WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

MULTIPART ESSAY SERIES ON POST-BRUEN CASE ANALYSIS

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

PART TWENTY-SIX

QUOTATION FROM NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S OFFICIAL WEBSITE

“This is not about the Second Amendment, the Founding Fathers' murky protection of firearms. It's no more absolute than the First Amendment is. Rights have limits; they may be indistinct and subject to interpretation, but they exist, regardless of the braying of absolutists.What this is about is priorities: public safety vs. the right to own any kind of weapon; children's lives vs. the right to carry firearms designed for mass murder. In New York, there is a willingness to take facts into account, while in Texas, the compulsion, apparently irresistible, is to ignore such facts no matter how much blood is spilled or how young the victims.” From a Buffalo News editorial, reposted on Governor Hochul’s Official Website, on May 24, 2022, reflecting where the Governor’s sympathies, rest, apropos of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Note: this editorial appeared one month prior to publication of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)and conceivably in anticipation of it: Hochul’s opening salvo directed against the High Court, taunting the Court and ridiculing, in insulting language, those Americans who support the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense.

WHAT EXPLAINS NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL’S HOSTILITY TOWARD THE BRUEN DECISION ON CONCEALED CARRY AND HER BELLIGERANCE TOWARD THE U.S. SUPREME COURT?

NEW YORK: THE STANDARD-BEARER FOR THOSE FORCES INTENT ON DESTROYING THE NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

To say the Bruen rulings directed primarily to New York’s Handgun Law were not to Hochul’s liking, nor to the liking of her friends in the State Legislature in Albany, is an understatement.Hochul was apoplectic with rage—or perhaps not. And, if not, she must, at least, appear so: feigning all sorts of righteous indignation during her Press conferences or when distributing her official Press Releases.Hochul had expected an adverse decision from the High Court, surely, and was undoubtedly prepared for it, but she had to set the stage for what would come after, the imposition of a new set of highly restrictive handgun licensing measures, building on all that came before.Those amendments were already written—the Legislature must have drafted the amendments well in advance of the publication of the Bruen decision, given the breadth of detail in them and the scale of them—well before the Bruen rulings came down. They only needed to be finalized.To that end, Hochul’s temper tantrum directed to the Court upon publication of Bruen was obviously meant to pave the way for legislation designed to cohere with related contemporaneous Anti-Second Amendment legislation, apart from, but complementing, the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA) and operating seamlessly with it.The Press Release, dated June 6, 2022, on the Governor’s website, sports the headline: “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislative Package to Strengthen Gun Laws and Protect New Yorkers.” The “Ten-Bill Package” includes:“Legislation S.9458/A.10503 Bars Purchase of Semiautomatic Rifles by Anyone Under Age 21 by Requiring a LicenseLegislation S.9407-B/A.10497 Prohibits Purchase of Body Armor with Exception of Those in Specified ProfessionsLegislation S.9113-A./A.10502 Expands List of People Who Can File Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Requires Law Enforcement to File ERPOs Under Specified Set of CircumstancesPackage Also Strengthens Crime Reporting; Closes ‘Other Gun’ Loophole; Requires Microstamping of New Semiautomatic Pistols; Eliminates Grandfathering of High-Capacity Feeding Devices; Requires Social Media Companies to Improve Response to and Reporting of Hateful Content.”Approximately one month later, on July 1, 2022, scarcely one week after the publication of the Bruen decision, i.e., on June 23, 2022, and again, on the Governor’s official website, and, under the bold, brash, impertinent headline, “Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision,” Hochul lays out a series of amendments to the Handgun Law itself, ostensibly responding to the Bruen rulings:“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting.”Again, given the depth and breadth of these amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, this new package of amendments, “The Concealed Carry Improvement Act” MUST HAVE BEEN DRAFTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF PUBLICATION OF THE COURT’S OPINION IN BRUEN.At most, the Hochul Administration and Albany had merely to tidy up some of the provisions in the CCIA—perhaps striking the words, ‘PROPER CAUSE,’ from the Handgun Law if the High Court were to demand that much from Kathy Hochul’s Government—which Governor Hochul and Albany did. And that assumes, of course, that Hochul didn’t receive an advance copy of the decision from leakers at the Court. Hochul was probably kept apprised about what to expect from Bruen (probably from the same people on the Court that illegally released a draft of the Dobbs decision).On the matter of “PROPER CAUSE,” the Court ruled that, since the words were tied inextricably to the requirement that the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must demonstrate “EXTRAORDINARY NEED” to carry, apart from and above basic self-defense, when in the public domain, the New York Handgun Law, apropos of concealed carry, was inherently illegal and unconstitutional.This was a mere annoyance. The Hochul Government could dispense with it and concoct ways around it, making the Handgun Law no less severe than before Bruen. Kathy Hochul didn’t try to hide that from the Press or from the Court.After all, Hochul used the phrase in one of her Press Releases, “LANDMARK LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE TO STRENGTHEN GUN LAWS.” See supra. And she rationalized that message of defiance directed at the Court, by adding that her Government had designed these amendments “TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS.”Did Hochul presume the High Court did not wish to protect New Yorkers? The phrase is not only troubling but also insulting. Yet it plays into a running narrative that MORE GUNS ON THE STREET EQUALS MORE CRIME ON THE STREETS—A platitude held by Progressives, but false.How many average, responsible, rational, law-abiding gun owners have turned to crime, and further, how much of this presumed bad seed committed a crime with a gun? Hardly or nary a one, notwithstanding there are millions of Americans who lawfully carry a handgun for self-defense. See the article on Gun Facts.By striking ‘PROPER CAUSE’ from New York’s Handgun Law, and then repurposing the “GOOD MORAL CHARACTER” requirement along with a host of other ludicrous Anti-Second Amendment laws, the Government could and has accomplished much the same thing: DISCOURAGING AND FRUSTRATING, CONFOUNDING APPLICANTS WHO SEEK A NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE.The Hochul Government had scripted its entire response to Bruen. It would be ready to play out with the official publication of the case. And, on the very day, it was published and through successive days and weeks, Hochul would never miss a beat. She would constantly harangue and berate both the rulings of the Court and, unforgivably, the Justices themselves.The Hochul Government would make the High Court out to be the Antagonist in a play, and the State, with the Government, as Protagonist Hero.Hochul would present herself as the Defender of New York residents, desiring only to protect and serve the residents of New York against an uncaring U.S. Supreme Court.How incredibly presumptuous of Hochul and those behind the scenes, in her Administration, and in Albany, working on her behalf to make the High Court into an Evildoer and “Fall Guy.”Once the U.S. Supreme Court came down with the Bruen decision on June 23, 2022, New York Governor Kathy Hochul went to work, wasting no time in publicly slamming both the Court and its decision.But would the public buy it? Could the public be so easily manipulated? Some obviously would, most, from her perspective, hopefully. Hochul knew that, in her messaging, she was addressing not merely New York, but the Country at large, and the Biden Administration, and many in Congress too, her compatriots.But to say her words and conduct toward the Court are disrespectful and that her response to the Bruen rulings amounts to evasion, not compliance, is to trivialize the seriousness of the actions of this Governor.Necessary as it was to set the groundwork for defiance of the High Court, Hochul was playing a dangerous game. She could not do this unless she felt she could rely on powerful interests both seen and unseen that would have her back on this.For, the Governor’s actions border on contempt of Court, and all the worse was it that she would vent with unrestrained, unconscionable fury against the Highest Court of the Land; railing against a Court exercising its own proper, legitimate Article III authority under the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the meaning of the Bill of Rights which was and is within the Court’s prerogative, alone, not that of Congress, nor that of the President, nor that of the Executive or Legislative components of State Governments.Hochul didn’t care, and she didn’t mince words. She called the Court’s rulings not only “reckless” but “reprehensible.” See the article in Spectrum Local News.The word, ‘RECKLESS’ means ‘THOUGHTLESS.’The word, ‘REPREHENSIBLE’ means ‘DISGRACEFUL.’In other words, Kathy Hochul tells the Court that it is worthy of her contempt toward it and she would not abide by the Court’s rulings. At most, she would give lip service to it. And that is what both she and Albany did.Upon the conclusion of the oral argument, on November 3, 2021, in the third landmark Second Amendment case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, the New York State Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul, wasted no time in concocting a scheme to waylay the rulings that they knew were coming down the pike. And as a precursor to that she stated in no uncertain terms, in her Press Briefings—clearly directed to the Court—what she intended to do, castigating the Court for daring to involve itself in New York law.The amendments to the State’s Handgun Law (referred to, as a package, as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (CCIA)), are the visible manifestation of the disdain she displayed toward the Court, in her Press Releases.On July 1, 2022, about one month after signing the CCIA into law, Governor Hochul, in a provocative move proclaimed the New York Government would not abide by the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, and in fact would defy the Court, continuing the process laid down by her predecessors of eradicating exercise of the right to armed self-defense in New York.The Headline of her Press Release, posted on the Governor’s official website, on that date, set forth in bold San Serif typeface, proclaimed:“Governor Hochul Signs Landmark Legislation to Strengthen Gun Laws and Bolster Restrictions on Concealed Carry Weapons in Response to Reckless Supreme Court Decision.”Hochul’s defiance and contemptuous attitude toward the High Court could not have been on more audacious display. The CCIA exemplifies her brashness and brazenness.These are the highlights of the CCIA that appear on her website that she has reiterated during the period of time since the publication of the case as challenges to the CCIA were filed immediately.“Legislation (S.51001/A.41001) Restricts the Carrying of Concealed Weapons in List of Sensitive LocationsInstitutes a Default of No Concealed Carry on Private Property and Businesses Unless Deemed Permissible by Property OwnersEstablishes New Eligibility Requirements and Expands Disqualifying Criteria for Those Seeking Concealed Carry PermitsEnhances Safe Storage Requirements, Extends Requirements to VehiclesRequires Backgrounds Checks for All Ammunition PurchasesAmends Body Armor Purchase Ban to Include Hard Body Armor Used by Suspect in Buffalo Shooting”Anticipating the Hochul Government might attempt to turn broad swaths of the State, especially, Manhattan Island, into a massive Gun-Free zone, and to forestall that, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, opined:“Although we have no occasion to comprehensively define ‘sensitive places’ in this case, we do think respondents err in their attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a ‘sensitive-place’ law. In their view, ‘sensitive places’ where the government may lawfully disarm law-abiding citizens include all ‘places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available.’ It is true that people sometimes congregate in ‘sensitive places,’ and it is likewise true that law enforcement professionals are usually presumptively available in those locations. But expanding the category of ‘sensitive places’ simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of ‘sensitive places. far too broadly. Respondents’ argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense that we discuss in detail below. . . . Put simply, there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a ‘sensitive place’ simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department.” [Case Documentation omitted]What did Hochul do? She and Albany concocted an elaborate nightmare of new requirements for those individuals applying for a concealed handgun carry license under the CCIA.And, notwithstanding, the High Court’s warning to the Hochul Government, the Governor, and Albany proceeded to transform much of New York into a massive “SENSITIVE PLACE” Jurisdiction anyway—in direct defiance of the High Court’s warning.Manhattan Island, which Justice Thomas specifically warned the Government about, would become a huge “SENSITIVE PLACE” restricted zone anyway.The Government had spent substantial time on this, transforming the State into a confusing patchwork quilt of SENSITIVE LOCATIONS.Most curiously, the very words, SENSITIVE PLACE,’ never before appeared in the Handgun Law prior to Bruen. That would change.Here the New York Government was deliberately using that phrase to antagonize the Court, making the ‘SENSITIVE PLACE’ prohibition a major fixture of the “CONCEALED CARRY IMPROVEMENT ACT.”Were Kathy Hochul and Albany taunting the Court by choosing to utilize the very terminology the Court had expressed concern over but had not ruled explicitly against using?Prior to the effective date of September 1, 2022, the date when the CCIA took effect, there was no mention of ‘Sensitive Place’ in Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)), which reads:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”Once the CCIA took effect, the expression, ‘Sensitive Place’ suddenly appears and, for those new holders of “Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses,” and for those renewing their licenses, Section 19 of the amended Handgun Law (NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (19)) presently sets, forth:“Prior to the issuance or renewal of a license under paragraph (f) of subdivision two of this section, issued or renewed on or after the effective date of this subdivision, an applicant shall complete an in-person live firearms safety course conducted by a duly authorized instructor with curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, and meeting the following requirements: (a) a minimum of sixteen hours of in-person live curriculum approved by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police, conducted by a duly authorized instructor approved by the division of criminal justice services, and shall include but not be limited to the following topics: (i) general firearm safety; (ii) safe storage requirements and general secure storage best practices; (iii) state and federal gun laws; (iv) situational awareness; (v) conflict de-escalation; (vi) best practices when encountering law enforcement; (vii) the statutorily defined sensitive places in subdivision two of section 265.01-e of this chapter and the restrictions on possession on restricted places under section 265.01-d of this chapter; (viii) conflict management; (ix) use of deadly force; (x) suicide prevention; and (xi) the basic principles of marksmanship; and (b) a minimum of two hours of a live-fire range training course. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate proficiency by scoring a minimum of eighty percent correct answers on a written test for the curriculum under paragraph (a) of this subdivision and the proficiency level determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the division of criminal justice services and the superintendent of state police for the live-fire range training under paragraph (b) of this subdivision. Upon demonstration of such proficiency, a certificate of completion shall be issued to such applicant in the applicant’s name and endorsed and affirmed under the penalties of perjury by such duly authorized instructor. An applicant required to complete the training required herein prior to renewal of a license issued prior to the effective date of this subdivision shall only be required to complete such training for the first renewal of such license after such effective date.”And where are these“Sensitive Place” restricted areas? A new provision of the New York Penal Code, Penal Code, 265.01-e, recites them.NY CLS Penal § 265.01-e(2) provides,“2. For the purposes of this section, a sensitive location shall mean:(a) any place owned or under the control of federal, state or local government, for the purpose of government administration, including courts;(b) any location providing health, behavioral health, or chemical dependance care or services;(c) any place of worship, except for those persons responsible for security at such place of worship;(d) libraries, public playgrounds, public parks, and zoos, provided that for the purposes of this section a “public park” shall not include (i) any privately held land within a public park not dedicated to public use or (ii) the forest preserve as defined in subdivision six of section 9-0101 of the environmental conservation law;(e) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, funded, or approved by the office of children and family services that provides services to children, youth, or young adults, any legally exempt childcare provider; a childcare program for which a permit to operate such program has been issued by the department of health and mental hygiene pursuant to the health code of the city of New York;(f) nursery schools, preschools, and summer camps; provided that for the purposes of this section, nothing shall prohibit the activity permitted under subdivisions seven-c, seven-d, and seven-e of section 265.20 of this article where such activity occurs at a summer camp in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, rules, and regulations;(g) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office for people with developmental disabilities;(h) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by office of addiction services and supports;(i) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of mental health;(j) the location of any program licensed, regulated, certified, operated, or funded by the office of temporary and disability assistance;(k) homeless shelters, runaway homeless youth shelters, family shelters, shelters for adults, domestic violence shelters, and emergency shelters, and residential programs for victims of domestic violence;(l) residential settings licensed, certified, regulated, funded, or operated by the department of health;(m) in or upon any building or grounds, owned or leased, of any educational institutions, colleges and universities, licensed private career schools, school districts, public schools, private schools licensed under article one hundred one of the education law, charter schools, non-public schools, board of cooperative educational services, special act schools, preschool special education programs, private residential or non-residential schools for the education of students with disabilities, and any state-operated or state-supported schools;(n) any place, conveyance, or vehicle used for public transportation or public transit, subway cars, train cars, buses, ferries, railroad, omnibus, marine or aviation transportation; or any facility used for or in connection with service in the transportation of passengers, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;(o) any establishment holding an active license for on-premise consumption pursuant to article four, four-A, five, or six of the alcoholic beverage control law where alcohol is consumed and any establishment licensed under article four of the cannabis law for on-premise consumption;(p) any place used for the performance, art entertainment, gaming, or sporting events such as theaters, stadiums, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, and gaming facilities and video lottery terminal facilities as licensed by the gaming commission;(q) any location being used as a polling place;(r) any public sidewalk or other public area restricted from general public access for a limited time or special event that has been issued a permit for such time or event by a governmental entity, or subject to specific, heightened law enforcement protection, or has otherwise had such access restricted by a governmental entity, provided such location is identified as such by clear and conspicuous signage;(s) any gathering of individuals to collectively express their constitutional rights to protest or assemble;(t) the area commonly known as Times Square, as such area is determined and identified by the city of New York; provided such area shall be clearly and conspicuously identified with signage.Police officers and other designated categories are exempted.”Failure to abide by the ‘Sensitive Place’ Restriction requirement is a Class E Felony, as specified under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-d (1)”“A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in a restricted location when such person possesses a firearm, rifle, or shotgun and enters into or remains on or in private property where such person knows or reasonably should know that the owner or lessee of such property has not permitted such possession by clear and conspicuous signage indicating that the carrying of firearms, rifles, or shotguns on their property is permitted or by otherwise giving express consent.”But Note: Subsequent to Plaintiff Appellants’ Motion for a Stay pending Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, granted the Motion in Part. In a short opinion, the Court stated, in pertinent part, in Antonyuk vs. Hochul , 2022 U.S. App LEXIS 36240 (2nd Cir, December 7, 2022): “Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors . . . we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted. . . . To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is granted.”Governor Kathy Hochul’s displeasure with the Bruen decision and anger toward the Court Majority was expected, was never a secret, and, so, isn’t at all surprising.  Yet, her hostility toward the Court, amounting to a rabid denunciation of the rulings and of the Justices themselves, is of another order of magnitude, and cannot be condoned, and ought not to be tolerated.The New York Government has detested the idea of civilian citizen possession of firearms for well over a century (actually for substantially longer (see author’s comments supra and infra)).Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, author of the Majority Opinion in Bruen, made the point, tacitly, at the outset of the Court’s argument, when discussing the State’s long-standing efforts to constrain, through overzealous regulation, the carrying of handguns.“New York State has regulated the public carry of handguns at least since the early 20th century. In 1905, New York made it a misdemeanor for anyone over the age of 16 to ‘have or carry concealed upon his person in any city or village of [New York], any pistol, revolver or other firearm without a written license . . . issued to him by a police magistrate.’ 1905 N. Y. Laws ch. 92, §2, pp. 129-130; see also 1908 N. Y. Laws ch. 93, §1, pp. 242-243 (allowing justices of the peace to issue licenses). In 1911, New York’s ‘Sullivan Law’ expanded the State’s criminal prohibition to the possession of all handguns—concealed or otherwise—without a government-issued license. See 1911 N. Y. Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443. New York later amended the Sullivan Law to clarify the licensing standard: Magistrates could ‘issue to [a] person a license to have and carry concealed a pistol or revolver without regard to employment or place of possessing such weapon’ only if that person proved “good moral character”  and ‘proper cause.’ 1913 N. Y. Laws ch. 608, §1, p. 1629.”

THE SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL LAW RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IN NEW YORK SNOWBALLED THROUGH TIME.

The systematic erosion of a fundamental, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and unalienable right—the most basic of all RIGHTS and NEEDS, that of “SELF PRESERVATION”—commenced, in New York, as a result of a reluctance by the New York Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the State, notwithstanding the State did eventually ratify both the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights component to it, which included a prohibition on the Federal Government to infringe that right.The nascent threat to the civilian citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in New York itself, had always existed, in fact, PRECEDED Ratification of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which would suggest a schizophrenia on the part of the New York Government, concerning its actions toward exercise of the Right.

NEW YORK RATIFIED THE BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE UNITED STATES BUT ORIGINALLY REJECTED A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR ITSELF; AND IT CONSCIOUSLY AVOIDED ADDING A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS TO MIRROR THE RIGHT CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ONCE THE STATE DECIDED ON INCORPORATING A BILL OF RIGHTS INTO A LATER VERSION OF ITS STATE CONSTITUTION

ALTHOUGH NEW YORK WOULD EVENTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IT DID SO ONLY STATUTORILY, NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY

Consider:New York is one of only a handful of States that currently does not have a fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in its State Constitution. And it never did.“. . . The states without rights to bear arms enshrined in their state constitutions are: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Citizens of these states must rely on the federal Constitution and statutory regulation of arms. See, e.g., N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 4 (McKinney 2012) (‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.’).”“Symposium: ‘Gun Control and the Second Amendment: Developments and Controversies in the Wake of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago’: Article: ‘The (New) New Judicial Federalism: State Constitutions and the Protection of the Individual Right to Bear Arms,’ 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1449, October 2012, Michael B. de Leeuw*See also, “Shocking the Second Amendment: Invalidating States’ Prohibitions On Taser With The District Of Columbia v. Heller,’ 20 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 159 (2010) By Ron F. Wright.“Ratified in 1909, New York’s right-to-bear arms provision differs from the latter provisions in that it is a statutory rather than constitutional grant. While its language is similar to the Second Amendment, contemporaneous sources carry strong undertones of keeping and bearing arms for strictly militia purposes. Looking first to New York’s treatment of the phrase ‘the people’ in its Civil Rights Law, we note that other than its right-to-bear arms provision the phrase refers to a right only one other time: the individual right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. Furthermore, in the other appearances where the phrase ‘the people’ appears not a single instance refers to an actual right, express or implied.”In fact, in the original iteration of the State Constitution, New York did not incorporate a Bill of Rights. Later renditions did include a State Bill of Rights, but originally, involved procedural matters rather than substantive rights. The Bill of Rights of New York’s Constitution evolved sporadically over time.But New York always intended to whittle away at the natural law right to armed self-defense. Half-heartedly, or grudgingly at best, it eventually placed the right of the people to keep and bear arms in its Civil Rights Statutory scheme.NY CLS Civ R § 4 (Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms), says,“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” [underlining added]Note, the substitution of the words, ‘SHALL NOT’ as they appear in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, with the word, ‘CANNOT,’ in Section 4 of the Civil Right Law of New York.The word, ‘CANNOT,’ means ‘TO BE UNABLE TO DO OTHERWISE THAN.’ It isn’t a legal term of art. The words, ‘SHALL NOT’ however have a specific meaning in law: “THE ELEMENT OR ACTION IS PROHIBITED.” Is this change of major significance? Surely, the alteration of the language of the Right, in the Consolidated Laws of New York wasn’t an inadvertent oversight but made with intention.The New York Legislature made sure that “CANNOT BE INFRINGED” does not mean the Legislature has no authority to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. On the contrary, the suggestion is that no person or entity but the New York Government itself can infringe the right for the Government here establishes that it has created the right, i.e., statutorily. The Right, then, is neither something the people of New York create nor that of a Divine Being.Use of a nonlegal word establishes and avoids any foreseeable problem that might arise from a citizen contesting Government infringement of a Right that “CANNOT” be infringed. At least that is the obvious rationale for the change in construction.Providing only statutory recognition of a right to bear arms, the State could not easily be constrained from hobbling the exercise of the right. And both New York State and the State and Federal Courts were complicit in supporting each outrageous Government action, through regulation, of the “RIGHT” THAT “CANNOT BE INFRINGED.”New York's Executive Branch and Legislative Branch constantly invented ways to erode the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and, in so doing, to sever the people’s connection with their fundamental right—ultimately creating a permanent estrangement.Overzealous regulation coupled with a lengthy, industrious campaign of psychological conditioning, affected the mind. “Gun Possession” became identified with and equated with “Gun Violence.” Many New Yorkers didn’t mind this. In fact, they fanatically embraced the viral memes planted in their minds.The latest developments in psychological conditioning and in technology that allows for rapid dissemination of information, affecting millions of people simultaneously, made this possible.Instead of dealing with crime and criminals, the Government would instead go after average Americans, creating a nightmare for those citizens who were not taken in by the contortions and distortions of the New York Government and who insisted on exercising their natural law right to self-defense that the Government was loathed to recognize or allow.What eventually emerged in New York was an elaborate, expensive, time-consuming, and confounding licensing regime that New Yorkers would be required to navigate through. The questions no one in Government dared to consider and that a Press, sympathizing with the Government, would never ask are these:“Why should it be so difficult for me to exercise a fundamental, unalienable right?”“Why should I be compelled to navigate my way through a mass of confusing firearms regulations, and then once failing to gain State permission to defend my life with the most effective means available, I am thrown to the winds and compelled to navigate through a cesspool of criminals and lunatics that dot the landscape of New York?“Why is it the New York Government constrains my right to defend myself against depraved criminals and lunatics, and, at the same time, refuses to use my tax dollars to protect me against those elements that incessantly threaten the life, safety, and well-being of millions of average, rational, law-abiding, responsible citizens like me?”“By what inductive or deductive reasoning does the New York Government and Kathy Hochul presume to reduce the highest denominator of society with the lowest, refusing to allow me to defend myself against predators, arguing that, on the matter of firearms, I can no more be trusted to responsibly keep and bear them than would the common criminal, the psychopathic murderous gang member, or the raving drug-addled lunatic?With the enactment of the Sullivan Act in 1911—a law that introduced handgun licensing to the State—the New York Government would, through the years and decades, enact more laws, aimed at frustrating those Americans residing or working in New York who merely wish to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as is their natural law right to do so?The Sullivan Act of 1911 would serve as the New York Government’s answer, exemplifying their disdain for the average citizen. And the Government did not stop with the enactment of that. Introducing handgun licensing to New York was merely a precursor to and an inkling of what was yet to be.The Sullivan Act of 1911 served, then, merely as a stepping stone in a lengthy inexorable process, whittling away at the citizens’ exercise of their unalienable right to armed self-defense.Whether by conscious intent or by unconscious conditioned reflex, the State had effectively placed a New Yorker on a medieval torture rack, tormenting those individuals who insisted on—dared to—exercise the right that the New York Government did not wish for New Yorkers to exercise.Once on that rack, the State slowly tightened the screws, enacting more constraints on a person’s exercise of the right, through time, frustrating those New Yorkers who demanded that Government not interpose itself between the right of the people to keep and bear arms as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, not Government, and the exercise of that right that the founders of a free Constitutional Republic recognized and insisted on.And the process of whittling away at the natural law right to armed self-defense gained speed over time, frustrating the desire of anyone who simply wished to exercise his basic right of self-preservation with the most effective means available: A handgun.Hochul’s predecessor, New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, had added extensive amendments to the Handgun Law and to related New York Statutes, affecting all firearms and possession of them. through the enactment of the New York Safe Act of 2013.Cuomo rammed that through the State Senate in the dead of night, and, once it had passed the Senate, he immediately signed it into law, on January 15, 2013.Hochul’s“Concealed Carry Improvement Act” of 2022 doesn’t ease the dire impact of the Safe Act on those who seek to keep and bear arms. One might rationally expect that the CCIA would ease the exercise of the fundamental right, consistent with Bruen. Rather, the CCIA builds upon the earlier Act and is part and parcel of several other Anti-Second Amendment laws that Hochul signed into law on or about the same date she signed the CCIA into law.Bruen changed nothing. NY Safe and the CCIA continue a process that began not with the passage of the Sullivan Act of 1911, but over a hundred years earlier—in fact earlier yet—much earlier.In fact, New York’s antipathy toward the natural law right to armed self-defense always existed, going back prior to the founding of the Republic itself, through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution on July , 1788.“The first New York Constitution was adopted by the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York on April 20, 1777,” 15 months before ratification of the U.S. Constitution that New York, among other States that existed at the time, agreed to. See Historical Society of the New York Courts and content infra.What began as a concern and annoyance over the exercise ofthe right of the people to keep and bear arms in New York, evolved, over the centuries, into distress and disgust, and anxiety over the citizens’ keeping and bearing of arms.That distress, disquiet, and disgust grew into trepidation and panic, coupled with a rabid abhorrence over the notion a person should possess firearms at all.Today, Governor Hochul proclaims her anger over the Bruen decision. Worse, she articulates a visible contempt for the Court.But, how much of that anger is grounded on true and firm belief and how much is mere political rhetoric, playing to a “woke” audience?A decade ago, Hochul, ever the consummate politician, evinced a different position toward the Second Amendment. See the article in Bearing Arms. What caused a transformation in her thought—a complete 180-degree turn?It matters not. If Hochul is duplicitous and is behaving theatrically, her present words and actions must be taken at face value, not minimized. No one should attempt to explain them away as mere emoting as if to suggest her words are not to be taken seriously. They are TO BE TAKEN MOST SERIOUSLY.Hochul’s words, both their insolent tone and the detrimental impact on those who wish to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense at home or in public, cannot be assigned simply to fabrication or theatrics. The intent behind those words, seen in the legislation enacted, which Hochul has signed into law—a flurry of new restrictive Anti-Second Amendment legislation—has real-world impact and dire consequences for New Yorkers.Regardless of what Hochul the politician really believes the fact remains that New Yorkers, especially the politically progressive denizens of New York City, and Hochul’s wealthy, Neoliberal Globalist benefactors, have long held to a New York tradition antithetical to and wholly destructive of the Second Amendment right. And Hochul, the politician, through her present words and actions, mirrors the predilection of her base, millions of New Yorkers, most of whom reside in NYC.Attuned to her supporters’ beliefs, she rails incessantly against “guns,” “gun owners,” and that thing the Anti-Second Amendment wordsmiths had recently concocted to push their narrative against the right to armed self-defense on the public: “Gun Violence.”Long-standing New York tradition contra recognition of the basic right to armed self-defense overpowers any thought of compliance and obeisance to the dictates of “shall not be infringed,” much less acquiescence and adherence to High Court rulings on the matter.As noted, supra, several years before New York ratified the U.S. Constitution, on July 26, 1788, and, later, when New York ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights, on March 27, 1790, the Revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of New York (see New York Archives) prepared the groundwork for a State Constitution:“In August 1776, the revolutionary Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York appointed a committee to draft a state constitution and a bill of rights. Despite this command, the constitution eventually produced did not contain a separate bill of rights. Robert Yates, a member of the drafting committee, later explained that advocates of a bill of rights thought in terms of an instrument by which ‘the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed,’ modeled after the 1628 Petition of Right and the 1689 Bill of Rights. The committee, however, took the view that the American Revolution placed the people ‘in a state of nature’ such that the new fundamental instrument the people themselves created, the constitution ‘would operate as a bill of rights.’ This view was not uncommon in revolutionary America. John Jay, for instance, a principal drafter of the 1777 federal constitution, used the same argument when objecting to the adoption of a federal bill of rights in 1788.  The constitution adopted by the New York Convention in April 1777, did contain certain clauses guaranteeing basic rights, such as might be found in a bill of rights: all power derived from the people, right to counsel in criminal trials, freedom of religion and abolition of religious establishments, and trial by jury and prohibition of attainder (to take effect after the war). In addition, on the motion of Gilbert Livingston (later a radical antifederalist), the Convention added to the constitution a clause guaranteeing due process. In the face of Loyalist threats to the existence of the new government, the Convention refrained, however, from adding to the constitution any further assertions of fundamental rights that would hinder efforts to suppress counter-revolutionary activity.” “New York’s Statutory Bill of Rights: A Constitutional Coelacanth,” 19 Touro L. Rev. 363, 366-367 Winter / Spring, 2003, by  Robert Emery. “The New York legislature adopted the original version of the statutory bill of rights, ‘an Act concerning the rights of the citizens of this State,’ in January 1787.” Id. at 368. There was no mention of a right of the people to keep and bear arms in the first rendition of the New York Constitution, nor would there be any future version of the State Constitution. There certainly was no serious consideration for that.“New York has adopted four constitutions (1777, 1821, 1846, and 1894) and held eight constitutional conventions (1801, 1821, 1846, 1867, 1894, 1915, 1938, and 1967). The Constitution of 1894, revised in 1938 and amended over 200 times, remains in place today. As provided in this document, the state legislature can propose a constitutional convention at any time, subject to approval by the electorate.  However, the state constitution also mandates that the question of whether to hold a convention be submitted to the electorate every twenty years.” In a climate openly hostile to the very thought of relaxation of New York’s Gun Law—having placed more and more restrictions on the exercise of the right to armed self-defense through 112 years of the Sullivan Act—it stands to reason the Hochul Government wouldn’t be dissuaded from continuing its concerted, single-minded march toward achieving the goal of Dissolution of the right to armed self-defense in New York or, if not able to that, grudgingly, at least, getting damned close to attaining it.Notwithstanding the State had recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the National level, having ratified the Nation’sBill of Rights in 1790, it felt no compunction to do so at the State level, believing, apparently, that, whatever negative impact the Second Amendment on the Federal Government, its application would pose no hardship on the States and would not limit the State’s ability to do away with the entirety of it if it wished. Was the State Government being disingenuous? Was it holding disparate, inconsistent beliefs that defy rational explanation? Who can say what the State Government's motivations were at the time?Prior to the McDonald decision, and for those theorists who mistakenly held to a “collective rights-only” notion of the Second Amendment, (and many still do), the early New York Government felt it need not worry about the Second Amendment. The State would have its Police Powers and could deny all residents of the State and those who work there the keeping and bearing of arms. And, for a time, it would seem the State could get away with its perfunctory dismissal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.And, even with the McDonald decision in 2010 (McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010)), New York would continue to evince schizophrenia toward the Second Amendment, as would a few other jurisdictions around the Country. They would all pretend that, whatever McDonald happened to say about a State’s obligation to adhere to and respect the citizenry's exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, through the application of the Fourteenth Amendment, those States could regulate the exercise of the right to an effective nullity. That is what such State Governments presumed to think and that is how they acted.State licensing is the vehicle that drives the impetus for State arrogance toward the natural law right to armed self-defense.Prior to Bruen, Federal and State Courts in New York held an incongruous position, when rubber-stamping what is clearly illegal New York Government action.These Courts acknowledged that, while a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, that person must still obtain a valid State handgun license to exercise his fundamental right.The New York Courts had heretofore preposterously argued that, since having a license to exercise one’s Second Amendment right is, one, a condition precedent to the exercise of one’s fundamental right, and that, two, since the issuance of a handgun license is a prerogative of the State, a completely discretionary act and that, further, since the acquisition of a State issued handgun license is a privilege, not a right, be that right fundamental or not, the State can lawfully deny a person exercise of his fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms. New York Courts’ ruling considered this reasoning as valid and sound law, “black letter law” in New York, and, as expected, especially for those who sought to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license, the acquisition of those coveted licenses to exercise a fundamental right was very few in number. Such was true before Bruen. And now, after? Will there be many more issuances of concealed handgun carry licenses? And of those that are issued, will they truly work as intended by Bruen, to enable the licensee to truly exercise armed self-defense? This all remains to be seen.The Hochul Government did not assert—it felt it wouldn’t have to—that 225 years of refusal to countenance a citizen’s natural law right to armed self-defense as it saw fit was argument enough to continue to constrain the exercise of the right and to require much from those individuals who had the fortitude to demand what they should not have had to demand: an exercise of their unrestrained right to armed self-defense. Long-standing State tradition would circumvent any argument about the purported supremacy of the natural law right to armed self-defense over the State's authority to deny a citizen's exercise of that right.New York’s negative attitude toward the Second Amendment, coupled with a firm belief, taken as self-evident true for well over two hundred years—that New York Government police regulatory authority supersedes an American citizen’s exercise of his fundamental, illimitable, immutable, eternal natural law rights and would always remain so and hold sway over a U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule or hold otherwise, is soon to be tested. It must be tested.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, together, apparently do not operate, in the mind of the New York Government, as a formidable force, powerful enough to overcome the New York Government’s belief in its own legal and moral invincibility. New York continues to go its own way.How many U.S. Supreme Court decisions must, then, come down the pike before jurisdictions like New York accept the Article III authority of the Third Branch of Government—the authority of the High Court to say what the Law Is? But is it just New York that is rebelling against the authority of the High Court?Clearly, there are dangerous, ominous stirrings afoot, suggesting the actions of shadowy, ruthless forces both here and abroad that have set wheels in motion to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign American citizenry. It all bespeaks tyranny at the highest levels of Federal and many State Governments. What we are doing here is looking at the manifestation of those wheels set in motion, as pertaining to the incremental, continuous, devastating erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the blatant misuse of authority by Federal and State Governments to control the life, safety, well-being, and personal autonomy of the American citizen.One need only reflect carefully and honestly on the manner in which Governments are shredding the Bill of Rights slowly, methodically, and inexorably to understand the mortal danger facing our free Constitutional RepublicLooking at the New York Government’s actions despicable actions toward the U.S. Supreme Court is explanation enough that something more is afoot than imbecilic behavior by Governor Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany.The New York Government would not have dared to contend against the High Court unless they knew that powerful interests and forces stood behind them to protect them. The New York Government's insolent maneuverings are not emanating solely from the Government. The masterminds of the treachery against our Nation stand well above Government agent toadies. They are merely the faces the public sees; that the public is permitted to see. All we can do here is try to convey to our kind readers the legal, logical, and Constitutional weaknesses of New York’s actions. And we must remain content with accomplishing that. It is more than enough work for us, a small voice supporting our Constitution as the founders of our Republic intended.With this groundwork laid as an explanation for New York’s recalcitrance in obeying a direct High Court ruling, we will, in the next few articles of this series draw our attention to the deceitfulness at work through the operation of the “Good Moral Character” provision of the CCIA the Hochul Government has repurposed to operate like the past “Proper Cause” Requirement, to frustrate the applicant. The New York Government continues on the path it had first set for itself centuries ago, at the dawn of New York's statehood. Hochul and her Government intend to restrict the issuance of New York concealed handgun carry licenses, now, as then, and to constrain the use of those licenses for those individuals who happen to be among the few to acquire them.________________________________________*A decade after this article came out, Iowa amended its Constitution to include “a right to bear arms.” In a news article posted November 8, 2022, The Des Moine Iowa Register reported that,“Iowa voters have adopted an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to add the right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ adding language that goes beyond the protections contained in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, according to unofficial results.Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny’ language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature. . . .The language of the amendment states: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.’The amendment described the right to keep and bear arms as ‘a fundamental individual right,’ requiring any restrictions on gun rights to survive ‘strict scrutiny.’Strict scrutiny is the highest legal hurdle for legislation to clear. It requires any restrictions on gun rights to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.”Two weeks after Iowans voted to amend their Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Bruen, and the Court published its decision seven months later. Much of the Majority Opinion clarified the test that Courts must follow in deciding whether State Government action conforms with or offends the core of the Second Amendment when a Government action is challenged.But twelve years before Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down means-test scrutiny, in favor of a historical test. Although the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the Majority, in Heller, had specifically mentioned defects in the lowest standard of means-test scrutiny, “Rational Basis,” it was clear from the decision that the Court had scrapped the entirety of means-test analysis in Second Amendment cases, including, then, “Intermediate” and “Strict” Scrutiny, in favor of historical analysis. The vast majority of Courts failed to get the message or otherwise chose to ignore it. Although many Courts, prior to Bruen may have utilized a historical analysis, in analyzing the constitutionality of State action impinging on the Second Amendment right, they went impermissibly further, unable or unwilling to disavow means-test scrutiny altogether. But nothing in Heller suggests the High Court retained so much as an iota of means-test scrutiny. Moreover, the Majority in Bruen explicitly states that the Court wasn’t creating a new methodology. Bruen merely clarifies what Heller asserts. Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Majority in Bruen, said this:“Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”This brings us back to Iowa’s amendment to its State Constitution. Since the Amendment refers explicitly to the use of “strict scrutiny,” the Amendment is unconstitutional. The irony is that supporters of the Amendment sought not only to cast in stone the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms for Iowans but to preclude the State Legislature and the State Federal and Appellate Courts from employing any test that might henceforth weaken the exercise of the natural law right to armed self-defense. The supporters of the Iowan Amendment thought that strict scrutiny in Second Amendment cases would prevent unconstitutional State action from infringing the core of the right. The U.S. Supreme Court had no such illusion, as a Strict Scrutiny means-test methodology suffers from the same defect as all means-test (weight analysis) methodology. There exists a tendency of Courts to find, almost invariably, in favor of a Government’s action, denying a challenge of unconstitutional infringement. This is one reason, and probably the salient one, why the Court struck down means-test scrutiny altogether, in Heller.Can the Iowa Legislature amend the verbiage of the Constitutional amendment to cohere with Heller and Bruen? Probably not since that would involve statutory reconstruction of a Constitutional amendment, which in the action would defeat, even if the intention were honest, the force and efficacy of the State Constitution, either subordinating the State Constitution to State Statute or placing the State’s Constitution on the same footing as State Statute. Neither possibility is acceptable.It appears Iowans will have to undertake another round of voting, first to repeal the unconstitutional amendment, and second to vote on a redraft of the amendment first voted on, that omits the “strict scrutiny” language.The Des Moines Register article, supra, also refers to four other States that have employed the language of strict scrutiny in their own constitutions:“Iowa will become the fourth state with ‘strict scrutiny, language to protect gun rights in its state constitution, achieving a longtime goal of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature.”If true, those States as well must amend their constitutions to cohere to the rulings and reasoning of Heller (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008)) and Bruen, (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)).___________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHO IS SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO AND HOW IS HE DEALING WITH NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LAW?

[NOTE TO OUR READERS: THIS ARTICLE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND WILL BE EDITED AND EXPANDED UPON IN THE DAYS AHEAD]

MULTIPART SERIES

PART ONE

FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO STANDS FIRM AGAINST NEW YORK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN SCHEME

In the March 2023 issue of the NRA publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom,” the Arbalest Quarrel, in its daily review of publications, came across an article titled, “Shooting Straight with Sheriff Richard Giardino,” by Frank Miniter, Editor in Chief of the magazine.The NRA published the article in the form of a straightforward question-answer interview.The NRA contacted Sheriff Giardino to get his take on a pressing matter affecting law enforcement in New York: the impact of the Hochul Government’s amendments to New York’s Handgun Law, the deceptively named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), and its impact on policing.That was what NRA’s Frank Miniter wanted to know. That is what we wanted to know.The NRA said this about Sheriff Giardino:“As an elected official, Sheriff Giardino doesn’t mind being in front of the cameras. But I [the NRA Editor in Chief, Frank Miniter] also found him to be a serious and humble official. He listens. He thinks of the people first. He next thinks of his deputies and the other employees he manages. Finally, he responds based on his long experience. And he does have a lot of legal experience. Sheriff Giardino graduated in 1984 from Albany Law School. While in college and law school, he served as a part-time police officer. After law school, he was hired as an assistant district attorney in Nassau County, N.Y. In 1986, he returned to Fulton County as an assistant district attorney and, in 1991, he was elected to be the second-youngest district attorney in the state. In 1996, he was appointed by New York’s governor to be a county court judge. In this role, he was a local licensing official for concealed-carry permits in what was then a ‘may-issue’ state, but he behaved as if he was in a “shall-issue” state. He served 18 years as a judge. In that time, he tried over 200 cases, including over 40 murder or attempted-murder cases.Of course, as with anyone we interview, Sheriff Giardino’s opinions are his own. I [Frank Miniter] point this out because, as he is a county sheriff in a state run by a governor who sees the Second Amendment as a problem, Giardino does find himself in some uncomfortable legal positions. He has to abide by the state laws, but he also raised his right hand and swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and lately—again, thanks to officials such as Gov. Hochul—those two things have come into conflict. This conundrum puts him—as well as many other law-enforcement officials and citizens who simply want to exercise their rights in various states and jurisdictions around the country—in some legally problematic situations.”The “Leader-Herald” newspaper, in a January 23, 2023 article, added this about Sheriff Giardino:“Giardino, a 64-year-old Republican, first ran for countywide office in 1991. He is the only person in New York state history to have served as a county district attorney, county judge and county sheriff, having won eight consecutive countywide elections.” These articles by the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper whet our appetite to learn more about this intriguing, and highly learned man. And so, we got in touch with Sheriff Giardino.Thinking that we intended to employ a basic question/answer interview approach, as the NRA did, we instead pointed out that we wished to engage Sheriff Giardino in an informal, open-ended conversation, as that would be less constraining and, we felt, more productive.We spent substantial time talking to him, gaining insightful knowledge from the perspective of a man who deals, on a daily basis, with the practical problems associated with the CCIA and with the problems attendant to policing.This article segment and the segments to follow are a distillation of our talks with Sheriff Giardino, presented in the context of our own work, apropos of the Arbalest Quarrel’s raison d’être: to preserve, protect, and defend the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution from all threats to it from forces both here and abroad aligned against the sovereignty of the American people.We learned a lot about and from this man, and he, in turn, learned a lot about and from us at the Arbalest Quarrel.Sheriff Giardino’s philosophy pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and his socio-political attitude and stance apropos of the threats that face our Country today, are on all fours with our own.Sheriff Giardino’s adoration for our Constitution—especially for the natural law right to armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of a Free Constitutional Republic, the foundation of the sovereignty of the American people over Government, and the source of our Nation’s greatness, strength.Through what the NRA and the Leader Herald newspaper say, we add a point derived from our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino.The Sheriff’s service to the Fulton County community means service to the U.S. Constitution. And what Sheriff Giardino means by “service to the U.S. Constitution” is no small matter.Service to the U.S. Constitution is what his job is all about. And the Rights contained in it are not to be dismissed.Those Rights are not—as many politicians argue, and as the legacy Press echoes—to be construed as some sort of archaic, mutable appendix to the Articles, to be constrained, modified, abrogated, or ignored because, to some, those rights don’t cohere with the current fad or fashion.The Bill of Rights is a codification of natural law.The Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are not man-made constructs. These Rights are not subject to modification, alteration, abrogation, obliteration, or perfunctory dismissal. These Rights are not attendant to a particular time and place. They are eternal, and they reside in man, as bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. That is how the framers of the Constitution understood them and that, in fact, is what they are.That is our position and that is Sheriff Giardino’s position.It is the very sanctity, strength, and enduring power of the Bill of Rights that drives the would-be Destroyers of our Country to mount an incessant and aggressive campaign against it. Without the exercise of these cherished rights and liberties, our free Republic would cease to exist. But then, that is the aim of those ruthless forces that intend to eliminate their exercise of them: to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the people. These malevolent forces intend to create a completely different sort of socio, political, economic, and juridical framework—one antithetical to the Government the framers of the U.S. Constitution created for themselves and for their descendants. It is one where the people are seen as subservient to the Government, not the masters of and over the Government.Of all the fundamental, unalienable rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—the right to armed self-defense against lowly creatures, aggressive men, and tyrannical Government—is absolutely essential to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and the supremacy of the American citizenry over Government.Without the force of arms, this Country, as an independent, sovereign Nation-State and free Republic, could not exist; nor can our Republic persist through time if the citizen is denied access to firearms and ammunition.The conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court knows this to be true. Sheriff Giardino knows this to be true. And we know this to be true. Yet, many Americans in the Federal and State Governments, including the New York State Government do not know this to be so, or, otherwise, choose to ignore Truth, because it is counter to their running narrative and to their agenda. They, therefore, deny the TRUTH, outright.And, that has placed Sheriff Giardino and others in law enforcement, in a bind: Either uphold recent law that contradicts the Bill of Rights or uphold the Truth of the Bill of Rights and incur the wrath of “woke” leadership.This isn’t an academic matter. It is playing out now, and most acutely, in New York.The Hochul Government has placed Sheriff Giardino like his fellow Sheriffs in a difficult position.How does law enforcement chart a course between a transitory, ill-conceived man-made handgun law, the CCIA on the one hand, with man’s fundamental, unalienable, unalterable, eternal, immutable, natural law right to armed self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment?How does Sheriff Giardino “square that circle.” That question was the focus of our conversation with him, and it raised a host of questions and concerns that we dealt with in depth during our conversations with him.___________________________________________

“DISCRETION” IS THE MECHANISM NEW YORK FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF RICHARD GIARDINO UTILIZES TO DEAL WITH NEW YORK’S INTRACTABLE CONCEALED CARRTY IMPROVEMENT ACT (“CCIA”)

