NYPD OFFICER SHOOTINGS DRAW ATTENTION TO MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ PLANS TO MAKE NYC SAFE: WHAT WILL HE DO?

Five NYPD officers have been shot in the line of duty, only three weeks into the New Year in Eric Adams’ reign as New York City Mayor.Most recently, on January 21, 2022, a psychopath and recidivist criminal with multiple violent felony arrests in New York and other States, Lashawn McNeil, 47, on probation, shot two police officers in New York City. See New York Post article.Officer Jason Rivera, 22, died in the line of duty, and his partner, Officer Wilbert Mora, 27, is clinging to life. The officers had answered a call involving a domestic situation in Harlem.The wife of the slain officer posted a moving tribute to her husband. The killer also shot and wounded a third officer, who returned fire, hitting McNeil in the head and arm. The killer is in critical condition as of Saturday morning. See report in The New York Times.A helluva guy, isn’t he? Let’s wish him well. Maybe the City should erect a statue to him, just like the statue it erected to George Floyd, in Brooklyn—at the same time the City removed the statue of Teddy Roosevelt.George Floyd was a drug addict and small-time crook—another character worth emulating.Just think: If Floyd had not attempted to pass a counterfeit bill off on a grocery store clerk, he would still be alive. But, then, the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party would’ve had to bide its time, awaiting some other pretext to speed the destabilization of society. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes that point clear, for which her own cohorts slammed her—apparently for being too straightforward and literal. 

AMERICA'S NEO-MARXISTS RETAIN STRANGLEHOLD ON NEW YORK CITY

Neo-Marxists retain a nice, firm stranglehold on the City, even after one of their own—Bill de Blasio—has packed up his bags and departed from Gracie Mansion.The new Mayor, Eric Adams, had once served as an NYPD officer, retiring as a Captain.Unlike de Blasio, Eric Adams isn’t a rabid Communist but he is still subject to manipulation by those elements that helped get him elected and who seek the destruction of the City and the Country.This is clear enough from Adams’ own words, following the recent shooting of those two young police officers.And what did NYPD Captain Adams—now NYC Mayor—say to the City and the Country after the most recent shootings? Just this——“ ‘The police department is doing their job taking thousands of guns off the streets, yet each time you take a gun off, there’s a constant flow of new guns coming here. . . .‘And if we don’t coordinate to go after those gun dealers that are supplying large cities in America such as New York, we are losing the battle, and the federal government must step in and play a role in doing so.‘We need Washington to join us and act now to stop the flow of guns in New York City and cities like New York.’” See NY Post article.Later, Adams told Dana Bash, host on ABC’s Good Morning America:“‘We are able to stop terrorism in this city when state, federal and local law enforcement agencies shared information. . . .‘This is a sea of crime that has been fed by many rivers. . . . We have to dam those rivers.’” See report in NY Daily News.Honestly, is this what the City and the Country want or need to hear from the Mayor? Does the City and Country need to hear seemingly glowing, but vague and bland, or tiresome and nonsensical rhetoric, of Anti-Second Amendment zealots who wish to distract and deflect attention away from themselves and from a failed Criminal Justice System they, themselves, coldly, callously, calculatedly thrust on America?Obviously, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters had scripted Eric Adams’ words for him. And Adams dutifully regurgitated them. The words were contrived; all pretense. His intent was to keep New Yorkers in a perpetual state of passivity, apathy, and mental darkness.If Adams had truly sought to come across as a transformative figure, rather than as a carbon copy of the previous inept, yet smug de Blasio, he might have delivered something to stir the passions; to shake the public from its stupor and naivety. Adams might have said something like the following——

*********

“Criminals take notice: if you kill a ‘Cop,’ you’re going down! I will not tolerate murders and assaults or attempted murders and assaults on Cops on my watch. I am, this day, declaring war on Cop Killers and would-be Cop-killers.For twenty years I served proudly as a New York City Police Officer. My first obligation as Mayor is to the well-being of the people of the City, just as it was when I served as a New York City Police Officer and Captain. An attack on a New York City Police Officers is also an attack on every other good citizen of our community, and I will not tolerate it. Two years ago, after an assassination attempt on a fellow police officer, the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote to my predecessor:“‘Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you. . . ! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. . . . NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you. . . . This isn’t over, Game on.’” [taken from an article appearing on the website, Right Edition] I am here to tell the Sergeants Benevolent Association that I have burned your words into memory. I am not de Blasio, nor do I choose to be. His days are over. In the next few weeks, I will be implementing my plan for a safe, secure, and thriving New York. That plan will include the following:

• The creation of police intelligence units and quick reaction forces to target organized crime, criminal gangs, and sociopaths that commit violent crimes against police officers and against innocent civilians;

• Encouraging City’s prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all violent offenders and to seek incarceration and, for repeat offenders, lengthy prison sentences;

• Encouraging all Branches of the City Government to swiftly draw up concrete, comprehensive, and robust plans to secure the City from the violence that has plagued it for so many years under the previous Administration;

• The Creation of task forces, mobilizing business and community leaders to assist my Office in developing zero-tolerance policies toward crime, vagrancy, and random violent acts committed by criminals, sociopaths, and psychotics against innocent citizens;

• The Complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division concerning the issuance of firearms and handguns licenses for retired police officers, licensed security guard companies, and civilians.

