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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR HOCHUL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE BRUEN DECISION — “IT’S LIKE DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN,” IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF YOGI BERRA

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

MULTISERIES

PART TWO

“I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.” ~ Closing paragraph of Part One of Justice Alito’s Concurring Opinion in BruenThere are two key components of Bruen. One involves the test that Federal, and State Courts must employ when they are called upon to review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second involves the matter of “proper cause”/ “may issue” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and that was the central topic of concern at oral argument in Bruen. And Bruen impacts other jurisdictions around the Country that have similar handgun licensing structures. As we all know, the High Court in Bruen struck down the foundation of the New York's concealed handgun carry license regime—the salient constituent of which is the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license component. Few people in New York "are privileged" to hold such valued and rare licenses, as those that have them can rely on handguns for self-defense in the public sphere, i.e., outside the home as well as inside it—a right denied to most all New York residents.First things first. We deal with the test that reviewing Courts must use when reviewing Governmental actions impacting 2A. The U.S. Supreme Court did articulate in Heller the test to be utilized by the Federal and State Courts when reviewing Governmental actions impacting the Second Amendment, but all too many Courts demonstrated a barely disguised antipathy toward it, or otherwise exhibited a tired apathy apropos of it. In either case such jurisdictions resorted to their own case precedent.The appropriate test to be employed—the Heller test—involves a two-step process.The first step is easy or should be easy if a reviewing Court doesn’t make what is a simple matter difficult.A reviewing Court first ascertains whether the Governmental action conflicts with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. This means simply that the Court looks to see if the Governmental action affects the Second Amendment at all. If the Governmental action impacts on the individual right to keep and bear arms, then, the first part of the test is met. The Government action is presumed unconstitutional and the burden to prove that the action is constitutional rests on the Government, not on the individual asserting the right to be exercised—the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Thus, in the second part of the test, the Government must prove that the action is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm’s regulation. If the Government fails to establish historical precedent, then the regulation must be struck down.Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said this:“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”Pay close attention to the phrase, “we reiterate” as utilized by Justice Thomas in the main Majority Opinion and as also utilized by Justice Alito in his Concurring Opinion. In colloquial parlance, the word, ‘reiterate’ means ‘to say something again or several times, typically for emphasis or clarity, and often alluding to a feeling of weariness for having to do so.’ Such is the reason for the term’s appearance in Bruen and such is the profound frustration apparent in the Majority Opinion. By using the word, ‘reiterate,’ in Bruen, the High Court expressed its disdain with the lower Courts for continually failing to heed Heller. This may be due to antipathy, even spite toward the Heller decision. Or it may be due to ignorance, apathy or sloppiness, or philosophical leanings, or stubborn adherence to lower Court precedence. That it happens at all is a dreadful thing—thus the need for Bruen—and, still, we see the Federal Government and State Governments and State and Federal Courts contending with Heller and with McDonald, and intending now to contend with Bruen, as well. How many cases must the U.S. Supreme Court hear before Government gets the message: that the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is a natural law right: fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute?Heller laid out the test and the Majority Opinion stated that fact explicitly. —The point being that the High Court wasn’t positing a new standard of review of Second Amendment cases in Bruen, but it was merely confirming the test as promulgated in Heller that all too many lower Courts had heretofore failed to apply. And in that failure, the lower Courts were jeopardizing the sanctity of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.Justice Thomas, writing for the Court Majority, was telling those lower Federal and State Courts that had heretofore applied a ‘means-test analysis’ in Second Amendment cases—a test also referred to as an ‘interest-balancing approach’ or ‘interest-balancing inquiry,’ or, in Court vernacular, an ‘intermediate scrutiny test’ in testing the Constitutionality of a Governmental action—that those Courts had gotten it all wrong! Those lower Courts were giving their imprimatur to Governmental actions that all was well and good when nothing was well and good with those actions as they infringed the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The Courts should have struck those actions down. They didn’t. And in affirming the constitutional correctness of unconstitutional acts those Courts compounded their sin against the people and against the Divine Creator. For the Divine Creator had bestowed on man and in man the right of self-defense. And the general sacred right of self-defense subsumes armed self-defense, which is but a species of the Divine Right of personal survival of body, mind, and spirit against those people or Government that would dare to destroy or subjugate body, mind, or spirit to another’s will or to the will of the State over the Self.There are several examples of this failure to heed Heller, but the starkest example is Friedman vs. Highland Park, 784 F. 3d, 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert denied, 577 U.S. 1039 (2015). The Friedman case is particularly noteworthy, especially today, because the Court had the opportunity to deal head-on with the issue whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. Had the Court taken that case up, it would have ruled that “assault weapons” do fall within Second Amendment protection, and that would have saved the American people a lot of aggravation and heartache that is at present heaped on them by a treacherous and obstructionist Biden Administration, a treacherous, obstinate Democrat Party-controlled Congress, an obstreperous, perfidious legacy Press, and a painfully passive, acquiescent, obsequious, worthless Republican Party.Of course, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is a fiction. That’s all it ever was. It isn’t a military term of art, and never was a military term of art; and it isn’t and wasn't ever used in the arms industry as such either.Propagandists devised the term for politicians and a seditious Press for its effect on gullible members of the American public who allow the Government and the Press to do their thinking for them—seducing them through emotive words and images to sacrifice their God-Given Rights for nothing but an illusion of or false hope of security if they would but place their faith in the State to protect them, but from what is never made clear. What is clear is that the State wishes to protect itself from the armed citizenry, as it is the end goal of the State to oppress the citizenry, not provide for the citizenry's succor, much less its salvation. For salvation can only come from the Divine Creator anyway, not from the State—a false god, a fake, cardboard god.Propagandists originally meant to ascribe the expression, 'assault weapon,' to some but not all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. But, of late, especially with the latest Texas school shooting incident—with the Biden Administration, riding a wave of public anxiety and anger over public school shootings—the Administration has chosen to exasperate public anxiety rather than allay it, seeking to ban all semiautomatic weapons or placing them under the purview of the NFA and that means under the heavy hand of the ATF. And this is as we at AQ had predicted long ago.But this would all be a non-issue if the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on “assault weapons” in the years following the Heller decision. The Court certainly had the chance to do so in the Friedman case. And, God knows, Justice Thomas for one wanted to deal with this matter, but obviously could not get support from the liberal wing of the Court or from the Chief Justice, John Roberts, or from Justice Kennedy both of whom had no stomach for establishing clearly and categorically the salient reason for the Second Amendment: which is that Government was created to serve the American people, not the other way around.An armed citizenry signals to Government that the people are Sovereign over Government and over their Nation, and that firearms provide the means by which Government must bow to the will and sovereignty of the people, whether Government reluctantly agrees to do so or not.It is a curious thing that the supporters of tyranny constantly complain about the firepower of modern semiautomatic weaponry, emphasizing in a hysterical way that such weapons are designed for the military—the standing army of the Federal Government. To be sure, that weaponry of the American citizen is supposed to be military weaponry, designed for just such a cataclysm: to prevent an unrestrained Government and its standing army, and its militarized police, and its vast intelligence apparatus that seeks to bend the citizenry to its will. The right of the people, and the duty of the people, and the ability of the people to resist Government oppression and subjugation is only feasible where the citizenry is armed, and armed to the hilt, and armed with military weapons. In fact, it is not just the semiautomatic weapons that Americans have a fundamental right to possess then; it is the selective fire weapons and fully automatic personnel weapons that Americans have a God-Given right to wield. Of course, a tyrannical Government would attempt to prevent the citizenry from having access to just that sort of weaponry by which the people might succeed in resisting tyranny. The NFA should be repealed; no question about that. Instead, the Harris-Biden Administration wants to extend its purview over semiautomatic weaponry and, of course, eventually over all weapons. A dire confrontation between the citizenry and the Government is inevitable if the Executive and Legislative Branches do not soon come to their senses and acknowledge that those that serve in those Branches of Government owe their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution as written, and to the American people they have a duty to serve. It is not the American people that must bow down or defer to these Government servants, much less deify them. It is they, the smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous servants of Government that need to be put in their place, and that place may well be the chopping block.______________________________________

THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” TEST CASE: WILL NEW YORK REVERT TO “INTEREST-BALANCING” AFTER BRUEN TO SAFEGUARD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME?