PART TWO

The CCIA is the Hochul Government’s response to the June 23, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen.The Hochul Government fabricated the CCIA to defy and defeat the High Court rulings in Bruen that reinforce the natural law right to armed self-defense.How does a law enforcement officer square enforcement of the CCIA when that enforcement conflicts with the language of the Second Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court rulings?This is what we wanted to obtain Sheriff Giardino’s thoughts on, as did NRA’s Editor in Chief of the NRA publication, “America’s 1st Freedom,” that preceded our own conversations with Sheriff Giardino. What we learned from the interview that NRA’s Editor in Chief conducted with Sheriff Giardino became the springboard for further explication of the Sheriff’s thoughts on the CCIA, the U.S. Constitution and Second Amendment, U.S. Supreme Court rulings, attacks on police, and violent crime in New York.In his interview with Sheriff Giardino, NRA’s Frank Miniter asked the Sheriff point blank: “Will you enforce New York’s concealed carry restrictions?”Without pause and in no uncertain terms, the Sheriff responded, “I raised my right hand to uphold the constitution. Now the governor of New York wants me to break that oath. Law enforcement has been placed in an untenable position of enforcing laws that we might believe are unconstitutional. As a former judge and district attorney, I still have my law license. My legal experience tells me that many provisions of this new gun-control law are unconstitutional. So, given all of that, I see the law here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce. So, we’re going to use our discretion. We’re not going to just arrest someone who carries concealed into a barbershop he has been going to his entire life. We’ll inform the person what the law [CCIA] now says, and then we’ll focus our resources on actual criminals.”The issue of police “discretion” is something the NRA glossed over, perhaps given time constraints or publishing restrictions. Yet, to our mind, the point of “discretion” in light of the CCIA is of paramount importance to a consideration of the daily dilemma law enforcement officers are confronted with, especially when they must make a split-second decision.The NRA interviewer did not pursue what Sheriff Giardino meant by   “discretion” and Andrew Waite, a columnist for the Daily Gazette newspaper, whom Sheriff Giardino also spoke with, misconstrued what Sheriff Giardino meant by the term.The use of discretion in policing does not give carte blank authority to law enforcement. And Sheriff Giardino is not saying here or implying that he can do whatever he wants.The columnist for the Daily Gazette, Andrew Waite, incorrectly interpreted Sheriff Giardino as inferring, erroneously, that,“The sheriff is absolutely entitled to choose how to enforce just about any rule.”No! Sheriff Giardino is not saying or suggesting that. Rather, he is pointing to a confounding box the CCIA places him in and the way—the only way—he can extricate himself from it without offending the U.S. Constitution. Sheriff Giardino took an oath to enforce the U.S. Constitution. He did not take an oath to enforce the CCIA.The CCIA is codified in State Statute, Section 400. That is the State's handgun law. It is therefore a component of the Consolidated Laws of New York.A State Statute is not in any manner to be construed as part of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, a State Statute doesn’t stand on the same footing as a State Constitution.The New York State Constitution stands above State Statute in prominence and authority. And, the U.S. Constitution stands above both State Statute and State Constitution, except where the doctrine of Federalism gives the States complementary power or powers that reside exclusively with the States that the Federal Government is not permitted to intrude upon.Sheriff Giardino is told to enforce New York law, but he must also enforce the Constitution of the United States, consistent with his oath. And where the two collide, the U.S. Constitution dictates his actions. That is an unalterable, inescapable TRUTH.Where the CCIA conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, Sheriff Giardino says he must adhere to the Constitution.Where the CCIA doesn’t make clear his duties or where there doesn’t seem to be a clear conflict with the Constitution, then he will use his discretion to chart a proper course, guided, all the while, by the Second Amendment guarantee.That is the import of Sheriff Giardino’s assertion, that——“I see the law [the CCIA] here in a state of flux and we have a tremendous amount of discretion as to what we enforce.”The CCIA is a logical, legal, and logistical mess, a quagmire, manufactured by the Hochul Government to serve an agenda, one antagonistic to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. And, since all or part of the CCIA will, at some point in time be overturned either by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court, as litigation is ongoing at this time, that is the “state of flux” that Sheriff Giardino is referring to.Law enforcement officials, like Sheriff Giardino, cannot extricate themselves easily from this morass but must contend with it.The application of “broad discretion” to deal effectively with a multiplicity of contingencies and complexities is necessitated by the inherent illegality of the salient portions of the CCIA. Further, the inscrutability of some of its sections, and internal inconsistencies along with inconsistencies with other portions of New York law and inconsistencies with the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, apart from the CCIA’s inherent inconsistency with the Second, abound. That is why we call the CCIA a mess.Sheriff Giardino’s actions must therefore be nuanced. But, where conflict is clear, i.e., where illegal constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are acute and blatant, then he will enforce the U.S. Constitution, not the CCIA.As Sheriff Giardino says,“The fact that there are currently more than a dozen State and Federal Lawsuits at various stages in the litigation process in New York, over the new CCIA, can be very confusing, especially to those people who presently hold valid concealed handgun carry licenses.* And this confusion will continue to exist until, ultimately, the US Supreme Court decides, supports, and defends my decision to exercise broad discretion in favor of law-abiding citizens.”Adding to this awful burden there is a bitter irony.Sheriff Giardino points out that “on any given weekend, criminals, who can’t lawfully possess firearms, use firearms and, especially handguns, to commit dozens of robberies, murders, and attempted murders. Bear in mind that the chances that a holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license will use that handgun or any firearm in a crime is less than 1/6 of 1%, based on national studies.” So, ask yourself: ‘how many criminals will be adhering to Hochul’s new CCIA?” And to add insult to injury, Sheriff Giardino exclaims, “‘The Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ criminalizes conduct that, under the original New York handgun law, the law in place prior to September 1, 2022, the day the CCIA took effect, was legal.”The CCIA is simply a clever ruse——

• The CCIA is a scheme designed to further the Government agenda while giving lip service to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen.
• The CCIA further constrains the average law-abiding, responsible, rational citizen, who happens to reside and/or work in the State, from exercising his natural law right to armed self-defense.
• The CCIA does nothing to curb the misuse of firearms by the psychopathic criminal element running amok throughout the State, most noticeably in New York City.

The Daily Gazette columnist Andrew Waite doesn’t weigh in on any of this because he doesn’t truly understand the nature of the issues, or, otherwise, he doesn’t even begin to perceive a problem.Like most newspaper reporters and columnists, Waite sees “gun rights” vs. “gun control”/“gun safety” as a legitimate issue because politicians and news people manufacture that issue. But it has no substance. It is a fabrication, an illusion, a makeweight.There is the natural law right to armed self-defense. That is a fact. But those who abhor firearms and who fear and detest Americans who keep and bear them and who wish firearms and the right to keep and bear them would just go away, perpetrate and perpetuate a phantom issue, and thrust that specter on the public.These same people also deny the existence of natural law rights. They see the Bill of Rights as man-made artifices, no different than any other law, and therefore subject to modification or abrogation like any other law when whim dictates.They see people like Sheriff Giardino as driving a wedge between those Americans who desire to exercise their natural law right to armed self-defense and those who wish to severely constrain the exercise of the right or eliminate it.Yet, Sheriff Giardino is doing no such thing.Andrew Waite infers, oddly, that application of police discretion is less the result of a failure of the Government to acknowledge the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of self and in defense of innocent others, and to guard against the tyranny of Government, and more a personal predilection that causes consternation among those who abhor firearms and who hold disdain toward those Americans who do choose to exercise their natural law right.He says, in his article, supra: “But even gun-rights advocates who support Giardino’s positions on this issue should be worried about the ways in which a local sheriff’s discretion may only serve to further drive us apart.”Who are these “gun-rights advocates” that Waite refers to? Waite doesn’t say.Anyway, his remark is irrelevant, even discordant.It’s a logical red herring, introduced by unscrupulous politicians, and echoed by those in the legacy Press and social media, whether knowingly or not, to confound the public.Andrew Waite is right in the groove, reflexively singing a refrain piped into his psyche and then transmitted to millions of Americans.It is all projection, the product of an elaborate campaign of psychological conditioning, disbursed on an industrial scale, touching every part of the Country.Waite’s remark also shows a misunderstanding of the salient duty of all law enforcement officers.As Sheriff Giardino stated clearly, succinctly, and categorically in the Daily Gazette article, and as he has reiterated for those who do not understand:The duty of a law-enforcement officer is to “uphold the constitution.” That is the oath law enforcement officers swear to. That is and must be the predicate basis for and guiding principle for all his conduct in the field.Yet, in a Nation where the U.S. Constitution is routinely ignored, dismissed, deliberately misread, or even slammed and denigrated, there is, in that, for many, explanation enough explanation.That is how something as poisonous as New York’s “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” comes to be conceived, drafted, passed, and signed into law, and then, exalted as a fine, proper, and good thing.In a Country turned upside down and inside out, law enforcement officers like Sheriff Giardino must perforce contend with a situation that Government throws him into. It isn’t one of his own makings, but that of Hochul and the Democrat-Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, and the secretive powers behind both that have engineered the destruction of our Country.Is Andrew Waite even aware of this?The reporter for the Daily Gazette falls into the very trap that many reporters and columnists fall into, viewing fundamental, immutable natural law rights as a matter of public opinion and failing to grasp that some rights are not a matter of natural law, but are merely man-made constructs.The public’s reaction to the Dobbs “abortion” case is a prime example of this.Andrew Waite writes,“With diametrically opposed laws and individualized interpretations of how to enforce those laws, it can be hard to know which way is up, and which way is down. Amid the confusion and the divergent standards, we become even more divided, and our positions can become even more extreme.”A person becomes lost when he is unaware of or fails to follow the proper guideposts. Such is the case presented above.In the matter of fundamental rights, a person’s guide is the U.S. Constitution. It has always been thus, and must always be so.The Dobbs case is inapposite because “abortion” isn’t a fundamental right. It isn’t natural law. It is a man-made artifice, a judge-made right, fabricated as a matter of convenience, because the U.S. Supreme Court was, at the time, apparently, too afraid to acknowledge that the issue of abortion is not a Federal Constitutional issue. It is merely a matter for public debate, and as such, it should be left to the States to determine how each wishes to treat abortion. And, no the U.S. Supreme Court has done just that. It leaves the matter to the States to work out.But many Americans don’t see this. The Press doesn’t allow them to see this, but, disreputably, stirs up conflict as does Congress. The public gets caught up in a maelstrom of confusion, anxiety, and rage deliberately fomented by politicians and vociferously magnified by the Press, relying on incessant sloganeering and messaging, at once vacuous and malevolent.Many Americans fall for the garbled nonsense visited upon them by unscrupulous politicians, and then amplified through social media and the Press. The results are dangerous, reverberating throughout the Nation, causing discord, social instability, and violence, none of which is unanticipated, but all calibrated to attain the end goal:The annihilation of an independent sovereign Nation, a free Republic, and a free and sovereign citizenry.____________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on both the parent U.S. Supreme Court case, NYSRPA vs. Bruen, and on Post-Bruen New York cases and we are keeping track of the progress of the litigation. To date, we have published over 40 articles on these cases.See, e.g., our article, posted on the AQ website on October 22, 2022, pertaining to the New York Government's interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the High Court to lift the Stay on enforcement of the CCIA during the pendency of the lawsuit in Antonyuk vs. Hochul.The Antonyuk case was subsequently recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Governor Hochul from the lawsuit.Steven Nigrelli is the new “Acting” Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Governor Hochul. Steven Nigrelli replaces both the Governor and Kevin Bruen, as the principal named Party Defendant, the latter of whom was the previous Superintendant of the New York State Police, appointed by Kathy Hochul's predecessor, Governor Andrew Cuomo.  See the AQ article posted on January 2, 2023.____________________________________Copyright © 2023 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT FALLS, THE NATION FALLS, AND NEW YORK IS DOING ITS PART TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS

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

MULTI SERIES

PART NINETEEN

SUBPART ONE OF PART NINETEEN

A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF RUINATION

As one more year draws rapidly to a close in these first three decades of the 21^st Century, the United States stands precariously at the edge of an abyss.One Branch of the Federal Government, the U.S Supreme Court, at least, recognizes the danger, and has prevented the Country from falling over the precipice.After a century of sidestepping the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court established, in three precedential case law decisions, what had been visibly plain in the language of the Second Amendment itself all along, if one would only look.All three cases were handed down in the first three decades of the 21^st Century. They include:District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2010 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen in 2022.These three cases, together, stand for the following propositions, now black letter law:

• The right of armed self-defense is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia
• The right of armed self-defense is a universal right, applicable to both the States and the Federal Government.
• The right of armed self-defense applies wherever a person is, inside the home or outside it.

These three legal axioms are, together, the singular Law of the Land. But for this Law, the Republic would have fallen into ruin, this Century.There would be nothing to rein in a rogue Congress, a rogue Biden Administration, or rogue jurisdictions like those around the Country: New York, Illinois, California, Washington State, Washington D.C., Oregon, Hawaii, and several others.The rot from those State jurisdictions and from the Federal Government would eventually infect many other States.Forces inside the Government and outside it, both here and abroad—wealthy and powerful, malevolent and malignant—machinate constantly to destroy the right to armed self-defense.These forces will not tolerate an armed citizenry.The existence of an armed citizenry contradicts their end goal of a neo-feudalistic world government. The armed citizenry precept deviates from their plan of world conquest.Their goal for the 21st Century is a return to the political, social, and economic feudalistic construct operating in the world of the 5th through 15th Centuries—the Middle Ages.These ruthless elements have declared——

• The United States can no longer continue as a free Constitutional Republic;
• The American people must be subjugated; and
• Any thought of an armed citizenry must be erased from the collective memory of the American people.

The ashes of a once powerful, respected, sovereign, independent United States are to be commingled with the ashes of other western nations.The EU and the British Commonwealth Nations are a step in the direction of that world empire.The neoliberal democratic world order is conceived as——

• One devoid of defined geographical borders,
• One absent national governments; and
• One bereft of any defining history, heritage, culture, ethos, or Judeo-Christian ethic by which the people of one nation may easily distinguish themselves from any other.

Will the U.S. fall victim to totalitarianism as have the nations of the EU and British Commonwealth; as have India and China; and as have most all countries in the Middle East? Let us hope not.The U.S. need not fall victim.The U.S. has something all other nations lack: a true Bill of Rights.Our Bill of Rights consists of a set of natural laws: fundamental, unalienable, unmodifiable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal.Within this Country’s Bill of Rights rests a Cardinal Truth. And, of this Truth——

• The Founders were aware of it.
• The Republic they founded is grounded on it.
• The strength and power of our Country and the staying power of our Constitution is a testament to it.

All Americans should imprint this Truth on their collective memory:“What isn’t created by man cannot lawfully be taken from man by other men, nor by any temporal artifice of man: Government, for the sanctity, inviolability of man’s Selfhood, his Soul, and his Spirit do not belong to the Government; they cannot be bestowed on man by Government; and they cannot be severed from man by Government.Government is a dangerous enterprise.Our Federal Government is no longer reliable. It has gone rogue. It has forgotten the people whose interests it was created to serve. It serves special interests that fill campaign coffers and it serves wealthy, powerful foreign agencies of whom the public has no inkling.

• With this Federal Government, the American people have got “a tiger by the tail.” It is difficult to hold onto, but one daren’t let it go, lest it bite the people. Best to destroy it if we can no longer hold onto it.
• That “Tiger,” our Federal Government, is a creation of the American people and exists only to serve the people—the true and sole sovereign over the Federal Government.
• The presence of an armed citizenry serves as both evidence of its sovereignty over the Government, and the mechanism by which it may lawfully constrain it contain it, or curtail it if the Government loses its way and turns against the people.
• The Right to Armed Self-Defense is Natural Law, a God-given right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator.
• Government cannot lawfully modify Natural Law, Ignore it, Rescind it, or formally Repeal it.
• Since armed self-defense is a Natural Law Right, the U.S. Supreme Court—in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—didn’t make new law. The rulings of the three seminal High Court cases simply make explicit what is tacit in the language of the Second Amendment.

Unfortunately, many jurisdictions have failed to recognize, or otherwise have failed to acknowledge and accept, the strictures of the Second Amendment.That necessitated the intervention of the High Court. In one Second Amendment case after another—from Heller to McDonald, and then to Bruen—the Court has ordered States to uphold the strictures of the Second Amendment. Yet, many refuse to do so.Indeed, many jurisdictions reject Heller, McDonald, and Bruen outright. But no jurisdiction does so more emphatically, and contemptuously, and openly, than New York. We turn to a look at the status of recent litigation in New York.__________________________________

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART A

NEW YORK’S GUN LAW: STATUS OF THE ANTONYUK CASE GOING FORWARD*

The New York Government, under Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-led Legislature in Albany, have declared outright war on the precepts of Individuality upon which the U.S. Constitution rests.Hochul’s Government crafted a comprehensive set of amendments to New York’s Gun Law, the Sullivan Act.These amendments specifically and negatively affect N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(f). That’s the concealed handgun carry license section of the State’s Sullivan Act.The amendments are referred to collectively as the “CCIA.” Hochul signed the amendments into law on July 1, 2022. This was scarcely a week after the High Court published the Bruen decision, on June 23, 2022.A flurry of lawsuits followed. Plaintiff gun owners filed the first one, Antonyuk vs. Bruen (Antonyuk I), on July 11.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed that case without prejudice on August 23.The Court ruled one of the Plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and its affiliates, lacked standing to sue.Ivan Antonyuk, the captioned Plaintiff individual of Antonyuk I, refiled his lawsuit against Defendant Kevin Bruen, Superintendent of State Police, on September 20. Five additional Party Plaintiffs, all individuals, joined him in the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs added eight additional Defendants. Governor Kathy Hochul was one of those Defendants. The Defendants were all State, County, or City Government Officials. All of them were sued in their official capacities. The New York Courts refer to this second case as Antonyuk II. The case was formally recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Hochul. On September 22, the Plaintiffs filed their Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and on September 28, they added a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI”).The Oral Hearing was held on September 29.On October 6, the U.S. District Court issued its order, granting the TRO in part, and denying it in part.One month later, on November 7, the District Court ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction, granting it in part, and denying it in part.The Court also dismissed out Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, ruling that, “Plaintiffs have not alleged or shown how Defendant Hochul could be properly found to have the specific legal duty to enforce the CCIA.”In addition, Steven Nigrelli was named the new Superintendent of the State Police, replacing Kevin Bruen, as Party Defendant.With both Hochul and Bruen out of the picture, the case, Antonyuk II, was recaptioned, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli. With the granting of the Preliminary Injunction, the TRO was mooted, and the Parties jointly agreed to dismiss the TRO.On November 8, 2022, the New York Gubernatorial race was held. On that same date, the Government appealed, to the Second Circuit, the District Court’s granting of the PI in Antonyuk II.On November 15, 2022, the Second Circuit issued a terse stay of the PI, pending its ruling on the Government’s Motion requesting relief from the District Court’s granting of the PI.The Second Circuit November 15 Order reads:“Defendants-Appellants, seek a stay pending appeal, and an emergency interim stay, of the Preliminary Injunction issued by the District Court on November 7, 2022.It is hereby ordered that a temporary stay is granted, pending the panel’s consideration of the motion.”The Second Circuit obliged the Government, overturning the U.S. District Court’s grant of the PI stay.This means Hochul’s Government can enforce the CCIA during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.Time is therefore on the side of the Government.Hochul Government now has what it wants—the ability to enforce the CCIA against New York’s Gun Law during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.Plaintiffs and all other holders of valid concealed handgun carry licenses as well as those who wish to obtain a New York concealed handgun carry license must now contend with the CCIA.Present holders of a valid New York concealed handgun carry license like the Plaintiffs in Antonyuk II, are particularly negatively affected by this Order.Plaintiffs understandably were not happy about the Second Circuit’s November 15 Order, lifting the stay of the CCIA imposed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.So, four days after the issuance of the Second Circuit’s November 15 Order, the Plaintiffs, on November 19,  filed their response to the Government’s stay of the PI pending the Circuit Court’s review of it.The Plaintiffs took the Government to task, stating,“In their Motion, Appellants generally malign the district court’s preliminary injunction, but fail to note that the CCIA is no ordinary law–breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality. The district court was correct to enjoin enforcement of many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, and this Court should (i) decline Appellants’ invitation to be the first circuit court to bless a statute specifically enacted to defy Bruen, (ii) vacate its improvidently granted administrative stay, and (iii) deny Appellants’ Motion.”Whether to enforce the operation of the CCIA during litigation or stay its enforcement turns on a four-factor test created by the Second Circuit. The Plaintiffs addressed the four-factor test in their Opposition to the Government’s Motion, stating— “The relevant factors to be considered are ‘[i] the applicant’s strong showing that [they are] likely to succeed on the merits, [ii] irreparable injury to the applicant in the absence of a stay, [iii] substantial injury to the nonmoving party if a stay is issued, and [iv] the public interest.’ A stay ‘is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result;’ rather ‘it is an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Finally, where (as here) an applicant is ‘totally lacking’ a strong showing of likelihood of success, ‘the aggregate assessment of the factors bearing on issuance of a stay pending appeal cannot possibly support a stay.’ Appellants fail all four factors. . . . The district court’s order will cause no harm to Appellants, as many of the CCIA’s provisions – which have been in effect barely over two months – are entirely novel in New York law, as well as lacking any historical analogue. . . . The sky did not fall prior to the CCIA’s enactment, and the sky is not falling now. Rather, the PI merely returns the state of the law to what it was just over two months ago.”Responding to the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the stay of enforcement of the CCIA, the Second Circuit issued an amended Order on December 7, 2022.The new Order reads:“Appellants request a stay pending appeal of the district court's order dated November 7, 2022 (N.D.N.Y. 22-cv-986, doc. 78), enjoining Appellants from enforcing certain aspects of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (‘CCIA’). Having weighed the applicable factors, see In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007), we conclude that a stay pending appeal is warranted.  Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is hereby Ordered that the motion for a stay pending appeal is Granted and the district court's Nove1nber 7 order is Stayed pending the resolution of this appeal. To the extent that the district court's order bars enforcement of the CCIA's provisions related to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace at places of worship, airports, and private buses, such categories are excepted from this order. Appellees' motion to expedite the resolution of the matter is Granted.”What this new Order means is this:The Second Circuit allows the Government to enforce the amendments to the State’s Gun Law during its review of the Preliminary Injunction, subject to a minor exception.The Second Circuit said the stay does not affect the “Sensitive Location” prohibitions to airports, places of worship, and private buses.This is hardly a concession to the Plaintiffs.Airports fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the State.No civilian may carry a firearm in airports, anyway.And houses of worship and private buses are the only private entities, that the Second Circuit says can devise their own rules for the carrying of firearms.All other CCIA “Sensitive Location” provisions remain operative during the Second Circuit’s review of the PI.But the Second Circuit’s treatment of the “four-factor test,” in the recent Order is both curious and disturbing. Recall the lower District Court had meticulously applied the Four-Factor test as it is required to do when first granting the Plaintiffs’ TRO, and subsequently granting the Plaintiffs’ PI. But why did the Second Circuit reject the findings of the District Court?In lifting the PI stay, the Second Circuit never explained its reasoning for doing so.The Court cites a case that is inapposite. And it is one that neither the Plaintiffs nor Defendants cite in any of their filings. The Court merely says it has weighed the factors and tacitly finds for the Government.This is all contrary to the findings and cogent reasoning of the lower District Court.It suggests the Court will overturn the PI, thus jeopardizing the attack on the constitutionality of the CCIA and further reducing the chance of eventually securing a Permanent Injunction against enforcement of the CCIA.This all suggests what New Yorkers have lost in failing to seat Zeldin in the Governor’s mansion.Had Lee Zeldin prevailed in the Gubernatorial race against Kathy Hochul, Plaintiffs and all other New York gun owners holding valid New York restricted or unrestricted handgun carry licenses would likely be in a different and better place.As Governor, Lee Zeldin could request the dismissal of Antonyuk. All other pending challenges to the CCIA would be mooted. The CCIA would have no effect.This would entail reverting to the originalN.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(2)(F). That would benefit those present holders of New York concealed handgun carry licenses who had complied with the “proper cause” requirement of the older Gun Law.Eventually, Zeldin, as New York Governor, could work with the State Legislature in Albany to rescind the entire licensing structure. Alas, that will never be. Four years of Hochul in Office will mean further restrictions on the Second Amendment, as the CCIA and other New York Gun laws clamp down ever tighter on a citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to armed self-defense.________________________________

SUBPART TWO OF PART NINETEEN

SUB-SUBPART B

AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THE APPLICATION OF THE FOUR-FACTOR TEST IN ANTONYUK VS. NIGRELLI

A perusal of the Four-Factor test demonstrates why the lower U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of New York was correct in granting the Plaintiffs’ PI, and why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was wrong in staying the PI, during the Court’s resolution of it.

