PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

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

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

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

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

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

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

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

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

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

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

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

________________________________________________________

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

HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON NICS REPORTING AND FIREARM ACCCESSORY REGULATION

WHAT IS THE GOAL OF CONGRESS: TO REPAIR AND IMPROVE NICS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OR TO TURN NICS INTO A MASSIVE FIREARMS REGISTRATION SCHEME?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson’s Literary Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774—1776On Wednesday, December 6, 2017, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided over by Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-IA, held a three-hour Hearing on firearms, titled, “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” The full Committee attended. That included the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee, and virulent opponent of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.  CSPAN televised the Hearing.Two panels convened. The first one included senior officials of the ATF, FBI, the Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and the Inspector General of Department of Defense. The second panel convened included, inter alia, a survivor of the Las Vegas mass shooting tragedy, Heather Gooze, who was the first to speak; two Second Amendment legal experts, David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook; and the Montgomery County Chief of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association President, J. Thomas Manger.The two mass shooting incidents—one occurring during the Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017 and the second occurring at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, roughly one month later, on November 5, 2017—served, evidently, as the impetus for and the backdrop for this Hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused its questioning of the first panel on: one, the mechanics of criminal and mental health reporting requirements, two, the sharing of data or lack of sharing of data between State and federal police agencies, and, three, the failure of Governmental agencies, both federal and State, to maintain accurate, reliable, and complete databases on those individuals who are not permitted to possess firearms. The Senate Judiciary Committee focused questioning of the second panel on firearms—semiautomatic rifles—that the killers, Stephen Paddock and Devin Patrick Kelley allegedly utilized to murder innocent people.The purpose of this article is not to delve into the interstices and intricacies of the Senate Hearing but to inform the American public of the fact of it and the specific concerns addressed during it that cast in high relief the dangers posed to preserving the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment.Antigun proponents, through their Congressional representatives—Senate Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democratic Party member, Dianne Feinstein, and her principal cohorts, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others—wish to move the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other criminal and mental health databases into an efficient and massive and broad digital firearms registration scheme, embracing more and more individuals and incentivizing the military and the States to add comprehensive criminal and mental health data into NICS and other databases. Through this Hearing, and through recent comments of antigun proponents in news broadcasts, we see renewed efforts by antigun proponents, stoked by the recent mass shooting incidents—to weaken the Second Amendment beyond past efforts. Emboldened, we see efforts afoot by antigun proponents to transform NICS and other federal and State databases into a comprehensive digital firearms’ registration scheme, wrapping it into a more restrictive, draconian criminal and mental health background check scheme.If successful, these efforts by the antigun movement would infringe not only the basic, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, but would also infringe the fundamental right embodied in the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, and infringe, too, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And, the antigun movement does not stop there. Not content to ban some semiautomatic firearms—that Federal Statute (the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)) at one time, defined certain semiautomatic firearms as ‘assault weapons,’ until the AWB expired in 2004, and which several States, with their own assault weapon ban statutes, in full force, presently prohibit—the antigun movement now seeks to ban all semiautomatic firearms.There are efforts afoot to enact federal law not unlike the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Under the NFA, the ATF heavily regulates civilian ownership and possession of from possessing fully automatic machine guns and submachine guns and selective fire assault rifles. And, the civilian population is prohibited altogether from owning newly manufactured fully automatic weapons.So, even as the House in recent days passed the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), a bill that strengthens the Second Amendment, which now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration, we see--in stark contrast and contradistinction to pro-Second Amendment efforts to strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms--efforts by antigun Legislators mobilizing and gearing up to dispossess American citizens of semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic firearms, not merely those bizarrely categorized as ‘assault weapons.’ Antigun proponents evidently feel that they can hoodwink the American public, given the recent mass shooting incidents—which they use to their advantage—as they work unceasingly toward their ultimate goal to dispossess all Americans, eventually, of their firearms.During the questioning of the first panel, senior Officials of the Federal Government admitted that the NICS system was incomplete and faulty. The reason for this is that the military, especially, but also the States, have been remiss in entering data pertaining to individuals convicted of crimes that preclude these individuals from possessing firearms. Senator Ted Cruz, in his opening remarks, also made the pertinent point that individuals who falsify information to obtain a firearm have violated federal law, but that these crimes are rarely prosecuted and, so, all too often go unpunished.Falsifying information to obtain a firearm when an individual is not permitted to possess a firearm is a serious crime. 18 USCS § 922(a)(6), titled, “Unlawful acts” sets forth clearly, categorically, and unequivocally that: “it shall be unlawful for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter.” Senator Cruz was making the point, albeit tacitly, that laws that have no legal consequences do not amount to laws at all. Enforcement of federal firearms laws is lackadaisical at best, a point often made by NRA and a point perfunctorily ignored by antigun proponents whose real goal, after all, is to go after the millions of law-abiding gun owners, even as they profess to express concern over those individuals, alone, who are absolutely prohibited by law “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce.” See United States Code, 18 USCS § 922(g) and 18 USCS § 922(n), titled, “Unlawful Acts,” as set forth in Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” of Part I, “Crimes,” of Chapter 44, “Firearms.”During the hearing, Legislators on the Judiciary Committee uniformly expressed concern over faulty federal NICS record-keeping and they requested, from the panel of senior Government officials, an explanation for the failure of these Government Offcials to keep the criminal databases up-to-date. But, it is one thing to repair the NICS record-keeping system; it is quite another to contemplate dumping ever more people into it, essentially, eventually, encapsulating minutia of mental health details of every American, along with details of every infraction committed by every American during every period of his or her life—every spat between husband wife or boyfriend and girlfriend, and an accounting of every instance, every bout of depression or anxiety an American citizen at one time or another may have had. Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee—alluded to expanding NICS and other criminal and mental health databases into a comprehensive and permanent digital—as opposed to merely manual—database of every firearm’s transaction and tying that to and in tandem with a universal background check schema.Clearly, the aim of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee is, then, more ambitious and grandiose than merely repairing a faulty NICS system. We are headed toward a universal registration system if antigun proponents have their way. Every firearm owner becomes suspect. Hence, every American, who owns a firearm must be carefully screened, and those licensed and therefore “privileged” to own and possess a firearm, will be carefully and continuously observed for signs of anti-social behavior, predicated on subjective standards of assessment. The implication of a universal criminal and mental health background check system tied into a permanent NICS databases are dire from the standpoint of Constitutional privacy concerns.Then, there are the firearms themselves. During the questioning of the second panel, it became clear that it wasn’t Stephen Paddock or Devin Patrick Kelley who were being castigated for the horror they caused. Rather, it was the semiautomatic weapons that were the target of and the focus of the Senators' ire--those Democratic Party members who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.One speaker on the second panel, who was the first to speak, was a young woman named Heather Gooze. She detailed her personal experiences during the Las Vegas shooting episode and resulting carnage. This survivor’s anguished account of holding and attempting to aid and comfort a dying stranger, who had been shot by Paddock, was poignant, graphic, heart-rending, heartfelt, and deepfelt, as it was meant to be—but, for all that, it was also irrelevant. The fault for the tragedy in Las Vegas was not laid at the feet of the maniac, Stephen Paddock, the sole cause of the carnage—assuming there were no others that abetted Paddock. No! The fault for the crime is laid on inanimate objects—the weapons Paddock used in the commission of his heinous acts. But, if civilian access to an entire category of weapons, semiautomatic rifles, in common use by millions of law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans, is to be curtailed, then, those who would ban civilian possession of semiautomatic weapons  must propound sound legal and logical arguments in support of their case. Arguments amounting to emotional rhetoric, however endearing and heartfelt and honest they may be, are not rational substitutes for sound reasoning.What was on display during the Hearing, was unabashed grief and anger. That is what we heard from the young woman, Heather Gooze: a plaintive and soulful, if tacit, cry for a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons, and that is what the Senators on the Judiciary Committee got from her. This appeal to sympathy for one's cause, derived from heartfelt pain, is representative of a common fallacy. It's one an undergraduate college student learns about in a course on informal and formal symbolic logic. The Latin expression for this informal fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from pity or sympathy or misery, or compassion). The fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam is committed when pity, or sympathy, or compassion, or misery is appealed to for the sake of getting someone to accept a conclusion predicated on emotion, alone, sidestepping the salient issue.Appealing to pity, compassion, or sympathy, or misery avoids dealing with the pertinent legal questions. The pertinent legal question here is this: do semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection? Antigun proponents use the argument from pity incessantly to sidestep this legal issue—the real issue—because they do not wish to hit the issue head-on. Appealing to sympathy or pity, or misery, or anger operates as a convenient substitute for cogent and sound legal and logical reasoning. It is unfortunate that the U.S. Supreme Court has, at least twice, decided not to take up the issue whether semiautomatic weapons do fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, as appellants in the cases failed to garner four votes necessary to secure high Court review. See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed.2d 483 (2015); and, recently, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. Md., 2016), cert. denied, 2017 LEXIS 7002. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both these cases.The legal and logical weaknesses of the antigun proponent’s position, apropos of semiautomatic weapons, would be all too apparent were they to try to evince an argument. The public is hit with emotional rhetoric and pious sentiments, instead. Such emotional outrage has clout, even as it is devoid of substance. Heather Gooze used it to good effect during the Hearing. Her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was as much a plea for action from the public as it was a plea for action from the Senate. No doubt, that was the reason she was invited to speak before the Committee at this public Hearing.Antigun proponents invariably take the argumentum ad misericordiam out of their sack of tricks whenever a tragedy involving the misuse of firearms occurs. They know that tragic events tug at the heartstrings of anyone who has a modicum of compassion in his or her heart, which are the majority of us—and which do not include psychopaths, who have no inkling of and therefore have absolutely no understanding of the concept of compassion. And, these individuals, who lack a modicum of compassion include, as well, common criminals who might understand the concept but simply don’t care since a consideration of compassion during the commission of a crime interferes with their personal selfish ends.Appealing to sympathy as an argument to dispossess millions of law-abiding firearms owners of their firearms operates as a useful makeweight, a convenient scapegoat, for antigun proponents, allowing antigun proponents to avoid factoring in the complex legal, logical, historical, cultural, and ethical ramifications of taking firearms away from millions of sane, rational, honest Americans. Essentially the antigun proponent’s argument, in various forms and permutations, boils down to this:“semiautomatic ‘assault weapons’ are weapons of war and have no legitimate use in civilian hands other than to commit murder and to do so on a large scale. And, manufacturers market these weapons to the entire civilian population which includes, then, mentally ill individuals and criminals who should not have them. These weapons have incredible firepower and no legitimate civilian use. Just look at what happens when a poor, deluded person gets hold of this ‘weapon of war.’ Just look at the harm he calls. Anyone who has a heart at all should see that semiautomatic assault weapons will only cause bad things to happen and will cause good people to do bad things. If you don’t want to see an innocent child, a vulnerable woman, a weak old man harmed—and what caring, compassionate human being does—then you will agree with us that there is no place for these ‘weapons of war’ in a civilized society, and you will write or call your Congressman or Senator, asking your Legislator to enact legislation that permanently bans these awful weapons of war, to ban them for the good of society so that no other person will ever suffer the needless tragedy that these weapons of war cause.” Well, if there is a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from civilians, this isn’t it. Apart from appealing solely to one’s emotions, the argument embraces false assumptions, hyperbole, and irrelevant considerations. And, if you think our illustration of the fallacy of argumentum misericordiam amounts itself to a fallacy—the straw man fallacy, as some, who challenge our position, may claim—it does not. The remarks, concerning semiautomatic weapons as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war,’ “weapons that have no legitimate civilian use,” and the notion that firearms manufacturers market these “weapons of war” to criminals and to the mentally ill are not suppositions the Arbalest Quarrel has invented to illustrate an argumentum misericordiam, for the purpose simply to knock down a straw man. No! These remarks are not our invention at all. These remarks, purporting to be arguments against civilian possession of firearms, are utilized constantly, incessantly by antigun proponents. And, more to the point, these remarks, as set forth in our example, comprise, in part, allegations taken from an actual formal legal pleading—namely and specifically the First Amended Complaint of the Soto Plaintiffs, in Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this case and continues to write articles about it. See, for example, our in-depth article, titled, “Soto vs. Bushmaster: Antigunners Take Aim at Gun Manufacturers.” We also wish to point out that a detailed account of one’s personal experiences, as related to the reader or listener—those of Heather Gooze, during the Senate Hearing—amount to a series of declarations that have no appreciable epistemic value. In other words, her account of the tragedy in Las Vegas, that occurred during the Harvest Music Festival, is not the sort of thing that one can reasonably challenge, or that need be challenged, or is expected by anyone to be challenged, as false.The Arbalest Quarrel accepts the account of Heather Gooze, as related at the Senate Hearing, as true, and does not quarrel with it. There is no reason to. There is no reason to consider her personal account as false. We say this because the remarks of Heather Gooze have no concrete epistemic value on the salient issue whether semiautomatic weapons fall within the core of the Second Amendment. Her remarks or declarations of events as she experienced them at the Harvest Music Festival do not serve as a sound reason for banning semiautomatic weapons from the millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens who own and possess them, notwithstanding that the Democratic Party Senators on the Judiciary Committee happen to believe the account of Heather Gooze to be relevant to the issue whether semiautomatic weapons are the sorts of firearms that properly belong in the hands of the average, rational and responsible American citizen. The remarks of Heather Gooze simply attest, at best, to a matter that everyone can agree with: that criminals, psychopaths, Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics—the flotsam and jetsam of society—should not have access to any firearm. One might by the same token argue that the worst elements of society should not have access to anything that can feasibly be used to cause great harm to others and to many individuals at one time. Consider for example: a knife, an automobile or truck, or chainsaw. What we are getting at here is that common criminals, and members of drug cartels and criminal gangs, and psychopaths, and Islamic terrorists, and other assorted lunatics and maniacs and riffraff who pose a danger to others, as these individual do, should be removed from our society. It is not the firearm that should be removed from American society.That common criminals, terrorists, psychotics, or psychopaths may happen to get their hands on a semiautomatic rifle or on any other firearm to harm others does not serve as a sound legal or logical reason for banning semiautomatic weapons en masse from millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, make no mistake, Senator Dianne Feinstein and the other Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee do seek to ban and do work feverishly to ban all semiautomatic weapons, just as fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons have been essentially banned from civilian possession, since 1934, with passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA). In fact, Senator Dianne Feinstein would accomplish this feat through enactment of a very devious bit of legislation, which was referred to during the Senate Hearing.Roughly two months ago, on October 4, 2017, Senator Feinstein introduced the following bill in the U.S. Senate:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act".POSSESSION OF CERTAIN FIREARM ACCESSORIES. Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-   in section 922, by inserting after subsection (u) the following:   "(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.   This subsection does not apply with respect to the importation for, manufacture for, sale to, transfer to, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof."; and   in section 924(a)(2), by striking ", or (o)" and inserting "(o), or (v)". Attorneys David Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, sitting on the second panel, and testifying at the Senate Hearing—were acutely aware of this Senate bill. David Kopel pointed out that the language of Feinstein’s bill, the "Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act," makes very clear that any change at all to any semiautomatic weapon—lightening the trigger pull, for example, or even cleaning a firearm—can effectively serve to increase the rate of fire of the weapon. Thus, any semiautomatic rifle can, were Feinstein’s bill enacted, serve as the basis to ban outright all semiautomatic rifles. When faced with David Kopel’s critical, astute remarks, Senator Feinstein demurred, seemed agitated and, evidently, perplexed, asserting, disingenuously, that the bill was drafted by capable attorneys, suggesting, perhaps, or, then again, perhaps not, that her bill only targets certain types of accessories or components for semiautomatic weapons, such as the “bump-fire device” (“bump stock”) that are specifically mentioned, and not, ipso facto, all semiautomatic weapons. But, that doesn't seem to be the case; and, if that is not the case, then this would suggest that the drafters of Feinstein’s bill either know very little about the operation of semiautomatic rifles or know the operation of semiautomatic weapons all too well. If the former supposition is true, then the bill has unintended consequences: positive consequences for antigun proponents; negative consequences for everyone else. This means that all semiautomatic rifles can and eventually would be banned. This is consistent with the plain meaning of the bill. If the latter supposition is true, then, given the plain meaning of the bill, the bill is a subterfuge. This would mean that those who drafted Feinstein's bill intended, all along, not merely to suggest that only some accessories for semiautomatic rifles would be banned, but that, in fact, all semiautomatic weapons would be banned, as this is what antigun proponents want and have wanted all along and this is what the bill says: no semiautomatic weapons in the hands of American citizens qua civilians. Either way, Senator Feinstein would derive from her bill, if enacted, exactly what she had long sought—a universal ban on semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’—meaning, of course, that all semiautomatic weapons would be banned because all semiautomatic weapons are, ipso facto, ‘assault weapons,’ as Senator Feinstein sees it.Never underestimate the deviousness of antigun proponents and never trust them when they assert that they do not seek to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. These antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and their billionaire benefactors, and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media and in Hollywood, will not rest easy until each and every average American citizen qua civilian—apart from the so-called “elites” in society, like Senator Feinstein, herself—is prohibited, by law, from owning and possessing any kind of firearm._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONFISCATING FIREARMS FROM GOOD PEOPLE WON’T EVER STOP GUN VIOLENCE PERPETRATED BY BAD PEOPLE