As a former police officer, I am able to carry a gun. But that doesn’t make me special. I believe all responsible, law-abiding citizens of New York City, no less than I, should be able to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is their fundamental right. That is why I am undertaking a complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division.During my campaign for Mayor, I was asked whether, as a former police officer, I would carry a firearm if I became Mayor. I answered, ‘Yes I will, number one. . . . ‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’  [from the New York Post]Now that I have been elected Mayor, I stand by those words. Unlike my predecessor, I intend to make our City safe. For far too long this City has had its priorities completely backward. The previous City Administration made its commitments to the wrong people, to the wrong groups, and to the wrong elements of society. This will all change on my watch. I will provide the impetus for a revitalized New York City—A City where people will want to live and feel safe and secure, where people wish to visit rather than avoid, and where businesses can grow and prosper.”

*********

Alas, in his public remarks Mayor Adams didn't say anything to suggest a sea-change from the prior disastrous Administration.During his conversation on ABCs Good Morning America, Mayor Adams did mention he will be rolling out a plan this week to take on the “gun violence.”We can’t know what that plan entails. We would hope whatever it is, it will include our aforesaid recommendations. But we have our doubts.Our concern is that, by Eric Adams’ use of the Neo-Marxists’ buzz-phrase, ‘gun violence,’ and by tying that phrase in with ‘[domestic] terrorism,’ and by constantly exclaiming and reiterating that “the federal government needs to step in and play a role,” Eric Adams is playing directly to the Harris-Biden Administration’s goal of Federal Government intrusion on State’s rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment and on the American peoples’ rights under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.The ball is now in your court, Mr. Mayor. We pray to God, you do the right thing for the people of New York City.As the Mayor of a major, prominent American City, what you do will set an example for good or ill not only for New York City but for the Country as a whole. You can kowtow to a rogue Federal Government or you can defend the Nation's Bill of Rights. But don't think for one moment you can play both ends against the middle. The public won't fall for it; not anymore._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS GONE ROGUE