PART THREE

As explained by the Seventh Circuit in Friedman, “The City of Highland Park has an ordinance (§136.005 of the City Code) that prohibits possession of assault weapons or large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” See AQ article published May 1, 2018, for further explication of Government failure to recognize the Constitutionality of civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons, derogatorily and erroneously referred to as “assault weapons.” The High Court in Heller ordered Courts not to utilize interest-balancing when reviewing the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment. That was explicit. The Seventh Circuit used that test anyway and found the ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment. That was hardly surprising. Whenever a reviewing Court uses interest-balancing to test the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment, the Court invariably finds an unconstitutional act to not violate the Constitution. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court dispensed with interest-balancing. When a Court uses that test, it gives the illusion that the Court is truly balancing the interests between the State action and the individual right. But the individual right always loses to the State action. That is inevitable. To add insult to injury, the Seventh Circuit was using the very test that Justice Breyer championed in Heller, and which he referred to again, in Bruen. But Breyer was writing a dissenting opinion in Heller, and he stuck with it in Bruen. A dissenting opinion isn't the Court's holding. But many jurisdictions wanted the dissenting opinion to operate as a holding in Second Amendment cases. And so, they pretend the dissenting opinion in Heller was the majority ruling opinion. It is incredible. Such rulings of lower Courts utilizing a test that the majority in Heller did not countenance and explicitly and emphatically refuted, would rely on that test, interest-balancing, anyway.In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit decided to go with the dissent’s reasoning rather than with the law as propounded by the Majority in Heller. Justice Thomas was justifiably furious. And he took the Seventh Circuit to task, and, by extension, tacitly chastised those members of the High Court who did not want to hear the case. Given its importance to the reasoning and ruling in Bruen we cite at length the comment of Justice Thomas in the Friedman case which the High Court refused to grant hearing on. Justice Thomas said, in substantial and pertinent part—with the late, eminent Justice Scalia joining him, “Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. . . .The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states,  which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits.  The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’  Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’  Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. . . .’ There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right [citations omitted; passim].”

THE HELLER TEST

Justice Thomas spent considerable time in Bruen outlining the Heller test so that there would be no doubt as to the standard of review lower Federal and State Courts must employ when a Government action impinges upon the Second Amendment. He said:“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. . . .”“In Heller, we began with a ‘textual analysis’ focused on the ‘normal and ordinary’ meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’—‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation that does not depend on service in the militia. From there, we assessed whether our initial conclusion was ‘confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. . . .’ We looked to history because ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.’ The Amendment ‘was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found ‘no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.’ We then canvassed the historical record and found yet further confirmation. That history included the ‘analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment’ and ‘how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century,” . . . . When the principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources was illegitimate ‘post enactment legislative history’. . . . We clarified that ‘examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification’ was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. . . .’”This boils down to the following:First, look at the plain meaning of the Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The militia clause sets forth simply a rationale for it—to inhibit the incursion of Tyranny in Government—which therefore emphasizes the need for the American people—as individuals—to keep Tyranny in check through the best means available: force of arms. In fact, this is the only way to keep Tyranny in check. And we see this now. Tyranny now exists in Government. Sadly, there’s no question about it.It is more than mere wish that drives Anti-Second Amendment usurpers to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms. It is abject fear, even panic, which motivates them to openly defy the transparent and categorical meaning of the Second Amendment.Among many Americans who had placed their faith in Government but who hadn't succumbed to Government's new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—upon which the Destroyers of our Nation, and of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people insidiously cloaked their aims to dismantle the Republic so that they may thrust the remains into the “NWO” a.k.a. “Neoliberal World Order” a.k.a. “International World Order,” a.k.a. the “Open Society,”—the truth is becoming known. Even the most obtuse of American sees that the Federal Government and that the Soros-funded State and local Governments are moving this Nation perilously close to destruction and oblivion. And it is much too late for these ruthless creatures that seek the demise of a free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people over Nation and Government to disguise that fact.The Bruen decision establishes the stakes for the American people. It is a zero-sum game. There is no compromise. There can be no compromise with a Tyrant. Americans have a fundamental God-Given unalienable right of armed self-defense against predatory beast, predatory man-beast, and predatory Government, i.e., tyranny. Heller and McDonald made this Truth plain. The Federal Government and many States refused to listen. So, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the right of armed self-defense. Will the Federal Government and the States listen? Judging by what we see from the actions of New York, the State Government intends to do war with Americans. Far from complying with Bruen, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany have no intention of complying with Bruen, any more than New York did with Heller and McDonald. In fact, Bruen makes gun ownership in New York worse, much worse, especially for those that wish to secure an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.The New York Government has told the U.S. Supreme Court plainly "to go to Hell," and they mean the same for those citizens who reside in New York who wish to exercise their God-Given right of armed self-defense. The danger to the security of a free State is currently very much in doubt. That is why we are spending considerable time on Bruen and will continue to do so in the next several installments, leading up to the critical Midterm Elections in November._________________________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

The secretive powers operating in the Harris-Biden Administration, along with the Democrat Party have forced Americans into a tight corner. The forces that have boxed in Americans know this to be true. They did this intentionally. They have thrown down their gauntlet. They fully expect a backlash. And they fully intend to counter it.The forces that crush have instituted a comprehensive and insidious program designed to contain and constrain dissenting Americans.Their program must have taken shape during the early days of the transition of Government in 2021. And it is now available for all to see. The PROGRAM—really a POGROM—targeting Americans who refuse to get on board with the game plan is contained in a lengthy document, titled: “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”This Document, recently made available to the public,  serves a dual purpose for the Harris-Biden Administration. It operates, one, as a Declaration setting forth the raison d’être for a Marxist Counterrevolution in this Country to overturn the American Revolution of 1776, and, operates,  two, as an express and brazen threat to the autonomy of the American citizen. Never before in American History has the Federal Government professed to declare war on its own citizens. In that regard, the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” goes much further than even the infamousU.S. Patriot Act, in presenting a direct threat to an American citizen's fundamental Rights and Liberties. See also the article on the U.S. Patriot Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.But who are these “Domestic Terrorists” that the Harris-Biden Administration has declared war against? In the broadest sense, a “Domestic Terrorist” is any American who professes disagreement with the Globalist/Marxist agenda.

ATTEMPTS AT OBFUSCATION DO NOT DISGUISE THE FACT THAT “DOMESTIC TERRORIST” REFERS TO ALL AMERICANS WHO ACTIVELY DISAGREE WITH AND WHO DISSENT FROM THE HARRIS-BIDEN AGENDA.

The expression “Domestic Terrorist” drags in a sizable portion of the American citizenry, at least a third of the Country, that cherishes the Nation's founding, formative Documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Articles, and the Bill of Rights—and takes them at face value, in accordance with the plain meaning of the language therein.And, what do these Documents proclaim and prescribe? They proclaim and prescribe the preeminence of liberty and personal autonomy and of the existence of natural, God-given rights that exist intrinsically in each person; rights that precede the formation of nations and of governments and make clear that the American people, themselves, and not the Government they happen to form, are the Sole Sovereign of their Nation, and that they alone have the God-given right to control their own destiny.This presents a conundrum for the Harris-Biden Administration, which is to say, a profound dilemma for those secretive, powerful insiders who are orchestrating and choreographing the Administration’s every move.One thing is clear: Those elements presently in control of the reins of the Federal Government do not perceive themselves as servants of the people but, rather, as master over them.The Harris-Biden Administration, the Democrat Party controlled Congress, the Bureaucratic Deep State, the Legacy Press, and the major social media and technology monopolies have dismissed the founding, formative documents of our Country, out-of-hand, and, in so doing, have effectively declared war on the American people.But, a sizable chunk of the American people, though, cherish and extol the tenets, principles, and precepts contained in the Nation’s sacred Documents. That means the American people pose a threat to Government. They must therefore be brought to heel lest they exert their sovereignty over the Government. Imagine that!The Nation’s founding Fathers—yes, dare we use the expression, “THE FATHERS” of the Nation—understood well that a massively large, powerful centralized Government would, if left to its own devices, eventually, inexorably, inevitably usurp from the people,  that sovereign power belonging only to the people.The Founding Fathers knew that, while a Federal Government with limited powers, assiduously demarcated among three salient Branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—may serve to forestall usurpation of power unto itself, the rise of tyranny would be inevitable. It would only be a matter of time. Only the presence of an armed citizenry could prevent this from happening, as the Founding Fathers well knew; hence the reason for the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an Amendment to the Constitution.It should come as no surprise to any American that the Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic would therefore mount a furious assault on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms.Not since the Nation’s inception in 1776, have the Obstructors of the Country come so close transforming it from a free Republic into an Authoritarian State—made all the easier through the use of information technology: technology that is capable of exerting vast control over content creation and dissemination of information, and the censure of it; technology that makes possible, the surreptitious, collection of private information and omnipresent surveillance of the Nation’s citizenry.The pillar of free speech, codified in the First Amendment and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, codified in the Fourth, are both suffering slow strangulation as a result of the application of technology on a massive scale.The public has little to say about the application of, and has even less control over, technological advances that allow Government to nullify the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.And powerful Liberal Progressive and Marxist interests in the Federal Government flagrantly violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, operating through major social media monopolies, that share Progressive Left and Marxist sympathies and goals. The result is a blatant, shameless, unethical, illegal censure of speech.These elements in Government and business, operating in concert, have been successful at constraining public discourse, in recent years, to an extent never before countenanced. And they intend to upend this Nation’s Constitutional Republic now and for all time.Concomitant with censure of speech, and contrary to the dictates of the First Amendment, destructive forces in Government and in the technology monopolies have unleashed a campaign of propaganda to turn American against American and to indoctrinate children and adult alike. No institution is free from the onslaught; not even the military.

