently untrue. That was in the day when communities actually had well-funded police departments to provide at least a modicum of security. Now, however, police departments in major cities are underfunded, defunded, and emasculated, or are on the verge of extinction.One is left to ask, plaintively: “who will protect me if there are no police around and I’m not permitted a handgun to protect myself?” And, one is left befuddled at the reply given him from the vacant-eyed cultists: “That’s your white privilege talking.”But, when some jurists and attorneys claim a person’s right to defend him or herself with a firearm must stop at the doorstep of one’s house, such an assertion is untenable and unconscionable.Yet, that is what the public gets.In an Op-Ed titled, “Prominent Conservatives Back Letting States Limit Guns in Public,” published in The New York Times, on November 2, 2021, one day before the oral hearing in Bruen, J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and Richard D. Bernstein, an appellate lawyer, make clear their disdain for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”They demonstrate their abhorrence of the unfettered Constitutional Right of Americans “to carry loaded concealed weapons in public and in public places, wherever and whenever they believe they might need their guns for self-defense.”They assert, “The announcement of such an absolute and unfettered right would be shocking and disquieting to most Americans. . . .” The appropriate, if curt, reply to this ridiculous remark is, “so what!”Since when is a decision on a fundamental, natural law Right to be treated like a Beauty Pageant—as a matter for popular acclaim?These two ostensible legal experts, continue:“The Supreme Court is not constitutionally empowered to make these decisions, and it is ill-suited to make them. For the justices to begin deciding for the people exactly where and when a person has a right to carry a handgun in public would be to establish the court as essentially a National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations, precisely the kind of constitutional commandeering of the democratic process that conservatives and conservative jurists have long lamented in other areas of the law, such as abortion. It would be hypocritical for this conservative court to assume what essentially would be a legislative oversight role over public-carry rights, when conservatives on and off the court have for almost 50 years roundly criticized the court for assuming that same role over abortion rights.”Former Judge Luttig and Attorney Bernstein simply construct a strawman to unceremoniously knockdown.The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t operating as a “National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations,” when deciding matters of Constitutional law. That IS precisely their Article 3 duty.Apparently, these learned gentlemen have forgotten what they came across during their first-year Constitutional law class: Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”This function and the sacred obligation of the Judiciary do not fall to Congress. It doesn’t fall to the U.S. President. It doesn’t fall to State and Local Governments. And it sure as hell doesn’t fall to an uninformed, angry mob.It is the duty solely of the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the law—to say what the law is.Yet, Luttig and Bernstein would dare deny the Court its Constitutional function. They don’t just suggest this. They blurt it out,“Conservatives, textualists and originalists believe — or should — that the Second Amendment ought not be interpreted to take from the people and their legislatures the historical and traditional authority they have had for centuries to decide where handguns may be carried in public and in public places.”They continue,“Historically and traditionally, legislatures have restricted the public carry of guns, from medieval England to colonial times, through the founding and to the present day. In fact, many of those early laws were more draconian than our own, banning the carry of guns in public places generally, without offering any exceptions like those New York provides for people who can demonstrate an actual need to defend themselves. Those restrictions extended far beyond public locations with a large and continuous armed police presence, such as government buildings and courthouses, to almost any public place — fairs, markets and indeed wherever a person would ‘go armed.’”Reliance on historical anecdote—and Luttig and Bernstein do not offer support for any of this—has limited prudential value at best. That is why originalists do not place much stock in it, and should not.In the first instance and in the final analysis, one should go to the written language of the law:The Second Amendment says,“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.”Where in the language of the Second Amendment is there any statement of limitation on the exercise of the Right?The danger of overbearing Government action is most acute where fundamental rights are involved. Governments must act circumspectly. They rarely do. Government justification for infringing a fundamental right on the pretext of pragmatic expediency must be scrutinized by the Courts.New York gun legislation is a case study of heavy-handed action by the Government. The Second Amendment Right is converted into mere privilege and one that the Government rarely grants to the American citizen.Luttig and Bernstein apparently aren’t even aware that, in blindly defending the New York City handgun licensing scheme—requiring the applicant to show actual need before obtaining a concealed handgun license—they fail to see the inherent absurdity of it.Why should a person be forced to proffer a reason to a Government official that one’s life is worth defending with the best means available for doing so—a handgun? It presupposes one’s life isn’t really important. And, the entire exercise comes down to an arbitrary, perfunctory, and often futile and expensive ordeal for the citizen; one inviting corruption and unfair dealing of which the NYPD Licensing Division is notorious.Lastly, Luttig and Bernstein have the audacity to give advice to Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, attempting to thrust her own words back upon her. They assert,“Two years ago, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett called English and founding era statutes ‘the best historical support for a legislative power’ to restrict firearms.”The case Luttig and Bernstein refer to is Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).But, what Justice Barrett said, in her dissenting opinion, apropos of that passage, in full, is that:“The best historical support for a legislative power to permanently dispossess all felons would be founding-era laws explicitly imposing—or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose—such a ban. But at least thus far, scholars have not been able to identify any such laws. The only evidence coming remotely close lies in proposals made in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions.”Justice Barrett wasn’t advocating for use of historical support for legislative power to curb the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right. On the contrary, she was claiming the jurist should be wary of relying on it.In the case before the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett argued for the reinstatement of Plaintiff Kanter’s right to own and possess a firearm; not to dispossess him of it. She concluded her dissent, saying,“Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’ Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”Luttig and Bernstein should have given proper context to Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in Kanter, or have shown her the courtesy to refrain from quoting her at all.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

7/31/20 7/31/20

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

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

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

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

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

1/19/20 1/19/20

HOW CAN THE JEWISH PEOPLE BEST DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITIC HATE-CRIME?