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART SIX

SUBPART A

“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.” ~ attributed to George OrwellThe central theme of our multi-series set of articles on “treason,” and the principal focus of our series, is that treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, has been operating at the highest levels of the Federal Government since the inception of the Harris-Biden Administration, on January 20, 2021.Our discussion here is dedicated to laying out a case for the inference of treason in the legal sense of the word, and not in a mere colloquial, hyperbolic, or pejorative sense. This treason exists in and has infected the whole of the present Administration, and this infection extends to Congress.The Government under the Harris-Biden Administration is rogue and renegade.Our central thesis is that the extent of and expansiveness of infection is so pervasive, so dominant, so permeates the Administration that an inference of treason by Government against the Nation, Constitution, and People must be drawn.Corruption of Government extends to the Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Legislative Branch of Government, working in lockstep with the Executive Branch.Beyond the present policy decisions indicative of treasonous intent on the part of Joe Biden and other known and unknown individuals who control and manipulate him, the Administration intends to corrupt or control or neutralize the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary.The Three Branches of Government have, since the creation of the Federal Government, through ratification of the Constitution, operated as discrete independent bodies—Legislative, Executive, Judicial.Each Branch is expected to perform its tasks within the confines of the limited powers and authority ascribed to it by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, always operating in and remaining within its own orbit, its own sphere of influence and activity, as each was meant to.This Governmental construct was meant not to be a stopgap measure for the Federal Government, but a permanent fixture in it.The doctrines of “Separation of Powers” and “Co-Equal Branches,” that underlie the Federal Government construct for this Nation, were designed to discourage and forestall, if not prevent, the inception of tyranny in the Federal Government.Having successfully defeated the tyranny of one regime through armed revolt, the framers had no wish to plant the seeds of tyranny for another through the Government they would create that would, ironically, come from their own hand. So, they gave scrupulous attention to the creation of a Government that would have the best chance of avoiding the tyranny that besets a monarchy—even a Constitutional Monarchy—that England ostensibly had. They sought to create a Government for a new Nation that would best secure for themselves, and for their fellow Americans, and for generations that followed, one conceived in liberty.The Founders determined that a Republican form of Government would best serve the interests of the American people and would be least likely to turn against the people. They constructed a Federal Government that rejected a monopoly of powers in Government.The first three Articles of the Constitution attest to the Framers’ intention to preclude the consolidation of legislative, executive, and judicial power in one body. And they hoped that clear division of authority and power would also prevent the accumulation of power in two or all three Branches of the Government.That structure is now crumbling. Two Branches of Government—one controlled by the Harris-Biden Administration and the other controlled by the Pelosi-Schumer Congress—are overlapping, embracing each other; converging and merging into each other; operating in unison as a single entity.The intention of both the present Administration and the present Neo-Marxist-led and controlled Congress is to bring the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court, into their fold.And their actions to date demonstrate this maneuvering to consolidate power into one super organ of Government.If this process continues, there is nothing to stop the Government from collapsing in upon itself, centralizing power of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches in one Branch even if the trappings of separate, co-equal Branches should continue. It would all be an illusion.The aim of the present Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Congress in orchestrating consolidation of power is, as is self-evident, to streamline and to steamroller execution of Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist policies. Thus, the Government avoids debate among the few dissenting voices in Government that would be able to stop the operations of a rogue Government and avoid accountability to the polity that would justifiably object to and reject those policies.Further consolidation of all the power functions of Government, if left unchecked, would degenerate into Authoritarianism and eventually to outright Totalitarianism. The Federal Government would have long ceased to operate and function in accordance with Republicanism.At that point even the vestige of a Federal Government ruled by law and not by men would be dropped, as there would no longer be any need for it.The citizenry would live under perpetual surveillance: thoughts and behavior strictly controlled; dissent denied; the armed citizenry, disarmed.The Executive and Legislative Branches of Government are being drained of vitality as they lose their respective independence of function.The Federal Government is coalescing into autocratic rule.But whatever the form of autocracy—Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Fascism—it all denotes TYRANNY. This Country is treading close to that. And we may already be there.The legacy Press fails to acknowledge this even as the public recognizes it; is forced to come to grips with it; accept the disturbing, frightening reality of it.Tyranny is rapidly coming to fruition because—The Harris-Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer-Controlled Congress do not perceive the Constitution as an essential framework within which they are to exercise their respective powers in a lawful manner. Rather, this Government perceives the Constitution merely as an obstacle, an obstacle to be overridden by Congressional statute and/or by Executive fiat, or simply ignored.

THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS ARE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Executive Branch, the Office of the President of the United States, is operating in contradistinction to its Constitutional directive in defiance to the “TAKE CARE” CLAUSE of the Constitution.Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in pertinent part, that the U.S. President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”This isn’t a suggestion or wish. This is an obligation and one that the present Administration has not only flaunted but has dismissed out-of-hand.And the Legislative Branch, Congress, is failing to heed its salient obligation to Nation, Constitution, and People, in contradistinction to the “NECESSARY AND PROPER” CLAUSE of the Constitution.As set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, it is the function of Congress,“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The Neo-Marxist Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Congress extracts from the “NECESSARY AND PROPER” CLAUSE what it wants.But, this clause DOES NOT grant to Congress unlimited power to alter the Constitution as it wishes, outside the strict bounds set by the Constitution.“The Necessary and Proper Clause does not vest Congress with any power to alter constitutional structure by statute. Congress may only use that Clause to assist itself and the other branches by providing the means for carrying into execution a power already possessed by a branch of the federal government.” “The President’s Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale, L.J., 541, by Steven G. Calabresi, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law; J.D. Yale University; and Saikrishna B. Prakash, J.D., Yale University.The only way Congress can change the Constitution, lawfully, is through the Amendment process. That process is set forth in Article 5 of the Constitution. It is a difficult, complex, time-consuming task; deliberately so.This is as the Founders made it, lest unscrupulous, ruthless individuals in Government attempt to utilize the Constitution to corrupt it, transforming the Government operating under Republicanism into Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism.But, even if the Pelosi-Schumer Congress or some other unscrupulous Congress could convince enough States to cede power to it, through the Article 5 Amendment process, this would amount to the shredding of the doctrine of Federalism.The amendment process would drastically alter the framework of Government grounded on REPUBLICANISM. But that is the goal: to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic, unimpeded. It would be an impossible task, as well it should.A massive reconfiguration of the Federal Government even if attempted lawfully, through the application of the Article 5 amendment process, would require:

• REPEAL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

• REVISION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Let us look at this more closely.