WITH FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ESSENTIALLY ERADICATED, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER CONTINUOUS, RUINOUS, HARASSING ASSAULT, ONLY FREEDOM TO OWN AND POSSESS GUNS REMAINS, OBSTINATELY RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.

Only the right of the people to keep and bear arms effectively resists systematic and debilitating attempts by Progressive and Marxist influences to annihilate the exercise of this fundamental Right. But why is that? The reasons are plain. First, Americans recognize that no other Right defines them or the Country they are sovereign masters of, as the Right to own and possess firearms. So, Americans furiously defend that Right—more so than any other. Second, firearms are after all tangible implements, not intangible, digital objects, like words. It is not so easy for Government to purloin away one’s firearms as they have purloined away Americans’ private conversations and private documents and as they have systematically whittled away at the right of free discourse and free association among Americans of like kind.It’s impossible to take physical control over a citizen’s firearms surreptitiously. A person either has possession of them or he does not. And he will not so easily part with them. This angers the would-be Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic to no end.How does one effectively separate a person from his firearms without causing a bloodbath in the Nation? This isn’t simply a matter of academic exercise for the Destroyers of our Country. They are well aware that the presence of—the continued existence of—armed citizens poses a direct, imminent threat to the installment of a Marxist totalitarian State and submergence of the remains of a free Republic in a Globalist Marxist new world order. But they also know that any attempt at a wholesale round-up of firearms would result in revolt—that is to say, armed revolt!It follows that no compromise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logically sensical despite the remonstrations of “antigun” groups carping endlessly over the need for more “commonsense gun laws”—as if they mean only that and nothing more. The idea is absurd on its face. It is all mere rhetoric designed to deceive. Americans have had more than enough of this nonsense.The question is: Now that Americans know the extent to which a free Constitutional Republic is in the crosshairs for destruction, and that the Federal Government has essentially declared war on its own citizens' sacred Rights and Liberties, what are Americans going to do to safeguard their Bill of Rights and their sovereignty over Government?___________________________________

PART TWO

A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT LONG CONTAIN OR CONSTRAIN AN ARMED CITIZENRY.

If the American people are well-armed, then they can effectively, successfully resist Governmental attempts to control thought and action; they can effectively resist concerted efforts by tyrants to subjugate them; and they will always resist such efforts. But, if the American people are disarmed, they are defenseless before both two-legged predators and a predatory, tyrannical Government. So, the American people must continue to be well-armed. It is that simple.Thus, among those Destructive forces—neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements—who strive for firm Government control over the citizenry, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be merely constrained, exercise of the Right must be curtailed. But, because it is immensely difficult to curtail citizen ownership and possession of firearms outright, absent wholesale bloodshed, which is to be avoided, the liberal Progressive Left and Marxists have been forced to undercut the Right of the people to keep and bear arms through a gradual escalating legislative process.The Federal Government’s assault on the Second Amendment started in earnest almost ninety years ago, with the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As with all antigun legislation, the pretext for the enactment of the NFA was an attempt to prevent criminal gangs from engaging in shooting rampages with certain classes of weapons, primarily fully automatic weapons and so-called short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The impact this law had on crime reduction was and is negligible. Its greatest and gravest impact was on infringing law-abiding American citizens' right to possess those firearms.Apart from actions by several State Americans to continue to enact laws to restrict and constrain the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, the public was provided with a respite from the enactment of wholesale restrictive Federal firearms legislation for a period of sixty years, when Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That Act contained a subsection titled innocuously, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban,” the latter descriptor of which is more accurate and to the point.Once again, the public was told that the purpose of an assault weapons Ban was directed to curbing violent crimes committed with a certain category of guns. It did no such thing. It was all a lie, having nothing to do with constraining criminal use of firearms.All the Act succeeded in doing and was designed to do was to target average, law-abiding Americans, not to reduce violent gun crime. The salient if tacit purpose of the Act was to ban lawful ownership and possession of a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. The Act wasn’t designed to prevent gun crimes. And the banned firearms were not even utilized in the vast majority of gun crimes anyway.The law was set to expire ten years later, in 2004. It did expire and not surprisingly, it wasn’t renewed. The public wasn’t deceived and demanded access to semiautomatic firearms.Notwithstanding the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn’t stop Anti-Second Amendment forces in Congress to try to enact new laws restricting Americans’ access to semiautomatic firearms. They were relentless in their pursuit to curtail the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. And they continued their effort up to the present time. To date, all such attempts have failed, and that has frustrated the forces that seek to destroy this free Constitutional Republic and its sovereign people. It was therefore left to Anti-Second Amendment State Governments to fill the gap and States like New York and California did so, with relish.With the neoliberal Globalist Obama in the Oval Office, to be followed by Hillary Clinton, the Destroyers of an independent sovereign United States felt confident that they could gradually tighten the noose around the neck of the American people so that, by the time the citizenry realized they had lost their Nation, along with their Bill of Rights, it would be much too late for them to do anything about it.But Hillary Clinton didn’t make it into Office. Donald Trump did. And once the sobering reality of that had sunk in for the neoliberal Globalists and the Marxists, they no longer took for granted that they could work leisurely and quietly to reconfigure the institutions of the Nation; disregard the dictates of or redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit their goals; and implement their plans for a takeover of the Country incrementally.The forces that crush entire nations went to work on our own; frenetically, ceaselessly, assiduously, to sabotage Trump’s policy initiatives; engaging in a virulent media campaign of vicious personal attacks on him, on his family, on campaign officials, and on Americans who voted for and who avidly supported him, who had realized the singular importance of the Trump initiatives and policy goals and promises in getting the Nation back on track to regain its historical roots and sensibilities. Yet, all the efforts to dislodge Trump from Office met with abject failure and Trump was successful in realizing many of his goals.The forces that crush entire nations couldn’t understand Trump’s emotional strength; his resourcefulness, his fortitude; his resilience. The more vociferous and vicious the attacks became, the more implacable did Trump become.The public saw that Trump’s “America First” domestic and foreign policies actually benefitted the American people, Americans of all races. Trump was primed to win a second term in Office.The neoliberal Globalists and international Marxists would have not of that. And they pulled out all the stops to prevent that from happening.So, as a last resort, the enemies of the American people, both within the Republic and outside it, including likely the CCP and the EU Government in Brussels, machinated and conspired to prevent Trump from serving a Second Term. And they succeeded. Now, with Trump out of the way, and with Bush-era Republicans or otherwise meek Republicans offering no meaningful, substantial resistance to the agenda of Marxist Democrats, those Congressional Democrats are wasting no time consolidating their power over the Country and over the American people, before the 2022 midterm elections.