• The likelihood that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.

The District Court, in its opinions, both in Antonyuk I and Antonyuk II laid out a comprehensive argument supporting a finding that the CCIA is unconstitutional and that Plaintiffs would likely prevail in their suit on the merits against the Government.This first factor, therefore, works to the benefit of the Plaintiffs, supporting the granting of the PI.

• Irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs in absence of a stay of enforcement of the CCIA.

The District Court pointed out that, by carrying their handgun in public, the Plaintiffs would engage in behavior lawful under the original NY Gun Law but, under the “Sensitive Location” clause of the CCIA, now unlawful in many locations in New York.Thus, the CCIA operates perversely to restrict an already restrictive Gun Law the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional on the “proper cause” issue in Bruen. If current holders of a valid NY handgun carry license continue to carry under the CCIA, they will have committed a crime if they carry that handgun in a “Sensitive Location.”If arrested while carrying a handgun in public, in a “Sensitive Location,” they will lose their license to carry because the valid New York concealed handgun license they presently have is invalid if carrying a firearm in a “Sensitive Location.” The CCIA overrides the concealed handgun carry license in those locations.If arrested, the licensee will also be forced to surrender their handgun to the appropriate police authority, along with any other firearms they may have possession of in New York.Further, they will now have a criminal record on file, jeopardizing their acquisition of a license anew in New York. This will also jeopardize their ability to exercise their Second Amendment right in many other jurisdictions they may happen to work in or relocate to, thereafter.To avoid the possibility of arrest, these licensees must voluntarily relinquish carrying a handgun in public for self-defense. But doing so endangers their life, which was the reason these licensees applied for a concealed handgun carry license, in the first place.Remember, licensing officers had determined these license holders do face extraordinary risk, thus warranting issuance of a license under the original “proper cause” standard that the respective New York licensing authorities established, consistent with the original New York Gun Law.Plaintiffs are therefore in a bind. If they carry a handgun in a “Sensitive Location”, they risk arrest, loss of their license, loss of their handgun, and a criminal record to boot. If they do not carry a handgun for self-defense, they endanger their life.That is a  Hobson's choice; the idea that present holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses have here; no acceptable choice, and evidence of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs.To give Hochul’s blatant refusal to abide by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in NYSRPA vs. Bruen a leg to stand on, she attempts to give the public a sense that she cares deeply about the safety concerns of New Yorkers; that her amendments to the State’s Gun Law are designed to effectuate that end. What she delivers to the public is nothing more than an elaborate promo, an infomercial proffered to sell a product. The product she is selling is simply a more tortuous, and torturous version of the Sullivan Act enacted over one hundred years ago. And, like all promos and infomercials, it is meant to make a profit off a person’s gullibility. In the instant case, the Sullivan Act, a noose around the necks of free citizens, squeezed ever tighter. The Sullivan Act endangers the life of New Yorkers under the guise of securing life. It is all charade and theater.This second factor, therefore, works to the Plaintiffs' advantage, supporting the PI.

• Substantial injury to the nonmoving party. 

This is the mirror image of the previous factor. This is where the Government, the “non-moving” party, must demonstrate that the New York public faces irreparable injury if the Government is enjoined from enforcing the CCIA and that the harm to the public outweighs the harm to the Plaintiffs.That is what the Government says. The assertion is patently ridiculous.If the public was under no grave threat before the enactment of the CCIA, with stringent restrictive gun measures already in place, then it follows logically the public cannot be under a graver threat of injury now if the Second Circuit affirms the stay of enforcement of the CCIA,  pending resolution of the PI. But that’s what the Government wants. It wants the Second Circuit to lift the stay of the PI. This means the Government wants the Second Circuit to deny giving effect to the PI during the Second Circuit's resolution of the merits of it, thereby authorizing the Hochul Government to enforce the CCIA.The New York Attorney General Letitia James, arguing the case for the Government, asserted, in the Government's Opposition to the PI, that “Exposing eighteen million New Yorkers to a heightened risk of gunfire severely outweighs any prejudice to plaintiffs here from a stay.”This is ludicrous. It is nothing more than a snapshot of the imbecilic remarks of Hochul delivered to “CBS This Morning” on Friday, June 24, 2022, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in NYSRPA vs. Bruen, setting up what would come shortly after; the awful amendments to New York's Gun Law. The Daily Caller recites Hochul's tirade against the High Court, in its article, titled, “NY Gov. Hochul Says Law-Abiding Gun Owners Make People Feel Very Unsafe”:“Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said Friday morning law abiding gun owners make people feel ‘unsafe’ just one day after the Supreme Court overturned a more than century old gun law.Speaking on CBS This Morning, Hochul said the right to carry outside the home makes individuals feel ‘unsafe’ and seemed to insinuate it should not be allowed.‘Everybody in America recognizes that there is a problem with gun violence and the people who cheer this, what they say, what they see is, ‘Look there is a problem with gun violence and I, as a law-abiding citizen, want to be able to hold a gun on my person so that I feel safer.’ What do you say to that individual?” the host asked Hochul.‘I say that makes everyone else feel very unsafe. We don’t know if you’re provoked, you know, you’re in a bar and someone looks at your girlfriend or your boyfriend the wrong way. There are so many triggers. If someone wants to have a legal gun, licensed protection in their home, that is their domain, they can do that, we’ve always allowed that, or for hunting and other purposes,’ Hochul said.’‘But to think someone would be able to do this on a subway, in a crowded, tense situation during rush hour? No, we have a right to protect our citizens, not take away your right to own, that’s fine, but where you take it and the ability to conceal it, that’s just going to make things so much more complicated for law enforcement and others.’”

CIVILIANS DO NOT CARRY HANDGUNS OPENLY IN NEW YORK. THERE IS NO “OPEN CARRY”

First, it bears mentioning, but, apparently, only to morons like Hochul, that a holder of concealed handgun carry license does not ever carry his or her handgun openly, in New York, for all the world to see. The Gun Law itself recites the lawful carrying of a handgun, “concealed,” i.e., not openly by those issued concealed handgun carry licenses.In fact, no one in New York is permitted to carry a handgun openly apart from uniformed New York police officers, or other uniformed personnel who fall under specific provisions of the State's Gun Law.How, then, can any law-abiding member of the public honestly feel a sense of foreboding that another law-abiding member of the public who happens to possess a concealed handgun carry license is someone to be feared? The only creature that could realistically understandably “feel unsafe” is a psychopathic criminal who would dare to threaten an innocent member of the public. More than a few criminals and lunatics have met their untimely demise by threatening harm to an undercover police officer or off-duty officer, or to a holder of a valid concealed handgun license. In fact, for a career criminal—who isn't otherwise a psychotic maniac who wouldn't care whether a target of his lunacy is armed or not, as his reasoning organ is shot—he would never know for certain who is lawfully carrying a handgun concealed and who is not, if many more members of the New York public were to begin carrying, concealed, a handgun, as is their natural law right. And, he would think twice before targeting, at random, an innocent victim who is merely going about his business. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the garden variety criminal, who has some sense of self-preservation would be less inclined to take the chance to attack a member of the public who may very well be armed. This fact would result in a precipitous drop in violent crimes of opportunity.

“TRIGGERS” ANYONE?

Second, The notion that a person would go off half-cocked is a “Fever Dream” of the Anti-Second Amendment crowd. They would like to believe this myth. The Government thrusts all sorts of horrors on the public to rationalize ending the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense. But their wax museum of horrors coming to life is just entertainment, nothing more. It isn't grounded in truth. It's merely a fabrication, it's propagandist; a fictional horror film designed like many such films, i.e., to create a jump scare. Only the gullible and ignorant Americans would fall for it. If New York holders of handgun carry licenses were such a threat to public safety and order, how is it that we never hear Governor Hochul talking about instances of criminal acts of violence committed by these licensees? She can’t talk about this because there is no instance of this that she can drum up.  All such talk of an armed New York citizenry posing a threat to the Government's notion of public safety and public order in their well-ordered society is sheer unadulterated speculation, bordering on delirium.

“IF SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A LEGAL GUN, LICENSED PROTECTION IN THEIR HOME, THAT IS THEIR DOMAIN, THEY CAN DO THAT, WE'VE ALWAYS ALLOWED THAT.” ISN'T HOCHUL NICE?

Third, Hochul says, the Government has always allowed someone “a legal gun in their home.” But wait a minute? Is keeping and bearing arms a Government bestowed privilege or a God-Given Right? And didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court rule that the right to armed self-defense extends beyond the domain of one’s house, consistent with the meaning of the fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense? Does New York law take precedence over the Second Amendment and the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court? Hochul demonstrates incredible arrogance. How did she get elected to Office anyway?If New York holders of handgun carry licenses were such a threat to public safety and order, how is it that we never hear Governor Hochul talking about instances of criminal acts of violence committed by these licensees? She can’t talk about this because there is no instance of this that she can drum up.  All such talk of an armed New York citizenry posing a threat to their notion of public safety and public order in their well-ordered society is sheer unadulterated speculation, bordering on delirium. The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies devised and employed to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And it all goes back to Government's lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. And, the fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against the Tyrant's Tyranny. The Neoliberal Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always the common people. Government exists primarily to control the populace. Our Federal Government, though, was constructed to serve the people. Everything in our Constitution points to that fact. The people are sovereign, not Government. But, like all Governments, our Federal Government has succumbed to tyranny. That tyranny is mirrored and multiplied in the Governments of many States. New York is one of those States. The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First, or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity, that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination. In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, such as that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

“A HEIGHTENED RISK OF GUNFIRE”?

“Exposing eighteen million New Yorkers to a heightened risk of gunfire severely outweighs any prejudice to plaintiffs here from a stay.” ~ Letitia JamesFourth, apropos of Letitia James' argument, on behalf of Defendant-Appellant New York Government officials, appealing the U.S. District Court's granting of Plaintiff-Appellees' Preliminary Injunction, where is this “heightened risk of gunfire” supposed to come from?The argument presented by Attorney General Letitia James and by Governor Kathy Hochul in support of the CCIA boils down to these two propositions:

• People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
• Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

The reader will note that nothing is said about career criminals, murderous gangbangers, and drug-addled lunatics who may happen to get hold of a firearm. The reason is that the Hochul Government, and other Governments like hers—reflecting the beliefs and aims of the present Federal Government, aren't concerned about the behavior of the dregs of society. Government is concerned only over the rational responsible American who will not suffer tyranny. And it is tyranny that these Governments, local, regional, State, and Federal are selling. Criminals and lunatics serve their end. The breakdown of law and order is what these Governments want so that they can institute their own brand of crime on a national/industrial scale. The aim is the destruction of the mind, the Soul, and the Spirit. The sanctity and inviolability of the individual were once important to our Nation, worth preserving, things to be cherished. And the idea was threaded through our Nation's Constitution, and, especially, through our Nation's Bill of rights. That once was so, but no longer. The Federal Government makes a mockery of our Country now and of our sacred precepts and principles. We see it in the weakening of our economy, and our military. We see it in incredible profligate spending at a time when we must hold onto the monetary reserves and ascertain that our Nation's monies are spent carefully and wisely for purposes that benefit our Nation and its people, and not squandered on foreign escapades or lavishly squandered on special interests that benefit the few, including foreign entities and individuals that hate us. We see the weakening of our Country in the Government's obsequious behavior toward China and Brussels. And, we see it in the debauched, and degenerate, and mentally unbalanced individuals placed in high Government Office. Most Americans are appalled at these spectacles. And Government knows this and worries about it. Government is afraid of Americans who keep and bear arms, who clutch them ever tighter, for many of us there are who see well enough the mindless absurdity of a rogue, and dangerous, and patently deranged Government that threatens to engulf the Nation and its citizenry in horrific destruction. And, so, Government turns on Americans; sets one American against the other so as to short-circuit organization against a Government that no longer serves the Nation's best interests and, in fact, no longer goes through the pretense of doing so.The Biden Administration and the Hochul Government don't talk of their own fear of the armed citizenry. Instead, they project that fear on the populace at large both as a defense mechanism and as a strategy to divert attention away from themselves rather than upon themselves, where attention should be directed. The idea is that eviscerating the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms is done, not as a contemptuous assault on natural law that they have no lawful right to attack, but ostensibly as an act of mercy on behalf of the people who, as they argue, would benefit from a purgation only possible through the confiscation of guns in the hands of tens of millions of Americans. The Tyrant says——People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.Concerning this proposition, propounded by Kathy Hochul, if many Americans should happen to fear guns and fear those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren't the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the result of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan, at once deceitful and horrendous, to instill in the American citizen a phobic reaction to firearms and a phobic reaction to those Americans who choose to keep and bear them. The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Government against the entire civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans. Rather, it has everything to do with the carrying out of a secret plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence; the dissolution of our Constitution; and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire. AQ has written extensively on this. In fact, it is a theme that runs through the depth and breadth of our articles. Nothing else, to our knowledge, comes close to explaining well the dogged, and consistent, and insistent effort on the part of so many heterogenous agents and agencies both inside and outside this Country to destroy our Nation's Bill of Rights; to destroy our history, heritage, culture, our Nation's ethos, our Judeo-Christian ethic; and to launch a psychopathological reaction upon the citizenry the manner of which and the extent of which has no precedent in our Nation's history or, for that matter, in all of recorded history.The Hochul Government’s attack on the U.S. Supreme Court Bruen case is really a component part of a much larger mosaic, as evidenced by a concerted effort to undermine the Second Amendment.And so confident is Hochul in her own power, that she does this brazenly and contemptuously, attacking not just the Second Amendment but also the Justices of the Highest Court in the Land, whose sin, in her mind, is that they give a fundamental natural law right the respect it is due. Hochul intends to shred it and she is doing just that.Thus, it isn't that New Yorkers or any American has an innate fear of firearms or those who keep and bear them. It is that the Government in New York and the Governments of several other States, and the Federal Government under the Biden Administration, have induced fear where none before existed, all in support of aims that are antithetical to our most sacred precepts and values and antithetical to the common good.Thus, Americans aren't afraid of firearms or those who possess them, but Hochul and others, beholden to the same ruthless, Globalist, and Marxist interests, create the illusion that this IS something inherent in people. IT ISN'T. It is only something inserted into the unwary mind: a meme, a mental virus, damaging to the psyche no less than a physical viral pathogen is damaging to the body.The Tyrant also says——Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.Concerning this second proposition, propounded by Kathy Hochul, as manifest in her statements to the Press and in the Government's legal documents—that average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order—this is a naked assumption cast as a self-evident truth, presented in lieu of any supporting evidence, for the purpose, one, to buttress amendments to the State's Gun Law that are inherently unconstitutional as the District Court had made poignantly clear through cogent argument, both in Antonyuk I and in Antonyuk II, and, two, to urge the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to stay the lower Court's granting of Plaintiff-Appellees Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the enforcement of Hochul's CCIA.Meanwhile, the law-abiding New York taxpayer daily faces rampant violent crime because of the abject failure of the New York Justice system to deal effectively with criminals and raving lunatics that constantly prey on the public.And the police are contemporaneously prevented from engaging in effective policing activities that protect the community. In addition, the police are leaving New York in droves. Who will replace them?And, even if the Hochul Government provided the public with a modicum of community policing and a justice system that didn’t kowtow to lunatics and criminals, the fact remains that the New York police departments have no obligation to guarantee the life and safety of individual members of the public.The police never had that obligation. And the New York public is under a misconception to think otherwise. Yet, the Government continues to keep the public in the dark about this, never troubling itself to inform the public that self-defense against threats of violence rests on each member of the public, not on the State. See, e.g., the AQ article posted here, on this site, on November 21, 2019. See also AQ article posted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on August 6, 2020.A well-trained, responsible, rational, law-abiding adult need not rely on the police, and cannot legally place that burden on the police. The responsibility for preserving one’s life and well-being rests solely on the individual.This was the salient point of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. Armed self-defense is ultimately the responsibility and prerogative of the individual.The Hochul Government knows or should know that armed self-defense is the best defense against aggressive armed assault. The failure to acknowledge this or even attempt to proffer evidence to refute this is a fatal weakness in the Government’s argument against Plaintiff-Appellees PI.The Government simply erroneously assumes the well-armed citizen threatens the community.This is a central theme pervasive in the New York Government, and it is a thread woven into the very fabric of New York’s draconian gun measures that go back over one hundred years when the licensing of handguns was first enacted.Yet the Government takes this bald assumption as a self-evident truth. It isn’t. But it serves the narrative, and their end goal is to disarm the public.The Government’s remark begs the very question at issue:Does the rational, responsible, law-abiding citizen who wishes to exercise his natural law right of armed self-defense pose a risk to the public? There is something off in the sheer idea incessantly and vociferously proselytized to the public that the armed citizen poses a threat to public safety.This notion is contrary to fact. It is also contrary to the import of the Second Amendment:It is the natural law right of the American citizen to arm him or herself against assault by predatory man, predatory creature, and predatory Government.Heller, McDonald, and Bruen reiterate this point constantly:The individual has the right to armed self-defense. The corollary to that proposition is this: The armed citizen enhances public safety. This is the antithesis of the Hochul Government’s position that the armed citizen endangers public safety.In their response to the Government’s Motion for a stay of the Preliminary Injunction, pending appeal, the Plaintiffs said this apropos of public safety:“Even if Appellants had demonstrated some actual public safety benefit, it would come at the cost of disarmament of law-abiding gun owners, an unacceptably high cost, as “[t]he right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 783 (2010). Such enumerated rights cannot be balanced away by legislators, or judges, because “the Second Amendment is . . . the very product of an interest balancing by the people . . . it [] elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense. . . .” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).Nor can Appellants plausibly claim irreparable harm from temporarily halting enforcement of an unconstitutional law: ‘the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of [injunctive relief]’ are not just the vindication of constitutional rights but also the prevention of their egregious curtailment. Indeed, it is always in the public interest to enjoin an unconstitutional law. The government has no ‘interest in the enforcement of an unconstitutional law.’”This third factor, harm to the non-moving party, does not outweigh the harm to the Plaintiffs. Thus, this third factor in support of the PI works to the Plaintiffs’ advantage.

• The Public Interest. The last factor a Court must consider in determining whether to issue a PI is whether the public is best served by its issuance.

The Plaintiff-Appellees assert: “The public interest is best served by ensuring the constitutional rights of persons within the United States are upheld.” We are dealing here after all with a natural law right.That the public is better served by curtailing a right the founders felt imperative to the Security of a free State and to ensure the sanctity and inviolability of one’s Selfhood, goes against the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our free Constitutional Republic was founded, and without which a sovereign people and a free Constitutional Republic cannot continue to survive.The New York State Government’s philosophy of the relationship of Government to the people is a distortion of all this Country holds dear and holy.This fourth factor also works to the Plaintiff-Appellees' advantage, supporting maintaining the PI during the Second Circuit's resolution of the merits of it.

IN SUMMARY

The New York Government places itself above the sovereign authority of the American people.This notion unfortunately is reflected in several other jurisdictions across the Country, and it is also present in the thinking of the Biden Administration and in the thinking of Democrats in Congress and by more than a few Republicans.Let us hope and pray the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ultimately, doesn’t betray the U.S. Constitution too.Unfortunately, the recent December 7, 2022, Second Circuit order doesn’t give New York gun owners much reason for hope, much less jubilation—nothing more, really, than a wing and a prayer of success.If such is the case, Antonyuk vs. Nigrelli is destined for resolution by the High Court.Justices Thomas and Alito would see that the case is heard, as the CCIA is a direct affront to the Second Amendment and to the rulings of Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.In the immortal words of that late, great comic, Arte Johnson (a.k.a. the “German Soldier” routine), the Antonyuk case, and a slew of other post-Bruen cases wending their way through the Courts in New York and elsewhere in the Country are becoming “Very Interesting.” _______________________________*For those readers interested, a comprehensive (complete) discussion of the history of the date of filings of Court documents in the second Antonyuk case, (Antonyuk II), as recited by Plaintiff-Appellees (holders of valid New York concealed handgun carry licenses) against Defendant-Appellants (New York Government officials) in Plaintiff-Appellees “Response In Opposition To Defendants-Appellants’ Motion For A Stay Pending Appeal And An Administrative Stay Pending Resolution Of The Motion,” filed on November 19, 2022, appears below:This case involves a challenge to New York’s most recent attempt to infringe the Second Amendment rights of its residents. In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent vindication of the right to keep and bear arms in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the state hastily enacted a poorly named and ineptly drafted statute called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”). Rather than following Bruen and respecting the Second Amendment’s mandate, the CCIA defied the Supreme Court, making concealed carry of firearms far more restrictive, and the licensing process far more onerous, than before the Supreme Court’s decision. Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Appellees”) filed suit seeking to enjoin many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, seeking both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”), ECF #1 (Sept. 20, 2022); Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion for TRO”), ECF #6 (Sept. 22, 2022). After providing Defendants-Appellants (“Appellants”) the opportunity to submit briefing and to participate in oral argument, the district court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining certain parts of the CCIA, while allowing others to remain in effect, and granting Appellants’ request for a three-business-day stay to seek review by this Court. Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF #18 (Sept. 28, 2022); Transcript of Proceedings, ECF #23 (Sept. 29, 2022); Decision and Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), ECF #27 (Oct. 6, 2022). Appellants sought from this Court (1) a stay pending appeal of the district court’s decision, along with (2) what they styled an “emergency . . . interim . . . administrative stay” while the Court considered their motion. Docket No. 22-2379, Motion for a Stay, Doc. #16 at 1. On October 11, 2022, Appellees filed a Response explaining, inter alia, that appeal of a TRO is improper, and the district court’s forthcoming decision on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction would render the appeal moot. Opposition to Motion, Doc. #22. On October 12, 2022, Judge Lee granted Appellants’ request for “an interim stay of the Temporary Restraining Order pending decision by the motions panel.” Order, Doc. #39. The case continued in district court, with Appellants filing their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on October 13, 2022. Response in Opposition, ECF #48. On October 22, 2022, Appellees filed their Reply. Reply to Response, ECF #69. On October 25, 2022, the district court heard oral argument on Appellees’ Motion. Transcript of Proceedings, ECF #72. On November 7, 2022, the district court issued a limited preliminary injunction (“PI”), supported by a 184-page opinion. Decision and Preliminary Injunction, ECF #78 (“Op.”). The district court’s opinion denied Appellants’ request for a three-day stay, and the PI took effect immediately. Their TRO appeal mooted, Appellants, with Appellees’ consent, withdrew that appeal on November 9, 2022. Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, Doc. #74 (Docket No. 22-2379). On November 8, 2022, Appellants appealed the district court’s grant of the PI, and on November 12, 2022, filed a similar motion in this Court, seeking a stay pending appeal and an “administrative stay” pending resolution of their Motion. Docket No. 22-2908, Motion to Stay (“Motion”), Doc. #18. Although having requested three days in which to seek a stay from this Court, Appellants waited five days to file this Motion. While the cover sheet (Form T-1080) describes Appellants’ filing as a “motion for emergency interim stay,” their motion is not captioned as an “Emergency Motion,” nor does it use the word “emergency” at all. Nor does it comply with this Court’s rule requiring that it “state the date by which the movant believes the court must act.” See L.R. 27.1(d)(2) and (4). Cf. Appellants’ filing in Docket No. 22-2379, Motion for a Stay, ECF #16, cover sheet (“request that an interim administrative stay be granted by the end of the day on Tuesday (10/11).”). Nor does Appellants’ motion provide any explanation of “the nature of the emergency and the harm that the movant will suffer if the motion is not granted” (L.R. 27.1(d)(3)), alleging only that the district court’s order “risks substantial harm.” Motion at 15. Cf. Docket 22-2379, Motion for a Stay at 2, 3, 20 (alleging “serious risk of irreparable harm,” “substantial risks to public safety,” and “imminent risk to public safety.”). Despite those deficiencies, a three-judge panel of this Court – without response from or notice to Appellees – granted a “temporary stay” on November 15, 2022. Doc. #32. Problematically, that Order provides Appellants broader relief than they sought, granting a “temporary stay … of the preliminary injunction issued by the district court.” Id. In contrast, Appellants’ Motion made clear that they are not seeking to stay every part of the district court’s injunction. See Motion at 13 n.5 (seeking a stay for churches “except as to persons who have been tasked with the duty to keep the peace,” “Appellants do not seek a stay as to airports” and “private buses.”) (emphasis added). This Court’s administrative stay was issued notwithstanding that undersigned counsel inquired on November 14, 2022 as to whether the Court would be treating Appellants’ Motion as an “emergency” motion, and notwithstanding the fact that there was no mention of any emergency in the body of Appellant’s actual Motion. Contrast treatment of this motion with the prior “emergency” request from Appellees (22-2379) where, within hours of filing, the Clerk’s office contacted undersigned counsel on a federal holiday (October 10, 2022) and requested that Appellees file a response by noon that next day (October 11, 2022), so the Court would have Appellees’ response prior to deciding the administrative stay. No such instruction was given to Appellees in this appeal, and undersigned’s voicemail was not returned. Rather than waiting to hear from Appellees, the Court sua sponte stayed injunctive relief even as to matters where no stay was requested. Moreover, in issuing this broad administrative stay, this Court altered the status quo in New York (see Motion at 14), allowing non-appealed provisions of the CCIA back into effect thereby causing the very harm of which Appellants complain. See id. at 2 (alleging “confusion . . . resulting from the frequent changes in the applicable provisions of law. . . .”). Appellees oppose both stays sought by Appellants (including the administrative stay already issued), and ask this Court to deny Appellants’ Motion in its entirety. In their Motion, Appellants generally malign the district court’s preliminary injunction, but fail to note that the CCIA is no ordinary law – breathtaking in both its scope and its blatant unconstitutionality. The district court was correct to enjoin enforcement of many of the CCIA’s patently unconstitutional provisions, and this Court should (i) decline Appellants’ invitation to be the first circuit court to bless a statute specifically enacted to defy Bruen, (ii) vacate its improvidently granted administrative stay, and (iii) deny Appellants’ Motion. ____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

