WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OBAMA: JUMPING THE GUN!

Obama's Executive Action Not Only Unlawfully Expands Federal Law, But Operates To Convert Private Sellers Of Guns Into Gun Dealers

President Barack Obama claims that his executive action, using the mechanism of executive orders to expand gun background checks, falls within his lawful authority. But does it? For all his pontificating at the CNN Town Hall Meeting, televised on Thursday, primetime, that one remark, stated and reiterated during the Town Hall Meeting, is deserving of close consideration and dissection because, if Obama is wrong, then we can dispense with any further discussion of the purported merits of his antigun agenda.We begin with one incontrovertible fact. The very use of executive orders is fraught with peril because the President is essentially making law, not executing law. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all legislative functions rest with Congress. The making of law does not rest with the President. The President’s duty is not to make law but to execute the laws that Congress makes.In accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means that the Chief Executive has no authority to tell Congress what Congress must do. But that is precisely what the Chief Executive, Obama, does when he issues an executive decree. He is in fact saying to Congress: “you haven’t done what I want you to do, so I will take action myself.” Well, Congress doesn’t work for the President of the United States. Congress works for the American People. If Congress doesn’t legislate in the manner that the President wishes, or if Congress fails to legislate at all in an area that the President wants, that failure to legislate is not lawful grounds for the President to do so. But, that is precisely what the President is doing here.One of the four key features of the antigun executive orders President Barack Obama plans to issue in the coming days or weeks pertains to expansive gun background checks. President Obama has set forth his intentions in his “Fact Sheet” what he intends to do. Just a few of the significant ways in which Obama is taking aim at Congress and at the Second Amendment involves gun sales. Through his executive orders he intends to:“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’ For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.”Is Obama saying that anyone who sells a firearm is ipso facto a ‘dealer of firearms’ and, therefore, according to Obama, 'in the business of selling firearms?' It would seem so. For, Obama has not clarified what it means to be in the business of selling firearms but, rather, has muddied the waters. Both in the above Fact Sheet and at the Town Hall meeting, Obama fails to clarify what it means to be a “gun dealer” and what it means for a person to be “in the business of selling firearms.” And, this is clearly intentional. Obama sees anyone, who sells or transfers a gun, is a “gun dealer” – that is to say, “a person who is in the business of selling firearms.” But, are these expressions truly nebulous? Not at all!Contrary to what Obama would have the American public believe, the phrases, ‘dealer in firearms,’ and, ‘in the business of selling firearms,’ are not subject to myriad definitions, dependent upon the personal whim of the President. They are legal terms of art, specifically defined in law by Congress. They are not subject to tweaking by the President.Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11), “The term ‘dealer’ means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ‘licensed dealer’ means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq].”Case law further clarifies the meaning of ‘dealer in firearms’ and ‘in the business of selling firearms.’ In the annotated notes of the U.S. Code, there are several cases that clarify the meaning of these important expressions. See, e.g. United States vs. Fifty two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d (MD Fla. 2005). A “person is ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms’ at wholesale or retail’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(21)(C)  if that person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as regular course of trade or business with principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such person does not include person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for enhancement of personal collection or for hobby, or who sells all or part of that person's personal collection of firearms.” And, in United States vs. Masters (CA4 SC 1980), the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said, “For defendant to be ‘dealer’ within meaning of 18 USCS § 921, there must be willingness on defendant's part to deal, profit motive and greater degree of activity than occasional sales by hobbyist; defendant's primary business need not be dealing in firearms nor need he necessarily make profit from such dealings; showing that defendant had guns on hand or was ready and able to procure them and sell them to such persons as might accept them is sufficient to establish defendant as ‘dealer’.”Obama wishes to make anyone who sells a firearm into a “dealer of firearms.” In so doing, he would make it a crime for a person, even the occasional "hobbyist," to lawfully sell or, for that matter, even to give away a firearm to another person, if the transferee does not have an "FFL." And, in so doing, Obama wishes to do away with the very possibility of a "private sale" or, for that matter, even a "private transfer" of a firearm that does not amount to a sale or trade in and of firearms. He cannot lawfully do this because that amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law.Now, Obama claims that his executive actions, directed to firearms, fall within existing federal law and that he is only proposing regulations to effectuate existing federal law and not creating new law. But, that is absolutely false because, in his executive actions, he is expanding the very concept of what it means to be a person who is “in the business of selling firearms.” When Obama attempts to transform anyone who sells or transfers a firearm into a person who is "in the business of selling firearms," he is attempting to make the transferee of a firearm, who is merely a “hobbyist,” into a criminal who is impermissibly selling or transferring a firearm, absent a federal license, in violation of 18 USCS Section 1922(a)(1) and 18 USCS Section 924(a). In effect Obama is attempting, unlawfully, to turn the occasional hobbyist into a "criminal arms dealer,” namely, someone who is, in fact, in the business of selling firearms, but is doing so, as a criminal, selling to other criminals, in clear contravention to federal law.For the federal government to prove that a person was operating unlawfully as a dealer in firearms – essentially, a criminal arms dealer – “the federal government must prove the status of the defendant as a ‘dealer in firearms.' In order to satisfy this burden the Government need not prove that the defendant's primary business was dealing in firearms or that he necessarily made a profit from such dealing; ‘it must (however) show a willingness (on the defendant's part) to deal, a profit motive, and a greater degree of activity than occasional sales by a hobbyist.’ United States v. Huffman, (4th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 80, 81, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 123, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92; United States v. Tarr, (1st Cir. 1978) 589 F.2d 55, 59."Thus, under federal statute and federal case law, in order for the government to prove that the person, who is selling a firearm to another person is doing so unlawfully, it is not enough for the government to prove that the seller of the firearm(s) is attempting to make a profit from the sale of a firearm or firearms. The government must also prove that the seller is not making an occasional sale of a firearm “as a hobbyist.” In other words, the federal government must prove, under existing law, that the person who is making a sale of a firearm or firearms is not a “criminal arms dealer” – a criminal who is selling firearms to make a profit.Obama is unlawfully expanding the notion of a “criminal arms dealer” to a law-abiding citizen, who is really only a “hobbyist,” under existing federal law. Such an attempt by Obama amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law, not a theoretical permissible executive action, that amounts merely to regulation within existing federal law. When Obama expands federal law, he is entering into the purview of Congress, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of the Separation of Powers Doctrine because he is legislating – that is to say – he is making new law. He is not merely effectuating the intentions of Congress through the promulgation of rules within the framework of existing law.Obama begs the very question at issue by asserting that anyone who transfers firearms to another is, ipso facto, a “gun dealer” and “in the business of selling firearms” under federal law and is doing so illegally if that person does not have a federal firearm's license (FFL). Why does Obama want even private sellers of firearms -- "hobbyists" -- to obtain a federal firearm's license? He wants private sellers of firearms to obtain a federal firearm's license because, licensed dealers in firearms are required to perform a criminal background check under existing federal law, pursuant to the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922. A person who is not “in the business of selling firearm,” is under no such legal mandate to conduct an national instant criminal background check. In fact, a “hobbyist” cannot even access that system precisely because that person doesn’t have an FFL!So, what is Obama doing? Just this: he is placing the “hobbyist” in an impossible position if that “hobbyist” wishes to sell, trade, gift to, or otherwise, in some manner, transfer his firearm to another person. Obama is saying to that person: “we are assuming that you are a gun dealer and, if you are a gun dealer, you must undertake a criminal background check on the transferee. But, in order to be able to have access to FBI NICS files, you must first obtain an FFL. If you do not have an FFL, you better get one, if you can. If you can’t obtain an FFL, do not attempt, under any circumstances to transfer a firearm to another because my Administration will assume that you are an unlawful arms dealer, and I will see to it that the Justice Department prosecutes you to the fullest extent of the law.”Do you understand what more Obama is attempting to do through his unlawful executive actions? He is using his Office to enact new gun laws. In effect he is precluding, under threat of federal criminal indictment, the transfer of any firearm by one private law-abiding gun owner to another private law-abiding gun owner. Obama is not attempting to close a so-called “gun loophole.” He is in effect precluding every individual from transferring firearms, regardless of venue. This amounts to the unlawful regulation of commerce by the Executive Branch to stifle legitimate trade in firearms between two law-abiding individuals who happen to be “hobbyists.” Moreover, Obama’s unlawful executive actions negatively impact the absolute and exclusive interest that a person has in his or her own private property.If Obama admits to this but argues that his executive directives are necessary to prevent a private person, who is not a gun dealer, from transferring a gun in interstate commerce, his executive directive is redundant because, under, 18 USCS § 922(a)(1)(A), “it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, if I, for example, as a "hobbyist," who is not, then, in the business of selling firearms, wish to sell a gun over the internet, and I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, I cannot lawfully do so in any event. I may, however, transfer a firearm to another through the mediation of a licensed dealer who will then be required to perform a necessary background check on the transferee. Thus, further regulation of firearms' sales on or over the internet aren't necessary. Such sales are already regulated!What about sales of guns at gun shows? Well, gun shows, too, do not present a problem. Most sellers of firearms at gun shows are licensed dealers in firearms and, so, must, under present federal law, perform a criminal background check on anyone whom the dealer is transferring the gun to. Now, if I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, and I, as a law-abiding American and gun owner, wish, as a private person -- a hobbyist, not a licensed dealer in firearms -- to sell a firearm to another person, at a gun show, I can make a transfer of a firearm to another, without performing a background check, but, that does not mean that I am permitted to sell a firearm to a person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. Under 18 USCS 922(d), it is unlawful for anyone – whether a licensed dealer in firearms or a private individual – to sell to individuals who are not permitted to own or possess a firearm. These include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, an individual who has