The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last. But all Americans can be subject to violence.National pro-Second Amendment websites such as Ammoland Shooting Sports News, NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Truth About Guns, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Second Amendment Foundation, and the podcast Lock N Load Radio, among many other pro-Second Amendment rights websites, podcasts, and pro-Second Amendment alternative media organizations, know this.Immersed in illusion and delusion, incessantly bombarded by lies spawned by the seditious mainstream media propaganda machine which controls much of what the average person sees and hears, Americans are not only encouraged to act against their own best interests but are psychologically conditioned to do so. Mass psychosis is slowly and inexorably descending on the American citizenry, callously orchestrated and mercilessly executed through a massive, monstrous indoctrination and brainwashing disinformation campaign.The Radical Left and mainstream media argue that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary guarantor of Americans’ life and liberty but a dated and useless artifact.Many Americans, especially those who are members of minority communities, learn this the hard way when they face brutal attacks. They find that responsibility for one’s physical safety and well-being rests, as it must and always did, with them, as individuals, and not in others; and certainly not in Government—and that Government, amassing complete control over the thoughts and actions of the American public, would be the ruin of us all.First, the Government, through the police, does not have the resources to protect every citizen even if they wanted to. Second, there is no legal requirement that the police have a duty to guarantee the physical safety of an individual even when informed of an imminent threat to the physical safety of that individual. The Courts have made this point clear, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out.It is deception on the part of both government officials and the mainstream seditious Press to suggest otherwise, and it is deceitful of Government and the Press to keep this critical information from the American public. Why do Government and the mainstream seditious Press do this? They do this because they want the American people to believe that the police exist to protect Americans, as individuals. Police, though, cannot protect the life of every innocent American and they do not have the legal duty to do so except in very rare circumstances. These Radical Left government officials, and the mainstream seditious Press that is in league with them, are needlessly placing the lives of innocent people at serious risk of harm. Even as they claim to care about the sanctity of human life, they demonstrate their blatant disregard for it. The Arbalest Quarrel has written about this, pointing to the inconsistency, duplicity, and hypocrisy of the Radical Left government officials and the seditious Press that echoes their sentiments. On October 27, 2018, a lunatic shot and killed eleven people and wounded six other Congregants of a Synagogue, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Then, fourteen months later, another raging, rabid, hate-filled lunatic, armed with a machete, brutally stabbed and slashed, one critically, members of a deeply religious sect of the Jewish Community in New York, who were simply, innocently celebrating their Holiday at the home of their Rabbi. This incident received wide coverage, and ABC News did extensive reporting on it, providing New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and New York City's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, another political platform in which to enunciate the usual platitudes. And what were their answers to horrific violent hate-crime? As one might expect Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio merely offered Government as the sole solution to violent hate crime.On his website, Governor Cuomo reiterates with pretentious certitude the demonstrative falsehood that the public can rely on government alone for protection. Cuomo snorts: “And government’s jobs is to protect people and this state government will protect people of the Jewish faith and every other religion in this state.”Americans, though, are coming around to the truth; and the truth is that one’s physical safety and security rests with the individual. What counts is meaningful action, not more hollow government rhetoric.Following the brutal attacks on innocent people, the Arbalest Quarrel consulted with a Rabbi, a leader of the York City Jewish community, who expressed concern over the proposed solutions offered by Cuomo and de Blasio. The Rabbi asked us: “What can members of the Jewish community, as individuals, do to truly protect their life and that of their friends and family members.” We stated matter-of-factly that the answer is self-defense and that “self-defense is not only a fundamental, natural right but a duty, and the best means of self-defense is a firearm.”Having made the points that we did, the Rabbi asked us how individuals in his Congregation can responsibly protect themselves with a firearm. We told the Rabbi that we would consult with the Seneca Sporting Range, and, after doing so, we prepared a letter on behalf of the Range which then sent the letter to members of the New York City Jewish community. The exact content of the letter is as follows:__________________________________SENECA SPORTING RANGE RESPONDS TO THE URGENT NEEDS OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITYJanuary 10, 2020The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other Cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last.How can Jews best protect themselves and their families against continued violent attacks spawned by hate? Governor Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recognize the threat.Governor Cuomo says that the December 28, 2019 violent attack on the home of a Hasidic Rabbi is an ‘act of domestic terrorism.’ New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls the recent attack against Jews, a ‘crisis.’ And, in response to the horrific attack Mayor de Blasio announced more police patrols in Jewish communities and ordered an “‘intensified curriculum’ focused on anti-Semitism, to teach young people that attacks motivated by hate or ignorance breed more violence.”City officials said they would add more security cameras and light towers in ultra-orthodox Jewish Communities.This is all fine, but the burning fact remains antisemitism and violent attacks against Jews are not a new phenomenon.The burning question is why didn’t Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio implement enhanced security measures all along to prevent from happening the very tragedy that occurred?The problem is that politicians tend to operate reactively not proactively, and all too often a government’s response to a crisis is half-hearted, insufficient, and demonstrably deficient, aimed at defusing political fallout rather than on actually solving a serious problem.But, if Mayor de Blasio’s proposals if implemented are not adequate to provide the Jewish community with the safety and security it needs and deserves, what, then, is the answer?What can the Jewish community do? What can you do? The first thing you can and, in fact, must do is accept the fact that the matter of securing your physical safety and well-being and that of your family rests ultimately on you, not Government. We are talking here of personal defense: self-defense.Self-defense is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right. It is a primordial right and the most sacred of God-given rights. And self-defense is an absolute duty.Further, contrary to common belief, it is not the duty of Government, through the police, to guarantee your personal safety, security and well-being, and it never was. The Government is immune from liability to individuals for failure to ensure their protection. You can read about this here: http://arbalestquarrel.com/can-we-as-individuals-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us/ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSIVE ATTACKA firearm in the hands of a responsible, law-abiding, trained individual is the best defense against a serious physical threat. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. But, the decision to obtain a firearm is a serious one; never to be taken lightly.At Seneca Sporting Range we take the ownership and possession of a firearm seriously.We provide a complete package of services that includes preparation of City handgun license applications.Our certified instructors will guide you in the selection of and training in the use of and proper, safe handling and caring of a handgun. You will learn how to shoot a handgun and will gain proficiency in doing so. We will teach you techniques and the strategies of armed self-defense.I am here to assist you in your personal decision to lawfully possess, handle, and safeguard your firearm. Please call Seneca Sporting Range at (917) 414-2186.Our website is at this link: www.senecasportingrange.com. We operate by appointment only and all communications are confidential.Sincerely,John Deloca,Owner, Seneca Sporting Range, Inc._______________________________________It is our fervent hope that we can eventually change the false perception about guns and gun ownership that Radical Left politicians and a seditious Press have planted in the mind of many Americans. It is unfortunate that it takes a horrific act of violence before many Americans come to their senses and realize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an archaic and obsolete phrase, but an immutable, unalienable truth, as relevant and as necessary today as it was when the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.A Grassroots Movement in America has begun as a response to the serious imminent threats to the physical safety of individuals. Conversations are underway in Synagogues, Churches, Mosques, and other places of worship. And discussions are also taking place, if quietly, in our schools, universities, and workplaces, over the question of how a person can effectively defend his or her life in light of Government’s obvious failure to do so.A firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, responsible, trained individual was, is, and will forever be the best means of self-defense. It is futile, dishonest, and vain for anyone to deny this.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

12/7/19 12/7/19

THE RADICAL LEFT’S PLAN: PROTECT CRIMINALS; CONSTRAIN THE POLICE; AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC DISARMED AND DEFENSELESS

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system. The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later. The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We explain, below._____________________________________________

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

The presumption of innocence platitude applies to criminal trials. It has no application to pretrial events: arrest, arraignment, or detention awaiting trial. The platitude alludes to a legal procedural safeguard afforded the accused at trial, nothing more. The phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and does not invoke a substantive right. It is merely a colloquial expression, not a legal term of art, and, like many colloquial expressions, it conveys erroneous and exaggerated ideas that the seditious Press and Leftist activists latch onto in their ceaseless attack against our Constitution and our system of laws.