MULTI SERIES

PART FOURTEEN

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

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

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

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

SIX MONTHS INTO THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE PROCESS OF DISMANTLING A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS WELL UNDERWAY

NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISTS AND NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITES TAKE A JACKHAMMER TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION*

PART FOUR

The last thing the Neo-Marxist Controlled Congress and Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist handlers of the dimwitted Biden and Harris want to contend with is an armed citizenry. For an armed citizenry is wholly incompatible with the Marxist-globalist agenda and with the construction of a uniform, unified autocratic world government they yearn to create from the hollowed-out shells of old Western Nation States. The U.S. Constitution must go, and a free Republic and sovereign People must go with it, into the dustbin of a forgotten history, making way for and replaced by a “Brave New World,” a technological New World Order, where billions of people, the Hoi Polloi of the Earth, now reduced to mindless, senseless, subservient automatons, no more than—and in a real sense—much less than the AI high-functioning robotic objects operating in this new world, co-existing all around them. Do you think this can't happen? The Deca and Centi-Billionaire Globalists are building these Cities of Tomorrow, right now and then plan to herd the public into them—tens of thousands of people will undoubtedly go willingly, at first, at least, buying into the soft-sell of how wonderful it is is to“live” in a “Smart-City” of the Future—and, eventually, all others will be compelled to do so, corraled against their will into a seemingly placid, tranquil, serene secure landscape. It is unlikely that Bill Gates and other mega-billionaires are buying up huge tracts of land simply to sate their penchant for farming, if that is truly the case, even if the public is told this. Can Gates truly be interested in farming? Is this for the purpose simply to grow food? Really? Huge agricultural combines such as Monsanto and huge food distributor companies like Conagra, already exist. Has Gates, probably at the behest of the Bilderberg Group et.al., of which he is a part, in fact must be a part, given his fabulous wealth, provided him and other Billionaires with their marching orders. The goal in the near term, after developing these so-called Smart Cities, is then selling the idea to the Hoi Polloi as a wonderful place for the Hoi Polloi to inhabit.  See, e.g., globest.com, pymnts.com, techrepublic.com, and iberdrola.com, smartcitiesdive.com, and the ruthless and thoroughly deceitful international management consulting firm, McKinsey, is getting into the act. In fact, a tremendous ad campaign is underway to sell this idea to investment groups, and, ultimately, to the public. See, e.g., SmartCitiesworld.com and Springer Open, and blog.bismart.com. Is this effort grounded on truly creating a better world for billions of common people? Does it even really have to do with making money? When a person has accumulated tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars, does a craving for billions more exist? Is that the motivation of these people? Is the motivation to benefit mankind? Or, rather, is the motivation all-too-human: to ensure a better, safer, more secure world for the multi-billionaire ruling elites, that can only be obtained by herding the billions of common people into vast enclosures, through which these masses can be best surveilled and controlled, effectively imprisoned. This is to be sold to the Hoi Polloi as better living through technology, of course. But, when the truth about the impetus for creating these so-called smart cities slowly dawns on some people at least, it will be much too late to resist. And, what then? Eventually, masses of people will be connected to vast neural networks, kept in check within ever smaller and smaller enclosures, perhaps one-room affairs, or large wards containing beds, of a sort, to which people will live their lives virtually, essentially asleep, needing very little nutrient and water, essentially existing as vegetables. And, what is the third step in this evolving strategy of control? Perhaps these billions of people will be dispensed with altogether. Since there is no need for them, even to perform limited custodial services as the simplest of robotic apparatuses could perform those functions and many such mechanical servants already do perform those services and quite well.But, the goal of shepherding billions of people into enclosures, a process to be replicated throughout the world, cannot be smoothly engineered through the present conceptual idea of a nation-state. This social construct must also be dispensed with as an inefficient use of and in fact waste of monies and resources and an ineffective societal device for controlling large populations of common folk. Obviously, the notion of the dignity of the individual and the idea of the sanctity of the human soul not only lose significance in this technologically balanced, unified, uniform, and well-ordered, and well-engineered, smooth-running, exceptionally streamlined society but are devoid of meaning. The next step in this development of a perfectly stable, well-ordered technologically streamlined world would involve the elimination of most of humanity, as superfluous, a drain on scarce resources. The slow dismantling of and hollowing out of the very concept of the nation-state has been gathering steam for some time.This process has been underway in EU for decades. The European Union operates as the initial experiment in the demise of nation-states. The process was sold on several nations of Europe as not involving the ceding of political and legal control over to a central government operating in Brussels, but, ceding a nation's economic control over to a transnational governing body, benefitting all the member nations. That was how the architects of the EU originally sold the idea of a European Union to the original member nations of Europe. But that was merely a ploy and pretext, and one that soured as Countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal eventually discovered that, when it came to economic fortunes in the EU, there were winners and losers no less so than there were before the artifice of a supra-transnational European Union of nation-states began implementation. But the true raison d’être behind the creation of the EU went far beyond the notion of an economic union of member nation-states that was sold, deceitfully, to these member states. The goal of the grand architects of the EU involved nothing less than the eventual dissolution of the idea of sovereign, independent nation-states. The grand design of the EU involves the reconfiguring of the member nation-states of the EU into a single monolithic transnational unified, uniform construct, with a super-government reigning body ensconced in Brussels, Belgium. See the official European Union website page, delineating the major organs of Government. And this transformative process has been gaining steam, especially in the 21^st Century, as Brussels has run roughshod over the member nations and their populations. And with ultimate political, social, cultural, and juridical control over the governments of these nations, as well as financial and economic control over the governments of these nations, it became easier to begin the process of erasing the national identity of these individual nation-states. This involves a two-step process. The first step involves destabilizing the societal and cultural structure of the member nations. This is accomplished through insinuating into the member nations of Europe, uneducated, poverty-stricken individuals from alien cultures, namely from the middle-east and from northern Africa. The denizens of those regions of Africa and the middle-east naturally resist the process of assimilation, as the cultures of the nations of Europe are at once incomprehensible to them, and incompatible with their own cultural and religious milieu. The governments of the member nation-states of the EU are denied the ability to effectively control the breakdown of the societal order. Any attempt to do so is met with resistance from the Neoliberal Globalist elites and from the International Neo-Marxists, both of whom share the same goal: the annihilation of all nation-states, and the application of the Neo-Marxist dogma serves that common goal. Neo-Marxists argue that such efforts to control denizens from North Africa and the middle-east that are running amok in the various member nations of the EU are to be perceived as immoral, and contrary to the dictates of the nonsense dogma thrust on the EU member states and in the U.S., as well: i.e., the dogma of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, terminology as meaningless to those elements from the middle east and North Africa, insinuating themselves into Europe, as that terminology is the citizens of the EU's member nation-states who wish only to hold onto their culture and national identity and culture and are prohibited from doing so by the ruling elites' overseers in Brussels and their toadies in some of the member states that weaseled their way into power: for example, Emmanuel Macron of France, and Angela Merkel of Germany, and Mario Draghi of Italy, to name a few.Yet, even as most of the populations of the member states are not  exactly ecstatic over the idea of ceding national political, social, cultural, and legal power over to a central transnational governing body in Brussels, whatever the ostensible benefits of an economic union might present—which is, at best, debatable—some have successfully resisted this unlawfully usurpation of political authority. Looking clearly and honestly at the structure of the EU governing organs, it is now clear to most populations of the member states that that the architects of the EU had engaged its member states with a Devil’s bargain as the these independent, sovereign nation-states would be required to cede all governing powers over to Brussels, not merely some governing power—i.e., economic power. Indeed, to cede economic power is, for all intents and purposes, to cede all other power—political, social, judicial.Countries like Hungary and Poland, though, have had enough of the EU and the unlawful encroachment of Brussels over their national sovereignty. Afraid of a general backlash, the Neoliberal Globalist architects of the EU treat those Nations as pariahs. The Neo-Marxist intelligentsia conjured up a specific derogatory expression to describe these malcontents, calling them seats of “illiberal Constitutionalism.”Legions of media puppets of the EU’s rulers attacked these Nations. The AP, for one, audaciously proclaimed: “Democratic standards in the European Union are eroding in several member countries, particularly in Hungary and Poland where judicial independence is under threat, the EU’s executive commission said Tuesday in its annual report on adherence to the rule of law.”This bit of propaganda, not surprisingly, emanates out of Brussels, the seat of the Globalist ruler “elite.” It is the very assertion of independence that Brussels abhors—a right that, curiously enough, is a right of every sovereign nation. Brussels, through the AP, is declaring that the member nations are not to be construed as truly sovereign countries—at least not anymore—and, in so saying, admits that the creation of the EU is predicated on the gravest of lies—telling each member State that it shall retain its inherent structure, as an independent sovereign nation, which means retaining all political and judicial power, when in fact, the EU governance requires the ceding of all of it, and slowly through the years and decades since the inception of the EU, has been drawing from their member nation-states powers that belong solely to those States. As the populations of all the member States are well aware of the Government in Brussels' unlawful usurpation of powers and authority, some of those member States have drawn a line in the sand, and said this cannot continue. The sovereign Nation-States of Hungary and Poland are two such that have basically told Brussels' tyrants to go to Hell. Unsurprisingly, the tyrants in Brussels haven't taken kindly to the reassertion of power and authority by Hungary and Poland. And the Globalists and Neo-Marxists here in the U.S. are chiming in to support EU's tyrants. Tucker Carlson makes the point in Budapest that it is time that Americans wake up to the fact that they are in danger of losing their Constitutional Republic if they don't reassert their sovereign authority over Government. In fact, our Constitution makes clear that true power and authority rests in the American people, not in Government. Limited and demarcated powers and authority made patently clear in the U.S. Constitution point to the fact that the Federal Government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. But, the Neoliberal Globalists and Internationalist Neo-Marxists don't give a damn whatever the Constitution has to say about the matter in whom sole, ultimate, and supreme authority resides. And the Bill of Rights, apart from the Articles, emphasizes in whom ultimate power and authority reside. The pack of lies coming from the Press that Donald Trump was an Autocrat is belied by the cavalier manner in which these Globalists in the U.S. Government, through their puppet, the senile Joe Biden, has systematically amassed powers in defiance of and in contradistinction to the clear meaning of the plain language of the Articles, and blatantly defies Congressional Statute, of which the Biden's open borders policy is a clear example of, or simply ignores Constitution and Congressional Statute, and operates as if the U.S. Constitution doesn't even exist. Tucker Carlson's visit to Budapest drives home the point that too many Americans have allowed themselves to be blindsided by the antics of tyrants here at home, in Congress and in the Executive Branch, who claim they aren't tyrants even as they go about terrorizing a goodly section of the populace that refuses to submit to their tyranny. Now the Press is going after Hungary and Tucker Carlson for fear that the American public will take notice of the loss of their Country and their liberty to Autocrats and demand an accounting of the actions of these Neo-Marxist Autocrat members of Congress and of the actions of the Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-run Executive Branch of Government.As an example of the Internationalist Neo-Marxist attack against Countries that dare to reassert their National sovereignty and National Identity, the Neo-Marxist Wilson Center think tank attacks the concept of ‘nationalism’ openly and arrogantly, stating, “Hungarian nationalism, indeed all the Central and East European nationalisms, are driven by martyrologies of defeat.” In the article, the Wilson Center makes use of the obligatory Neo-Marxist verbiage, ‘inclusion,’ drawing a contrast with and denigrating the concept of  ‘assimilation,’ as too confining and outmoded, reminiscent of nation-states. No surprise there. The Wilson Center goes on to say: “The word ‘inclusion’ rather than “‘assimilation’ is used in order to shift the focus onto the nation and the process of accepting minorities into a community, rather than on the actions of the minorities who are making the adaptation. Assimilation implies a solution, a kind of permanency, whereas inclusion suggests a process with ruptures and redefinitions. Policies of inclusion can be severed or reinstated more easily than assimilation.” See also the article in the Atlantic Council; the Council contemptuously refers to Hungary and Poland as “as a hotbed of nationalism and authoritarianism, a leading edge of bad trends in Europe generally.”Not to be outdone, the Neoliberal Globalist Jeff Bezos publication, The Washington Post, gets into the act, too, scorning Tucker Carlson for his visit to Budapest and for his meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister, Vicktor Orbán. Of note, the Washington Post defends Brussel’s criticism of Orban, asserting:“. . . the reason that E.U. leaders have criticized Orban as authoritarian is that he has embarked on an unabashed and explicit effort to shift Hungary away from the traditions of liberal democracy, in which power is assigned through free and fair elections. Orban is criticized as authoritarian because he has embraced autocracy.”Tucker Carlson conducted an interview of Hungary's Prime Minister a few days ago. See Fox News Article, titled, “Hungary's Viktor Orban tells Tucker Carlson: ‘Western liberals can't accept’ right-wing dissent.” During the interview, the Prime Minister said in pertinent part:“‘The Western liberals cannot accept that inside the Western civilization, there is a conservative national alternative which is more successful at everyday life, at the level of them—the liberal ones,’ he said. ‘That's the reason why they criticize us. They are fighting for themselves, not against us. But we are an example that a country which is based on traditional values, on national identity, on the tradition of Christianity can be successful—sometimes more successful than a leftist-liberal government. . . . But you can’t say, okay, it’s a nice country. I would like to come and live here because it’s a nicer life, it is not a human right to come here. No way. It’s our land. It’s a nation, a community, family, history, tradition, language.’”These remarks drove the Marxists in the Press apoplectic with rage. They couldn't let this pass. How dare an American news host take control of the Marxist/Globalist narrative, and attack their unholy Radical Left Gospel of  “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion!”And they let loose their venom on both Orban and Carlson, and, by extension, on American conservatives, as well—those Americans who have the audacity to cherish their history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical foundation and a free Constitutional Republic that the founders of the Nation bequeathed to America's descendants. The New York Times' posted two Op-Ed pieces on the matter, both of which were published in the newspaper on August 6, and 7 2021, respectively. One article deserves especial attention, for its discussion of an essay by George Orwell, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ That article by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Jamelle Bouie, sports the sarcastic title, “Tucker Carlson Has a New Hero,”—a title that manages to convey in six words, the author's contempt for both Fox News Host, Carlson, and Hungary's Prime Minister, Orban. Jamelle's Bouie's article is, though, not to be remarked upon for the unrestrained disdain in which he holds Carlson and Orban, of which the Op-Ed elicits much, but rather, for its attack on the notion of  ‘nationalism,’ which Bouie, perceives as contrary to the spirit of intellectualism and therefore, contrary to rational thought. And he sees the expression of nationalist fervor as a thing as relevant in today's world as corsets and buggy whips and as worthy of emulation as the Dictators of history that Bouie ties to the term. To support his attack on ‘nationalism,’ as something to be despised, he cites George Orwell—but not Orwell's famed novel, ‘1984,’ much-cited today by Progressives, Marxists, Anarchists, and the like, on the Leftside of the political spectrum, and by those on the Right of the political spectrum. Bouie cites, instead, a lesser-known work, a short essay, titled, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ for the proposition that Orwell considered ‘nationalism’ as anathema to rational thought. But, he made a point of asserting ‘nationalism’ to be a fault as much among the intelligentsia as among the common man.For Orwell, ‘nationalism’ is tied to a narrowness of thought and perception which therefore admits a multitude of sins. But for all that, the term is vague in meaning as is the term ‘patriotism’ which, for Orwell, is a thing to be lauded, not despised, although, here, in the United States at this particular time, the Neo-Marxists do not draw a distinction between the two, unlike Orwell, as the emulation of both is despised by the Neo-Marxists. Orwell writes,“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”It is not hard to see that, in our own Country, the Neo-Marxists at once will dismiss their insatiable desire, even lust, for the acquiring of absolute power for themselves, and are therefore nationalists, in a true Orwellian sense, and eschew any notion they are patriots, as that notion is tied inextricably to the American Revolution of 1776, which they revolt against, as they definitely have no devotion to the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, and they definitely do not believe the American way of life to be the best in the world given their desire to dismantle every vestige of the past and to rewrite history in accordance with their mythology. And, since they do indeed have wish to force Marxist Collectivism in this Country and world-wide, they can neither considered to be ‘patriots’ in the Orwellian sense, which happens to be consistent with the sense of the word that America's Conservatives ascribe to.In that Essay, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ George Orwell further explicates the meaning of ‘nationalism’.  He says, “A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist – that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating – but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the up-grade and some hated rival is on the down-grade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.”But, is this exposition on the meaning of  ‘nationalism’ not an apt description for the political failings of the Neo-Marxist? And, as for the idea of flagrant dishonesty and self-deception that marks the Marxists' inner thoughts and outer actions, we can add that the Neo-Marxists are unabashed, sanctimonious hypocrites whose tenets and precepts aren't even internally consistent and coherent.The New York Times Op-Ed writer, Jamelle Bouie, chides Tucker Carlson for admiring Hungary, and says that this is form of nationalism referred to as transferred nationalism, a term that Orwell coins. But is that so wrong? In fact Tucker Carlson only points to Hungary as an exemplary model because it alludes to a United States that existed for well over 200 years, a United States existing as a free Constitutional Republic, a Republic grounded in liberty, where is not a mere word, but reigns supreme, a Republic where the American people themselves, and only they, are the sole sovereign ruler,  power, and authority in the Nation, over the Federal Government and those who serve in it, at the pleasure of the American people, as the servants of the people, not their overseers. It is this Country, grounded in the tenets of Individualism that the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist abhors and seeks to change both here and abroad; indeed, seeks to transform the entire structure of Western Civilization, grounded on the concept of the nation-state. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist elite seek to evoke a horrific inter-nationalism or trans-nationalism to replace each independent, sovereign nation-state, and to inflict their radical makeover of Western political, social, economic, and juridical structures to reflect their warped philosophy; and they intend for that philosophy to embrace and shape the entire world, or at least that substantial portion of it included in the domain of Western Civilization. The world they envision is one in which one's every thought and conduct is conditioned and controlled; a world of incessant surveillance, in every sphere of influence, public and private, within the home and outside it; a world that tortures and subjugates body and spirit and that destroys mind and reason and will.The Neo-Marxist is a textbook case example of George Orwell's nationalist—an internationalist mindset that seeks to remake the entire world in accord with its tenets and precepts, and that will suffer no contrary viewpoint; will tolerate no dissenting voice; will abide no demonstration of uniqueness, of individuality; that will brook no interference, no opposition. The Neo-Marxist is one so enamored with him or herself—so certain of the truth of his or her beliefs, and so convinced of the perfection of the morality that undergirds those beliefs, that debate, any debate, is deemed to be unnecessary and superfluous, or worse, to admit of blasphemy or heresy, and must not be entertained, lest the purity of Marxism be contaminated and one's mind be confounded by impure thoughts. One must submit to the orthodoxy or be crushed into submission. This is nationalism as internationalism, transnationalism—the embrace of nationalism as universalism to overtake, overshadow, overpower every other system of belief, on any conceivable topic—Marxism, this new Neo-Marxism, not Classic Marxism, will shape any topic; have something to say about any subject, however prosaic or abstruse; and those entrusted to define and interpret this new Marxism are the lofty Priests of the new Marxism, those who inhabit the highest Caste, and woe be to that person who dares to disagree or, worse, to interfere with the musings of these High-Lord Muck-a-Mucks.Orwell writes,“As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. “Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied.”All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. . . . Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. [Think of last Summer's riots in Marxist-led Cities and States].“Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied. . . .  [P]ropaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. “Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. . . . One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. . . . The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world.”Jamelle Bouie should be careful of whom he cites for support when he demeans and debases a reputable news host and the Prime Minister of a Nation.Bouie defers to the Neoliberal Globalist propagandist messaging that “Orbán's Hungary is corrupt, repressive and authoritarian, a place where democracy is little more than window dressing and the state exists to plunder the public on behalf of a tiny ruling elite.” But consider what Hungary when through in the mid-Twentieth Century, as reported in History.com:“A spontaneous national uprising that began 12 days before in Hungary is viciously crushed by Soviet tanks and troops on November 4, 1956. Thousands were killed and wounded and nearly a quarter-million Hungarians fled the country.The problems in Hungary began in October 1956, when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding a more democratic political system and freedom from Soviet oppression. In response, Communist Party officials appointed Imre Nagy, a former premier who had been dismissed from the party for his criticisms of Stalinist policies, as the new premier. Nagy tried to restore peace and asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops. The Soviets did so, but Nagy then tried to push the Hungarian revolt forward by abolishing one-party rule. He also announced that Hungary was withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet bloc’s equivalent of NATO).On November 4, 1956, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush, once and for all, the national uprising. Vicious street fighting broke out, but the Soviets’ great power ensured victory. At 5:20 a.m., Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy announced the invasion to the nation in a grim, 35-second broadcast, declaring: “Our troops are fighting. The Government is in place.” Within hours, though, Nagy sought asylum at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest. He was captured shortly thereafter and executed two years later. Nagy’s former colleague and imminent replacement, János Kádár, who had been flown secretly from Moscow to the city of Szolnok, 60 miles southeast of the capital, prepared to take power with Moscow’s backing.The Soviet action stunned many people in the West. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had pledged a retreat from the Stalinist policies and repression of the past, but the violent actions in Budapest suggested otherwise. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Sporadic armed resistance, strikes and mass arrests continued for months thereafter, causing substantial economic disruption. Inaction on the part of the United States angered and frustrated many Hungarians. Voice of America radio broadcasts and speeches by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had recently suggested that the United States supported the “liberation” of “captive peoples” in communist nations. Yet, as Soviet tanks bore down on the protesters, the United States did nothing beyond issuing public statements of sympathy for their plight.” The people of Hungary know their history, and their parents and grandparents knew tyranny firsthand and the history of brutal Soviet oppression and subjugation won't be forgotten. It was no less the oppression of an independent sovereign Nation that is once again under attack, but not from Orbán. Rather this oppression is coming from the EU. It may not be through military force that the EU's Globalists Transnational Government, dictating policy from Brussels, has sought to oppress Hungary and the other nations of the EU that have opposed the usurpation of foreign authority on national sovereignty, but these overseers in Brussels have no less sought unlawfully to impose their iron rule upon Hungary, and the people of Hungary rejected that. Is it so wrong to admire one Nation's resolve against tyranny? But, Leftist writers like Jamelle Bouie are obviously oblivious to what it is in a Country that truly constitutes a trend, a direction toward tyranny. Bouie says,

“But at this moment in American life, it’s conservatives who have set their sights abroad. Parts of the movement have even adopted a kind of anti-Americanism, a contempt for the United States as it exists. These conservatives still call themselves “patriots” — and disdain their opponents as “traitors” — but theirs is an abstract loyalty to an idealized country. “When they contemplate the actual United States,” Beauchamp wrote in Vox, “they are filled with scorn.”