DEMOCRATS' TEN-PART PROGRAM TO CONSOLIDATE POWER AND GAIN CONTROL OVER THE NATION AND ITS CITIZENS

The Democrats' program involves, one, systematically corralling the voices of tens of millions of Americans; two indoctrinating the public in the tenets of Collectivism; three, consolidating control over the military and police; four, continuing to create mass upheaval and volatility in society with the assistance of criminal gangs, and Marxist and Anarchist agitators; five, maintaining dossiers on every person residing in the United States; six, inducing fear in the minds of all Americans that Government may designate them as “Domestic Terrorists” and commence to hound and harass them; seven, asserting Government control over the operation of the entire electoral process in order to control the outcome of elections; eight, continuing, indefinitely, an open borders policy, allowing a continuous deluge of illegal alien migrants and murderous drug cartel gangs to invade our Country, thereby further disrupting society; nine, creating the conditions for hyper-inflation to proceed, to reduce the mass of America to abject penury; and, ten, curtailing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to preclude the ability of the American people to revolt successfully against the inception of tyranny.Concerning the last item of business, expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.” ~ Yogi BerraIf you asked your fellow Americans to point to one defining moment in our Nation’s recent history, many would likely mention the attack on our soil in 2001, for obvious reason. Some Americans might point to Barack Obama as U.S. President, but not for anything he carried out—if he carried out anything of benefit to this Nation and its people—but because he served as the Nation’s first African-American President. Some people might mention the recession of 2008, and the bailout of major banks. Still others might point to the result of the general U.S. Presidential election in 2016. Depending on one’s political bent, that result is shocking and dreadful, or surprising and hopeful.But, for those who cherish our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights, the watershed moment came in 2008, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. The high Court held, in principal part, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, asserts an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. One would think a lengthy Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment would be unnecessary. The text of the Amendment is clear, concise, precise, and categorical.But the high Court’s affirmation does serve a purpose. It lays to rest any pretension the Second Amendment means other, or less, than it says. Sadly, the pretension lingers among many, despite this seminal Second Amendment case.Many defy and denigrate the high Court’s imprimatur: politicians, the mainstream news; entertainers; billionaire globalists both here and abroad; antigun coalitions; myriad Leftist groups; academicians; and jurists. They detest the Second Amendment, and wish to rid the Nation of it.It should not come as a surprise to Americans that the Democratic Party’s leadership, holding most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, plans to introduce a flurry of antigun bills in the coming months. The most ambitious concerns a ban on those semiautomatic firearms, referred to by the negative expression, “assault weapons.”But this push to ban an entire category of semiautomatic firearms in common use is nothing new. The late U.S Senator, Howard Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, who died in 2008, introduced a bill to control the sale and use of assault weapons in 1989. That Senate bill, 101 S. 386, failed.The House introduced similar bills that year. They, too, failed.However, in 1994, Congress did enact a semiautomatic firearms' ban, as part of The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The “Assault Weapons Ban” provision was codified in federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (v)(1). The law expired in 2004. It wasn’t reauthorized. The House then tried, in 2007, to resurrect a ban on semiautomatic firearms, introducing the “Assault Weapons Ban And Law Enforcement Protection Act Of 2007, 110 H.R. 1022.” That bill failed.After a lull, Democrats ramped up efforts. The 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy served as the pretext to ban an entire category of firearms, once again.Congress, though, often acts slowly. That’s a good thing when proposed legislation impinges on or infringes Constitutional rights and liberties. But, Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, unlike Congress, doesn’t act slowly. He doesn’t have to, and, he doesn’t want to, especially when an opportunity arises to further constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.New York’s Constitution provides a Governor the means to push the State Legislature to act quickly if he deems a matter an emergency. Article I, § 14 of the New York State Constitution sets forth:“No bill shall be passed or become a law unless it shall have been printed and upon the desks of the members, in its final form, at least three calendar legislative days prior to its final passage, unless the governor, or the acting governor, shall have certified, under his or her hand and the seal of the state, the facts which in his or her opinion necessitate an immediate vote thereon, in which case it must nevertheless be upon the desks of the members in final form, not necessarily printed, before its final passage. . . .”Governor Cuomo intended to act quickly to further restrict New York’s already draconian gun laws. He pushed for an immediate vote on the New York Safe Act of 2013. His statement to support emergency passage of the NY Safe Act, reads:“Some weapons are so dangerous, and some ammunition devices are so lethal, that New York State must act without delay to prohibit their continued sale and possession in the state in order to protect its children, first responders and citizens as soon as possible. This bill, if enacted, would do so by immediately banning the ownership, purchase and sale of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. For this reason, in addition to enacting a comprehensive package of measures that further protects the public, immediate action by the Legislature is imperative.”With the clout he wields in Albany, the measure passed, and the Governor signed the Safe Act into law on January 15, 2013. To herald enactment, he created a web page, devoted to glorifying his achievement.Then, on January 24, 2013, hardly a week after Governor Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, introduced a federal assault weapons ban, modeled on the Safe Act. Senator Feinstein expected Senator Harry Reid to include the assault weapons ban in the broad Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act Of 2013, 159 Cong Rec S 2699. That didn’t happen. Senator Reid felt its inclusion would reduce chance of passage of the broader gun control act. Senator Feinstein was livid. But, the Act failed on a Floor vote, 40-60, even without Feinstein’s assault weapons provision.Senator Feinstein then released a statement to the Press, barely restraining her anger:“I’m disappointed by today’s vote, but I always knew this was an uphill battle. I believe the American people are far ahead of their elected officials on this issue, and I will continue to fight for a renewed ban on assault weapons.The very fact that we’re debating gun violence on the Senate floor is a step in the right direction, and I hope my colleagues vote their conscience and approve the underlying bill. But I’m certain that in the coming months and years, we will be forced to confront other incidents like Newtown, where innocents are murdered with one of these weapons of war.I will carry on this fight against military-style assault weapons, and I ask of the American people that they continue to pressure their elected officials to take action. It’s long overdue that we take serious steps to remove these dangerous firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines from society.”In later years, Democrats, in the House and Senate, ever undeterred, tenaciously, rapaciously introduced semiautomatic firearms’ bans, one after the other, despite repeated failures—ever determined to rein in the Second Amendment. these bills included:The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015, 114 H.R. 4269  Imported Assault Weapons Ban of 2016, 114 H.R. 4748The Assault Weapons Ban of 2017, 115 S. 2095The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, 115 H.R. 5077They all failed. But, the antigun politicians remain undeterred. They aim to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms, however long it takes. The recent roll-out is drearily the same: same title, later date. This one is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019. Many of the usual cast of characters have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are considering a run as Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020.Not surprisingly, Senator Feinstein is the principal sponsor on this latest “assault weapons” bill, directed to an attack on semiautomatic firearms. Destroying our most sacred right has always been a high priority for Senator Feinstein and she is a prominent figure in all antigun legislation emanating from the U.S. Senate.According to Feinstein’s Press Release, issued January 9, 2019, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 is an “updated bill to ban the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.”  The Press Release then lays out the details. The House will likely release the bill shortly. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze it when the House does release it.

A NATION-WIDE BAN ON SOME SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS IMPERILS ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Antigun zealots desire nothing less than an end to firearms ownership and possession in America. This is not an exaggerated concern for those who cherish the Second Amendment.New York Times contributing columnist commentator, Brett Stephens has called for outright repeal of the Second Amendment. We may dismiss an excessive, incendiary remark from a news commentator. But, when a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice echoes that sentiment, Americans must take notice. Consider the remarks of retired Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, as reported in The New York Times:“Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”Retired Associate Justice Stevens always tied the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the militia. Read his dissenting opinion in Heller. But, the majority in Heller rejected Stevens’ premise.Americans should take antithetical remarks attacking the sanctity of the Second Amendment, seriously, especially when coming from powerful and influential people. The attorney, Christopher Keleher, in an academic article, titled, “The Impending Storm: The Supreme Court’s Foray into the Second Amendment Debate,” 69 Mont. L. Rev. 113, 154, (Winter 2008), published just months before the high Court’s decision in Heller, recited a litany of disturbing comments from members of Congress.“United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, commenting on an assault weapons ban, stated  ‘if I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.’ Former United States Senator Howard Metzenbaum complained that the same ban was insufficient, exclaiming, ‘until you ban them all, you might as well ban none. . . . [But, it] will be a major step in achieving the objective that we have in mind.’ United States Congressman William L. Clay proclaimed the 1993 Brady Bill was a ‘minimum step’ that Congress should take in its efforts to restrict firearms. Congressman Clay professed, ‘we need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.’ A fellow member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Bobby Rush, was also forthright in his strategy: ‘Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame.’ Senator Lincoln Chafee was no less bashful when he asserted, ‘I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns. . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!’ The recent tragedy at Virginia Tech prompted Congressman Dennis Kucinich to draft legislation ‘that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.’ While such views have not garnered a majority of lawmakers, these statements are notable for their stridency and frankness.”Americans should not brush aside these candid remarks as simple bluster. These politicians support their words with direct attacks on the Second Amendment. Anti-Second Amendment politicians despise the Second Amendment. They find it not merely inconvenient and irrelevant, but also unconscionable. They see our Second Amendment as incompatible with an ethical system predicated on utilitarian consequentialism they espouse, but which our founders did not. Antigun politicians find the mere thought of firearms both aesthetically distasteful and morally objectionable.These politicians consider the Second Amendment inconsistent with international legal rules and standards, and incompatible with societal norms of conduct. One or the other must go. For them, it’s the Second Amendment that must go. They feel we, Americans, should adopt and adhere to the new international liberal democratic order they, and those in the European Union, ascribe to.The mainstream media conveys the message of the antigun zealots incessantly, obstreperously, and passionately. The false message delivered to Americans is plain enough: for the welfare of society  you must comply with and adapt to the conventions of the global, liberal, democratic order; and this requires you to forsake the archaic and degenerate desire to own and possess firearms.________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SCHOOL SHOOTINGS SERVE AS PRETEXT FOR GUN BANS TARGETING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.

SINCE THE SANTA FE, TEXAS SCHOOL SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO KILL OR INJURE HIS VICTIMS, WILL ANTIGUN GROUPS NOW SEEK TO BAN ALL FIREARMS?

Antigun groups must be throwing a temper tantrum. When the Santa Fe High School shooter committed his horrific act of murder and mayhem in May 2018, he had the temerity to use the wrong weapons. Antigun groups fully expected the shooter to destroy innocent lives utilizing a semiautomatic long gun— a firearm often referred to by the politically charged but specious expression, ‘assault weapon’—thereby keeping with the antigun zealots’ running narrative. But the shooter killed or seriously injured innocent students, teachers, and a police officer, with a shotgun and with a revolver, not an "assault weapon." Moreover, the weapons utilized by the shooter did not belong to the shooter and the shooter did not procure them from a gun dealer, through the internet, or through a third party at a gun show. No! The weapons belonged to the shooter’s father who had failed to properly secure his weapons from his severely mentally disturbed son. The failure of parental responsibility, here, is, in the first instance, where blame for the tragedy rests and where blame should properly be placed.

WHAT WEAPONS, SPECIFICALLY, DID THE SHOOTER USE IN COMMITTING HIS HORRIFIC ACT?