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence to prove the accused’s guilt of a crime. The accused does not bear the initial burden of having to prove his innocence. And the prosecutor’s burden—guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—is a difficult one to meet; deliberately so, decidedly so.Further, the burden of proving guilt in a criminal prosecution falls solely on the Government. The accused need not present evidence in his or her defense. What does that mean? It means the accused need not make a showing of—namely demonstrate—his or her innocence at all. If the prosecution fails to make a case for the accused’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest bar set in our system of law and justice—the Court must acquit the accused of the crime. The Court has no other choice.If, however, it appears the prosecution has met the difficult burden of proof, it behooves the accused to present evidence to rebut the State’s evidence. But the accused need not do so. The accused need not do anything to prove his or her innocence of the crime charged, and the prosecution must do everything to convince the trier of fact that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.The presumption of innocence platitude does not, then, really attach to anyone or to anything.The platitude simply alludes to the burden of proof and the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. In a criminal proceeding the burden of proof rests initially, and, in fact, solely, on the prosecutor, not on the accused.The prosecutor must prove, one, that a crime has been committed, two, that each statutory element of the crime has been met in the proof; and, three, that the person accused of committing the crime probably did commit the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The platitude, contrary to common belief, does not impute innocence onto the accused.Once trial concludes, the trier of fact, often a jury but sometimes the Court itself, if the accused agrees to a “Bench Trial” in lieu of a jury trial, considers whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused committed the crime he was charged with, weighing the prosecutorial evidence of guilt against such contrary evidence the accused presents if the accused wishes to present any evidence in his defense. The trier of fact then renders its verdict: to convict or to acquit.The prosecution has a heavy burden to lift and won’t generally prosecute a crime unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of the accused’s criminal conduct.Critically, such evidence a prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial must be admissible, which means that, on occasion, evidence of guilt of the accused may be incontrovertible and, yet, inadmissible in Court because, under the rules of evidence, the evidence that the prosecutor would like to use but cannot, is legally tainted.Thus, if a prosecutor does bring a case to trial, the prosecutor does so because the accused likely did commit the crime he or she was charged with, and the prosecutor has substantial, compelling, and admissible evidence to support a conviction.*Leftist activists, though, ever quick to condemn our system of laws, justice, and jurisprudence, in their zeal to promote the welfare of criminals over that of the safety and security of the law-abiding citizen, demonstrate their obliviousness to the heavy burden our legal system imposes on the State to prove the accused committed the crime he or she is charged with.Leftists routinely attack and constrain the police and concoct schemes to undermine our legal system. One such scheme involves bail reform. By ‘bail reform’ they mean doing away with the requirement of bail altogether, because they assume, erroneously, that the requirement for bail is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence platitude, which, as we explained, supra, doesn’t apply to pre-trial events at all. If the requirement of bail were incompatible with due process in all criminal proceedings, the Bill of Rights would have condemned the requirement of bail as inconsistent with a person’s necessary, fundamental, immutable, natural rights and liberties. Yet, that is not the case at all, as the Eighth Amendment makes abundantly clear. The setting of bail is permissible, but it cannot be excessive.

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

A seditious Press, like the NY Times, operating in flagrant disregard to news accuracy and truth, obsessively desirous of and complicit in achieving the Radical Left agenda, in service to millions of criminals and illegal aliens who daily dare to flaunt our laws—undermining our institutions, preying on our citizenry—argues for application of the prosecutorial burden at trial to pretrial events. Thus, a misunderstanding of the phrase “presumption of innocence” becomes the impetus for enactment of ludicrous laws and dangerous practices such as doing away with bail altogether and harboring a dismissive attitude toward prosecuting crime at all.Flash forward in time: NYC’s lackluster Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose bid for the DNC nomination for U.S. President quickly fizzled out, devised a plan to protect the criminal class: simply do away with the requirement for posting bail, while awaiting trial, and hamstring the police while you’re at it. The New York Post writes,“New York City voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that will boost a government watchdog’s oversight of the police department — coming just a day after the resignation of Police Commissioner James O’Neill and after years of tense cop-community relations.The amendment to the city constitution gives the Civilian Complaint Review Board more power to investigate cops it suspects lied to the panel regarding alleged brutality or other misconduct.“This slate of reforms will make the CCRB more efficient, make discipline more transparent, and bolster public confidence in the integrity of the agency’s process,” he said.But police unions fired back that the public’s decision undermined cops.“Today the NYPD was stabbed in the back by the very same people we swore to protect. With bail reform taking effect in January of 2020 and the passing of CCRBs political power grab, New Yorkers can only expect the NYPD to provide paralyzed policing on city streets,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins.O’Neill — who is leaving to take a private-sector gig in California — had been heard repeatedly warning others in law-enforcement that “It’s only going to get worse” under the changes, police sources have told The Post.”It’s wondrous strange that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims the public doesn’t need firearms for self-defense because, as he contends, the police provide the public with all the safety they need. At least this is what he told the political commentator Sean Hannity on Hannity’s nightly Fox News program.But now we learn that Bill de Blasio doesn’t even want the police to do a modicum of police work, as he hampers their work, second guesses their actions, and releases hundreds of individuals charged with serious crimes from jail without requiring bail, presenting a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry.And, lest we forget, New York City is making it next to impossible for average American citizens residing in New York to obtain a handgun license for self-defense. And Leftists contend they care about the value of human life? Really? It is as if the Leftists in their condemnation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms and in their hasty desire for criminal reform, do intend to leave the citizenry defenseless. But, then, this is all part of the Radical Left and New Progressive Left game plan: to conduct a scarcely soft revolution, to tear down our free Republic.We are even now seeing the results of the Leftist game plan tragically playing out in major cities across our Nation.______________________________*Corrupt prosecutors may, as we unfortunately learn, manufacture false evidence of a crime or fail to provide exculpatory evidence of innocence. That’s always a problem, and, on an “industrial” scale, a serious problem, dangerous to the integrity of our entire judicial system. The sham Mueller investigation is a casebook study of a massive prosecutorial corruption scheme instituted for the sole purpose of unseating a duly elected President and harming many law-abiding citizens on the way. Ruthless forces both here and abroad, that seek to destroy the Trump Presidency, planned and carried out this charade. And the charade continues today, now in the guise of a Congressional impeachment against Trump. The forces that seek to unseat Trump perceive his policy goals summed up in the campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again,”—which, for Radical Leftists, amounts to a four-word phrase obscenity—as incompatible with their own goal of a one-world system of governance. But these forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission don’t stop there. Through the despicable secretive actions of George Soros, a henchman of the Globalist “elite,” prosecutors of a different sort, who Soros has inserted into several City Governments: Radical Left activists or willing toadies of Soros and of the Radical Left, who won’t prosecute crimes, even serious crimes, at all. As reported by the Washington Times, these puppets of neoliberal, Globalist, Transnationalist forces—who include Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts—regularly refuse to prosecute crimes, thereby endangering the safety and well-being of the public and making a mockery of our entire system of law and justice. That, of course, is all in accord with the Radical Left’s plan intentionally to disrupt the judicial process to destroy our Country from within.______________________________________________