REPEAL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress cannot modify or abrogate the Bill of Rights through Article 5 of the Constitution, even theoretically. The reason is this: The Bill of Rights is a codification of Natural Law Rights. These Rights precede the creation of Government.Natural law Rights exist intrinsically in man, bestowed by the grace of the Divine Creator. They aren’t bestowed on man by the grace of Government.The Article 5 amendment process would also require repealing Article 4 of the Constitution.

REVISION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in critical part that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

THE “GUARANTEE” CLAUSE

The first clause, the “GUARANTEE” CLAUSE, isn’t a suggestion or wish, or whim. It is a mandate, guaranteeing REPUBLICANISM.Even if it were theoretically possible to erase Republicanism through the Article 5 amendment process, most States would never agree to this.But, AUTHORITARIANISM in the Federal Government cannot logically coexist with REPUBLICANISM in the States. These two forms of Government are logically, not simply empirically, incompatible.The Government would either have to reject AUTHORITARIANISM or convince the States to agree to AUTHORITARIANISM as the new mode of Government in the Nation.

THE “PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION” CLAUSE

The Federal Government isn’t protecting the States from invasion. That is a fact. The Harris-Biden Administration is actively inviting the invasion of the Nation through its “OPEN BORDERS” policy.The States, as sovereign entities themselves, have every right, and duty, to take those steps necessary to protect themselves from invading hordes if the Federal Government cannot or, as is evident, will not protect the States from invasion.Texas and Florida are therefore compelled to act to protect themselves from invasion and have done so since the Harris-Biden Administration has refused to do so.The Administration even tries to prevent the States from protecting their own borders.These facts suggest the Administration isn’t merely enabling invasion of the Country, it is involved in orchestrating it. This is unconscionable.The States—all fifty of them—have every right to protect their borders from invasion. They are sovereign entities. The sovereignty of the States is manifested through the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment sets forth,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The Tenth Amendment is a statement of FEDERALISM. This means that sovereignty is shared between the Federal Government and the States.The Administration’s actions are inconsistent with the sovereignty of the States, protected under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and with the DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM, underlying the Tenth Amendment.The Administration’s actions are also inconsistent with the DOCTRINE OF REPUBLICANISM, mandated by Article 4 of the Constitution, and inconsistent, as well, with its obligations to the States under Article 4.The States would never agree to revisions of the Constitution that would operate as waivers of Federal Government obligations under Article 4 of the Constitution and of States’ sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.The Administration’s unwillingness to protect the States from invasion and, at once, attempting to foreclose States from protecting themselves, is not only unconscionable, it is patently illegal, amounting to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, Constitution, and People.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESCHEWS ANY DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE FIVE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IN A MONSTROUS PLOT TO RESHAPE EVERY INSTITUTION OF THE NATION

The Pelosi-Schumer Congress and the Harris-Biden Administration realize the Herculean task if not outright impossible task of utilizing Article 5 of the Constitution to transform the Nation into a functioning Neo-Marxist Dictatorship. The difficulty of doing so is no accident. It is by design. It is as the Framers of the Constitution intended.“Amending the Constitution should of course be undertaken with the gravest of care. After all, there is a reason why constitutional designers impose special rules for amending a constitution. If it were just as easy to amend a constitution as it is to amend an ordinary law, there would be nothing special, more authoritative, or more meaningful about it than a statute. It may admittedly be unwise to fiddle with the constitutional text because frequent constitutional changes breed uncertainty, which itself undermines the stability that government requires to function properly. Stability was in fact a chief objective in the minds of the Framers as they set out to establish the parameters for amending the constitution. Other objectives which Article V serves are popular legitimacy and federalism,  the former oriented toward ensuring that any amendment may be said to flow from the durable will of the people, and the latter permeating the entire constitutional text and indeed its very genesis. The high procedural hurdles of Article V that citizens and legislators must clear in order to perfect a constitutional amendment also entail considerable investments of time and cost, which together serve an important purpose of diluting the passions that may otherwise suffuse the daily business of popular politics.” “The Constitutional Politics Of Presidential Succession, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 497, Spring 2011, by Richard Albert, Assistant Professor, Boston College Law School; Yale University (J.D., B.A.); Oxford University (B.C.L.); Harvard University (LL.M.). The frustration of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists is palpable.They reject Republicanism for Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism, either of which requires the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic. The tacit goal is to INSTITUTIONALIZE TYRANNY of Government.This monumental task cannot be undertaken through the lawful operation of Article 5 of the Constitution. That would be much too time-consuming and, in part, logically, as well as legally, impossible. So the Government attempts to reconfigure the political, social, economic, and legal fabric of the Nation, avoiding Constitutional stricture, through the operation of statute and executive fiat; openly denying and defying the Constitution.Is this radical, illegal alteration of the structure of a free Constitutional Republic truly coming from the faces of Government that the American people see? Or is this transformation coming from unseen forces behind the scenes?If an unseen hand is making executive-level policy decisions, then this points to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, Constitution and people, for the Chief Executive cannot Constitutionally delegate executive-level policy decision-making authority to unnamed, unelected individuals.Article 2 of the Constitution places EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY in one person, and one person, only: The President of the United States.The President is the only person who has executive-level decision-making authority. THIS IS NOT DELEGABLE.It is a violation of the Constitution if Biden did attempt to delegate this authority to others or consciously or unconsciously acquiesced to it.If Biden is not making executive-level decisions or even involved in the policy-making process, he is not serving as U.S. President. That means he is merely a figurehead, a placeholder.If true, this means the Nation is devoid of a sitting President of the United States.