It makes sense that as this tendency develops, so too does the yearning for a country that can be hailed as a model and a lodestar — the soaring and gilded counterpoint to our fallen and decadent society.” 

But that too is projection. And sooner or later, the conservatives who hail Hungary under Orban as an attractive alternative to the United States will see that their vision of that country is as false as their image of this one is.”

“Projection”? Really? That notion is absurd. What it is that draws Americans' attention to Hungary, and why many Americans admire Hungary, is not due to the psychological device of “projection” that the Times' writer Jamelle Bouie recites in his Op-Ed, but to the fact that this small Nation has taken a stand against unlawful usurpation of power by the EU, as political power belongs solely to Hungary, and rightfully so since Hungary is an independent sovereign Nation. It IS Hungary's will to resist unlawful encroachment of power that Americans find a thing to emulate. As Hungary has gained its independence from the Neoliberal Globalist forces in Brussels that dare to crush Hungary's independence, the United States has begun a process of decline in all aspects, politically, socially, economically, militarily, geopolitically, juridically, as those same Neoliberal Globalist forces, together with the Neo-Marxist rabble, seeks to unwind all sovereign, independent Western nation-states and to subsume them in a new transnational world order. The Neoliberal Globalist (these so-called) ‘elites’ and Internationalist Neo-Marxists have taken their cue from the EU, which is what they emulate and seek to replicate in the U.S.: A transnationalist governmental scheme, embracing all the major Western nation-states. In this scheme, there exist no national borders and no defined national identity. These powerful forces that crush seek no less than the annihilation of a powerful, independent sovereign Nation-State, one framed as a free Constitutional Republic in which the citizenry are sole sovereign, and whose power and authority as sole sovereign over Nation and Government derive from and are grounded in a carefully considered, extraordinary Constitution, establishing a Government with clearly defined and demarcated powers, all the rest of which, including Natural Rights existing intrinsically in Man, several of which are codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights, are reserved alone to the several States and to the People. This, the Leftists' Internationalist Marxist intellectual elite and the Neoliberal Globalist elites intend to obliterate. They see this as a good thing and with Donald Trump who sought to preserve the Nation in the form the founders created, callously swept aside through a rigged election, the forces that crush have wasted no time dismantling the U.S. Constitution, erasing all vestige of the Nation's past, destroying the Nation's culture along with the Nation's Judeo-Christian ethic, insinuating itself into every political, quasi-political, and semi-political structure, and institution of State, Federal, and local Government, compelling all private organizations and businesses to prostrate themselves to the new world order to be, deliberately destabilizing society, confounding the public, and denying to the common man the unfettered exercise of his or her natural Rights. This, they see as ‘Liberal Democracy’, something to be applauded.But, the trend toward ‘Liberal Democracy’ is nothing more than a seeming innocuous code for the annihilation of the Nation-State, and the creation of a new political, social, economic, and cultural structure to embrace the entirety of western civilization. The depth and breadth of this audacious effort to reconfigure the entirety of Western Civilization is not confined to Europe or to the U.S. or to the Commonwealth Nations. It embraces the entirety of Western Civilization—it amounts to the most audacious reconfiguration of Western Civilization yet conceived, resulting not in freeing the populations of the West, but, perversely, subjugating those populations, reducing them to abject poverty and to the strictest of control. And to this day, it is remarkable the ease to which the Press and social media redefine concepts or create new concepts out of whole cloth and refer to freedom fighters, such as Orban of Hungary, and Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland, and, yes, Donald Trump, too, as autocrats and despots and authoritarians.It is easy for the seditious Press to point to specific leaders who seek to save their Nations from the insidious encroachment of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism, for the public never sees the faces of the true rulers. They guard their secrecy jealously. The public only sees the faces of their current crop of puppets—whom their propaganda organs extol as righteous beacons of “liberal democracy: people like Angela Merkel of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen; and other western puppet leaders of the secretive ruling “elite” Rothschild clan, et.al., including marionettes such as Justin Trudeau of Canada, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand; and, in our own Country, don’t you know—the decrepit, cardboard cutout mannequins of the secretive “elites,” Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.The U.S. is being similarly attacked by the toady media outlets of the Neoliberal Globalists' hidden leaders, and the U.S. is headed for the same usurpation of Nation-State independence as the nations of the EU, despite the apparent pushback in some countries. This unlawful usurpation of power is happening simultaneously throughout the globe.The eventual shakeout, if it comes to pass, will see the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structures of government much different than in the past few centuries. The “nation-state” construct will be dissolved. Through the embrace of and charade of economic Neoliberal globalism and Neo-Marxism, the world will be carved up between two ascendant unstoppable totalitarian regimes: on the one hand, a vast Communist Chinese empire and, and, on the other, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure. An uneasy truce will exist between the two, with fractures occurring from time to time, as inevitable flareups and squabbles between the two salient empires occur in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.For, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure to be able to successfully, withstand, if at all, the military, economic, and geopolitical might of Communist China, the West's Neoliberal Globalist elites understand that the linchpin for creating a formidable transnational totalitarian Western empire or bloc rests with bringing the EU into the fold of the U.S. and likely that would require Russia as well. China will continue its attempts to neutralize the military and economic power of the U.S. The unleashing of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus plague bioweapon on the world—predominately targeting the U.S., an act of war if there ever was one—has devastated the economy of the U.S. and has provided the impetus for exerting Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist control over the thought and action of the citizenry. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” were likely in on this which might explain the odd reticence in engaging in a serious investigation of China’s conduct from the inception: involving gain of function research, of which Dr. Anthony Fauci was clearly aware of, and has much to explain to the American people. See, e.g., Fox News story on this, and Wall Street Journal report. This would suggest that the Neoliberal Globalist elites, along with the Neo-Marxists in Congress knowingly, willingly compromised the security of the Nation to amass personal wealth. In other words, the Globalists in the U.S. allowed China to treat their Companies, along with the U.S. Government as a commodity to be traded like any other commodity on the open market. China preyed upon this weakness in America's business and Government leaders; an insatiable lust to amass personal wealth even at the expense of the well-being of the Nation. The well-being of the American public and compliance with our Nation's laws and Constitution apparently doesn't factor into the equation. They have sold out the Nation. Communist China is the Nation's enemy, not merely an economic, military, and geopolitical competitor. Article 3, Sections 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth that:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”What might be done were Congress itself and the Executive Branch of Government complicit in committing treason? Who is it that might give testimony under oath against a member of Congress or of others in High Office? The Constitution doesn't seem to provide for this eventuality, given the sheer scope and audaciousness of the offense. In fact, it is only through the effects of and tremendous scale of the harm done that any American should see the harm that has been done to the Nation, the U.S. Constitution, and to the American people. But, perhaps it is precisely because of the massive scale of the harm that many Americans fail to take appreciable notice of the extent of it or, one might say that these events are less to be construed as incalculably horrific human misery compounded one tragedy + one tragedy + one tragedy, and so on, each to be pondered, but merely to be seen as a matter of banal Government statistics. In an article published on the website reason on January 7, 2009,  the writer, Ronald Bailey, writes:“ ‘The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.’That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.Virtually by definition, the central feature of humanitarian disasters and genocide is that there are a large number of victims’‘The first life lost is very precious, but we don't react very much to the difference between 88 deaths and 87 deaths," Slovic said in an interview. ‘You don't feel worse about 88 than you do about 87.’”The inexorable weakening of the U.S. economy, the death of hundreds of thousands in this Country due to the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus in the U.S., whether through reckless or depraved indifference or through cold, calculated deliberation, and as its after-effects are still much with us, and with the rapid unraveling of the social order through the machinations of a well-coordinated and well-funded Neo-Marxist reeducation campaign affecting every institution of our Nation, even our military, and through this Harris-Biden Administration's deliberate, calculated unleashing of millions of destitute illegal aliens into and throughout our Country, many of them diseased—all this human misery and all this major calamity confronting the Country in a Post-Trump Nation bespeaks treachery to Country, to Constitution, and to the citizenry by myriads of humanoid creatures in High Government Office, in the Press, in social media, in our Nation's institution of public education, in high finance, and in academia, that is of another order of magnitude.A backlash, which the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist Internationalists must surely have seen coming, is unlikely to forestall the inexorable dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, unless Republican legislators—and not the Cheney/Romney/Kinzinger et.al. sort—regain control of Congress in 2022, and the Constitution remains intact. Otherwise, this Nation will continue down the road to dissolution—its skeletal remains to be consolidated with and absorbed into the skeletal remains of the other major Western Nation States. But in the Nation’s death throes a bloodbath is likely to ensue. Americans will not readily surrender their firearms. It is because the U.S. has a well-drafted Constitution—and the longest surviving Constitution of the modern Nation-State and one grounded on the tenets of Individualism—that the adherents of Collectivism, i.e., the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites find frustratingly and confoundingly difficult to contend with, despite the powers they wield in America and those they continue to gather up.Enough Americans, tens of millions of Americans—fortunate to have been spared academic indoctrination—resist attempts to dismantle a Free Constitutional Republic—all this in spite of the ever-increasing usurpation of power of the federal Government; the disintegration of a truly independent Press; the entrenchment of Neo-Marxist dogma in society; and the rabid attempt to federalize Constitutional structures historically belonging to and reserved to the several States, under the Tenth Amendment: control of public education; protecting the public health’s and providing for the public’s safety; conducting elections free from federal government interference; making marriage laws; punishing criminals; establishing local governments; and providing police and fire protection.Some powers, and the most important of late, relate to the controlling of borders. The Federal Government has the duty to protect the Nation’s borders from invasion. To the contrary, the Harris-Biden is openly inviting tidal waves of illegal aliens into our Country many of whom bear infectious diseases and deadly exotic pathogens; most of whom are destitute; all of whom are freeloaders; and too many of whom are murderous, psychopathic drug and sex traffickers or otherwise, incorrigible common criminals, including rapists, muggers, arsonists, child molesters, and other assorted lunatics.The present open border policy is not only inconsistent with federal statute it is a violation of the President’s oath of Office under Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and it is a violation of duties of both the President and Congress under Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S.  Constitution.Yet the present inhabitants of the Executive Branch of Government pretend the Constitution is infinitely malleable and can mean whatever they wish it to mean, or they simply dismiss the Constitution out-of-hand. That raises the question: who is the Chief Executive of the Nation? Article 2 of the Constitution makes clear that there is, at any one time, one and only one Chief Executive. And the Chief Executive IS the ultimate decider of policy of the Executive Branch. That person is expected to give Orders, not take them.The present occupier of the seat of U.S. President, Joe Biden, is merely the titular Head of State whether in fact he was legitimately elected U.S. President. And there is considerable reasonable doubt as to that. But one thing about Biden, there can be no reasonable doubt and that has to do with whom it is who is making the decisions.No one honestly believes this sorry excuse for the Head of the Greatest Nation on Earth is making any decision for himself apart from deciding the flavor of ice cream he has a hankering for on any given day. For serious doubt exists whether the man is capable of rational thought any longer when it comes to serious matters of State, or whether Biden truly cares about, or even has the capacity to care about, heavy matters of State.And Congress is no better. All too many members of Congress treat the blueprint of the Nation as an ossified relic that ought to be and at some point in time must be formally discarded, and in the interim these Marxists interpret the Constitution Congress in any fanciful way they wish, or otherwise ignore the Constitution’s strictures outright, especially those strictures involving that aspect of the Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights.We know the Neo-Marxist Congress and the true policymakers in the Executive Branch wish to scrap the Bill of Rights. They do not conceive of the Rights as codifications of natural law anyway. They do not accept the Bill of Rights as a set of fundamental, primordial rights existent in man before the creation of the Republic.Americans are witnessing the rapid decline and ultimate cessation of sacred Rights hitherto exercised. They are witnessing the de facto repeal of basic liberties that cannot lawfully be repealed or denied but are being de facto repealed or otherwise denied. And that portends the inevitable demise of the Republic; for once the Bill of Rights goes the Nation goes out with it. And there is evidence galore for this. We have already seen the Fourth Amendment's dictate against unreasonable searches and seizures essentially eradicated due to Congressional lack of oversight of both Government and of the Internet media monopolies and other technology companies that has resulted in the vacuuming up of every iota of electronic communication, and the attacks against the First Amendment's Right of Free Speech is well underway through censorship of books and curtailing of information on the world web that doesn't comport with the Neo-Marxist dogma and the fluid notions of liberal democracy that the Neoliberal Globalist elites wish to convey to the public. And the public is just beginning to obtain a glimpse of a concerted plan to curtail civilian citizen ownership of firearms, contrary to the dictates of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Implementation of this plan will probably begin in earnest in the coming months by Congressional Marxists, and the Harris-Biden Administration.Even during the first few days of the Harris-Biden Administration, Americans have seen the issuance of dozens of executive orders and other executive actions that the storefront mannequin Biden signed off one after the other. Congress, too, simply, is indifferent to or is defiant of the very laws it has enacted and is contemptuous of the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.The Marxist-controlled Democrat Party Congress is on board with or is one with the Harris-Biden Administration on its single-minded goal to dismantle the Republic. And most of the Republicans have themselves acquiesced or capitulated to or are in league with the Neo-Marxist game plan, if surreptitiously.As events unfold, it won’t be long before the U.S. becomes a hollowed-out shell of a Nation-State itself, not unlike most of those nations of the EU—ripe for a merger with the EU or whatever the EU eventually morphs into. And the remains of the major commonwealth Nations— Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada will follow suit.Six months into the Harris-Biden Administration and we the Anti-American Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution in full swing. The Nation is rapidly transitioning from a healthy, independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic borne of the American Revolution of 1776 into a political, economic, social, and moral decrepitude. Tens of millions of Americans know this to be true.But, having unceremoniously ushered Donald Trump from High Office through the application of massive, unprecedented, and outrageous electoral chicanery, the Neo-Marxists and immensely powerful, well-organized, and incredibly wealthy Neoliberal Globalists are moving apace to destabilize society through a policy of open borders, control of the Federal Government, the Press, social media, the banks, the business sector, many State Governments, Marxist organizations such as the ACLU, and so on and so forth.At some point, Americans will have to take a stand to halt the plunder of their Nation and of their sacred Constitution, and of their sacred, inviolate Rights. Either they take a stand, or they shall lose everything and for all time: Country, Constitution, Liberty, their very Soul. And of that, there can be no reasonable doubt.___________________________________*Article substantially expanded, August 8, 2021___________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

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

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

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

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

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

A SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA IS INEVITABLE IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITHERS AND DIES

A SEDITIOUS PRESS AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS SEEK TO UNDERMINE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

“If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.” Quotation one, ~Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, from Lecture titled, “Media, Knowledge, and Objectivity,” June 16, 1993“Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business . . . the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products.” Quotation two, ~Noam Chomsky, from article, titled, “Force and Opinion,” in Z MagazineThe picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from the point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting.” Quotation three, ~Noam Chomsky, from his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”

PART ONE

With this latest “mass” shooting, in Odessa, Texas, the antigun zealots and their fellow travelers in the Press lost little time in exploiting the tragedy. The antigun seditious Press, always protective of its fundamental right  of freedom of the Press  under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misuses that fundamental right to launch a vicious assault on another but equally, sacred, fundamental right—a sacred, inviolate right that tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational citizens exercise every day, as is their prerogative: the sacred, inviolate, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right as fundamental, immutable, unalienable as is the freedom of the Press that our seemingly Free Press seems exclusively concerned about securing, perhaps well aware that the seditious dogma it propagates can and should be constrained.In that regard it should be mentioned that President Trump can certainly take action to choke the Press for the malicious, bald-faced lies elicited from it, if he had the mind to do so; but he hasn’t done so, which speaks to his restraint, something that can’t be said for Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, who, as the Baltimore Examiner reported, prosecuted and spied on reporters to constrain the Press, and he did so several times. Obama’s actions amounted to an abuse of power that Obama never had to answer for. President Trump’s actions unlike those of Obama have amounted to amounted to mere rebukes against the Press. But Trump, unlike Obama, did have and does have every reason to clamp down on the Press for having orchestrating a comprehensive attack on him, an attack that goes well beyond criticism, amounting to vicious defamation of character and a fusillade of malicious lies. The Press sneers at the President, castigates him, ridicules him; derides, mocks, and taunts him viciously, constantly, relentlessly. The Press refers to Trump as an autocrat, and a danger to our Nation. Honestly? Which President is it who has really demonstrated autocratic tendencies? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? And, if, God forbid, any of the current crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President is elected President in 2020, it will be that person that ushers in a totalitarian regime.Yet, the seditious Press, ever protective of and jealous of its own inviolate right and prerogatives codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, perverts that right and has done so, since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s Presidency, launching endless scurrilous, pernicious, bombastic, inflammatory ad hominem attacks on Trump and on his Administration’s policies; trying to frustrate him at every turn, in every manner; intent on accomplishing that detestable aim; deliberately, seditiously making it difficult for the President to perform his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office set forth in Article 2, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution—doing everything it can to wear the President down, sabotage his efforts, and blind to the fact that harming the President means harming the Nation, the Constitution, and the American people. Trump has persevered through all of this, weathered the storm of noxious, incessant verbal and written assaults on his character and his policies and that speaks volumes to his fortitude, stamina, strength of will, to overcome adversity—adversity that, unfortunately and disturbingly, emanates from within the Nation, than outside it.

AN ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN ATTACK ON THE NATION, ON THE CONSTITUTION, ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ON THE FOUNDERS AND ON THE FOUNDERS’ VISION FOR THIS NATION

The attack by the Press is pervasive, vigorous, vicious, vile, and all-consuming: a constant barrage of invective directed against President Trump, against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, against guns and gun owners, against NRA; even against the founders of our Republic, and their vision for our Country of which the Constitution is the Nation’s blueprint. The Press has conspired with others who are intent on undermining all of it. This virulent, seditious, antigun Press is intent on denying to Americans their sacred, inviolate, unalienable right to defend their life, safety, and well-being, with the best means available, a firearm. Through its incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and through its never-ending, attack on the President who has, for the most part, defended that right, and against NRA that tirelessly protects it, the Press would also, not surprisingly, place obstacles in the path of Americans who recognize that the most effective way to guard against the insinuation of tyranny into our Nation is by dint of an armed citizenry.Obviously, a seditious Press knows this, and, as that same seditious, incorrigible Press, is in league with Left-wing extremists—who some people refer to as the New Progressive Left—whose sick and bizarre vision for America mandates the establishment of a Marxist/Socialist dictatorship, a dictatorship our Nation is inexorably chugging along toward. The public should well take note of what a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship shall bring: misery, oppression, hopelessness for and in the lives of every American. And, don’t think that such a hell-world cannot come to pass. For, if the New Progressive Left actually succeeds, in the forthcoming General Election, in taking control of both chambers of Congress, and of the U.S. Presidency, as well, autocracy will manifest itself, and it will manifest quickly. Tyranny of Government—the very fear of the founders of the Republic—will be inevitable.A vision of our Country grounded on the tenets of Collectivism, rather than on the tenets of Individualism, as it presently is, is now a stark possibility, as extremist Left-wing elements have high-jacked the Democratic Party. That is plain. And the Press knows this too; welcomes it; nurtures it. And why not? After all, the seditious Press has been high-jacked by extremist Left-wing elements, too, using its First Amendment freedom, ironically and disturbingly, not to defend, safeguard, preserve, and strengthen our Constitutional Republic—but to undermine and destroy it, commencing with an unending parade of indictments against the Second Amendment and vicious and unparalleled attacks on the President and, indeed, on the very institution of the Presidency that this Nation has never before seen.But, to condemn one fundamental right is to condemn them all, including the Freedom of the Press—a singular right that Mark Levin, an attorney, author, and true Patriot, has perceptively referred to as the "Unfreedom of the Press," and has so titled his recent best-selling non-fiction book on the subject of the Press; as the Press, today, has corrupted the very right it disingenuously defends and extols, but misuses to undercut the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, in fact, undermines the very right, the Freedom of the Press, that it seemingly fervently defends; for all ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights go together to form a single coherent, comprehensive whole. The Bill of Rights is a unique testament to the importance the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, placed in the American people; for it is American people in whom sovereign power over the Nation rests, not the federal Government.The Government the framers constructed is a Government divided into three separate but co-equal Branches, each with its own set of limited powers, as meticulously set out in the Articles of the Constitution. 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 as set forth in and made abundantly clear in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. And, if those who exert power and authority in Government ever forget where it is that true lawful, sovereign power resides, then the right codified in the Second Amendment exists to remind them that Government was created to serve the American people, and not the other way around; nor does Government exist to serve itself.The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, would be absolutely appalled to witness the Press’ perversion of its sacred freedom. These extremist Left-wing elements that have taken over a substantial part of our news media and news commentary are a deadly contagion, spouting vile venom and filth, dispersing it with pomposity and sanctimony, on radio, on television, in printed media, and over the internet—indeed, everywhere throughout the Country and the world.And this so-called New Progressive Left plague is firmly planted in and dispersed throughout our institutions of Government—federal, State, and local—and it is a prominent fixture in the entertainment business. The New Progressive Left is pervasive in the Press and in media. It has permeated the major technology companies. But all this spawn of the New Progressive Left know full well it cannot dismantle a free, Constitutional Republic so easily. The New Progressive Left brood cannot long survive as long as there exists an armed citizenry. The root system of the New Progressive Left will wither and die as long as there exists an armed citizenry in the U.S. But an armed citizenry will only continue to exist if the American public manifests and maintains its strength of will and an indefatigable faith in our founders’ vision for our Nation and does not fall prey to the specious emotional laden nonsense constantly flowing through and out of the radical Left’s echo chamber: the Unfree Press.__________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BUCKLE UNDER TO THE PRESS AND TO DEMOCRATS WHO EXPLOIT TRAGEDY TO UNDERCUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, "1984"