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

Just how far is the radical Left willing to go to carry out their vision for a new America? Well, let’s consider how far one Leftist, namely, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, is willing to go. The Wall Street Journal provides us with an inkling, reporting on May 28, 2019:“More teens accused of serious felonies will be released from jail without bail under New York City’s latest push to limit incarceration, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday.The new policy, which begins June 1, would affect hundreds of teens accused of serious crimes like assault, robbery and burglary, allowing them to be eligible for release without bail, while they await adjudication of their case.”Releasing dangerous people, charged with serious crimes, on the street, and, at once, hamstringing the police will hardly make the City safer.And doing away with bail altogether serves only to worsen the situation. Doing so is foolhardy and takes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which cautions that bail cannot be excessive, too far. The Eighth Amendment mandates only that the bail amount set must be commensurate with the crime. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment to suggest that the imposition of bail is inconsistent with due process in criminal proceedings.The Eighth Amendment sets forth:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”Obviously, bail has a basis in criminal law and procedure. It isn’t a mere legal nicety. It has a place in our criminal justice system to ensure the accused will appear for trial. A dollar amount set by the Court reflects the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. If the accused does not have funds on hand to meet bail, the accused has recourse to bail bondsmen.But Leftist activists like de Blasio have an agenda and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding our citizenry and preserving both a free Republic and the Constitution. The Leftist agenda has everything to do with tearing down our free Republic and rewriting the Constitution to cohere to the Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism—tenets at odds with those of Individualism upon which our Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic, rests.Recently, the New York Post reported:Nearly 900 city jailbirds could be celebrating Christmas early courtesy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a plan to quietly free them before the state’s bail-reform law goes into effect next year, The Post has learned.And if that weren’t enough of a gift, Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising to follow up with even more presents for the lucky accused criminals — by giving them free baseball tickets, movie passes and gift cards to encourage them to return to court, sources familiar with the program said.'You’re literally rewarding them for committing a crime,' said a disgusted senior staffer in Manhattan Criminal Court.The proposed early jail release is tied to a law that Cuomo signed in the spring to eliminate bail for defendants charged with an array of misdemeanor and felony crimes.The more than 400 offenses include such heinous acts as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault on a child under 11 and selling drugs on or near school grounds, according to a memo being circulated by prosecutors across the state and obtained by The Post.The law goes into effect Jan. 1 but it will be retroactive — meaning inmates who are already locked up on such cases can apply to have their bail lifted and to be freed.In the Big Apple, court officials estimate that 880 prisoners — about 16 percent of all pretrial detainees housed by the Department of Correction — will be eligible for the get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

Substantive and substantial legal Constitutional and Procedural safeguards and protections exist to protect the rights of the criminal accused at trial. We don’t need more. This would only serve to endanger the public.First, common law crime no longer exists in our Country. No conduct is illegal unless such conduct is set forth statutorily, in our State and Federal Criminal Codes. The elements of each crime are set forth clearly and unambiguously. To support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of a crime.Second, the accused enjoys substantial procedural safeguards under extensive State and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.Third, and most critically, the U.S. Constitution accords the accused a full panoply of substantive, fundamental, natural rights. Under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with rights laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, the accused has substantially more legal protections than those accorded the accused in any other Nation.Regardless, Radical left activists continue to malign our Constitution and our system of laws, contending that those charged with crimes don’t have enough legal protection. That notion is patently false; even ridiculous. But, why does the Radical Left constantly go on about the presumed inequities and iniquities of our criminal justice system? Is it that they truly care about what befalls serial criminals or do the motivations of Leftist activists lie elsewhere?

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

Radical Left groups and politicians, along with a seditious Press, foment societal confusion, dissension, and unrest. They encourage disrespect for our Constitution, our laws, our social and political institutions, our culture, our history, our core ethical Judeo-Christian values, and our National identity.Through a caustic, diabolically planned and orchestrated agenda, they seek to induce mass hysteria and rend the very soul and psyche of the Nation, thereby disrupting societal cohesion and creating societal instability. Thus, the polity becomes soft, malleable; and open to a completely new vision of reality: The Collectivists’ vision; a vision that entails the end of our Nation-State; the end of our fundamental, natural rights and liberties; and the insertion of the tatters that remain of our Nation into a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance where the polity sees itself subject to abject penury and misery, subjugation and harassment, and under constant surveillance.Leftists, swift to promote social justice for the criminal class, in their zeal to tear down the social order and to rebuild it in accordance with the tenets of Collectivism, the criminal class becomes a useful tool to accomplish their goals, and, so, dismiss the safety and welfare of the law-abiding citizenry.Thus, do Leftists show their disdain for the welfare of human beings, as they, one, release upon the citizenry, a plague of criminals, free to disrupt and harm; two, constrain the police, making it difficult for them to promote the public welfare; and, three, dispossess average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans of their firearms, leaving them defenseless in the face of the criminal element now given carté blanche to run amok in society. This, then, is a major component of the Leftist plan for the re-ordering of society.Would these Leftist policies establish a Socialist or Communist Utopia? If so, what might that Utopia look like? Do you really want to know? Peer down at Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Do you like what you see? If so, you will be most happy to know this is what the Radical Left has in store for the entire Nation.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

8/20/19 8/20/19

INTRODUCTION TO ARBALEST QUARREL SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART ONE

“Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." ~Chuang Tse: XXIII, translated by the American writer, Ursula K. Le Guin; epigraph to Chapter 3 of her 1971 Sci Fi novella, “The Lathe of Heaven”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES WILL CRUSH AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION IF THE NATION CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE THEY SPOUT, FOR IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE; AND HAVING NO WISDOM TO IMPART, THEY HAVE NOTHING OF NOTE TO SHARE