Specifically, the shooter utilized his father’s Remington model 870 pump action, manually operated shotgun, along with his father’s .38 caliber revolver to maim, injure, and kill innocent people. The police have not, apparently, identified, or otherwise officially released  the specific make and model number of the .38 caliber handgun utilized by the gunman as of the posting of this article. No matter. It is clear enough that the weapons the gunman utilized were not the typical firearms of choice for committing murder and mayhem—semiautomatic long guns—as antigun proponents and their echo chamber, the mainstream media, constantly and erroneously, maintain. But, that fact didn’t stop some individuals from surmising, without bothering to first verify, the nature of the weapons used.Apparently, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve, John Cornyn (Senator-Texas) said, as reported by the Houston Public Media Service, that, “. . . the 17-year-old student accused in a fatal shooting at a Texas high school used a semi-automatic pistol and a sawed-off shotgun to kill 10 people. The Republican from Texas says investigators are still determining whether the shotgun’s shortened barrel is legal.” Well, contrary to Senator Cornyn's conjecture, which he asserted as fact, the American public quickly learned that the shooter did not use a semiautomatic handgun, after all, and that the shooter likely did not use a so-called “sawed off shotgun” either. The killer used a common revolver handgun as mentioned above. And, as for Cornyn’s ludicrous, off the cuff remark about the shooter having used a “sawed off shotgun,” if that were the case, how long would it take “investigators” to determine whether the “shortened barrel is legal?” It is, of course, possible, but highly, and presumptively, unlikely, that the Remington Model 870 pump action manually operated shotgun the shooter’s father owned had a barrel length less than the limit prescribed by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. A cursory check of the Remington website does provide the prospective buyer of the popular Model 870 pump action shotgun with in depth data about the shotgun along with substantial graphics. The Model 870 shotgun is available in a myriad of configurations and in several barrel lengths, from 14 inches to 30 inches, to meet a user's specific needs, whether employing the weapon for sporting uses or for self-defense.

DID THE SANTA FE TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTER USE A SHOTGUN WITH A BARREL LENGTH LESS THAN 18 INCHES—A  SO-CALLED “SAWED OFF SHOTGUN”—AS U.S. SENATOR, JOHN CORNYN, MAINTAINS?

If, in fact, the shooter’s father’s Remington Model 870 had a barrel length of less than 18 inches, then ATF approval for a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches, or less, would be necessary. As pointed out by the ATF, in the atf.gov website, “A shotgun subject to the NFA [National Firearms Act] has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length. The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device.”The website, gundata.org discusses, assiduously, the matter of barrel length of both rifles and shotguns.“Simply put, on the whole, a rifle barrel should be no less than 16" and a shotgun barrel should be no less than 18". While the overall gun length for either a rifle or a shotgun has to be 26" according to the ATF, paying extra for an exception can make a difference. Even though black powder guns don't have this limitation, guns that fire ‘smokeless powder’ do have to adhere to ATF and federal guidelines.That's why shotguns like the modern Mossberg 500 and 600 series riot shotguns will measure out to these specifications. While sawing off a double barreled shotgun or cutting a M1A1 to lengths as short as 12" is possible to make them a lot more cancelable, especially under a dustcoat, the government says that a short shotgun or short rifle isn't legal unless you apply for a specific license.It is possible to apply for a license for a short rifle or short shotgun with the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms). The fee is either $200 or $5 depending on circumstances and the way the gun is manufactured, but owning a gun shorter than the ‘standard’ legal limits is possible. For a gun manufacturer, adhering to the legal limits is mandatory and if you find a shortened gun at a gun show or even at a private sale, be aware of your rights and the applicable laws.” 

A QUANDARY FOR ANTIGUN PROPONENTS

Unlike sophisticated semiautomatic weaponry, manually operated pump action shotguns and manually operated revolver handguns have been around for a long time, approximately 130 years. The pertinent question is this: how have antigun proponents and the mainstream media spun the narrative in the call for further gun restrictions since the Santa Fe, Texas school shooter, here, didn’t use what antigun proponents, along with the mainstream media, often refer— contemptuously, pejoratively, slyly, and clearly erroneously—to as an “assault weapon?” It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain, that, for your average, garden variety killer, who desires to create carnage, any weapon at hand will do. Unless a killer happens to be a psychopathic “professional” assassin or a psychotic member of a drug cartel, either of whom would likely have the contacts, wherewithal, and grim determination to acquire access to specialized, unlawful weapons, the kind of weapons that fall in a domain well beyond those weapons commonly available to the law-abiding American public—an American public that generally acquires firearms through a licensed firearms dealer—a killer will use whatever weapon he is able to get his hands on. That was certainly the case with the Santa Fe Texas shooter. But, given the circumstances of that recent school shooting incident in Santa Fe, Texas, antigun proponents are in a quandary as to whether to stay with their present running narrative—that non-semiautomatic weapons only are okay for law-abiding, rational, average American citizens to possess because semiautomatic weapons and full auto or selective fire weapons are weapons of war that have no place in a modern civilized society—or to sharply alter the current narrative, admitting to the American public, at long last, what it is they are truly after: a ban on civilian ownership and possession of all firearms—to turn the entire Nation into a “Gun-free Zone.”Clearly, antigun proponents’ calls for increasingly tight restrictions on civilian access to so-called assault weapons—meaning, of late, virtually all, not merely some, semiautomatic weapons—suggests a marked reluctance on their part to show their hand too soon, by calling for a total, or, otherwise, comprehensive ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms of all types. Antigun proponents and zealots have traditionally preferred an incremental approach to gun bans and gun confiscations—one category of firearms at a time, and ever widening the domain of Americans who are precluded lawfully from owning and possessing any firearm—in order to slowly acclimate the public toward acceptance of a gun-free Country.In fact, antigun proponents—a few of them, ostensibly gun owners, posturing as supporters of the natural, fundamental, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—disingenuously claim by mere assertion, and rarely if ever by hard argument—that some firearms are specifically designed for self-defense, and so, are deemed the good weapons; and that other weapons—various kinds of semiautomatic firearms, the so-called “assault weapons”—are designed for war; and that this latter category of  firearms therefore fall, presumptively, into the bad kind of weaponry that, as antigun proponents vehemently exclaim, civilians should not have access to.Antigun proponents evidently like to recruit and trot out seemingly avid “antigun gun owners” who, in accordance with the central theme and narrative, argue for reinstating a national ban on “assault weapons,” a catchall expression that is increasingly becoming synonymous with all semiautomatic firearms, not merely some semiautomatic weapons. Antigun proponents falsely assert that no one is trying to take all firearms  away from the civilian population of the Country, just some of them—the bad sort, the ones they have corralled under the brand of “assault weapons” or “weapons of war.” They assert that banning such weapons of war is okay because, after all, law-abiding, rational Americans can still keep true self-defense weapons, like .38 revolvers and shotguns handy at the ready, at home.But is that assertion true, especially when it is clear that so-called weapons for self-defense, or for sport, or for plinking at targets, like revolver handguns and shotguns, are capable of offensive use, as well, and with devastating effect, when in the hands of irresponsible individuals; or in the hands of gangbangers; or in the hands of the common criminal; or in the hands of  severely disturbed individuals, such as the shooter who murdered, maimed, and injured several innocent individuals in a Santa Fe, Texas high school? Do not these self-described antigun gun proponents, after all, deviously, deceptively, insidiously, mislead the American public by proffering a seeming reasonable compromise solution to curtailing gun violence and at once "permitting" lawful gun ownership? Are American gun owners expected, honestly, to suspend their skepticism? How many times in the past have American gun owners heard antigun proponents and antigun legislators preface their antigun diatribes with the assertion that they do, of course, support the Second Amendment, when clearly we know that they do not? So, whom are these antigun proponents and antigun legislators really fooling?LET US TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT A COUPLE OF SEEMING “PRO GUN” ANTIGUN GUN PROPONENTS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CIVILIAN GUN OWERNSHIP AND POSSESSION AND CONSIDER THE EFFICACY OF THEIR REMARKS, CONCERNING REVOLVERS AND SHOTGUNS IN LIGHT OF THE SANTA FE, TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL INCIDENT.Consider the assertions of one antigun zealot, Ashley Addison, who claims, incongruously, to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Addison refers to herself as a definitive gun owner. In the weblog, scarymommy.com (an obvious antigun forum, merely masquerading as a weblog supportive of the Second Amendment), this self-proclaimed gun owner claims that she owns only the right and proper sort of weapons—that is to say, weapons for self-defense. Addison says:“I’m a gun owner. I have two pistols, a rifle, a shotgun . . . and a (now-expired) concealed carry permit. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid. I also support every single gun control measure out there. . . . But an AK-47 (and other assault weapons) is not an ideal weapon for personal defense, and it serves no purpose for “home protection.” It was designed for military use. A a [sic] 12-gauge shotgun is a better, more realistic choice for home defense. I’ve never seen any peer-reviewed study/expert/article anywhere that can refute this. Bottom line: Assault-style weapons should never be in the hands of civilians.” Would Addison be so quick to assert that she does, in fact, “support every single gun measure,” as she bluntly says in her blog post if that means having to relinquish her shotgun, since, as anyone with any knowledge of the operations of firearms knows that a “self-defense” weapon can be used offensively and that a self-defense weapons, namely a revolver handgun, and a shotgun were in fact utilized by the Santa Fe, Texas shooter to murder, quite effectively, several innocent young people, and in short order? Would Addison continue to suggest that a 12-gauge shotgun is somehow a good weapon—a safe and humane kind of weapon—one particularly suitable for civilians to wield, but that a semiautomatic “assault-style weapon” is not, when considered in light of this recent mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas. Is the distinction that Addison draws a sound one? One website, internet armory.com has this to say about the shotgun:“The shotgun is, by far, the deadliest and most formidable, effective firearm ever created for short range personal defense. No other firearm will devastate, disable, or discourage an aggressor as reliably as a shotgun.  No other firearm is as likely to obtain decisive hits on an assailant as a shotgun loaded with buckshot.”When used at shortrange—for example, a school room—Addison’s remark about shotguns (for civilian use) versus assault-style weapons (for military or other non-civilian use is not only patently ridiculous but truly bizarre. One must ask: Does Ashley Addison know what she is talking about? And, by the way, Ashley, shotguns have been and continue to be used by the military and by the police.The point is that any firearm in the wrong hands is deadly. A psychopath or lunatic can create monstrous horror, wielding any firearm. Moreover, while some firearms or firearm configurations are useful or ideal for a particular purpose, any weapon in the wrong hands can dispatch many innocent people, quickly and effectively, as factual accounts of recent shooting incidents bears out.In another “scarymommy.com” blog post, a second female, also a self-described “gun owner,” and purported supporter of the Second Amendment, Marissa Bowman, writes: “The fact of the matter is that guns in America are not going to disappear — at the very least not anytime soon. [Is Bowman suggesting they should disappear? If so, she is hardly the supporter of the Second Amendment that she claims to be]. Our Second Amendment rights guarantee that, and more importantly, our social structure is keeping it in place. Until we can guarantee safety for all children — not just our own — parents like me feel it necessary to utilize the right to have added protection for our family. “That does not mean, however, that anyone should be able to own whatever type of gun that they want and without restrictions. As a part-time solo mom whose partner is frequently away for his job, I absolutely feel it’s necessary to own a gun which I keep in my home. My family’s safety is simply not up for political debate. The Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard (.38 Special) that I carry makes me feel as though I can protect and defend my children in a moment’s notice, which in turn makes me feel empowered as a mother.”In light of the Santa Fe, Texas school shooting, the incongruity of the claims of Addison and Bowman are abundantly clear. The notion that some firearms are acceptable for Americans to own and possess and that some are not is demonstrably weak. The fact of the matter is that, in any confined public area where people are cowering, or even in an open area where people are densely packed and running hither and yon into each other, in panic, a would-be killer can use any firearm, or, for that matter, even a knife, to injure or kill a substantial number of people, quickly, effectively, and unceremoniously. It is therefore dubious for a person to claim that law-abiding, rational Americans have a right to acquire some firearms, but not others--with antigun groups and antigun legislators, along with the mainstream media, being the ultimate arbiters as to what firearms some members of the American citizenry, and, increasingly, an ever dwindling number of the American citizenry--to own and possess. We know where this leads. Given a plethora of ad hoc, inconsistent, and unsound arguments propounded, almost daily, concerning what firearms the law-abiding citizen may own and possess, along with a call for increasing restrictions on one's use of his or her personal property, and further restrictions on American civilians who are deemed worthy of owning and possessing a firearm what must inevitably come to pass is the virtual extinction of ownership and possession of any firearm in this Country.