STEPHEN PADDOCK, MASS MURDERER

PART ONE

UNDERSTANDING, TRULY UNDERSTANDING THE MOTIVATIONS OF MASS MURDERERS IS ULTIMATELY IMPOSSIBLE AND PROBABLY A WASTE OF TIME.

“Then the Hatter opened his eyes very wide . . . but all he said was, ‘Why is a raven like a writing-desk?’ ‘Come, we shall have some fun now!’ Thought Alice. ‘I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — ‘I believe I can guess that,’ she added aloud. ‘Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?’ said the March Hare. ‘Have you guessed the riddle yet?’ the Hatter said, turning to Alice again. ‘No, I give it up,’ Alice replied: ‘that’s the answer?’ ‘I haven’t the slightest idea,’ said the Hatter. ‘Nor I,’ said the March Hare. Alice sighed wearily. ‘I think you might do something better with the time,’ she said, ‘than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers.’” From the fantasy novel, "Alice in Wonderland," by Lewis Carroll“All men are uncreated equal.” From the notebook of the psychotic mass killer,  James Holmes, sentenced by the Court to life + 3,318 years for the murder of 70 individuals and the attempted murder of dozens of others, in a movie theater, in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012. After sentencing, the Judge, who heard the case, and, having had enough of Holmes, angrily said, “Get the defendant out of my courtroom.”What motivates a person to commit murder and mayhem, to commit acts of unimaginable savagery and on a vast scale? News commentators, police investigators, and FBI agents speculate and ponder Stephen Paddock’s motivation, his rationale, his raison d’etre for committing a horrific, heinous act that defies belief, and they are left dumbfounded, even as they ponder the unthinkable, the unimaginable. Ultimately, though, for the rest of us, does the question of Paddock’s motivation really matter? Had Paddock survived, would his statements to interrogators provide the clues, the missing pieces to the puzzle? In other words, do rational, logical explanations even exist for inherently irrational acts? At the moment, investigators dismiss a political, social, or financial motive, which might otherwise provide a seeming basis or quasi-rational explanation for Paddock’s actions. But, the answer may simply boil down to this: If Paddock enjoyed shooting at metal ducks with an air gun at a penny arcade or when standing at a booth at a traveling carnival in his youth, perhaps, he thought, how much more fun it would be to shoot at thousands of “little ducks” way down below, as he stood at his perch at an expensive “carny” stand—a luxury suite (booth)—at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Vegas, after all, is the largest, and arguably, most obscene carnival in the Nation. And, Paddock’s prize for “winning” by shooting the most “ducks?” Notoriety on a national and even international scale! Does that answer help? And, if true, can a sane, rational American wrap his or her head around that? Would one desire to do so? Would one wish even to try? Not likely.To understand Paddock’s mental processes—to truly understand the inner workings of the mind of a madman—it is necessary for a rational sane person to be able and willing to share, intimately, Paddock’s perceptions, his experiences. But, would one wish to take that leap, were it possible? In that regard, consider a scene in the 1983 Sci Fi film, “Brainstorm.” In the movie, scientists, working for a high-end technology company, create a device that allows a person to tap, literally and directly into the thoughts and feelings and experiences of another person. Nefarious individuals see military applications for the device: brainwashing and torture; and they dictate the future of the company, moving it in that direction. They hook the device up to the mind of a psychotic and record the psychotic’s brain activity on tape. A scientist absent-mindedly leaves the device at his home where his child gets a hold of it. Out of innocent curiosity, the child places the device on his head. Once he does so, the child immediately links his mind to that of the psychotic, through the tape inadvertently running at the time, on the device. The child, transfixed in horror at the bizarre, discordant images coursing through his brain as linked to the brain of a psychotic--as the child's mind “takes in” the full weight and gravity of psychosis--doesn’t have the wherewithal to remove the device. The result is not pleasant. The child suffers an immediate, catastrophic, and possibly irreversible psychotic break.Now, back to Paddock. Apart from a possible motive, more troubling to criminologists is the conclusion that they seem to be required to draw. Stephen Paddock does not, according to investigators, as relayed to the public through news accounts, fit the conventional profile for a mass killer. That is perplexing, bothersome, troublesome to investigators.Today, computer programs and algorithms exist for explaining and predicting human conduct and behavior—explaining and predicting the hopes, wishes, desires, fears, and urges of each of us and to do so with amazing, frightening accuracy, and the creators of these programs and algorithms are getting better at it all the time, but, for all their successes, they may never be able to obtain a complete picture of what makes a person "tick." But, that doesn't stop them from trying. Stephen Paddock, a psychopath and psychotic, is a conundrum. And, those who seek to control all of us, don’t like that. They don’t like the conclusion they seem they must draw here: that their predictive programs, for assessing character flaws and predicting violent behavior in those individuals among us, who may present a danger to others, don’t always work. Clearly, those programs didn’t work in predicting Stephen Paddock’s descent to savagery. Perhaps it is enough to say that Stephen Paddock inherited his psychopathological makeup from his father, Benjamin Paddock. Perhaps it was just a matter of time before Paddock would explode—a matter of time before his super-consciousness (if he had any conscience at all), would be unable to contain his venomous ego personality, and that ego would fracture, allowing his lizard urges to emerge and predominate and control his actions. Ultimately, though, who can say?The point of this narrative is twofold: one, that, at some level, with some people who exhibit abnormal, aberrant behavior—fortunately very few—any mechanism or tool for explaining and predicting dangerous, abnormal, aberrant behavior is difficult and most likely impossible. Breakthroughs in medical science, psychological modeling, and criminal profiling is, at best, still, obviously rudimentary.News accounts report that Stephen Paddock’s father, Benjamin Paddock, was a bank robber, con man, and psychopath, who, for several years, appeared on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list. Benjamin Paddock died in 1998. Did his son, Stephen, inherit his father’s psychopathological makeup. Perhaps. According to the old saw, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” News accounts report that Stephen Paddock has three brothers, according to the NY Times, in an article, published on October 13, 2017, titled, “Father’s History Could Offer Insight Into Mind of Las Vegas Gunman,” about Stephen Paddock’s father, Benjamin Paddock. One brother, Eric, we hear about quite frequently. Another brother, Bruce, we don’t hear much about. What we do hear about Bruce is not pleasant. He appears to be a “bad apple” like Stephen. News accounts of two other brothers is virtually or altogether nonexistent. As for Eric Paddock, Eric claims he is as mystified as everyone else is of his older brother's, Stephen Paddock’s, atrocities. But, would the other brother, Bruce, one day contemplate and carry out a mass shooting like Stephen Paddock? Would Eric? And, what of the two remaining brothers that we do not hear about at all--the two remaining brothers for which there remains a palpable silence?Writing an opinion piece for The New York Times, on October 11, 2017, titled, “Psychiatrists Can’t Stop Mass Killers,” Richard A. Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry, says, “it’s true that many mass murderers do have a mental disorder, typically a severe personality disorder or a psychotic illness. But, this fact has almost no implication for how to stop them.” Still, Richard Friedman admits that, “even if you were to eliminate all psychiatric illness from the population, the rate of violence would drop by only about 4 percent.” In a parenthetical, Friedman says, “The contribution from mass killers is far smaller: In 2015, mass killings accounted for only 0.35 percent of gun-related homicides.” The tacit question posed in the article is this: How are American citizens to protect themselves from others who would harm them? That tacit question spawns another: Do we proscribe gun possession of those individuals, alone, who exhibit psychopathic or psychotic tendencies but who have not been adjudged mentally incompetent or who have not been committed to a mental asylum? Or, if we cannot know with any degree of certainty those individuals who exhibit a danger to others, which, according to Friedman’s “disturbing reality,” includes “healthy people in the grip of everyday emotion using guns,” do we proscribe gun ownership of everyone? Friedman answers these two questions in the concluding paragraph of his article.In keeping with the Times’ abhorrence toward guns and gun ownership by the average American citizen, Richard Friedman concludes his article with this advice, that may be interpreted as an admonishment: “so let’s stop pretending we can detect mass killers in advance. But we can deprive them—and everyone else—of the deadly weapons they require to turn their impulses into carnage.” It is the phrase, “everyone else” that ought to give those Americans who hold dear the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, pause.There are, then, two roads, two paths we might follow to constrain those who commit violent crimes with firearms since it is virtually impossible to decipher what motivates such individuals. Although these roads or paths start off at the same juncture, they eventually diverge, and diverge sharply. Where the paths begin, there is general agreement. Maniacs and criminals should not be permitted to own and possess or have access to firearms. That is a given. In fact, federal law already precludes convicted felons and those persons adjudicated mentally incompetent or who have been committed to a mental asylum from possessing firearms—any firearm. Under 18 USCS § 922 (d)(1), "It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce." And, 18 USCS § 922 (g)(4) sets forth that, "It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign  commerce."But, then, do we deny every American citizen his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms because, possibly, theoretically, at some indefinite time in the future, a person may commit a horrific act with a firearm? That is the conundrum facing those politicians who consider highly unlikely but theoretically possible contingencies to dictate what would inevitably amount to the evisceration of fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution. That doesn't bother Richard Friedman. He ascribes to one path: a kind of Minority Report scenario. Since, as he says, no one can know for certain who, among the citizenry, will one day go off the deep end, everyone should be deprived of firearms ownership and possession, under the cold calculated and bizarre assumption that anyone may, probabilistically, devolve into a mass murderer, even if probabilistically, the odds of any rational person devolving into a psychotic mass murderer are virtually zero. Keep in mind, though a singularly important fact that any clinical psychologist or psychiatrist should know and it is one that Richard Friedman alludes to in his article, through the statistics he cites. It is that the vast majority of individuals, including even those who suffer from severe, acute psychoses, very few are likely to transform into mass murderers. But, then, while logic dictates restraint, hysterical overreaction is all too often the norm when it comes to gun laws. See, exempli gratia, Symptom-Based Gun Control, 46 Conn. L. Rev. 1633 (May 2014) by Frederick E. Vars, Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, citing, Jeffrey Swanson & Marvin Swartz, The Navy Yard Shooting and Mental Illness, CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY NEWS (Sept. 20, 2013) ‘(explaining that post-Heller, the United States faces the difficult task of trying to keep guns out of the hands of certain ‘dangerous people’; that ‘we often don't know who the dangerous people are (until it's too late), and the people that we might assume to be dangerous (say because they have a mental illness) mostly are not’; and that psychiatrists' predictions of gun violence ‘aren't much better than a coin toss’ so ‘reducing gun violence in the tiny proportion of mentally ill individuals at risk is a vexing challenge’).”  See also, Balancing Public Safety with the Rights of the Mentally Ill: The Benefit of a Behavioral Approach in Reducing Gun Violence in Tennessee, 45 U. Mem. L. Rev. 671 (Spring 2015), by M. Roxana Nahhas Rudolph, J.D. Candidate, citing, generally, Jeffrey W. Swanson et al., Preventing Gun Violence Involving People with Serious Mental Illness, in Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis 33, 35 (Daniel W. Webster & Jon S. Vernick eds., 2013) [hereinafter Swanson et al., Preventing Gun Violence] ('But it is also true that crisis-driven law is not always carefully deliberated and that the results can make things worse and be difficult to undo.'); and Andrew J. McClurg, The Rhetoric of Gun Control, 42 Am. U. L. Rev. 53, 66 (1992) ("Emotions may move us to act, but reason should control the course of that action." (citing Madsen Pirie, The book of the Fallacy 58 (1985)). Roxana Nahhas Rudolph writes: “Mental illness has become a current focal point of gun control legislation. The recent tragedies involving gun violence and mass shootings across the country have left many Americans demanding stricter and better enforced methods of denying firearm access to mentally ill individuals. Unfortunately, the demand for increased gun control legislation has resulted in misguided and discriminatory legal remedies that are grounded in emotion rather than statistic. Due to highly publicized mass shootings like those in Newtown and Aurora, the public perception is skewed toward assuming that mentally ill persons are inclined toward violent behavior. Although some degree of public safety concern is warranted, the fear associated with mental illness is generally disproportionate to the actual risk of harm posed to society. Recent empirical data indicates that Americans with mental illness commit less than 5% of societal violence. Therefore, reactionary gun laws that focus exclusively on mental health are unlikely to result in any significant nationwide reduction in gun violence.”  