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

Never in our history, since the birth of the Nation itself, has our Nation faced a direct threat to its survival as it is facing today. This isn’t hyperbole. This is fact. Even in the face of the ravages of the American Civil War, and the calamity of the Second World War, and the threat posed to our Nation by Russia during its existence as the once powerful Soviet Union, during the Cold War era, has this Nation come closer to Armageddon. This fact is plain as day, on constant display, having commenced on the very day the Presidency of Donald Trump began—on noon EST on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.Jealous and powerful elements both here and abroad have mobilized and joined forces to bring Trump down and have failed miserably. They are apoplectic over their consistent failures, and have been raging ever since.Immensely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, abjectly ruthless, sinister, secretive forces, residing both here and abroad, have operated in concert to attack Trump’s Presidency and by extension to attack millions of Americans who voted for him in the General Election of 2016.These rapacious forces are ever devising and orchestrating, machinating and scheming. And they do so through the amalgam of: a duplicitous and compliant Press; treacherous and hypocritical politicians; recalcitrant and poisonous Federal Government bureaucrats; pestilential sympathizers in the entertainment business; virulent and violent and bellicose Radical Left activists; injurious or lackadaisical jurists; a pernicious academia; rapacious technology chieftains; and a host of hangers-on and fellow travelers and Anti-American sympathizers among the polity, have—all of them—failed to bring destruction both to the man and the Nation. They have failed to topple Trump and to destroy his Administration; and they have failed to destroy the will of the American people; and, to date, they have failed, utterly, to convince Americans to relinquish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; albeit, not for want of trying; and they are still doggedly trying.The only thing these perfidious, treacherous, malevolent, abhorrent forces have succeeded in doing is to draw unwanted attention to their goal of sucking the lifeblood out of this Nation, in a naked attempt to bring the Nation to heel; into the fold of the EU; and eventually, inexorably, unerringly into the grip of a new trans-global, supranational political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; a new socialist world order ruled by a small cadre of sinister ministers, its heart resting in the interstices and bowels of Brussels.With 2020 hindsight the envious, fuming forces that had connived, threatened, and cajoled, albeit all for naught, to bring their stooge, the duplicitous, hypocritical, arrogant, and loathsome Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the seat of power in Washington, D.C., have licked their wounds and are intent on redressing their previous failure; to force the United States back on track toward realization of the goal of a one world socialist Government. And, if these ruthless forces succeed in placing their lackey, their factotum in the Oval Office, in 2020, everything this Nation has gained through the sacrifices of American patriots, from the American Revolution to the present day, will have been in vain. For, Americans will lose everything that has defined them and that has defined the Nation for over two hundred hears, commencing with loss of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the most sacred fundamental, immutable right of all.

WHAT CAN ALL OF US DO TO KEEP THE RADICAL LEFT ANTIGUN MOB FROM INFRINGING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, IMMUTABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Tell your Congressional Delegation, and your State and local Legislators that you expect them to honor their sworn oath and commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as this requires them to take action to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and that means protecting the natural right of self-defense. It also means that such firearms that are in common use including semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, as well as revolvers, should be available to the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen. How can we best to achieve this goal? We can achieve this goal by meeting the threat to our most sacred, sacrosanct right by meeting those who would destroy our Nation’s Birthright head-on. Tell your Congressional Delegation to recommit to passing National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation.The most effective way to attack antigun Radical Leftists seeking to weaken the Second Amendment that it may wither on the vine, is not—as all too many Republicans have been seen doing—by capitulating to the Radical Left on the issue of gun ownership and gun possession; nor is it by sheepishly agreeing with and groveling to Radical Left antigun politicians in the Democratic Party and to Grassroots antigun activists. Doing so won’t serve to preserve our sacred right, but, rather, will compromise our sacred, unalienable right. No! We must not capitulate and we must convince Republicans in Congress not to capitulate to the antigun mob. They must never capitulate.

WE CANNOT SECURE OUR NATION BY RELINQUISHING OUR FIREARMS BUT WE SHALL SURELY LOSE OUR NATION FOR HAVING DONE SO

Americans cannot preserve the Second Amendment by negotiating with those intent on destroying it. And the Radical Left, along with the inordinately wealthy Globalist elites, who lust for world domination, have no intention of preserving the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in any form. Consider: no American can any longer easily and readily obtain a machine gun, submachine gun, selective fire assault rifle, short barrel shotguns and rifles, since they are all stringently regulated by the Federal Government. Even though these rifles, shotguns, and other firearms are personnel weapons, they are no longer readily available to the public, as the availability of these weapons went out the door with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), over eighty years. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has repeatedly stated, the assault on “assault weapons” is an attack on all semiautomatic weapons, as the Radical Left antigun mob is aggressively mounting a campaign to ban all of them, not just some of them. Recently, the Radical Left “Mother Jones” made this very point. The title of the article, written by the Blogger, Kevin Drum, says it all: “We Need to Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms.”At least the guy is being honest, and not pretending to convey the impression that most Radical Left antigun proponents attempt to convey to the public, namely, that they wish to ban only some semiautomatic weapons, not all of them, just “weapons of war,” qua “assault weapons.” Were the antigun mob to get their way, an effective ban on some semiautomatic weapons would lead eventually and invariably to a ban on all semiautomatic weapons. And, from there, the Radical Left antigun mob would move for a ban on revolvers, single action and double action; and, on and on, to a ban on single shot firearms and black powder muzzle loaders. The Radical Left intends to confiscate all firearms, thus essentially negating lawful exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The best way to defend the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms is by clashing with the Radical Left elements in Congress and in the populace who seek to destroy it—bringing the fight directly, unabashedly, unreservedly, and forcefully to them.Keep uppermost in mind: the goal of the Radical Left is the same as the goal of transnationalist Globalist Elites. For, they both seek to undermine the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State—to transform the Nation into a Socialist haven for millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of our Nation’s history or any appreciation for our Nation’s Constitution, or of the nature of natural rights upon which our free Republic is grounded. The Radical Left and the transnationalists Global elite have no desire to educate illegal aliens, or even legal immigrants, for that matter, that they may readily assimilate; for, to do so, would defeat the aim of the Radical Left and the transnationalist Global elites, as they are in agreement on what they both seek to accomplish. They seek to effectuate a massive political, social, cultural, and economic transformation of our Country and, thereby, to bring the United States into the fold of the European Union. This was already underway during the Obama era, and it was to continue under Hillary Clinton, had she been “crowned” President.Fortunately, the Clinton Presidency bid failed. But, undaunted, the rapacious forces, that have sought ever to destroy this Nation, fervently desire to get back on track and to get back on track quickly, if need be, no later than 2020. They could not do so to date, try as they did, orchestrating a complex strategy directed to impeaching President Trump and removing him from Office. That didn’t happen. And it isn’t going to happen. But, there is no guarantee that these anti-American forces won’t succeed in sitting a Democratic Party stooge in the White House in 2020, and they are plugging away to do just that. But, in the interim, with their plan of undermining the sovereignty of our Nation—if not sooner, then later—they know they must weaken the Bill of Rights. And to do so, they know they must commence with de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. We see this occurring with the latest call for new curbs on semiautomatic weapons that the Radical Left subsumes under the false vernacular of ‘assault weapon.’ We see it in the Radical Left’s call for universal background checks, whatever that means. And, we see it in the call for application of so-called “Red Flag” laws, throughout the Nation.As the Arbalest Quarrel has previously stated, antigun groups have undertaken three salient tactics in their aggressive assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and these tactics are always taken out of the closet whenever a mass shooting occurs, as such a tragic event operates as a useful pretext for through which the Radical Left antigun zealots assail the Second Amendment again and again.Their tactics include, first, expanding the domain of banned firearms. Americans see this in the ferocious, noxious, incessant attack on semiautomatic firearms, aka, assault weapons.Their tactics include, second, expanding the domain of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess any firearm. Americans see this in the attempt to impose draconian, unconstitutional “Red Flag” laws on thousands of average, law-abiding American citizens. Red Flags operate by turning this Country into a Nation of spies, Shoo-flies. Doing so is the hallmark of the Totalitarian State, where people spy on others and pry into the affairs of others.And, their tactics include, third, making it increasingly difficult for Americans to exercise the right to keep and bear arms—increasingly difficult for those Americans who don’t otherwise fall within a statutory prohibition preventing them from owning and possessing firearms or fall victim to oppressive Red Flag laws.This third tactic involves making gun ownership and possession an administratively demanding, daunting, onerous, expensive, and psychologically depressing experience and proposition for gun owners, as gun owners will never know when something they do or something they say might tend to negatively impact continued exercise of their Second Amendment right. Radical Left antigun elements in our Nation, along with their transnationalist benefactors, know that one major stumbling block to defeating the Second Amendment and, in fact, one major stumbling block in compromising any of the other Nine Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise our Bill of Rights, is to effectuate a change in the way in which Americans view their Bill of Rights, to change their mindset. What does that mean? Just this: The founders of our Free Republic perceived the Bill of Rights to comprise laws intrinsic to man. That is to say, the founders perceived the rights, codified in the Bill of Rights, to precede the creation of the Nation. They perceived the rights as an indelible part of the psyche of man. And, what does that mean? It means that the first Ten Amendments comprise rights and liberties bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. This is what the founders meant by referring to the rights as fundamental, unalienable, and immutable. Since such rights are not created by man, no man can lawfully or morally rescind those rights. This proposition entails that Government, as a man-made construct, cannot lawfully or morally rescind the rights embodied the Bill of Rights, either.For the Radical Left and their transnationalist benefactors, these ideas, that serve both as the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, and the cornerstone of individual autonomy, are an anathema. That is why they feel obliged to ignore, modify, abrogate or utterly erase any Right set forth in the Bill of Rights, when circumstance, as they see it, dictates, or mere fancy happens to affect them. For both the Radical Left and for their transnationalist benefactors, no rights and liberties exist that are not perceived as man-made, bestowed on man by other men or by Government; and, so, they perceive nothing in rights and liberties and laws that isn’t subject to refinement or outright abrogation. This is a very dangerous viewpoint; one that is at loggerheads with the very preservation of our Nation as a free Republic; and one that is at loggerheads with the idea of the dignity and autonomy of man.We will explore these ideas in depth in the next several articles, utilizing the assertions and policy statements of two Radical Left “Potentates,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and U.S. Senator (D-CA), Kamala Harris, as examples of the logically unsound underpinnings of the Collectivist ideology that the Radical Left embraces.We will demonstrate, through an analysis of their assertions and policy statements, the true danger the Radical Left poses to our Nation, to its Constitution and to its people. By extension we will show how the assertions and policy positions of the Radical Left are incoherent and nonsensical, and that, on logical grounds, alone, do not provide an intellectually satisfactory and morally and legally sustainable basis for transformation of this Nation in the way and manner they seek.The Socialist Utopian dream that both the Radical Left and the Globalist “elites” envision, as bringing public order and comfort to its inhabitants, is doomed to failure. Indeed what it is they truly seek to accomplish is more likely a cold calculated ruse in which to bind this Nation to other Western Nations, in a reprehensible attempt to effectuate a one world Socialist union of once independent nation-states. In that effort, if they succeed, we will witness the dire realization of a Radical Left Socialist Dystopian nightmare; a nightmare that will bring misery, remorse, and profound unease to us all.__________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