THE SALIENT PROPOSITIONS THAT COMPRISE MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED IN OUR ESSAY ON TREASON INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

• The present Government’s actions amount to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, the Constitution, and the People in failing to perform and in actively disregarding its core functions and duties to preserve, protect, and defend the Nation, the States, and the People.

• The present Government has not only failed to perform its duties and to comply with its obligations under the Constitution of the United States but has unlawfully usurped power and authority that resides solely in the States and in the People as codified in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• The present Government’s usurpation of power and authority residing in the States and the People reflect a conscious effort of the Government to undermine the security and well-being of the Nation, the States, and the People.

• The present Government’s policies and actions are directed to harming the States and the people and to the eradication of, not the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.

• The present Government’s actions are directed to transforming a free Constitutional Republic into an autocratic regime, inconsistent with the Constitutional Requirement and mandate of Republicanism.

• The insinuation of Autocracy in the present Government is incompatible with and constitutes a direct assault on the continued existence of a free Constitutional Republic.

• Treachery against the States and the people constitutes a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation, and the People.

• The Treachery of the Federal Government is equivalent to the Tyranny of the Federal Government.

• The Tyranny of Government directed against the States and the people has its expression through the subversion of the Constitution and of the law; contempt for and defiance of the Rule of Law; disrespect for and denial of the sovereignty of the States and of the ultimate sovereignty of the American people over Government; suppression of the Peoples’ right to exercise their Natural Law Rights and Liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights; and repression, oppression, subjugation, persecution of, and unlawful prosecution of the people in defiance of due process and equal protection under the law.

• The present Government’s actions evidence a deliberate intention and desire to impose Tyranny on the States and on the American people.

• Imposition of Tyranny of Government extends to the institutionalization of Tyranny in the Government and throughout the Nation.

• Tyranny of Government constitutes a Treason of Government directed to and against the States and the People.

• Treachery of Government is equivalent to Tyranny of Government.

• The Treason Clause, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, extends to Treachery of Government directed against the States and the People.

• Application of the Treason Clause of the Constitution was intended not only as of an assertion of treachery directed against the United States and against the United States Government but as the assertion of the treachery of the United States Government directed against the States and/or the People.

• The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was designed to be the ultimate protector of the States, the People, and the United States, not only against their enemies, both foreign and domestic but as a defense against the tyranny of the United States Government and its standing army as might be directed against them—namely, the States and the People.

______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CONGRESSMAN CHRIS COLLINS’ SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT (“SAGA”): A GOOD START BUT NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

INTRODUCTION

The seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) made categorically clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia; and the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that followed Heller, two years later, made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms—an individual right—applies to the States as well as to the federal Government. Unfortunately, many State Legislatures, along with many legislators in Congress and, worst of all, many jurists on State or Federal Courts strongly oppose the holdings and reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. This animosity carries over to and is reflected in poorly drafted legislation and in poorly crafted legal opinions. Occasionally, though, State Legislatures and Congress get it right, and do draft laws recognizing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congressman Chris Collins’ (NY-27) Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”) that the Congressman recently introduced in Congress is just such a bill. We heartily support the Congressman’s efforts. But, what might we expect?

WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF PASSAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Unfortunately, not good. We take our cue from other pro-Second Amendment bills. We have yet to see movement on several national handgun carry reciprocity bills that presently exist in a state of limbo, locked up in Committee.  Even if Congressman Collins’ bill makes it out of Committee, and, further, is voted on and passes a full House vote, it likely would be held up in the Senate where it must garner a super majority—60 votes—to pass and see enactment. The bill likely would not pass as a “stand-alone” bill in any event. That means the bill would have to be tacked on to other legislation to have any chance of passage. But, assuming the bill were enacted, what might we expect from it?