This being the case, we are, nonetheless faced with hysterical overreaction that seems, unfortunately, to be perfectly reasonable to antigun proponents: namely those antigun groups, and antigun legislators, and antigun mainstream media organizations and commentators, and other liberal, smug complacent voices. Their antipathy toward guns is visceral. They adamantly oppose civilian gun ownership and possession. And they hold those who seek to own and possess firearms in utter contempt, surmising, absurdly and viciously that anyone, among the civilian population, who desires to own a firearm must, ipso facto, have something wrong with him (or her).Dare it also be said that the kind of action called for, stemming from Friedman’s conclusion, is altogether inconsistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. Since the chances that a rational person may become a psychotic killer is so infinitely small as to be ludicrous in the extreme, it follows, logically, that an appeal to statistics is hardly a reasonable basis upon which to enact draconian laws, inhibiting rights and liberties under the Bill of Rights of our free Republic. When faced with the fact that statistics do not support the imposition of draconian gun laws on the American public, Richard Friedman and those sympathetic to his reasoning proceed from the standpoint that gun ownership and possession must be curtailed for the sake of “public safety,” however remote the danger of gun violence, either by normal, rational individuals or by those suffering from serious mental psychoses. We see, then, that the expression, “public safety,” operates as little more than a makeweight, little more than an excuse by federal and State legislatures and federal and State bureaucrats who seek to obliterate legitimate exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.What this means is that State and federal legislatures and State and federal government bureaucrats would allow lunatics and maniacs—the lowest common denominator in society and however few in number who do represent a danger to others—to dictate the extent to which the rest of us—millions of sane, rational, honest, law-abiding, but otherwise ordinary American citizens. The lowest common denominator in society serves, then, as the excuse, the impetus to denigrate and restrain and constrain the right of tens of millions of the rest of us: the sane, rational, honest, law-abiding but ordinary Americans who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Restrictive firearms laws that oppress the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms do not, of course, make legal or logical sense. Such laws cannot, then, be justified either in law or in logic, but they are enacted anyway: ever more of them, and all of them sold to the public as a panacea, as a seemingly common-sense but clearly "over-the-top response to a limited threat that is deliberately and shamelessly blown out of all sensible proportion by the mainstream media in order to further an unlawful agenda--de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Let us also be ever mindful of one indelible hard fact, lest we, in an inattentive moment, forget, as encouraged to do so, when inundated with waves of emotional rhetoric. It is that these restrictive gun laws that ostensibly serve the interest of public safety subvert, at once, the right of millions of ordinary, law-abiding freedom-loving, rational American citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones with a firearm. Legislators who enact draconian gun laws do so, either oblivious to or, more likely, keenly aware of, but irreverently dismissive of the fact that sane, rational, honest, law-abiding, but average, ordinary American citizens do defend themselves with firearms, and do so tens of thousands of times per year, according to even the most conservative estimates, and, by other, likely more accurate estimates, well over one million times per year. *What is beneficial to the individual—armed self-defense—is considered disadvantageous to society; so sayeth those who claim to seek to maximize public safety and who believe that public safety and armed self-defense are incompatible. If one must go, it is, then, "armed self-defense. That is what the antigun proponents and what their highly secretive, inordinately powerful, and exorbitantly wealthy benefactors   want. That is what they  all work tirelessly toward. That is what the antigun proponents and their benefactors intend to achieve through lies, evasions, and "half-truths;" through manipulation of statistics; through audacious use of tragic events; through media propaganda; through all manner of devices, orchestrations, contrivances, and dissimulations--all designed to induce fear, confusion and volatility in the masses--all to further their anti-Second Amendment aims, their anti-Bill of Rights agenda, their internationalist goal for a one-world government. Prior to the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), made applicable to the States in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)), the notion that the individual’s right of self-defense must take a back seat to public safety—the well-being of the collective, "the hive” over the needs of the individual—flourished, was, indeed, taken as axiomatic; but this is no longer true. But that doesn’t stop the antigun crowd from continuing to make its case in the political arena, thereby patently ignoring the weight of U.S. Supreme Court law, and of logic, and of ethics as understood by the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution.In truth, if armed self-defense is incompatible with anything, it is incompatible with foreign law that fails to recognize the right of American citizens to utilize firearms for self-defense. An individual residing in Australia--namely, a subject of the Queen of England--says this:“ ‘[It is] actually not that hard to own a gun. But, you do have to have a genuine reason. You have to be a member of a target shooting club, or a hunter, and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or, you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory [thirty] day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well.’” As cited in the law review article, “Check ‘Mate’: Australia's Gun Law Reform Presents The United States With The Challenge To Safeguard Their Citizens From Mass Shootings, by Denise Cartolano, 41 Nova L. Rev. 139 (Winter 2017).** You will note that the individual, who made the statement and who lives in Australia, made no reference to “armed self-defense.” Obviously, armed self-defense isn’t considered a genuine reason for owning and possessing a firearm in Australia. And, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the past U.S. President, Barack Obama, and the woman who had claimed the "throne" of the U.S. Presidency and who had her ambitions and hopes dashed, a second time, Hillary Clinton, would--both of them--emulate the Australian example, seeking to thrust it on the American people.Isn't armed self-defense, though, a legitimate basis for owning and possessing firearms? You would think that no one in Australia would need a firearm for self-defense. If that assertion is false, we don’t hear of such reports; nor do we hear of instances where Americans have utilized a firearm for self-defense. We never see DGU (Defensive Gun Use) statistics reported or even alluded to in the mainstream media. We don’t encounter DGU statistics in mainstream news accounts because those who seek to demolish Americans’ sacred right of armed self-defense would undermine their own argument in favor of dismantling the Second Amendment. Antigun proponents and the secretive benefactors who bankroll their efforts relish the latest national gun tragedy