2/25/18 2/25/18

THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL TRAGEDY MAKES THE CASE FOR ARMED SELF-DEFENSE.

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy, the mainstream Press, echoing the sentiments of antigun activists and antigun legislators, focused the public’s attention on two subjects: guns and mental illness. Antigun activists argue that guns and mental illness are both intractable. Mix the two like a cocktail and you have a recipe for disaster. That, as maintained by antigun activists, accurately explains the cause of the mass shooting incident at the Parkland, Florida High School. But does it?In an editorial, appearing in The New York Times on February 24, 2018, titled, “I Can’t Stop Mass Shooters,” by Amy Barnhorst, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis, admitted the conundrum. The author writes, “Each mass shooting reignites a debate about what causes this type of violence and how it can be prevented. Those who oppose further restrictions on gun ownership often set their sights on the mental health care system. Shouldn’t psychiatrists be able to identify as dangerous someone like Nikolas Cruz. . . ? And can’t we just stop unstable young men like him from buying firearms? It’s much harder than it sounds.”The author has no answer other than the perfunctory, putting “some distance between these young men and their guns.” But, would that prevent mass violence? Clearly, it would not even if this seems plausible to some. Signs of mental illness in a person do not automatically mean a person has violent tendencies. Conversely, those individuals who not fall within one or more listed categories in the latest version of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (“DSM-5”)—the Psychiatrist’s Bible—may have violent tendencies.

FROM AN EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT, DISPOSSESSING CIVILIANS OF THEIR GUNS WILL DO NOTHING TO CIRCUMVENT VIOLENT CRIME.

“The reality is that mass shootings are very rare and that neither mental illness nor mass shootings are a significant cause of gun violence. Individuals with a serious mental illness only account for approximately 4 percent of all violent crime in the United States, the majority of which is not committed with a firearm. Furthermore, individuals having no history of mental illness committed a number of these mass shootings. With mental illness representing such a small fraction of gun violence, gun-control efforts focused solely on the mentally ill are ‘unlikely to significantly reduce overall rates of gun violence in the United States.’” “The New York Safe Act: A Thoughtful Approach To Gun Control, Or A Politically Expedient Response To The Public's Fear Of The Mentally Ill?”, 88 S. Cal. L. Rev. 16, 43-44 (2015), by Matthew Gamsin, J.D. Candidate, 2015, University of Southern California Gould School of Law.Despite this evidence, antigun activists nonetheless vehemently call for general bans on the sale of semiautomatic “assault weapons” and are specifically targeting those individuals deemed to have mental illness, which may very well raise due process and equal protection issues for millions of Americans. Were these steps taken, violence would still ensue. Consider:“On April 15, 2013, two homemade bombs detonated 12 seconds and 210 yards (190 m) apart at 2:49 p.m., near the finish line of the annual Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring several hundred others, including 16 who lost limbs. On April 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released images of two suspects, who were later identified as Kyrgyz-American brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev.” “The Oklahoma City bombing was a domestic terrorist truck bombing on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States on April 19, 1995. Perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the bombing killed 168 people, injured more than 680 others, and destroyed one-third of the building.” “Eight people were killed and almost a dozen injured when a 29-year-old man in a rented pickup truck drove down a busy bicycle path near the World Trade Center Tuesday in Manhattan, New York City. The suspect was identified by two law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation as Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov. He's from Uzbekistan in Central Asia but had been living in the US since 2010, sources said.” Whether these killers were mentally ill in a clinical sense or “normal,” they did not need a firearm to create havoc.Of course, antigun activists and their cheerleaders in the mainstream Press and in Congress argue that civilized Countries place restrictions on civilian access to guns and that doing so would constrain a killer’s access to one lethal instrumentality. Still, antigun activists must contend with the legal ramifications of attempting to curtail civilian access to firearms in a Country where the citizenry's rights and liberties, codified in a Bill of Rights, cannot be so easily dismissed.