HOW HAVE ANTIGUN WRITERS FOR MAINSTREAM PUBLICATIONS RESPONDED TO THE SANTA FE SHOOTING INCIDENT, WHERE THE KILLER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM, BUT A BASIC DOUBLE-ACTION REVOLVER HANDGUN AND A MANUALLY OPERATED PUMP ACTION SHOTGUN?

Had the shooter utilized a semiautomatic long gun qua “assault weapon,” the antigun groups would merely claim, as they have been doing for some time, that no one needs such a weapon for self-defense, and that Congress should therefore enact another “assault weapons” ban. Of course, antigun groups seek, ultimately to forbid civilian ownership and possession of any firearm, but they would seek to do so incrementally, and in a linear fashion. As the NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) operates, essentially, as a practical matter, as a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of fully automatic and selective fire weapons, as well as operating essentially, and as a practical matter, as a ban on civilian ownership and possession of so-called, “sawed off shotguns,” the desire of antigun groups is, as is evident, to see enacted an NFA style set of federal laws applied to semiautomatic weapons, that is to say, “assault weapons”—meaning, an NFA style set of federal laws applied to every conceivable semiautomatic firearm. Once that goal has been accomplished—if it were accomplished—then the American public should make no mistake, as antigun groups would not stop there. They would then go after civilian ownership and possession of remaining firearms: including revolver handguns, shotguns, lever action rifles, black powder muzzleloaders, and any other type of fully functional firearm that  the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and civilian, may happen to own and possess.

HOW IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DEALING WITH THE SANTA FE TEXAS SHOOTING IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE SHOOTER DID NOT USE A SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPON TO WREAK HAVOC IN A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL?