WHY DID CONGRESSMAN COLLINS DRAFT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL?

Congressman Collins, a Representative of New York, obviously had Governor Cuomo’s signature anti-Second Amendment legislation, the NY Safe Act, in mind, when he drafted this bill; for the bill, if enacted, is, ostensibly at least, at loggerheads with a key feature of the Safe Act—Section 37 of the Act—the Section that bans the possession and sale of all firearms defined as ‘assault weapons.’According to the Congressman’s Press Release “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void." But, is that true? Is the Press Release accurate? Or, does the Press Release presume more about the bill than what the bill produces, in the event the bill, as drafted, sees the light of day and becomes law?

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY?

The bill (H.R. 3576), amends Section 927 (Effect on State Law) of Chapter 44 (Firearms), of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) of the U.S. Code.As presently enacted Section 927, says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” In pertinent part, Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 sets forth:“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.”What does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code purport to do; and what does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code mean?To understand the import of Congressman Collins’ bill, it is first helpful, in this instance, to understand what those who oppose it would do to challenge it, assuming the Second Amendment Guarantee Act does become law—which is far from clear given Democrats’ hysterical aversion to the Second Amendment and Republicans’ constant foot-dragging.

IF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND LEGISLATORS CHALLENGE THE BILL IN THE EVENT IT BECAME LAW, UNDER WHAT GROUND MIGHT THE BILL BE CHALLENGED?