INDISCRIMINATELY DISPOSSESSING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THEIR GUNS WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN THE LANDMARK SECOND AMENDMENT HELLER CASE, HELD THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, NOT CONNECTED TO SERVICE IN A MILITIA. FURTHER, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT EMBODIES ARMED SELF-DEFENSE. AND FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE, CIVILIAN DEFENSE OF ARMS IS PRESSING BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE POLICE ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO SAFEGUARD THE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS ON EACH PERSON.

Antigun activists retort that nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an American citizen to own and possess an “assault weapon.” But, is that true?First, the concept of ‘assault weapon’ is a legal fiction that encompasses a wide range of weaponry. On examination it becomes clear that antigun proponents and activists are not merely targeting some semiautomatic weapons; they are targeting all semiautomatic weapons. The legal issue is whether semiautomatic weapons in common use—which include firearms defined as 'assault weapons'—fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on this. But, that does not mean Government, State or Federal, may presume semiautomatic weapons, especially those firearms referred to as “assault weapons,” do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Second, a corollary to the basic, unfettered, natural right codified in the Second Amendment is that American citizens have a right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Antigun activists argue that armed self-defense is unnecessary because it is the duty of the police to safeguard the lives and well-being of the citizenry. But do police departments, as government entities, really have that duty? They do not!“No inquiry is more central to constitutional jurisprudence than the effort to delineate the duties of government. The courts' approach to this complex subject has been dominated by reliance on a simple distinction between affirmative and negative responsibilities. Government is held solely to what courts characterize as a negative obligation: to refrain from acts that deprive citizens of protected rights. Obligations that courts conceive to be affirmative—duties to act, to provide, or to protect—are not enforceable constitutional rights. “The Negative Constitution, A Critique,” 88 Mich. L. Rev. 2271 (August 1990) by Susan Bandes, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of law.The safeguarding of one's life is then a personal responsibility, not a police responsibility. Broward County residents, especially those high school students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, should have learned that lesson well. Many, obviously, have not as they--at the behest of their silent benefactors and choreographers of their political strategies, the antigun groups--act against their own best interests. They lash out at NRA, the very organization that serves them by protecting their sacred right of armed self-defense; and they call for civilian disarmament leaving them worse off. The duty of the Police is merely to safeguard, in some nebulous sense, the well-being of a community as a whole, not the lives of the individuals who live in it. But, then, since Government has no affirmative duty to provide armed protection for each citizen, Government cannot, in good faith, deny the citizen the natural right of armed defense owed to one's self. If the public is to take away anything from the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy, it is this:The Broward County Sheriff’s Department and the first responders from the Coral Springs Police Department did an abysmal job. By the time the Coral Springs Police SWAT team arrived, it was too late. Lives had been lost. An investigation unfolds, but it means nothing; for, whatever the outcome, police departments do not have and never did have an affirmative duty to protect individuals within a community. They are immune from suit. This is not supposition. It is law.“Thus . . . a claim that police officers failed to protect a particular individual from injury by nongovernmental actors is generally not cognizable; a successful claim would require sufficient prior contacts between police and the individual to indicate a specific undertaking or promise by the police to provide protection and detrimental reliance by the individual. Absent such facts, there is generally no liability for failure to enforce laws and regulations intended to benefit the community as a whole, failure to provide police or fire protection, or failure to inspect." Affirmative Duties, Systemic Harms, and the Due Process Clause, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 982, 999-1000 (February, 1996), by Barbara E. Armacost, Professor of Law, University of Virginia.The first and last line of adequate defense both inside the home and outside it is, as it always was, as the framers of our Constitution knew full well and as they provided for: armed self-defense.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

Call your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives. Tell them this: “if you want my support, then vote for national handgun carry reciprocity now.”PHONE U.S. SENATE: (202) 224-3121;PHONE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

11/23/16 11/23/16

CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE FIFTY STATES AND IN ALL U.S. TERRITORIES MUST BECOME A REALITY.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE FIFTY STATES AND IN ALL U.S. TERRITORIES MUST BECOME A REALITY.

PART TWO

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE IS EMBODIED IN OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

The instinct for self-preservation is primary, primal, primordial. We take that statement as axiomatic, self-evident, true. It is fact, a given. The assertion requires no proof. A person need look but to his or her own response to a threat of attack to recognize the inherent truth of the assertion.A rational person will defend his or her life against any threat to that life. The urge to defend one’s life against a threat to it stems from the instinct for self-preservation. Those assertions, too, are axiomatic, self-evident, true. The assertions require no proof and they require no justification.Since we take, without need for proof or justification, the urge to defend one’s life from external harm as natural and universal, we draw from that notion a normative, ethical prescription. It is this: a person has the right to defend his or her life from threat of harm, and will do so. Most people, we think, would agree with this assertion as well.But, consider the assertion, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The assertion embodies two correlates. The first correlate is that a person has the inherent right of self-defense. The second correlate is that a person has the right to defend one’s life with a firearm. The first correlate is simply a reiteration of the aforesaid assertion that, “a person has the right to defend his or her life from threat of harm, and will do so,” which most people, we postulate would, accept as true without need for proof.Some people, though, namely, those who accept the rhetoric of antigun zealots would object to the second correlate. We, though, do not; nor would the founders of our Republic. For us, as with them, the natural right to defend one’s life with a firearm is axiomatic, self-evident, true. The truth of the assertion derives, straightforwardly, from the instinct for self-preservation. We need not proffer proof or justification for the truth of the second correlate.The firearm is the most effective means to defend one’s life, and the founders of our Republic knew this. The founders of our Republic codified this natural right of self-defense in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right of the people to defend one’s life with the most effective means of doing so is prominently etched in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.The Second Amendment is one of ten basic, principal rights and liberties set forth in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a critical part of the Nation’s Constitution; and, our Nation’s Constitution would not be complete without it. For, our Bill of Rights operates as a check on federal Government power. Our Constitution establishes a Government, beholden to and answerable to the American people. The Bill of Rights makes that point poignantly clear. The Nation’s Constitution establishes a federal government, and establishes, as well, the parameters of the powers and authority of the three Branches of Government. But, the Constitution that creates the federal Government and that establishes the powers and authority of each Branch, does not also create the predicate rights and liberties of the People.The rights and liberties of the People predate the Constitution. Our sacred rights and liberties exist intrinsically in the very being of each American citizen. The Constitution didn’t create or ordain our fundamental rights and liberties. And, Government did not bestow those rights and liberties on us. So, neither the Government, nor the Constitution, can take our sacred rights and liberties from us.The Bill of Rights operates essentially as both an acknowledgement of the existence of our sacred rights and liberties—lest any Government functionary attempt to proscribe our rights and liberties—and as a constant reminder to those in the Government, that Government operates at the pleasure of the People. That means the People can dismantle Government when Government oversteps its authority and operates in accordance with its own mandate, contrary to the Will of the People.Government functionaries must understand they are not to toy with our sacred rights and liberties; nor are they to undercut any of our sacred rights and liberties. Yet some Government officials do just that. They believe that our Bill of Rights can be shaped, molded, changed, even done away with.They are wrong. Americans have demonstrated how out-of-touch such people are. With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. President, a vast swathe of the American populace has made abundantly clear: we want our Country back, and we will take our Country back from those, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe, essentially, that they operate by divine right. They most certainly do not.Our Bill of Rights and, especially our Second Amendment, exist as essential codifications of natural rights that remain as vibrant and as true today as they did during the birth of our Nation. Our public Officials cannot undermine, them, disregard them, or repeal them—ever! Hillary Clinton didn’t heed the warning. She sought, through the power of the mainstream media to persuade the American public to disavow its birthright, to passively permit its fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to be forfeited, done away with. Neither she, nor her powerful, wealthy sponsors appreciated the intelligence and determination and resolve of millions of Americans.