ENGAGING IN COMPROMISE WITH THOSE WHO ABHOR FIREARMS AND WHO DETEST THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL SERVE ONLY TO COMPROMISE THAT RIGHT, DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution. The New Progressive Left demands the surrender of all firearms from the hands of the citizenry. Government control over an armed citizenry is impossible. Those Leftist radical elements know this and it infuriates them. The need for an armed citizenry, as the framers of the Constitution planned for, intended, and made eminently clear in the words of the Second Amendment, is indisputable, inescapable; and, as we see more so, today, than ever before, their vision for this Country cannot remain true and pure without an armed citizenry. The Leftist extremists come up against an impenetrable roadblock in the very existence of the Second Amendment. They realize their vision of a Marxist/Socialist Country, where America is merely a small cog in a mammoth Marxist/Socialist new world order, cannot come to fruition as long as the American people possess firearms, and they find this state of affairs intolerable.But, as long as the founders’ vision for our Nation remains fixed in the psyche of the American citizenry, and as long as the American public remains mindful, vigilant, and  undeterred by the dire threat the New Progressive Left poses to our Nation, and as long as the American public, the silent majority, is resolved to prevent the Left’s replacing the founders' vision for our Country with that of their own, will the American public be able to effectively resist and forestall the establishment here of a Marxist, Socialist dictatorship--a dictatorship in which the betrayers of our Nation, consisting of the New Progressive Left itself, but also comprising crass opportunists, stand willing to sell their very souls to secure for themselves nothing but personal aggrandizement—bootlickers and lemmings all—ready to abase themselves, obediently taking their marching orders from their overlords holed up in Brussels.If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party, and more in the growing possibility that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article title, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.Our Nation already has more than enough restrictive gun laws. We don’t need more; for more gun laws will not make this Nation safer. More restrictive gun laws, targeting the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen, which is the aim of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats will only make this Nation less safe--will leave those Americans without the means of adequate defense against the psychopathic criminals and dangerous psychotic lunatics who prey on innocent Americans. And, be well aware of this: The gun control proposals of Democratic Party candidates policy goals is specifically designed to target the millions of average, law-abiding gun owners, not the common criminal, the vicious drug cartels, or the occasional lunatic. We know that; and Democrats know that too. And, they don't deny it. The Press doesn't ask these candidates for U.S. President what their gun measures are really designed to do, whom it is they are really targeting. But, then, they are of one mind with antigun New Progressive Left. And, apparently, the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans aren't asking either. These “muscular new gun control measures” various Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President are calling for are directed squarely at the millions of law-abiding gun owners, not common criminals, not psychopathic gang members, not psychotic lunatics, all of whom are not permitted to own and possess firearms under current federal law, anyway—federal law that in many instances isn’t enforced. And this indisputable truth compels one unmistakable, disturbing conclusion: That further gun control laws the New Progressive Left Democratic Presidential candidates are vociferously and blatantly arguing for are not directed to reducing gun violence; nor, for that matter, are they directed toward the reduction of violence of any kind. The appeal for more restrictive gun measures is a makeweight, a platitude, for on close inspection, the logic behind the appeal falls apart, and one realizes the scam for what it is and that those demanding comprehensive gun control are really calling for comprehensive population control. The expression 'muscular, ' in muscular new gun measures' even sounds ominous. It alludes to something a criminal psychopath would utter, as the Progressive New Left intends to "muscle" the  average, honest, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen out of  their firearms--in other words, force average Americans to surrender their firearms on pain of serious repercussions for an American citizen who fails to do so. But, even taking the implausible platitude of ending gun violence for what it is, namely a ruse to compel the American citizenry to surrender its firearms—a ruse that has become ever clearer in the assertion, and severe in the contemplation of it—what we need to do is to understand what the core issue really is and drill down to that core issue and resolve that core issue. The question that we need to ask is this: how do we best contain violence directed toward innocent people? Focusing on guns merely serves to obscure the core issue and resolution of it, if we assume, for purpose of argument that containing violence is what the New Progressive Left has in mind and what they really want to resolve as well. But, to cut to the chase: they really don't. The New Progressive Left isn't interested in curtailing gun violence against innocent Americans. For, if they did, they would be approaching the issue sensibly, reasonably. Their objective would be to to curtail violence, whatever the mechanism employed. But they don't do that. And even apropos of guns, the New Progressive Left isn't really interested in curtailing violence committed by criminals and the occasional lunatic. Their interest is simply banning as many firearms as they can and that means targeting as many people as they can who happen to possess guns, namely tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens. And, even on that score, they aren't honest. For, while it may seem superficially plausible to target as many gun as possible, the reason for doing so has little to do with preventing violence, for if the New Progressive Left were successful in that endeavor all that they would accomplish would be to leave tens of millions of average, law-abiding Americans defenseless, at the mercy of criminal predators and dangerous lunatics who will be able to get their hands on firearms anyway. So, it isn't curtailing violence against innocent people that the New Progressive Left is interested in protecting from "gun" violence. It is those very people that the New Progressive Left fears because tens of millions of armed Americans is a formidable force that can oppose a tyrannical Government, and it is just that sort of Government that the New Progressive Left is intent on creating. Guns themselves are merely an implement. Bad actors, the agents of violence will always be able to obtain firearms as most now do anyway, not in gun stores, or over the internet, or at gun shows, but on the Black Market. So, if it is containing societal violence, then Congress should address that. And, if not, then President Trump and Congressional Republicans should call Democrats out for their ruse. For gun control only increases the risk of societal violence, as gun control that Democrats have in mind is not a surgical strike targeting the criminal and the dangerous lunatic; it is a sledge hammer targeting the law-abiding citizenry.President Trump and  Republicans must not be hesitant in calling these Democrats out. They should ask the question directly, first of themselves and then of the radical Left Democrats: What is the goal of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats in calling for gun control? Is their goal to reduce societal violence or is it to disarm the American citizenry? Congressional legislation is a function of the matter to be addressed, and that is where attention ought to be focused. Taking Democrats at their word, if, then, Democrats truly desire to curtail violence in society, thereby promoting public safety, attention should be directed to answering that question, but attention is never directed to that question; not really, for that is not what Democrats want. That is not what they are after. What they seek is comprehensive citizen disarmament, and withal, removing the incipient threat to the unconstitutional usurpation of Government power and authority. In so doing the New Progressive Left turns the paramount concern of the founders of our free Republic, on its head. For an armed citizenry was precisely what the founders prescribed; for their aim was to deter the rise of tyranny, not enable it.The Press, echoing the demands of Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, with whom the Press is in league, pretends to be interested in promoting public safety, failing to realize or even to consider that an armed citizenry is the best defense against armed assailants. The goal of the Progressive New Left isn’t really public safety at all. If it were, attention would be directed to incarcerating serial criminals in prison where they belong; placing the criminally insane in institutions where they can receive the care they need and the public can be spared the danger the criminally insane pose; and deporting illegal aliens who commit the serious crimes of rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder, instead of releasing them out into the public where they can commit crimes anew.But, many Democrats, including their leaders, aren’t concerned about any of that. If they were, then they would spend more time campaigning for toughened sentencing against hardened criminals, and institutionalizing dangerous psychotics who have demonstrated a predilection for violence, and deporting illegal aliens who have demonstrated a proclivity toward violence. But we see none of that happening. We see, instead, Democrats spending much of their time campaigning for more restrictive gun laws, directed to the law-abiding citizen, which, if enacted, would have the perverse result of leaving the law-abiding citizen defenseless. The need for further restrictive gun laws is, then, again, just a ruse—all directed to one ultimate goal: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, after which the amassing of Government power can take off, unconfined by the limitations imposed on Government in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, and undeterred by, and no longer concerned with the threat an armed citizenry poses to Government's usurpation of power, which the New Progressive Left has sought all along. No longer would the need exist for the Government tyrants to go through the motions of complying with the Constitution, for the means to compel Government compliance with the limitations the Constitution imposes on Government. an armed citizenry, would no longer exist.____________________________________________________

NEW GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS ARE CITIZEN/POPULATION CONTROL PROPOSALS; THEY ARE BLATANT ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART THREE

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~Noah Webster, American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author; from his essay, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787

SO-CALLED COMMON-SENSE GUN MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!

THE ANTIGUN NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS BETRAY OUR NATION WITH FOUR EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE GUN PROPOSALS THEY ARE DEAD SET ON IMPLEMENTING AND WILL IN FACT IMPLEMENT IF DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, THE U.S. PRESIDENCY, IN THE UPCOMING GENERAL ELECTION

We hear the expression "common-sense gun measures" bandied about often enough; so often, in fact, that the average person doesn't bother to give it much thought, but takes the veracity of the expression as self-evident true. But, it it? On even cursory inspection such so-called "common-sense gun measures" that operate to restrict the average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational American's exercise of the natural, fundamental, and immutable, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no sense at all. The expression is an oxymoron and nonsensical. That fact becomes painfully obvious when one takes a long hard look at particular measures these Antigun Progressive New Left politicians have in mind. When these politicians assert that this or that gun measure makes perfect common sense, you can rest assured that it does not. The problem is that, while these politicians will tell you that this or that gun policy or gun measure will reduce "gun violence," they don't provide you with sound evidence to support their statements; nor do they give the American public a good sense of how the restrictive gun measure is designed to work, and how it is expected to be implemented. They probably don't have a clue themselves. Still, once the public gets a handle on what these antigun radical Left-wing politicians are really up to--constraining the exercise of the Second Amendment to the point that the right codified in it becomes essentially nugatory and not, contrary to what they insist, reducing "gun violence," and promoting public safety--it becomes abundantly evident that these gun control measures, when utilized together, are directed to do three things very, very well: all of them directed to disarming the citizenry and, hence, destroying the Second Amendment; and none of them directed to reducing "gun violence" and promoting "public safety"The New Progressive Left politicians' goal of disarming the citizenry through legislation, through Administrative rule-making, and through executive order--operating as a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment--has essentially three components:First, the New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the kinds of guns and components of firearms the average law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen will no longer be permitted lawfully to possess, and, for those individuals who are permitted to lawfully possess firearms, these antigun politicians seek to control the number of firearms a person may own and possess and to strictly control the amount of ammunition and the kinds of ammunition that a gun owner is permitted to have. Second, The New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the domain of American citizens who are prohibited from lawfully owning and possessing firearms, components of firearms, and ammunition. Third, as for those Americans who are not immediately prohibited from exercising the sacred right that is codified in the Second Amendment, the New Progressive Left politicians' "common-sense" gun policies and  gun measures are designed to be oppressive, exceedingly so, in order to make ownership and possession of firearms, ammunition, and component parts of firearms, an expensive proposition and an administrative ordeal to maintain lawfully, if the gun owner is to avoid loss of his personalty and suffer civil or even criminal prosecution. Below, we discuss a few of the ramifications of the recent antigun proposals the New Progressive Left politicians have vociferously argued for, as echoed, incessantly, by a seditious Press.Note: three of the four restrictive gun measures have been around four decades. Every so often, when a lunatic goes off half-cocked, the gun grabbers bring these proposals out of the closet and try to push them, anew, on the public. These proposals include, one, bans on commonly owned firearms; two, expansive gun background checks; and, three, so-called "gun buybacks." The fourth restrictive gun measure"Red Flag" laws, is fairly new. But, any one of these four draconian gun measures clearly infringes on the Second Amendment and negatively impacts or directly infringes other Constitutional rights and liberties as well. If all of these antigun measures were to be implemented, the Second Amendment would become effectively nugatory. But, that is the point of them. And with the last few shooting incidents, hyped up, endlessly and vigorously, by a seditious Press, we see these politicians and the Press effectively manipulating public opinion to the point that even some Congressional Republicans and Republican State Government Officials are coming on board. The Second Amendment is again under dangerous siege. 

RADICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LEFT’S FOUR-PRONG STRATEGY FOR DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EVENT DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY

FIRST PRONG: INSTITUTE NEW BANS ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS , AMMUNITION MAGAZINES, AND OTHER GUN COMPONENTS AND GUN ACCESSORIESIt isn't bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and on all component parts of those weapons, and on all accessories for those weapons; The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, 'assault weapon' and 'high capacity magazine' isn’t not by accident, and this point must be clearly pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the expressions are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish. The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the Radical Left and New Progressive Left antigun crowd is beginning to use the expressions, ‘semiautomatic weapon’ and ‘semiautomatic weapon’ interchangeably. More so than revolvers, semiautomatic firearms have become the weapons of choice for personal defense. They are weapons in common use by millions of Americans, and, they are the weapons that the antigun Progressive New Left is most desirous of banning outright, along with their ammunition magazines. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots. Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry. To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal. The New Progressive Left must accomplish destruction of the Second Amendment if they are to be able to subjugate the citizenry, and, in so doing, they will begin to bring to fruition, their ultimate goal: a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship that will emerge from the tattered remains of our Republic. But, the New Progressive Left politicians must first curry public support for their unconstitutional, unconscionable antigun policy objectives and measures. In that effort we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to preservation of the Second Amendment. These fictions include loaded, emotionally charged terminology: ‘assault weapon,’ ‘military styled assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ and “high capacity magazine.” The public usually doesn’t even bother to ask for explication of these expressions, and in the few instances when it does ask for an explication, we see the antigun spokesperson often saying that the targeted weapons look like and operate like military weapons. This, of course is a nonsensical response, first, because the military isn't interested in the appearance of firearms merely for the sake of appearance, anyway, and, second, because the antigun pronouncement that civilian “assault weapons” operate like military “assault rifles” is simply wrong.In weapons’ design and fabrication for military application, form follows function, not the other way around, and the critical importance of function of a weapon is that of operation and handling. The military, ‘assault rifle,’ by definition, is a selective fire, intermediate caliber weapon. The civilian version of an assault rifle, if the notion of a ‘civilian version’ of military assault rifle is even meaningful, is hardly an adequate descriptor for weapons found in the non-military marketplace since such weapons are not capable of full auto or short burst auto fire.Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Second, even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. , even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. Those are all legitimate purposes. Further, suppose, an American simply wants a fully functional ‘assault weapon’ as a collectible. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen be able to own and possess that weapon? It is no answer to say no American needs one. But, that is the answer often given. In fact, why should the law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen even have to proffer a reason for owning and possessing a so-called 'assault weapon' at all. The antigun New Progressive Left activist simply presumes that a person must explain why he wishes to own and possess this or that firearm. No he doesn't. Where in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, or in any other provision of the Constitution, does it say that an American citizen must demonstrate a purpose for or need for owning and possessing a particular firearm? Nowhere. The implicit understanding of the text of the Second Amendment is that a weapon be a personnel weapon, that, in fact, is expected to be used for, inter alia, military use. So, contrary, to the antigun New Progressive Left’s assertion that civilians are not permitted to own and possess a 'weapon of war,'—a shibboleth that is accepted as true and obviously so—the import of the Second Amendment points to the falsity of the New Progressive Left’s claim. A salient, and, indeed, the salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government's own standing army to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation. The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, onmniscent, and omnipresent federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God! To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, 'muscular' desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakeable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt, and with actual selective-fire assault rifles and submachine guns, not merely armed, then, with what the antigun Progressive New Left refers, inaccurately and pejoratively, as 'weapons of war' and 'as military style assault weapons.’ For rhe real threat posed to the preservation of our Nation to as a free, Constitutional Republic and a free people, comes from those within the Nation, as subsidized by seditious billionaires both within and outside the Country, who desire to destroy the very framework of our Nation, as designed and created by our founders. No better evidence is there of their seditious intent, than their desire to disarm the citizenry; and no better reason, then, for the citizenry to be well-armed. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller, the seminal Second Amendment case, has made abundantly clear that firearms in common use, which includes those antigun Leftists refer to under the pejorative ‘assault weapons,’ and ‘military styled assault rifles,’ and ‘weapons of war,’ are a protected category of firearms under the Heller standard. One would wonder whether, given the dire threat posed by insurgents in our midst would not had led the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, to conclude that, as consistent with the import and purport of our Second Amendment, a citizen army should be armed with military personnel weapons to best thwart a takeover of our Nation's Government by those hell-bent in instituting a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship—a form of Government altogether inconsistent with the framework that the founders of our free Republic had heretofore established for it, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution that the States had ratified—a Constitution that includes a well-stocked set of elemental,fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties that are not to be modified, abrogated, ignored, or perfunctorily dismissed. As for ammunition magazines, the retort to the perfunctory exclamation of the antigun New Progressive Left that no one needs high capacity magazines is threefold. First, we begin with the obvious: ammunition magazines are a necessary component of semiautomatic weapons. And, as for what constitutes an acceptable number of cartridges, and what might, to the antigun radical Left activist constitute an unacceptable, “high capacity,” ammunition magazine, no one can reasonably define what ‘high capacity’ means; any attempt to do so reduces to arbitrary absurdity. Second, an ammunition magazine holding several rounds, for home defense, makes simple common-sense, whether an innocent individual faces one assailant or several assailants. The imposition of limitations on the number of cartridges a given ammunition magazine is, for a particular firearms, under law, permitted to hold, are ultimately arbitrary senseless and pointless. Third, going back to the initial antigun pronouncement that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible civilian citizen simply doesn’t need a ‘high capacity’ ammunition magazines, whatever that expression, ‘high capacity’ means, simply begs the question whether one does need such high capacity ammunition magazines to adequately thwart a potential threat. "Need," in and of itself, namely "need per se," is defined by purpose. But, the antigun proponent’s pronouncement that a person doesn’t need a ‘high capacity magazine’ is logically faulty on other grounds. There are many things a person possesses that a person may not need. There are wants as well. Suppose I just happen to want a so-called ‘assault weapon’ and so-called high capacity ammunition magazine, as a component of that weapon. Why shouldn’t I, as an average, law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, be able to have one? It is no answer to say society will be safer if I don’t have certain weapons and certain ammunition magazines. Extrapolating from misuse of any firearm by a dangerous lunatic and psychopathic criminal to me and tens of millions of other Americans who desire to exercise their natural right to own and possess these firearms and ammunition magazines and who are not lunatics or psychopathic criminals is to constrain, unconstitutionally and unconscionably, tens of millions of Americans due to the actions of a few undesirables. Again, the idea promulgated by antigun proponents that society, the Collective, the Hive, will be better off if those tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible citizens don’t have access to these weapons and components even if they themselves are not a danger to society and never would be is to accept an ethical position, utilitarian consequentialist, that most Americans don’t ascribe to: the idea that it is better to lose a few innocent lives for the apparent benefit of a larger group. But, that is an alien concept, abhorrent to most Americans, and certainly abhorrent to those who founded our Nation. People are not ants or bees, even as these New Progressive Leftists believe them to be so, and would treat people as such.And, as 'need' is defined by purpose, no greater need exists, today, than for a citizen army to be well-armed against the real threat of a Marxist-Socialist takeover of the Government and the enslavement of the American citizenry that such a takeover would entail. It is just this dire need that exists and more so now than ever before in light of those who argue that no need exists for so-called ‘weapons of war.’ The American citizenry must be well-armed to thwart a possible takeover of our Government by this antigun New Progressive Left that is intent on destroying our Nation's Constitution; that is intent on erasing our Nation's history; and that is intent on endowing the federal Government with the means necessary to do so: to subjugate the American citizenry, and thoroughly control all thought and action. The American citizenry must never be taken in by the duplicitous, claim made by this insurgent antigun New Progressive Left that its motive for disarming Americans is simply a desire to protect the life, well-being, and safety of Americans and that society, the Collective, is best served if Americans are disarmed, even if that means that the lives of individuals in that society will be placed in danger therewith. What in fact does it even mean to say that it is okay to lose a few innocent lives through the disarming the citizenry if the greater society, the greater Collective, the greater Hive, is secure? If a Left-wing extremist argues that the well-being of ten lives are worth more than the well-being of one, what is the sanctity in numbers if not for the individual? And, how, for that matter, is one better served to have lost his or her life for having not had the effective means a firearm provides to secure it, to be told that his sacrifice is an acceptable loss because the Collective, the Hive has been better served thereby? Really. If the antigun New Progressive Left proponent doesn’t give a damn about the sanctity of the individual, where is the sanctity found in numbers alone? And, why should that Collective, that Hive even bother to exist at all, that the multitude is nothing more than expendable fodder anyway? Who, then, or what, then, is better served? And, is everyone truly in the same boat, abjectly defenseless? What about those policy maker and billionaire elites who live behind gated communities, and who travel in armored vehicles, with a contingency of armed guards? “Oh,” the hoi poloi is told, “they are the queen bees!” “Their lives are worth so much more than yours!” How so? That the New Progressive Left so decrees THAT to be so? But, how does that idea square with the notion that the antigun New Progressive and Radical Left and cares about securing the life, safety, and well-being of Americans, when their Collectivist and Utilitiarian Consequentialist precepts dictates quite clearly that they don’t give a damn at all? It is all just empty words! In fact, the ethical, political, and social position of the New Progressive Left is bankrupt. We see that in the fact that the New Progressive Left supports late term abortion. They don’t care about the most innocent of human life, so it is highly doubtful that they vouchsafe care about ten or twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand or a hundred thousand lives. Reducing life to mere numbers reduces to absurdity the New Progressive Left’s concern about the value of human life at all. These people are simply masters of emotional rhetoric. Phrases like, military styled assault rifle,’ and ‘weapon of war,’ and ‘high capacity magazine,’ are emotionally charged, deliberately deceptive phrases, intended to and calculated to spark a feeling of unease in the target audience: the American public, thereby making the public receptive to bans on any firearms and any gun components that fall into the named categories. But, the fact that they really don’t care about the life of individuals is reflected in their policy stances on immigration and abortion, as well as on the matter of firearms ownership and possession. Hence, any argument they make even if superficially plausible is vacuous, because the basis for it concern for human life, really doesn’t exist at all. It is just a platitude, a makeweight, a sad, disturbing ruse.

SECOND PRONG: ENCOURAGE EVERY STATE TO ENACT “RED FLAG” LAWS

This restrictive gun policy objective entails expanding the list of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess firearms. New Progressive Left Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President—namely, the front runners—all support across the board State enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Several States have already enacted such laws, and all of them either directly infringe the Second Amendment or otherwise come dangerously close to doing so and certainly impinge upon one's exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although the text of these laws as they presently exist in those jurisdictions that presently have them, or that are otherwise in the process of enacting Red Flag laws or considering enacting Red Flag laws, do vary from State to State. But, all of these Red Flag laws have one defining characteristic: they all operate ex parte. What does that mean? It means that Courts conduct hearings  where only one party to the action is present at the hearing, namely the party who is attempting to obtain a Court order against another party who is not initially present at the Court hearing to defend his interests. The interest at stake here is retention of one's personal property, namely, one's firearms. In an ex parte hearing, under Red Flag laws, one party, or side, at the hearing seeks a Court order requiring the other party, who isn't present at the hearing, an American citizen who has  committed no crime but whom the accuser is claiming is nonetheless dangerous because that person has firearms in his or her possession,. to surrender those firearms to Governmental authority. Thus, the accuser is seeking the removal of that person’s personal property, that person’s firearms— prior to the affected party’s ability to present a case in his or her defense, who would obviously wish to keep his personal property but cannot do so because the affected party has no opportunity to confront the accuser until some point subsequent to the actual removal of the person’s personalty, their firearms, assuming the Court issues an order requiring the surrendering of weapons to Governmental authority. It is only after the fact, the removal of the firearms--the personal property--takes place, that a hearing is conducted where both sides are present and the party, against whom the action was taken, attempts to make a case for restoration of his personal property. All of these “Red Flag” laws, play on some variation of this theme and all of them impinge upon or are in danger of impinging upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, all of these "Red Flag" laws are Constitutionally suspect and they all should be scrutinized before enactment to see if they pass Constitutional muster. But, that never happens. The question is do we really need these laws to protect society from the possibility of danger. And that notion of 'possibility' is a red herring. We would ask: How “possible” is that possibility of danger, and how do we know that a person, whomever it is that may target a person’s firearms, is doing so with an honest motive. And even if the accuser has an ostensibly honest motive for bringing action against a gun owner, forcing a person to forsake his personal property by Court order, under a State’s “Red Flag” law, the machinery of justice is, for all that, moving against a person who has committed no crime. The Court is faced with the dubious task of rendering an adverse decision against a person without having actually met with the person and therefore has no opportunity to conduct and to preside over an adversary proceeding to which all American citizens are entitled. Ex parte proceedings are, not surprisingly, frowned on in the law, as they are by nature, contrary to our Nation's sacred jurisprudential principles. Generally, a full adversary proceeding can and should be conducted. Likely, we would see that the person who is making a claim against individual without having to confront that person in open Court, would think twice about the danger presented, if a full adversary hearing were conducted. But, suppose the danger is imminent or appears to be truly imminent. In that event, every State has mechanisms by which a person can request a Court to order a personal protection order against that person who is deemed a threat. That too is handled ex parte, and a Court if convinced that a threat is imminent could certainly issue an ex parte order requiring of the person who is deemed a threat, to relinquish his or her firearms if they have any. Thus, Red Flag laws don’t do anything that personal protection orders don’t already accomplish except they make it easier for more people to make spurious, specious claims against people, often for ulterior motives, and yet avoid having to face the consequences for making those false claims, as Red Flag laws do not generally, if not invariably, provide a mechanism through which a person wrongly targeted can bring action against his or her accuser.Secondly, under federal law, 18 U.S.C § 922(g) and (n), individuals, including those convicted of felonies and those who had been institutionalized for mental illness, are not permitted to own and possess firearms anyway unless they obtain a certificate of relief from disability. Red Flag laws operate as a backdoor for expanding the domain of individuals not permitted to own or possess a firearm. Since antigun proponents denounce out-of-hand the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it should not come as a surprise that they would look for seemingly plausible ways to expand the domain of people considered unfit to own and possess firearms beyond those categories that already exist in federal law, claiming as they always do, that what motivates them is the desire to protect society when that is patently untrue. What really motivates these people is a desire to reduce the Second Amendment to a nullity, under the pretext that they give a damn about the life, safety, and well being of others. But they don’t because they don’t recognize that a person has a right of self-defense and don’t care that a firearm is the best means by which a person can effectively defend themselves against attack; and as they place their faith in Government to control the masses, and don’t trust the citizenry, their entire view of man and man’s relationship to Government and to each other is the obverse of that of the founders of our Nation. The Second Amendment isn’t consistent with the tenets of Collectivism.