been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution or who is an illegal alien. So, then, if I, as a private individual and law-abiding American citizen and gun owner and, as defined in law, a “hobbyist,” not a “licensed dealer in firearms,” offered a firearm for sale or trade, to a person, whom I did not know, and that person was a convicted felon who cannot lawfully own or possess a firearm, I have committed a crime in taking part in that sale, and I can and ought to be prosecuted. So, I, as a law-abiding citizen, have to be damn careful whom it is that I am transferring that firearm to.Now, will criminals sell firearms to other criminals? Of course they will. And they will do so in venues other than at gun shows which are likely to be carefully monitored by the State police. Obama’s executive orders, though, clearly are not directed to precluding firearms’ transactions among criminals. They are directed to further restricting gun transactions among law-abiding Americans. Obama’s goal, is -- as is the penultimate goal of all antigun groups -- just this: restricting the number and kinds of guns that a law-abiding citizen may own; and restricting the extent to which an individual may exercise control over his or her own property. What these executive actions of Obama won’t do – and, in fact are not designed to do – is curb criminal sales of firearms. They are specifically designed to curb what has, prior to Obama’s executive actions, amounted to the lawful transfer of firearms between and among law-abiding Americans, who do not fall, under the federal legal definition of ‘dealer in firearms,’  and 'in the business of selling firearms.'Obama intends to extend the scope of federal law beyond that which Congress has authorized. He cannot do so legally. Moreover, there is no need for further federal law. There are no loopholes. So, there is nothing that requires closing.Obama fails to appreciate and respect the fact that our federal statutes and federal case law are sufficiently broad to encapsulate all firearms’ transfers in every conceivable venue. Criminal transfers of firearms would be effective if existing federal law was enforced. They are not. But, that is not the fault of Congress. It is the fault of the Chief Executive. Obama, who fails to enforce federal law.Obama also fails to appreciate the sanctity of the Separation of Powers Doctrine upon which a Free Republic is able to survive and thrive. The very structure of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution establishes that no one Branch may subsume the duties of the other two within it.Obama’s executive actions are demonstrative of his disrespect for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Nothing he can assert or suggest, predicated on his personal notion of morality, and personal distaste for firearms ownership and firearms possession among law-abiding Americans can condone and justify his actions. But, then, Obama is not interested in the rule of law. He has a personal agenda: the very dismantling of the Bill of Rights, using, as singular pretext, his stated concern to curb firearms’ violence.Congress has, in the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, as cited supra, made it unlawful for a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to a person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. § 923 absent the appropriate background information on the individual as set forth in Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) says, in pertinent part, "No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business." Other federal law, cited supra, precludes anyone, whether a licensed dealer in firearms or not, to lawfully transfer a firearm to a person who is not permitted under federal law to own and possess firearm.Obama’s executive actions are unnecessary if he believes there are loopholes in the law – for there aren’t any. And, they are otherwise inscrutable. Obama is unlawfully attempting to preclude firearms’ transfers among law-abiding Americans and gun owners who are not licensed dealers in firearms and who would not wish to obtain a federal firearm's license and, more to the point, could not obtain a federal firearm’s license had they wish to do so precisely because they are not in the business of selling firearms.Obama's executive directives are a scarcely disguised attempt to hide his an intent to control the distribution of one's private property.Again, what President Obama is doing, surreptitiously, insidiously, and unlawfully, through his executive directives, is destroying the very concept of a “private sale” of a firearm, and he does this by unlawfully transforming, through Presidential edit, every individual, who wishes to sell a firearm, into a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a federal license to sell firearms. Federal firearms’ licenses are expensive. Even to attempt to obtain one is a time-consuming process, administered through the BATF. It is difficult to acquire – impossible, really, for a person who simply owns one or two or a few firearms and who wishes to transfer them to another law-abiding American and who cannot legitimately make the case that he or she is anything other than a "hobbyist." Obama's executive directives are not necessary because they are not directed to curbing transfer of firearms among criminals.  These executive directives are directed to revising what it means to be a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who is a licensed dealer in firearms. Obama's executive directives are inconsistent with current federal law; they impermissibly expand federal law; and, lastly, they are inconsistent with current BATF regulations, promulgated on what federal law actually says about who is a dealer in firearms and not on what the President would like the definition of ‘dealer in firearms’ to mean. Obama cannot lawfully prevent private sales of firearms; he cannot require a private seller, who is not in the business of selling firearms, to obtain a federal license – which is impossible for a private individual to obtain anyway; and he cannot require a private seller of a firearms to perform a federal background check. But, Obama doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about limitations on executive authority. He doesn’t care that he is placing law-abiding gun owners, who are not gun dealers, and who may wish to transfer a firearm to another law-abiding American, in a precarious, impossible position. He doesn’t care about any of this. He intends to press ahead with the antigun agenda: destruction of the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.