because that serves to promote their agenda—an agenda that is antithetical to the preservation of the core of our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms—one salient fundamental right that defines us as Americans and distinguishes us, in a positive vein, from all other populations on this planet.If we attempt a one-to-one match of each instance where an innocent American lost his or her life to an armed gunman to an instance where an innocent American preserved his or her life by wielding a firearm, the difference between loss of life to an armed assailant to preservation of life by an armed law-abiding American would be on the order of one life lost to hundreds of thousands saved. Of course, every innocent life is precious. But, to deny the right of any one innocent American to possess a firearm on the ground that more guns in the hands of sane, rational, law-abiding but “ordinary” Americans equates with more gun violence is a proposition at once not only false, but hypocritical. It cannot be the value of human life then that the antigun crowd is most concerned about, their assertions to the contrary. It is the desire to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, partly for its own sake, and partly predicated on odd aesthetic grounds and obtuse ethical ones, and on the desire to make ready the wrapping of this Nation into a new world globalist order--one necessitating a new constitution; one conformable to the political, social, legal, and financial structure of the European Union.The saner approach and one consistent with the fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms is to expand, not restrict, the fundamental, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, so that individuals are best able to defend themselves from those who seek to harm them. But that idea is anathema to those who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, even, though, an armed citizenry would likely significantly reduce the number of innocent individuals injured or killed in a mass shooting incident. Consider: “American massacres, in which dozens of unarmed victims are mowed down before police can arrive, astound Israelis, who note what occurred at a Jerusalem [crowd spot] . . . : three terrorists who attempted to machinegun the throng managed to kill only one victim before being shot down by handgun-carrying Israelis. Presented to the press the next day, the surviving terrorist complained that his group had not realized that Israeli civilians were armed. The terrorists had planned to machinegun a succession of crowd spots, thinking that they would be able to escape before the police or army could arrive to deal with them.” “Under Fire: The New Consensus on The Second Amendment," by 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.The New York Times, the bastion of hate toward exercise of the natural, fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment has, in the last several days, published a plethora of Op Ed articles, damning not Paddock, the maniac responsible for horrific gun violence, but “the gun” itself. This is nothing new for the Times newspaper. The curious thing is that most of the writers for the Times use the tragedy to promote an agenda, essentially calling for the dismantling of the Second Amendment, even though no present gun law or contemplated gun law would have prevented the horror that transpired in Las Vegas.Nicholas Kristoff, in his editorial, appearing in the Op Ed section of The New York Times, on October 5, 2017, titled, “We Can Act Before the Next Mass Shooting,” (titled, "Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack" (in the digital version, posted on October 2, 2017)) calls for, what he refers to, as “modest steps we could take that would, collectively, make a difference.” What are those modest steps? We have seen them before. In fact, we have seen them many times. Apart from one of them that Kristoff mentions, they are nothing new.In Part Two of this Article, we look at Kristoff’s “modest steps” that he argues “would, collectively, make a difference,” and we explain why these “modest steps” would not make a difference.__________________________________________________________________*We rarely, if ever, see mentioned in the mainstream news statistics and articles involving defensive use of firearms. We do not see statistics and articles involving defensive use of firearms because those who seek to demolish Americans’ sacred rights and liberties—those who control the mainstream media—will never acknowledge that defensive use of firearms exists. They will jump on the latest national tragedy to promote an agenda antithetical to the preservation of the core of our Bill of Rights—the one document that best defines us as Americans—but fail to acknowledge successful use of firearms in one's self-defense.But, legitimate evidence exists that average law-abiding Americans use firearms defensively hundreds of thousands, even millions of times a year and, given that fact, even a mass shooting incident pales in comparison and significance to the many, many lives that are saved every year due to the fact that such Americans choose to exercise their fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms. Consider: “For almost a decade scholars have been debating about how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) occur annually. Gary Kleck and colleagues, citing a series of polls culminating in the 1993 Kleck-Gertz survey, argue that at least 2.55 million people use a firearm for protection against criminals each year. Hemenway and others, relying on the National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVSs), contend that only about 55,000 to 80,000 victims use guns against offenders in a given year. The estimates are wide apart and their academic champions staunchly defend their respective figures as correct and accurate, while dismissing the opposing figures as invalid and implausible.Neither side seems to be willing to give ground or see their opponents' point of view. This is unfortunate since there is good reason to believe that both sides are off-the-mark. Below the main shortcomings of the two approaches and some of the keys issues of contention are discussed.First, it appears that the estimates of the NCVSs are too low. There are two chief reasons for this. First, only DGUs that are reported as part of a victim's response to a specified crime are potentially covered. While most major felonies are covered by the NCVSs, a number of crimes such as trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief are not. DGUs in response to these and other events beyond the scope of the NCVSs are missed. Second, the NCVSs do not directly inquire about DGUs. After a covered crime has been reported, the victim is asked if he or she ‘did or tried to do [anything] about the incident while it was going on.’ Indirect questions that rely on a respondent volunteering a specific element as part of a broad and unfocused inquiry uniformly lead to undercounts of the particular of interest.  The only known significant source of overestimation of DGUs in this survey is ‘telescoping,’ the tendency of Rs to report incidents which actually happened earlier than the recall period, such as reporting a six year old incident as having happened in the past five years. It is likely that telescoping effects are more than counterbalanced by Rs who actually experienced DGUs failing to report them. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing how much effect telescoping could have on these estimates. In evaluating the ability of crime victims to recall crime events in victim surveys, the U.S. Census Bureau selected a sample of crimes that were reported to the police, and then interviewed the victims of these known crime events. Using a twelve month recall period (the same as we used in the present survey), they surveyed victims who had been involved in crimes which had actually occurred thirteen to fourteen months before the interview, i.e., one or two months before the recall period. Of these ineligible crimes, 21% were telescoped forward - wrongly reported as having occurred in the twelve month recall period. Since the months just before the start of the recall period will show the highest rates of telescoping, the rate should be even smaller for crimes which occurred earlier. Nevertheless, even if it is assumed that the 21% rate applied to events that occurred as much as one year earlier, thirteen to twenty-four months before the interview, telescoping could inflate the DGU estimates for a one year recall period by only 21%. Adjusting the 2.5 million DGU estimate downward for telescoping effects of this magnitude would reduce it to about 2.1 million (2.5 million/1.21=2.1 million), an adjustment which would have no effect on any of our conclusions. Telescoping would inflate estimates based on the five year recall period even less, since the ratio of memory loss errors over telescoping errors increases as the recall period lengthens.  Nevertheless, it should be stressed that this is just a numerical demonstration. There is no reason to believe that these modest telescoping effects outweigh the effects of Rs failing to report DGUs, and therefore, no reason to believe that these estimates are even slightly too high.” “Policy and Perspective: A Call for a Truce in the DGU War”, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1462 (Summer 1997), by Tom W. Smith, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.____________________________________________________**The author of the article, Denise Cartolano, Attorney Advisor for the Executive office for Immigration Review as part of the Department of Justice's Attorney General's Honors Program, is obviously well-credentialed, but, she presumes, in our estimate wrongly, that Australia's draconian gun laws are, for the most part, consistent with American law and that they can and should be implemented here in the United States. She clearly does not support the notion of armed self-defense in this Country, tacitly emulating Australia's highly restrictive gun laws. She points out, as alluded to by the Australian subject, whom the author quotes in her law review article, that, while "Australia's gun laws include a provision to show a genuine use for owning, possessing, or using a firearm [p]ersonal protection, or self-defense, does not qualify as a genuine reason to own a firearm in Australia.  Only 'reasons relating to sport shooting, recreational shooting, [or] hunting, collecting, and occupational requirements' are valid reasons for gun ownership or use in Australia.As discussed, the Supreme Court of the United States' cases Heller I and McDonald held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms in the home for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense, and that the Second Amendment applies against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.   Therefore, in light of the Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, it follows that the United States cannot implement a law that excludes self-defense as a genuine reason for owning, possessing, or using a firearm." Is this to suggest that the author of the article, Denise Cartolano, is supportive of the Heller decision and of the Second Amendment? No! The author concludes her article, asserting, "What is clear from the glaring statistics and media coverage of multiple mass shootings occurring at elevating rates in the United States is that the gun control issue needs to be tackled and new legislation implemented. Members of federal and state legislators need to start a conversation on gun control and work collaboratively to establish policies that effectuate change. The murder of innocent American citizens at the hands of those with firearms is an issue of national importance and should be a bipartisan one. America's culture and climate of gun ownership needs to be analyzed and reevaluated in order to spare the United States from another mass shooting tragedy. Australia was able to implement sweeping legislative reform regarding gun control only twelve days after one mass shooting event.  As discussed in this Article, the United States can effectively implement most of the Australian gun control legislation and should work towards making that a priority."  While the author, writes a compelling account of mass shootings in this Country and adequately dissects Australia's draconian National Firearms Agreement, her failure to take into account, or, for that matter, even to mention the fact that the American public utilizes firearms defensively hundreds of thousands or, conceivably, millions of times in any given year, and her failure to  take into account the import of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even as she acknowledges the import and purport of the Heller and McDonald cases, weakens, considerably, and, in our estimate, fatally, the force of her message, although, certainly, antigun groups would find her argument compelling.But, for those wondering what Australia's National Firearms Agreement mandates, Denise Cartolano provides this succinct statement, citing, Kelly Buchanan, Australia, in FIREARMS-CONTROL LEGISLATION AND POLICY 16, 17 (2013).  "The National Firearms Agreement: (1) prohibits automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles; (2) stiffened licensing and ownership rules--for example, the private sale and transfer of firearms is prohibited unless conducted and registered by a licensed firearms dealer; (3) instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took approximately 700,000 assault weapons out of public circulation; (4) requires licensees to demonstrate a genuine need for a particular type of gun--self-defense does not qualify; (5) requires a firearm safety course; (6) determined that licenses cannot be issued until after a waiting period of not less than twenty-eight days and for a period of no more than five years; (7) mandates that licensees need to comply with storage requirements and submit to inspection by licensing authorities, subject to immediate withdrawal of license and confiscation of firearms in certain circumstances; and (8) requires separate permits for the acquisition of every firearm."The author, Denise Catalano believes that "most" of the Australian Firearms Agreement can be implemented, which is to say, she believes that most of the Agreement is compatible with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald. We, however, believe that Catalano's assertion is a stretch, at best, even if some members of the American public would like to see an Australian style firearms law enacted. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton certainly would. U.S. Senators Schumer and Feinstein would, as well. We, though, definitely would not. Enactment of any of these measures is inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights. Whatever rights and liberties Australians enjoy only exist, if at all, by grace of the Queen of England and, so, can just as easily be revoked as granted to the Australian subject by the Queen, through the Governor-General, the Queen's Representative._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.