With this latest mass shooting in Santa Fe, Texas, will antigun zealots now call for stringent curbs on civilian ownership and possession of all manner of weaponry? Consider how this is beginning to play out.A contact reporter for the Chicago Tribune, in an article, caustically titled, “No matter what type of gun is used in school shootings, innocent people end up dead,” Dahleen Glanton, writes,“This time, the school shooter did not use an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to slaughter his classmates. That must be quite a relief to gun lovers.This killer’s weapons of choice were a shotgun and a .38-caliber handgun — two of the most common firearms available. What more proof do we need, gun lovers will ask, that the problem isn’t with guns but rather with people? . . .With so many mass shootings in schools and other public places, there is no question that gun lovers have been feeling as though they are under attack. They have tried their best to fend off arguments by the rest of the country that every gun is not protected under the Second Amendment. With so many people dying, we desperately need them to wake up and join us in the struggle to keep our children safe. Only then will politicians feel secure enough to take action.We cannot let them off the hook. Guns in general, and semi-automatic rifles in particular, remain the greatest threat to safety in America.Pagourtzis might not have been armed with a high-powered weapon when he allegedly entered that classroom Friday, but gun laws are so lax in Texas that he certainly could easily have gotten his hands on one. In fact, he could have walked down the street with an AR-15 strapped to his shoulder and likely no one would have thought it was odd.If anything, the shooting exemplifies what anti-gun advocates in cities like Chicago have been saying too. It is far too easy for a legal gun to turn into an illegal gun.”We make a couple observations here. Firstly, the reporter for this mainstream Press newspaper is acting in typical lockstep with previous mainstream reports of mass shootings, maintaining a consistent antigun narrative. But, she acknowledges, as she must, that the Santa Fe, Texas high school shooter did not use a semiautomatic long gun. But she then moves to propounding bald counterfactuals, apparently to maintain the consistent antigun movement narrative, blasting the presence of semiautomatic long guns in the civilian population, asserting that the shooter could have gotten his hands on an “AR-15,” given, what the reporter refers to as lax gun laws in Texas—a point the reporter doesn’t bother to clarify and expound upon; nor does this reporter explain how the shooter could have gotten his hands on a semiautomatic rifle, but didn’t. Actually the shooter quite effectively murdered and injured innocent young people at Santa Fe High School with a pump action shotgun and a revolver handgun. He need not have bothered to get his hands on an AR-15 if he had thought about the matter at all. Secondly, the shooter gained access to his father’s firearms because his father failed to properly secure them. Note: This is the same, virtually identical and disturbing scenario, by the way, that played out, tragically, in Newtown, Connecticut, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in 2012.A mother, Nancy Lanza, failed properly to secure her firearms from her psychotic son, Adam Lanza. Now, no one would seriously suggest that Connecticut has had lax gun laws, either prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, or at any time since the tragedy. In both the Newtown, Connecticut mass shooting incident and in the recent Santa Fe, Texas mass shooting incident, the primary cause for the tragedy can and should be laid at the feet of irresponsible adults and heads of families who knew or should have known of, and certainly better than anyone else, the dangers posed by failing to properly secure firearms from children or from disturbed family members who happen to be residing in the household, and by failing to properly secure any other object that could be feasibly used as a deadly weapon by children or by severely mentally disturbed family members. What we see instead is that neither the irresponsible adult family member, nor the psychotic son is cast as the principal culprit and villain. Rather, the firearm that an obviously psychotic young man acquired and used to murder, maim, and injure innocent individuals—be it a semiautomatic rifle in one instance, or a shotgun and revolver handgun in the other—is cast as the primary cause for the ensuing tragedies and cast, too, as the basic and principal villain and "fall guy." The antigun proponent's narrative can take one of two forms.Consider: one of two narratives must play out when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame squarely on an object, rather than on the sentient entity who wields it, that is to say, when we see antigun proponents and commentators placing blame on an object rather than upon the agent who wields the object. Antigun proponents and antigun commentators tend either to fall back on the same, ever recurring narrative, namely  that the primary cause for gun violence rests upon the so-called assault weapon, even if a semiautomatic weapon was never in use by a killer or antigun proponents and antigun commentators must construct a new narrative. If antigun commentators wish to stay with the typical narrative, namely that semiautomatic weapons must be banned even if semiautomatic weapons were never used in the shooting incident, as was the case in the recent Santa Fe, Texas incident, then an argument calling for a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons and mass confiscation of semiautomatic weapons is nonsensical in the extreme, as a narrative that does not fit the factual situation must invariably devolve into a recitation of senseless, hypothetical "what if" scenarios as we see in the Chicago Tribune article, and as we also see in the New Yorker article, infra. The narrative becomes decidedly discordant if predictable; for the proverbial deadly object qua "assault weapon" doesn't factor into the fact pattern. It cannot. If, on the other hand, antigun proponents and commentators wish to construct a new narrative, admitting to the public what antigun proponents most assuredly discuss among themselves, namely, that firearms of all types must eventually be banned, not just so-called, “assault weapons”--aka “weapons of war, then the antigun proponent and commentator isn't compelled to resort to spurious and specious hypotheticals, which has not place in a news account anyway; and the narrative is internally consistent. But the true intent of the antigun movement would be laid bare for all to see. The true aims of the antigun movement would be clear and irrefutable. In that case, the "cat" would definitely be "out of the bag,"  as the antigun proponent or antigun commentator  would be clearly and categorically articulating the antigun movement's ultimate goal: the disarming of the American citizenry en masse. Neither narrative would sit well with American gun owners; nor should it. For, any attempt to arbitrarily ban civilian possession of firearms--whether a gun ban and gun confiscation scheme embraces one type of firearm or all types--would, in either case, be true folly and wholly unacceptable to the American gun owning public because gun bans and gun confiscation schemes are altogether incompatible with the import and purport of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Semiautomatic weapons, revolvers, and shotguns are all in common use by millions of average, honest, law-abiding, and rational American citizens. These weapons all fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment and cannot lawfully be taken away from Americans. The late, eminent U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case made abundantly clear that, presumed State public safety concerns do not and cannot legally override fundamental, primordial Constitutional rights. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the Land; and basic, natural rights and liberties, as a critical component of the U.S. Constitution, are not and never shall be subordinate to State or Federal Statute, much less to public opinion polls or to orchestrated public demonstrations.As the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not and never has been a right bestowed on Government to the people but exists forever within the American people, that right cannot be legitimately, legally tampered with. To obliterate the natural and fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by arrogantly attempting to turn a sacred right into a mere privilege, easily dispensed with, is an anathema to our history, traditions, values, ethical sensibilities, and legal, social, economic, and moral foundational understanding. Such an effort would, as well, illustrate the antigun movement's naked, and absolute, unbridled disdain for seminal Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings.Another writer for a mainstream news publication, John Cassidy, a columnist for the New Yorker, in an article titled, “Everything About the Texas School Shooting Seems Horribly Familiar,” makes similar comments to those of Dahleen Glanton, writing for the Chicago Tribune. Cassidy, too, maintains the usual antigun proponent's narrative, attempting to shoehorn counterfactuals into a factual account of the mass shooting. So, despite the weapons that the Santa Fe, Texas gunman used during his murderous escapade, a shotgun, and .38 caliber revolver, which did not include semiautomatic weapons, Cassidy eschews keeping to the facts, contrary to what a reporter should be doing--recounting facts, not contemplating, "what ifs." Cassidy argues that the shooter could have used a semiautomatic weapon to seriously injure or kill innocent young people, even if the shooter, as we know, didn’t. The account comes across as weak, even silly. John Cassidy exclaims:“About the only atypical aspect of the shooting was that Pagourtzis reportedly used a Remington Model 870 shotgun and a .38-calibre revolver, rather than a semi-automatic rifle, to kill his ten victims and wound ten others. This was probably because his father didn’t own an AR-15 or any other weapon of war. (Pagourtzis told police he used his father’s guns. It wasn’t immediately clear whether his father knew that they were in his possession.) Enthusiasts of semi-automatic weapons will presumably use this detail to fortify their case against banning such weapons—the argument being that there are firearms of all kinds (more than three hundred million in private hands across the U.S., according to some estimates) and banning one particular type of gun won’t prevent a dedicated shooter from carrying out a massacre.In the world of Second Amendment devotees, this qualifies as a legitimate case to make. So does the argument, which Donald Trump and the N.R.A. have made, that the real issue with school shootings isn’t the fact that disturbed adolescents have such ready access to deadly weapons but that schools don’t have enough armed teachers to stop gun-wielding intruders, or enough ready escape routes for students and staff to take as they flee the gunfire. ‘We have to look at the design of our schools moving forward and retrofitting schools that are already built,’ Dan Patrick, the Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, said on Friday. ‘And what I mean by that is there are too many entrances and too many exits to our over eight thousand campuses in Texas . . . Had there been one single entrance, possibly, for every student, maybe he’—Pagourtzis—'would have been stopped.’ Rather than descending further into the world of deliberate denial, it is perhaps worth stating a few facts: this was the second school massacre in three months, and the second gun massacre in six months in Texas.”“Descending further into the world of deliberate denial?” How does fortifying schools against shooters translate into denial. Clearly, John Cassidy is, himself, in denial. It isn’t the millions of law-abiding, rational Americans who happen to own firearms and who strongly support our Bill of Rights—all Ten of them—who are in denial. In fact, in those States that have implemented truly effective school safety plans against shooters, utilizing armed teachers and other armed personnel, there has been not one incident of a school shooting. But, antigun proponents, like John Cassidy choose, apparently, to ignore that fact, assuming he bothered to investigate the matter at all. He presents, as self-evident, true the false and absurd notion that the answer to school safety rests, simply and solely on banning civilian ownership and possession of firearms en masse.Cassidy’s argument boils down essentially to this: killers murdered young people with guns; so, once Congress bans firearms from the American citizenry, commencing with a ban on semiautomatic rifles, the problem of mass murders in schools will be resolved. Cassidy is wrong. The problem of mass murders in schools or in other public venues won’t end, not by a long shot! Because violence exists in the minds of people, not in objects. That simple truth seems forever to elude antigun proponents who are obsessed with eliminating “The Gun” from society, irrespective of the root causes of violence.John Cassidy, as with Dahleen Ganlon, seems fixated on the notion that the Santa Fe shooter would, of course, have taken up an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle if the shooter’s father happened to have one. Antigun proponents, like John Cassidy, love to slither here and there—perhaps unaware that they are doing so—from reporting on events taking place in the world to reflecting on possible circumstances that might have, or could have, or conceivably would have, occurred, but didn’t; and they conclude their polemics with express or tacit normative remarks about the way the world ought to be. Since, the antigun movement is hell-bent on removing from civilian possession all semiautomatic weapons, first and foremost, commencing with a broad ban on all semiautomatic weapons that this or that antigun proponent wishes to call an "assault weapon," the movement's proponents and the commentators and reporters of the mainstream media who echo the movement's tactics and strategies, do not wish to muddy the waters by talking about the weapons that a particular killer happened to use, rather than the ones that the antigun proponents' would have wished for the gunman to have used in order to keep with the "game plan." Time would come, when, after semiautomatic weapons have been confiscated, remaining categories of firearms can be confiscated and banned as well.As with all or most antigun zealots, John Cassidy knows little if anything concrete about firearms, and likely cares not one whit to educate himself. As for so-called weapons of war, a little history lesson is in order here. Revolver handguns as well as shotguns have seen use in war. Both weapons are used by many police departments and they have use in sport and for self-defense, as are semiautomatic weapons. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out in the previously posted article, any weapon can be used for good or ill, dependent on the wielder of the weapon. The Santa Fe School shooting, the Parkland, Florida school shooting, and the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting were easily preventable. Failures by governmental authorities and/or by parents of shooters led to tragedy. Those who own and possess firearms have the responsibility to properly use and care for them and to properly secure them. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. There is no sane reason to target their firearms for confiscation.In any event, the answer to curbing gun violence does not devolve to imposing debilitating, draconian gun restrictions on millions of responsible gun owners. That would destroy our free Republic and likely led to outright civil war, as the American citizenry would see first hand, an unlawful attempt by Government to wrest control of the Nation from the citizenry.There is a more direct and effective response to school safety. It is a twofold approach; and it is an approach that does not create havoc with our Constitution and with the natural rights of Americans. First, at the State, County and local Government levels, a clear and honest assessment of school safety must be made. Once that assessment is completed, a plan must be devised and then implemented with proper testing. The New Yorker columnist, John Cassidy, may see this as a trivial matter. We do not. Second, firearms must be removed from the hands of those who act irresponsibly, and there must be a concerted effort to remove firearms from the criminal elements in our society. Laws already on the books need to be enforced. The Nation does not need more firearms’ laws. Unfortunately, the antigun movement in this Country seeks to disarm the vast responsible American citizenry. School shootings serve merely as a pretext for broad-base gun bans and eventual mass gun confiscation. It is the vast responsible, law-abiding American armed citizenry that the antigun movement is truly targeting, for it is the vast law-abiding armed citizenry that those who seek to disarm Americans truly fear, as it is the vast, law-abiding armed citizenry that, as the Founders of our Republic intended, they cannot, ought not, and must not control. For, it is only in an armed citizenry that true Government encroachment on the rights and liberties of the American citizenry is effectively, categorically, constrained and contained. It is not the criminal element, then, and it is not the occasional lunatic that goes off on a shooting spree that the antigun movement and their silent, secretive, ruthless Globalist benefactors truly fear.It is the average, law-abiding American citizen and gun owner that these anti-American elements fear and therefore seek to control. The banshee shriek and wail calling for a ban, eventually, on civilian ownership and possession of guns generally and a ban on civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic firearms—pejoratively and idiotically referred to by antigun proponents as “assault weapons” and as “weapons of war”—particularly, at this juncture, and the claim made that only through mass gun control and eventual mass gun confiscation will this Nation, its people, and its children be safe from violence are, on close inspection specious, even ludicrous, pronouncements even if, superficially, these boisterous, obstreperous pronouncements happen to sound palatable and convincing, as, of course, they are meant to. This propaganda—for propaganda it is—is directed to the weak-willed and the uniformed among us—individuals who are looking for a panacea to violence in society, as violence is claimed to be endemic in society, and they are told it need not be, if only the public accedes to giving up their firearms.Through it all, the American public is being fed a false narrative. It is a narrative carefully crafted and then directed to the American public through mass media organizations, controlled by transnationalist billionaires who seek to alter, forever, the framework of the Nation, a free Republic that the Founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution and of our sacred Bill of Rights, bequeathed to us. The transnationalist billionaires seek to destroy our Nation for their own benefit, for their own selfish  ends. The goal, of these extraordinarily powerful, insanely wealthy, highly secretive, and absolutely ruthless individuals, is not suppression of gun violence, despite the claims of antigun groups, their willing tools. To the contrary; it is repression of the American citizenry. That, unfortunately, is the sad, but irrefutable truth. The American public should not be deluded to think it not so._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE POLITICAL BOYCOTT: AN ASSAULT ON THE NRA AND ON NRA MEMBERS’ FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Antigun activists seek to dispossess the civilian population of this Country of their firearms. That is the reason for their existence. That is the reason for their being. They will deny this of course. They will tell you they don’t want to take all your firearms away, just some of them. They will also tell you they don’t want to prevent every American citizen from owning and possessing firearms, just some of them. But, when pressed, they will admit they abhor firearms and they will tell you that, in a civilized society, no one needs firearms anymore, anyway. They will also tell you that law-abiding, rational citizens today may become lawless, rabidly insane tomorrow. That is highly improbable, ridiculously so, even if only logically possible in a philosophical sense. But mere possibility is enough, for antigun proponents and activists, to support the elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and firearms’ possession.Those who espouse the elimination of firearms would like to see civilian ownership and possession of firearms relegated to the dustbin of history. They hope that guns, as with buggy whips and corsets, will become merely a distant memory. But, there is one hitch to the antigun activists’ goal and that hitch is the presence of the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as categorically affirmed by the high Court in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.The Bill of Rights and U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent antigun legislators from instituting wholesale confiscation of guns in the vein of the Australian scheme. So, antigun proponents in this Nation employ an incremental approach. Instead of banning firearms en mass, they attempt to ban categories of guns.The National Firearms Act of 1934 made possession of machine guns and “sawed-off” shotguns illegal. In fits and starts, many semiautomatic weapons, called “assault weapons” by antigun proponents, have become illegal for the average American citizen to own in several States. Antigun legislators also expanded and wish to continue to expand the domain of individuals who cannot lawfully own any firearm.With the murder of students and teachers at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida by a deranged gunman, antigun activists immediately began to harness public outrage at the senseless deaths. Antigun activists directed public anger toward the activists’ perennial favorite targets: guns, gun owners, gun manufacturers and dealers; and toward their arch-enemy, the NRA.Antigun groups might have reasonably directed public anger at Hollywood for producing movies filled with gratuitous, horrific violence and carnage. They didn’t. And, they could have directed the public’s wrath toward manufacturers of violent video games. They didn’t. Nor did antigun groups look at the cultural milieu in which we live as the true root cause of violence in our Nation: broken homes; illicit drugs; criminal gangs running amok; moral relativism; multiculturalism; historical revisionism; bizarre social constructs; gender dysphoria, a mental disorder, masquerading as mere “life choice;” and the rise of atheistic and socialistic tendencies in this Country, belief systems that are incompatible with natural law and incompatible with the idea of a Divine creator in whom an effective normative ethical system derives.No! It is far easier, although absurd in the contemplation, to direct public anger at an inanimate object, the firearm, and toward the NRA, and toward any person or business entity that espouses support for the right of the American citizen to keep and bear arms.One tactic antigun activists employ recently to achieve their ends is the “political boycott.” The way it works, is this: antigun groups attack companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA. Some companies, for example, offer discounts to NRA members. Antigun activists have coerced companies into ending programs offering discounts to NRA members under threat of economic ruin and public shame and condemnation. The purpose of these political boycotts is expressive and coercive, not economic. Antigun activists seek social and political change here, not economic benefit.The use of the political boycott invariably has a First Amendment free speech component, but even those who support the use of political boycotts recognize its danger. “Boycotts are indeed powerful. They do, in fact, have the ability to exact real-world, human costs from those businesses and individuals targeted. The concern over boycotts exists because they have consequences that might have the potential to extend outward from their target to impact a boycotted business's employees or community.” Democratizing The Economic Sphere: A Case For The Political Boycott, 115 W. Va. L. Rev. 531, 534 (Winter 2012), by Teresa J. Lee.Scrutiny of both motives and effects of using political boycotts to achieve political and social ends is warranted, lest our rights and liberties be destroyed.Use of the political boycott by antigun activists against the NRA is legally and morally suspect and, from a historical perspective, incongruous. The reason is that the NRA, as a Civil Rights organization—the original Civil Rights organization—has, as its first stated purpose and objective the strengthening and sanctifying of our sacred heritage:“To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens.”NRA is the only Civil Rights Group that has, as its salient raison d’être, the defense of a sacred right and liberty as codified in the U.S. Constitution. And the NRA is attacked for this! There is something both odd and deeply disturbing in antigun activists’ reliance on the exercise of one sacred right, free speech, to attack an organization whose stated objective is simply to defend a second sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "NRA Freedom, Join It!"Keep in mind, too, that the political boycott is not merely utilized by antigun activists to harm the NRA; it is an attack on the NRA members, American citizens. Basically, NRA members have their own First Amendment right of free speech, as expressed in their support of the Second Amendment. The political boycott is used by antigun activists, and is meant to be used by antigun activists, to squelch free speech. This is an impermissible coercive use of the political boycott.“To be protected under the first amendment, the boycott advocates' appeal to their listeners must be persuasive rather than coercive. The distinction is crucial. Persuasive speech has always been accorded the highest first amendment protection on the theory that the free flow of ideas is central to our democratic system of government: ‘the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.’ By contrast, speech that deprives its listeners of freedom of choice, i.e., coercive speech, distorts the marketplace of ideas by causing listeners to accept an idea not for its ‘truth’ but to avoid some sanction. Coercive speech also undermines the political process, since a democratic society depends upon the autonomy of those who publicly espouse a point of view and of those who listen.” Secondary Boycotts and the First Amendment, 51 U. Chi. L. Rev. 811, 825 (Summer 1984), by Barbara J. Anderson.There is, though, no autonomy between those who publicly espouse the elimination of civilian gun ownership, ergo de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, comprising antigun activists, antigun legislators, antigun billionaire Globalists, and members of the mainstream media who shriek at and attempt to cajole into submission, the American public and businesses, the listeners, who may happen to harbor contrary views.These antigun influences, some domestic and some foreign, intend to speak to and for the American public and for the business community. For companies that do not willingly accede to the antigun agenda, the political boycott operates as a club to coerce compliance with that agenda. The political boycott is not used here as a mechanism meant merely to persuade.The political boycott is as well, a club wielded against NRA members. Antigun proponents ostracize Americans who are NRA members. But, NRA membership is a legitimate First Amendment expression of one’s Second Amendment right. By attacking a citizen’s membership in NRA, antigun forces seek to control speech, crushing dissent. In a free Republic this cannot be countenanced. NRA members should challenge these boycotts.

 ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.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.