Congressman Collins’ bill is likely to face stiff opposition and resistance in Congress prior to enactment—assuming it even moves out of Committee—as it would almost certainly be challenged, inter alia, on Constitutional, Tenth Amendment grounds were the bill to become law.What does the Tenth Amendment say? The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment has always been a sticky wicket, especially in matters involving the Second Amendment because the matter of firearms’ regulations and licensing, apart from the regulation and licensing of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices, falls, traditionally, within the police powers of a State. Although the federal Government has, in the last several decades, amassed ever more powers unto itself, the fact of the matter is that this Nation is a confederation of independent sovereign States. This idea seems to be lost on people, not least of all in light of the present “Charlottesville” episode—a matter which the Arbalest Quarrel will be writing on in the near future, taking the mainstream news media to task for unleashing a wave of opinionated fake news on the matter, and which the mainstream media is egging the Trump Administration to handle, on the federal level, to support Marxist efforts to erase our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values.Yet, the federal Government cannot indiscriminately, lawfully, run roughshod over the States and the people. In the matter of Congressman Collins’ bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, this creates something of a quandary; for, the bill—as the Congressman articulates through his Press Release—substantially preempts States’ rights on matters of firearms regulations and licensing. The paramount question is this: if Congressman Collins’ bill does become law, can those, who would then seek to mount a Tenth Amendment challenge against it, likely succeed in the Courts? The answer isn’t clear, but, a careful analysis of the bill’s text suggests the bill can survive a Tenth Amendment challenge, as it was carefully drafted to sidestep just such a challenge. Why do we say this? Well, looking at the Tenth Amendment issue, the actual drafter or drafters of the bill made clear the intent of the Act to supersede State regulation of and licensing of firearms; for, Congress would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, be exercising its authority to regulate firearms moving in interstate commerce. It is a categorical, unequivocal principle of law that Congress has plenary power to regulate goods moving in interstate commerce under the Commerce clause. On that matter, no legitimate legal question exists, as the U.S. Supreme Court has made this point abundantly clear.“As we observed in Lopez, [United States v Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624] modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has ‘identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276-277, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1, 101 S. Ct. 2352 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150, 28 L. Ed. 2d 686, 91 S. Ct. 1357 (1971)). ‘First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256, 85 S. Ct. 348, 13 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1964); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114, 85 L. Ed. 609, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941)). ‘Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 32 S. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72 (1911); Perez, supra, at 150). ‘Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558-559 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 37). United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609; 120 S Ct. 1740, 1749; 146 L. Ed. 2d 658, 670 (2000).”So, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would likely survive a Tenth Amendment challenge. But, the strength of the bill, as drafted, also poses a weakness, notwithstanding. For, while State laws, such as New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, cannot, if Collins’ bill is enacted, most likely preclude importation of firearms into their State—including and importantly so-called assault weapons, as importation of such firearms affects interstate commerce and federal law, would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, preempt State law in matters affecting interstate commerce—still, once the firearms are presented in States such as New York and Maryland, it isn’t clear, from the present language of the bill, that firearms’ dealers would be able to sell or trade such “assault weapons” to individuals residing in those States, so long as laws such as the SAFE Act and the Firearm Safety Act are in effect. And, those Acts would still be in effect. For, contrary to Collins’ Press Release, restrictive State gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, do not, ipso facto, become nugatory. A legal challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act would have to be made. But, once made, it is still unclear whether the Safe Act and the Firearm Safety Act could not prevent transfers of "assault weapons" to individuals, not under disability, within the State, on the ground that regulation of "assault weapons" was being conducted intrastate, thereby not affecting interstate commerce.The question, from the standpoint of those challenging restrictive gun legislation existent in States such as New York, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others, then becomes whether so-called “assault weapons” that some States wish to ban and, at present, have banned outright, can be sold as “protected” firearms under federal law, once they are in a State, such as New York. If so, that means, then, that States could not legally proscribe the transfer, ownership, and possession of those weapons, try as they might. The issue raised by the Second Amendment Guarantee Act is analogous to the matter pertaining to machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons, as federal law completely preempts the field concerning those weapons, which means that States have absolutely no legal power to enact laws involving the regulation, licensing, and disposition of those kinds of weapons in their States. Federal law completely preempts the field in matters involving the licensing, regulation, and disposition of machine guns. Language in Section 922 (Unlawful Acts) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes clear the intent of Congress to preempt the field, in its entirety, in matters pertaining to the transfer and ownership and possession of machine guns. Paragraph “o” of Section 922 of Title 18 says,“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.(2)  This subsection does not apply with respect to—(A)  a transfer to or by, 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; or(B)  any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect [effective May 19, 1986].”Curiously, the expressions, ‘firearm,’ ‘rifle,’ ‘shotgun,’ and ‘machine gun,’ are not defined in Section 922 of Chapter 4 (Firearms) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, where a person might expect to find them, but in Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Service Code of the U.S. Code, 26 USCS § 5845. In 26 USCS § 5845(b), “The term ‘machinegun’ 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 machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”Keep in mind that Congressman Collins’ bill modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code only, which deals with federal preemption of State law regulation of firearms,  generally, but the bill modifies nothing in Section 922 of Title 18, where one would expect to find an assertion of those particular firearms and firearms’ components that federal law is preempting States from regulating and there is no modification of Section 5845 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) where firearm terminology is specifically defined. And, it is in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that we see federal preemption of regulation of machine guns; and it is in that same Section of Title 18 that, in 1994, Congress expressly banned ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” nationally—as part of antigun efforts that orchestrated enactment of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” A national ban on the transfer of and ownership of so-called “assault weapons,” along with a ban on LCMs, was set forth in federal law, subsumed in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. But inclusion of an “assault weapons” provision of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which added a paragraph “v” which made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” and inclusion of a ban on large capacity magazines, set forth in paragraph “w” of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which made it “unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” both expired in September of 2003. Those provisions of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were never reauthorized, despite subsequent and numerous efforts by antigun politicians to do so.Since the impetus for the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was predicated, obviously and reasonably, on Congressman Collins' laudable desire to negate the impact of the NY Safe Act on the federal