WE, AMERICANS, ARE AT A CROSSROADS.

The American people have seen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms eroded under the Obama Administration. With the election of Donald Trump as our 45^th President, we have thrown a wrench in the antigun agenda. For the moment, we have stopped the ruthless internationalist benefactors who fund the antigun agenda.With defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the antigun forces have lost their principal ally, their principal weapon for defeating the Second Amendment. The antigun forces are weakened but not undone.The paramount aim of national and international antigun efforts is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Make no mistake about that. They aim to destroy gun ownership and possession in our Country. That means they seek to undercut the individual’s right of self-defense. What is their motivation? The answer is simple. They seek to break the back of our National resolve, of our heritage, of our culture, of our National identity. If they can destroy our most sacred, natural right, they have eliminated a core, defining attribute of our Nation—the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our Nation, as an independent, sovereign Republic would, if they were successful, totter on its very foundation.So, we know the impetus for the antigun forces. But, why do many average, law-abiding citizens fall prey to the messaging of the antigun forces?We discuss this in Part Three of the Arbalest Quarrel’s comprehensive multipart series on National concealed handgun carry. We also explain in Part Three how the Arbalest Quarrel has fought the myriad lies about firearms and about our Second Amendment as fomented and perpetrated on the American people by powerful, ruthless, internationalists and by antigun zealots and by those who, through their ignorance, support the actions, policies and goals of antigun groups, operating, as they do, through the mainstream media and through their puppets in Government.By exposing, to the light of day, the lies perpetuated by those bent on destroying our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, we succeed in strengthening our Second Amendment. It therefore will come to pass that we will see universal concealed handgun carry in the Nation’s fifty States and in the Nation’s sixteen territories. Understand, this will become a reality but only if the resolve of the American people never wavers. We must all do our part if we are to be successful in our endeavor.[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.

Search 10 Years of Articles

MULTIPART SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

PART TWENTY-FIVE

THE TYRANT EVER DISTRUSTS THE ARMED CITIZEN

“SENSITIVE PLACE” AND “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER”

THE NUANCES OF “SENSITIVE PLACE” RESTRICTIONS

NUANCES OF THE “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” REQUIREMENT

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

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

HOW IS IT THAT AMERICANS ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE LED BY POLITICIANS WHO SEEK THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC, THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, OUR SOVEREIGNTY, OUR HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, AND OUR ETHOS?

MULTISERIES

THE SECOND AMENDMENT BRUEN CASE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE TO BE DECIDED THIS 2021-2022 TERM

NEW YORK OPENLY DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT BRUEN DECISION

PART NINE

PREFACE TO DEEP ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK’S RESPONSE TO BRUEN DECISION

FIRST: THE BRUEN RULINGS ARE VITAL TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE

SECOND, NEW YORK’S “PROPER CAUSE” GUN LAW REQUIREMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND IT IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE

THIRD, AN ARMED CITIZENRY IS VITAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OVER GOVERNMENT: THE DISRUPTION OF IT IS MEANT TO T

FOURTH, THE BRUEN CASE CAME ABOUT BECAUSE TOO MANY STATES AND COURTS REFUSED TO COHERE TO THE STRICTURES OF HELLER AND MCDONALD

THE BRUEN CASE DEMANDS THE PUBLIC’S ATTENTION LEST THE PUBLIC LOSE BOTH THEIR NATURAL LAW RIGHT AND THEIR COUNTRY

WHAT IS BRUEN ALL ABOUT?

PROPER CAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS IN NEW YORK GUN LAW BUT ITS REPLACEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, LEAVES NEW YORKERS WORSE OFF THAN UNDER THE PRESENT GUN LAW

PART TEN

THE NEW YORK GUN LAW IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND

THE TAKEAWAY

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND ON PROBLEMS ATTENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY'S CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SCHEMA

PART FOUR

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

PART ONE

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

PART TWO

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

PART THREE

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

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

PART FOUR

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

PART FIVE

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

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

PART SIX

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

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

PART EIGHT

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

PART NINE

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

PART ONE

THE UNITED NATIONS IGNORES ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; THE UNITED STATES EMBRACES IT

PART TWO

WHERE ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS ABSENT, TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE

THE CITIZEN MUST BE EVER ON GUARD OF GOVERNMENT THAT PROMISES HARMONY, SAFETY, AND TRANQUILITY IF HE BUT SURRENDER ALL ARMS TO THE STATE

PART THREE

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

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES WILL CRUSH AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION IF THE NATION CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE THEY SPOUT, FOR IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE; AND HAVING NO WISDOM TO IMPART, THEY HAVE NOTHING OF NOTE TO SHARE

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

WHAT CAN ALL OF US DO TO KEEP THE RADICAL LEFT ANTIGUN MOB FROM INFRINGING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, IMMUTABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

WE CANNOT SECURE OUR NATION BY RELINQUISHING OUR FIREARMS BUT WE SHALL SURELY LOSE OUR NATION FOR HAVING DONE SO

FROM AN EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT, DISPOSSESSING CIVILIANS OF THEIR GUNS WILL DO NOTHING TO CIRCUMVENT VIOLENT CRIME.

INDISCRIMINATELY DISPOSSESSING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THEIR GUNS WOULD NOT HOLD UP TO LEGAL SCRUTINY.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE FIFTY STATES AND IN ALL U.S. TERRITORIES MUST BECOME A REALITY.

PART TWO

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE IS EMBODIED IN OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

WE, AMERICANS, ARE AT A CROSSROADS.

PROPER CAUSE NO LONGER EXISTS IN NEW YORK GUN LAW BUT ITS REPLACEMENT, TO TAKE EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 2^ND, LEAVES NEW YORKERS WORSE OFF THAN UNDER THE PRESENT GUN LAW