level, through the federal preemption—since Albany appears either unwilling or incapable of repealing the NY Safe Act on the State level itself—we can infer that the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was designed principally to preclude States, such as New York, from banning substantial numbers of semiautomatic firearms that’s State antigun legislators, with great fanfare, cast into the category of “assault weapons.”Congressman Collins, a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment, clearly seeks, through enactment of his bill, to provide Americans the converse—the flipside—of efforts to curb exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, as some would argue, proscribes States from regulating all categories of rifle and shotgun, thereby curbing, with one fell swoop, attempts by any State Legislature to impose specific restrictions on the ownership and possession of one large category of firearms, those subsumed under the nomenclature “assault weapons,” and curbing, as well, attempts by any State Legislature to impose size restrictions on ammunition magazines.But, does Congressman Collins’ bill, that modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, make federal preemption of regulation of assault weapons and other firearms’ components absolutely clear?Once again, as presently enacted Section 927 says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” But, and this is an important, but, is such language enough to negate restrictive State firearms’ legislation such as the NY Safe Act? We don’t think so—thus, the failings of the bill, in its current form. For, what do the words, ‘more restrictive with respect to such a rifle or shotgun,’ mean, here?The reader must understand that federal law preemption of firearms, Sections 921, et. seq., of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, is directed essentially to a specific class of firearms, namely machine guns. As made clear in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Federal law preempts the field as to those kinds of firearms only, and the language of the law makes federal preemption in matters involving the regulation of machine guns patently clear. Congressman Collins’ bill is silent on the subject of so-called “assault weapons”—which some believe Congressman Collins’ bill, if enacted, would adequately address, and which it must address if it were to do what it purports to do: preclude States from prohibiting the transfer and possession of firearms that New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act prohibit, expressly, and prohibit outright--"assault weapons."Had Congressman Collins’ bill been more explicit and precise, we believe that language should appear in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that would work in tandem with the language appearing in Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. And, in Section 5845 of Title 26, we would like to see language that clearly and specifically defines the expression 'semiautomatic weapons.' And, in Section 922 of Title 18, we would like to see language that sets forth the lawful transfer of all semiautomatic weapons to individuals, not under disability. The federal preemption Statute, namely, Section 927 of Title 18, as modified in the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would then make federal preemption of the entire field of semiautomatic firearms abundantly and categorically clear. Ideally, language modifying Section 5845 of Title 26, and modifying Sections 922 and 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code would establish federal preemption of the entire field of firearms but--and this next point is critical--only to the extent that such modifications serve to enhance the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. We have no desire to see federal preemption leading to mass registration of firearms and draconian licensing measures on the federal level that we already see much too often on the State level.Ideally, language in the Congressman’s bill would have set forth, in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code explicit protection of all commercial transactions, among all the people, who are not under disability (as categories of disability are set forth with particularity in paragraph “g” of Section 922 of Title 18), involving all firearms—rifles, shotguns and pistols, whatever the configuration or mode of operation of those rifles, shotguns, and pistols; and, further, Collins’ bill should have included language doing away with BATFE licensing of such firearms as well, which, in the case of machine guns, involves a lengthy, time-consuming, expensive and mentally exhaustive process that does nothing to enshrine the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, as exercise of that fundamental right is unduly hampered by a multitude of administrative obstacles. Lastly, we would like to see firearms’ licensing at both the State and Federal levels ended. As a parenthetical note, we point out that Congressman Collins’ bill is altogether silent on the matter of handguns which means that, under his bill, handguns would not be subject to federal preemption. States would still be able to impose draconian restrictions on the American citizenry in matters involving handguns. But, why should Americans suffer the indignity of exhaustive, extensive, and expensive firearms’ regulatory hurdles at all?One doesn’t need a license to freely exercise one’s right of free speech—at least at the moment—although leftwing groups—most notoriously, the so-called “ANTIFA,” an anarchist/communist, domestic terrorist group (as much as any other terrorist group that this Country formally recognizes), is doing its best to constrain the right of free expression in this Country. Why must one secure a license to exercise a fundamental natural right of self-defense, as firearms are the best means available to secure one's safety and well-being when threatened and access to firearms, for those not under disability (as set forth in paragraph "g" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code), is guaranteed under the Second Amendment!Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, alone, does not, we believe, adequately establish federal preemption of firearms’ regulation because the purpose of Section 927 is simply designed to preclude conflict between State and Federal firearms laws. That is the Section’s only purpose. Its purpose is not to define the kinds of firearms that fall under the auspices of federal preemption—which is addressed, and is meant to be addressed in Section 5845 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (referred to more specifically as the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. Code) and does not set forth the manner in which federal preemption of firearms is specifically addressed, as is the case with machine guns, as set forth in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. We also note that the Congressman’s bill, as drafted, uses the permissive ‘may,’ rather than the obligatory ‘shall’ suggesting, then, that States might still regulate firearms, transecting, then, federal preemption, rather than being totally eclipsed by it. Furthermore, as drafted, Congressman Collins’ bill does not adequately establish the kinds of firearms that he intends federal law to preempt. The draft language of the bill simply sets forth that State law “may not” enact a law “that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law.” But, federal law, Sections 921 et. seq., direct attention to machine guns. Federal law does not address so-called “assault weapons”—semiautomatic weapons and, in New York, revolving cylinder shotguns (which are also defined as 'assault weapons'). Consider: had federal law still imposed federal licensing requirements on “assault weapons,” as it once had, in 1994, then New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, regulating such weapons, likely would have been struck down as unlawful under Section 927 because Federal law had, at that time, in effect, at least, preempted the field as to the regulation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. What this means is that such restrictive State gun laws, regulating or proscribing ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” at that time, would either have been redundant, if otherwise consistent with federal law, or unlawful, if inconsistent with federal law.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line: In its present form, Congressman Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”), is a good start toward giving the Second Amendment full effect, as the framers of our Bill of Rights intended. And the Congressman is to be commended for his effort. But the bill, as drafted, leaves, we feel, too much uncertainty, in its present form, to be effective in defeating restrictive, draconian State gun measures like the New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, contrary to the opinions of some. More work on the bill is needed. But, such work would, we feel, certainly be a worthwhile endeavor._________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A QUESTION ABOUT IDEOLOGY ON THE SUPREME COURT

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

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

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