THIRD PRONG: "EXPAND" GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS

Expanding background checks, delaying the purchase of, trade, or resale of guns and gun paraphernalia is merely another 'muscular' attempt to slowly whittle away at the true efficacy of the right codified in the Second Amendment. It is merely another mechanism to reduce the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a nullity. It need hardly be said that most criminals don’t obtain their firearms lawfully. They either steal firearms or obtain them on the black market or through straw purchases all of which are illegal, If the stated purpose is to close what antigun proponents point to as loopholes, then let’s take a look at those purported loopholes. One concern mentioned is that people don’t have to go to the holder of an FFL to obtain a firearm if one purchases a firearm directly or if a person purchases a firearm from another person at a gun show, where laws are not enforced. Well, actually they are. No one is permitted to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of firearms without complying with federal law and applicable State law. Purchases through the internet have to be made through the intermediary of a person holding an FFL. Purchases at gun shows are usually made through a holder of an FFL directly as are purchases made at a retail gun store where the sellers would be required to have an FFL, and possibly a State gun license as well. What about private sales at gun shows? Well, sellers of firearms are still required to comply with the law. No one is permitted to dispose of a firearm to an individual who is prohibited from federal law from possessing a firearm. Antigun groups like to argue that “gun” people are unscrupulous. Well, no they aren’t. Law-abiding gun owners are the most scrupulous of American citizens. See NRA discussion on thisThe antigun New Progressive Left, viewing gun ownership as evil, doesn’t draw a tenable distinction between law-abiding gun owners and criminals. But, this should come as no surprise. The Progressive New Left conflates the two groups, illegal aliens and legal immigrants, to make the spurious argument that President Trump is against immigration. No he isn’t, and never was. During his campaign he pointed out over and over again that what he does oppose is “illegal immigration.” The Progressive New Left seems to have amnesia about this. The President’s immigration policies since holding Office are systematize and streamline legal immigration, and to get a handle on illegal movement of people and drugs across our Nation’s borders that, for decades Congress has failed to deal with. And, so, the problem has worsened through the years, becoming virtually impossible to manage now. And President Trump is receiving no more assistance from Congress now, than had any President before him. He is not suggesting anything unusual. Other Countries control their Nation’s borders. Consider Canada for example. Why should our Nation be different?While blasé about controlling illegal traffic across our Nation’s Southern Border, it is wondrous strange that the antigun Progressive New Left is so particular about clamping down on the law-abiding citizen’s wish merely to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without being plagued by hundreds of extraneous laws drawn up merely to frustrate and oppressive the gun owner. The instant gun background check program has worked fine. Instances of so-called “mass shootings” are few in number and pale into insignificance when compared to the daily shootings due to criminal misuse of firearms. The Progressive New Left seems to be little bothered by that, only drawing attention to, and with great fanfare, the use of a firearm by the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked. And their answers are directed not to dealing effectively with those sorry souls, but for tens of millions of innocent, average, law-abiding, rational, responsible individuals.

FOURTH PRONG: IMPLEMENT GUN "BUYBACK"  MEASURES 

Gun buybacks fall into two categories. One category utilized by various Cities in the past is “gun buybacks” as voluntary program that antigun politicians draw out of the closet now and again merely as a political stunt. These buybacks are directed, of course, not to the psychopathic killer, common criminal, or to those few individuals who suffer from psychoses that truly represent a danger both to themselves and others abd then goes off half-cocked. No! These gun buybacks are directed to the average, law-abiding, responsible gun owner. But, not surprisingly, gun owners who take part in these programs do not surrender expensive firearms, but, rather, old, probably inoperable firearms. Even the liberal weblog, Trace, admits that the truly voluntary “buybacks” don’t work to lower crime rates, as criminals don’t take part in these programs. Why should they? And, those individuals who do surrender firearms to police authorities for a few bucks aren’t people who misuse firearms anyway. So, then, what seemingly plausible basis is there for these buyback programs? The implicit, but false, assumption, is that by reducing the number of guns in the public domain that will, ipso facto, reduce “gun” violence. Yet, that idea, on its face, is ridiculous, and not simply due to the volume of firearms in the public domain, if that is a sound factor for accounting for “gun violence” anyway because, again, the people who take part in the program are not those who commit crimes with guns—or with any other implement for that matter. So, this category of gun buybacks is at best, a poor solution to resolving the problem of criminal violence and, at worst, it is a cruel hoax, designed to give some ignorant Americans the feeling that Government is doing something effective about crime rates in some urban areas when it really isn’t and is simply a “smoke and mirrors” scheme to create the false impression that Government truly cares about providing a safe and secure City environment for the public, when Government doesn’t really give a damn at all. Antigun groups and antigun politicians are aware of this, of course, but in rebuttal, simply assert that gun buyback programs do work, especially those that are structured properly. The website gunxgun.org, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment, to acknowledges that, on a macro level, namely, in the public domain, these gun buyback programs, to date, don’t make communities any safer. What the site does say is that, homes are safer, once firearms are removed from the home: no guns in the home means no gun violence. Well, that point is true, but only trivially so. For, this doesn’t mean people prone to violence in the home won’t or can’t find the means to injure or kill another human being whether a gun is the implement of harm or some other implement. But, what is really interesting about the comment is the implicit point made that is a running theme through all attempts to impose on the public more and more draconian gun schemes. The running theme is that the citizenry cannot be trusted; that all people are potentially a danger both to themselves and to others, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from the homes. But, what of the obverse? Aren’t particular individuals in the community thereby made less safe  having lost the most suitable means available to secure both their life and that of their family, namely that a  firearm provides? The fact of the matter is that the antigun New Progressive Left cares little, if at all, for the well-being and safety of individuals in society. They are only interested in protecting the wealthy, and well-connected and powerful. For these people—people who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism—perceive our Country, our society, as an ant colony or bee hive. As long as the greater Collective, the Hive, is secure—meaning that as long as they, “the elite” of society are safe and secure—that is all that truly matters. They view the mass of society, the Hoi Poloi, as expendable. That is the inference to be drawn from their policy goals. For all their talk about concern for the masses, including illegal aliens—even those who are acutely dangerous to the life, health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry—the New Progressive Left cares little for the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. They seek to control all thought, and all conduct, to treat everyone equally—that is to say, subjugated, submissive to the will of the State, the Government, a Government they control. The New Progressive Left’s vision for  our Nation is the antithesis of that of our founders. It is little wonder then that these people attack their memory, demolish our monuments, and seek to erase our history. The Second category of gun “buyback” programs and one championed by Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Eric Swalwell, and a signature component of his campaign before that campaign came to an abrupt end, isn’t a gun buyback program at all. It’s a confiscation scheme, similar to the infamous gun confiscation schemes employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, neither Government of which recognizes the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of its citizens—really subjects—to keep and bear arms. What Eric Swalwell championed, and what Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, has taken up is a antigun policy measure mandating that the American public surrender any and all firearms that the Government deems unsuitable for public ownership and possession and which it places under the banned category of ‘assault weapons,’ which means, as we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have known all along and as we have heretofore so stated on our website: the eventual confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms. The expression, ‘buyback,’ always a misnomer, is, as conceived by and mentioned by Joe Biden and, in fact, as understood and desired by the Democratic Party Progressive New Left, not a buyback at all, under any reasonable interpretation. It is a blatant gun confiscation scheme scarcely cloaked as a “gun buyback.” The program as envisioned isn’t voluntary. It’s mandatory. As conceived, and as it would likely be implemented either by any Democratic Party New Progressive Left—if that Candidate is elected U.S. President—any firearm designated by the New Progressive Left to be an ‘assault weapon,’ would be illegal. Any American citizen who presently has one or more such weapons would be required to surrender them to Governmental authority. If the Democratic Party controls both Houses of Congress we can expect Congress to enact mandatory gun confiscation, along with other draconian “muscular” laws. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, mandatory confiscation is unlikely to be enacted. But, if a Democrat secures the U.S. Presidency, the American public may very well see a flurry of executive orders operating as law, and accomplishing, then, the same thing as a Congressional enactment. Kamala Harris has threatened to issue just such an executive order were she to secure her Party’s nomination and then secure the Presidency. Such law or executive order would be immediately challenged. A mandatory gun confiscation scheme amounts to an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment’s ‘just compensation’ clause as semiautomatic weapons--essentially every weapon, now, that the New Progressive Left lumps under the fictions of 'assault weapons' or 'weapons of war'--manufactured by reputable companies like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sturm Ruger, Beretta, Sig Sauer, Heckler and Koch, Remington, and many others, all of which produce extremely well-designed and engineered products. These firearms cost, on the retail market, several hundred and even several thousand dollars. A gun confiscation scheme would not provide just compensation for these firearms. A gun confiscation scheme would also, and obviously, infringe the Second Amendment. And such a gun confiscation scheme would infringe the Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. The gun confiscation scheme targeting semiautomatic weapons would impinge on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment would be implicated and violated as well. But, then, the New Progressive Left doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights, and never did. It is all sham for them to even suggest that they do. But, if it should come to pass the New Progressive Left does take control of Government--both Houses of Congress, and the U.S. Presidency-- the American citizenry will see Government imposing a flurry of unconstitutional, unconscionable gun restrictions on the American citizenry such as this Nation has never seen before. The New Progressive Left intends to force their new vision of America on the Nation, a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders, the framers of our Constitution. And the New Progressive Left will commence with an attempt at de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. The founders of our free Republic would not abide this; and those of us who believe in our Nation as a Constitutional Republic, where the American people, the citizenry, are the ultimate sovereign of their Nation, not Government, and where Government was created to serve the people and not the other way around, should not abide this occurrence either, and most likely, won't.When firearms are removed from average, law-abiding, rational citizens in violation of Due Process requirements, and when those American citizens, for whom draconian gun laws do not preclude gun ownership and possession, are oppressed by complex gun registration requirements making gun ownership and possession an increasingly difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, and when guns are treated less like personal property and more like State owned property that Americans can only rent for use at a particular time and at a particular place, after which guns must be returned to the State, to be secured and stored, then it should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not public safety and never was. The goal is population control and always has been.__________________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT FRAMES FALSE SMOKE AND MIRRORS ISSUES: “GUN VIOLENCE’ AND ‘GUN CONTROL’ TO ADVANCE ITS ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA

PART FOUR

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” First quotation ~ Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany, 1933-1945“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly— it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Second quotation~ Joseph Goebbels“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” ~ Philip K. Dick, Twentieth Century American author; prolific writer of science fiction and winner of prestigious Hugo award for best novel: “The Man in the High Castle,” published in 1962It should be evident to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that all these calls for further gun restrictions, many of them coming from all of the leading Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President—Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Pete Buttigieg—are evidence of a personal bias against guns generally, and against civilian gun ownership particularly; and all of them vying for a chance to impose their Marxist/Socialist agenda on the entire Nation.Every one of these people clamors for further gun background checks, enactment of “Red Flag laws,” and bans on so-called “assault weapons,”  and so-called "gun buybacks." Not one of these people has the least interest in securing, preserving, and strengthening the Second Amendment. To the contrary, they all wish to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether, and their gun control measures are clear evidence of that, and their recent pronouncements on the subject make that fact abundantly clear. A slippery slope to Armageddon is not fallacy here. Prima facie evidence exists for this conclusion. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment is the goal of the New Progressive Left.The New Progressive Left seeks nothing less than a complete transformation of our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist State, and they have been appealing to the public to make that nightmare a reality.The present crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President know that the transformation sought isn’t tenable as long as the public does in fact keep and bear arms and they mean to change that; to change public attitude toward guns and toward self-defense by means of guns; and, with the Press, with whom these New Progressive Left candidates have an incestuous relationship and with whom they are constantly collaborating, in an attempt to control the running narrative of solving “gun violence” with a new wave of “gun control measures,” we see the New Progressive Act employing a massive Psy-Ops campaign against Americans, inserting memes into the psyche of the citizenry: ‘guns are evil,’ ‘guns cause crime,’ ‘civilized people don’t need guns and don’t want them,’ ‘guns turn good people into bad people,’ and so on and so forth.But, the issue of ‘gun violence’ is nothing more than a fiction, a straw man devised and concocted out of whole cloth by public relations firms for their client, the antigun New Progressive Left. This straw man created is diabolical in the conception, cunningly employed in practice. The New Progressive Left uses this straw man to deliberately draw attention of the public and Congress away from the two truly legitimate issues: the causes of ‘societal violence’ and the perpetrators of it. By framing the issues in the way it does--on implements of violence, rather than on the root causes of violence and on the perpetrators of violence, the New Progressive Left forces Congress and the public to focus attention on a false issue, ‘guns' per se--'gun violence'--as if the gun itself was the perpetrator of violence. But, there is method to the New Progressive Left's madness: An all-consuming obsession with  undermining the Second Amendment; wasting tax dollars pursuing a bugaboo that the radical Left itself had evoked; and deliberately fomenting anger and resentment in the public, in furtherance of its own misbegotten and loathsome agenda. The New Progressive Left, by sleight of hand, conveys the impression that the true threats to society are guns, gun owners, the Second Amendment, the NRA, and firearms manufacturers, notwithstanding that the true threats to societal equanimity and serenity fall squarely on the New Progressive Left itself and on those who sympathize with their agenda: the Hollywood producers who create films that glorify killers and their misuse of firearms, and the radical political Left-wing Hollywood actors who portray these killers, even as they bemoan guns and demean law-abiding gun owners and the NRA off camera; the software programmers, creators of thousands of gruesome video games; and the technology industry whose new and ever evolving products serve, increasingly, to induce human beings to spend more time in the world of virtual reality rather than in the real reality, cultivating real relationships and real human interaction. In fact the New Progressive Left, is directly responsible for creating the environment in which societal violence is nurtured and in which that violence is allowed to grow and flourish. The New Progressive Left does this through the constant vitriol it spouts and the false dichotomy it has conceived--a society of victims and victimizers. It has created a false dichotomy in attempt to foment the very violence it disingenuously tells us it seeks to curtail and that, it claims, deceitfully, would be curtailed, if only the citizenry would surrender its firearms--all of them, as if "the gun" is the root of problem of society, when the root problem, rests, of course, in the disease that is the New Progressive Left itself and in those radical, anarchist elements in society who desire to tear down the very framework of a free Republic that the founders lovingly gave to us. The radical Left elements and anarchists are the rot and cancer that must be cut out, but the New Progressive Left diabolically focuses the public's attention away from itself and  directs the public's attention on the healthy tissue of society, our Nation's Constitution,  urging excision of great portions of the Constitution, commencing, not unsurprisingly, with the Second Amendment--suggesting major changes, involving a general weakening of the other natural, fundamental, and immutable rights; and these unspeakably evil, ruthless elements, are calling for, nay, demanding a major reworking of the Articles of the Constitution. And, many members of the polity have, unfortunately, been seduced by the sanctimonious bellowing of these radical Left elements, and many members of the polity have bought into this dangerous nonsense. How is it that many members of the polity have been seduced?Through use of military techniques of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the New Progressive Left controls public opinion, and seeks to force Congress to bend to its will. The New Progressive Left has deliberately created a toxic environment throughout the Country, creating division among the polity, fomenting violence, all in an attempt to exert pressure on Congress; to extort concessions from Congress that serve the interests of the Progressive New Left, and not the interests of the public. Through deliberate deception, the New Progressive Left eggs the public on in a naked attempt to cajole both the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans to enact further gun control laws that the President and Congressional Republicans know full well are not in the best interests of the public; are antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment; and are detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic. But how many citizens have fallen prey to the constant, pounding of the deceptive messaging of the Radical Left elements and the Radical Left Press? How many Americans have really jumped on the antigun bandwagon? How many of them have been unconsciously and unconscionably manipulated into fully accepting such ludicrous, outlandish antigun, Anti-Second Amendment policy proposals? How many Americans have been reduced to raging, uncontrollable beasts, the acolytes of the New Progressive and Radical Left politicians, those laughing hyenas and  jackals, sitting in their lofty perches, spurring the doting lemmings on and over the cliff. Apparently, all too many Americans have been seduced. Radical shock therapy may be necessary to draw these Americans out of their brain-induced stupor.___________________________________________

DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESS URGE CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS TO FURTHER RADICAL LEFT AGENDA

PART FIVE

In an article posted in The New York Times, on September 2, 2019, titled, “Congress Faces Fresh Urgency On Gun Laws,” the Times is pressing Congress to cave to the frenetic urging of the Leftist antigun crowd, hell-bent on further weakening the Second Amendment, having found an opening in the recent spate of random shootings that occurred in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and, now, Odessa, Texas; exploiting these tragedies, appealing to emotion, rather than to reason, employing the informal logical fallacy of ad misericordium, a fallacy well known to the ancient Greeks: the fallacy of appealing cunningly to pity, misery, and sympathy--playing on the public's emotions, rather than appealing to the public's reason, to obtain the goal, an unarmed citizenry that, if that should come to pass, will not secure public safety, but will endanger the life and safety of the citizenry and will be an open invitation to tyranny. Where will appeals to pity and sympathy for Americans rest, then?Extremist elements are hammering Congress to enact, first and foremost more gun background checks, even as the New York Times acknowledges in its own story that: “In fact, whether a background check would have prevented the West Texas gunman from acquiring his weapon is not known. Chief Michael Gerke of the Odessa Police Department said the gunman, who had been fired from a trucking job, had used an AR-15-style rifle, but had a criminal record. It was not clear on Sunday whether the gun had been acquired legally, and the authorities stressed that they had not established a motive.”What is deeply disturbing, perplexing and distressing is that President Trump seems to be allowing himself to be caught up in the frenzied emotion of the moment, seeming to give in to moronic emotional, irrational rhetoric, spawned by another convenient shooting incident. We say this because President Trump has himself resorted to using the same language of the antigun zealots, such as “common-sense” gun laws; and “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” as he appears to be considering the proposals coming from U.S. Presidential Democratic Party candidates. The New York Times details all of this in its typical tabloid fashion, using colorful adjectives and inapt language, like, ‘gruesome,’ and ‘ massacre,’ and ‘assault weapon,’ and ‘powerful gun rights lobbying group’—which emphasizes the NY Times own personal distaste for guns generally; its abhorrence of civilian ownership of guns particularly; and its hatred of the NRA, singularly and emphatically. The article, appearing in the national news section of the paper, reads more like an Op-Ed piece than a news story. But, then, from the content of New York “news” reporting today it is clear that no efficacious distinction exists any longer between the reporting of news and opining about it. The use of Section Headings in the newspaper are superfluous, and need no longer exist, but the paper keeps up the pretense, obviously to confuse its readers into believing that what they take for fact is merely personal value judgment, and what they take for personal value judgment is fact and, as between the two, the way the world is and a normative account of the way the world ought to be is, ultimately, the same; that there is no appreciable difference--as fact and value judgment are one and the same so, that, as what is reported as news and expounded upon in the same news story is, in fact, all news, an exposition of and on reality, on the way things are. And, so the seditious Press tries to make its case against guns and civilian gun ownership, as it always, does as the following purported story illustrates. The NY Times “reports/opines”:“The deadly shooting spree in West Texas this weekend — the latest in an especially gruesome summer of massacres — has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation, giving fresh urgency to a debate that was already expected to be at the top of lawmakers’ agenda when they return to the Capitol next week.The attack in Midland and Odessa, Tex., which left seven dead and 22 wounded, comes weeks after a 24-year-old gunman with an assault weapon killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, in early August. That massacre, hours after one that killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, thrust gun violence into the Washington debate just as Congress left town for its annual August recess.President Trump expressed new openness to gun safety laws — including, he said then, “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” for gun buyers — and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, promised a Senate debate. But in the weeks since, with lawmakers scattered across the country in their home districts, the issue seemed to drift from public view.Now it has come roaring back, with Congress set to return on Sept. 9. At a briefing about Hurricane Dorian at Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters on Sunday, Mr. Trump, who has a record of flip-flopping on gun safety, pledged to find a way to “substantially reduce” mass shootings. But he earlier appeared to dismiss background checks, telling reporters that “they would not have stopped any of it.”Behind the scenes, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, White House officials have been quietly engaged in bipartisan talks with senators who support expanding background checks and so-called red flag laws. The laws make it easier for law enforcement to take guns from people deemed dangerous by a judge who issues a special type of order, called an “extreme risk protection order.”Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said in an interview on Sunday that the two sides still seemed far apart. Mr. Blumenthal said much would depend on whether the president, who has been consulting with the National Rifle Association, was willing to stand up to the powerful gun rights lobbying group.‘I think there is a sense that the American people just desperately want something to be done, and they have to respond to that imperative,’ he said, ‘but are so far nowhere near crossing the Rubicon to stand up to the gun lobby and the N.R.A. as far as I can tell.’”________________________________________Thank you, New York Times, for working diligently and tirelessly on behalf of the Marxist/Socialist new world order. Profuse thanks for once again misleading the American people, spinning elaborate fairy tales about the horrors of guns and “gun violence,” and about that evil, “powerful gun rights lobbying group.” And what is this all for?” We know the answer; you don’t have tell us. You have written a collection of Grimm’s fairy tales—grim indeed—dedicated to the cause of bringing the United States into line that it may be included in the serried ranks of the EU. To accomplish that, you are doing your part to first achieve the penultimate goal.  So, kudos to you. And, what is that penultimate goal? It is to deny to the American people the ability to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms; of course it is!And, what is the ultimate goal of the Marxist/Socialist new world order? You don’t have to tell us because we know the answer to that question too. Once the American citizenry is effectively disarmed, the Marxist/Socialist dystopian dream—the dismantling of a free, Constitutional Republic—can proceed, unimpeded by a disaffected, unruly and restless, and rebellious American citizenry. Whatever is then left of our Nation can then be thrust into the framework of a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance. Quite an accomplishment, that!But, you might want to ask the founders of our Nation, those who risked their lives and well-being to realize their vision of a free sovereign people, living in a free Land, what they happen to think of your new world order you have planned for a new generation of Americans, existing subjugated and subservient to foreign taskmasters. We suspect they would be less than delighted; less than thrilled with the transformation of our Nation into a despotic wasteland. And, we suspect they would be less than overawed at seeing our Nation and the American people controlled with rein, and bridle, and whip by foreign overlords, riding roughshod over them.___________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO COMPROMISING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SIX

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, political philosopher, and one of the founding fathers; from his letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~Patrick Henry, American Attorney and a Founding Father; and famous Antifederalist; quotation from “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution” Note: the Antifederalists demanded that Man’s natural rights be codified in a Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be formally incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists thought that a formal codification of natural rights, since preexistent in Man (both Federalists and Antifederalists took as self-evident the veracity of certain rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator) was unnecessary, as the powers of a Federal Government were to be limited; all other rights and powers retained by the States and the people. The Antifederalists feared that Government would not be held properly in check unless those serving in Government were constantly reminded of the fact that the citizenry would be armed. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights serves as that reminder—a painful thorn in the side of the Radical Left elements today that are forced to deal with it. Circumstances of the present day aptly demonstrate the Antifederalists concern to be acutely and eerily prescient. Fortunately for us, the Antifederalists won the day, and the Constitution was ratified with a set of the quintessential natural rights etched in stone, an integral part and the most critical part of the U.S. Constitution.“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803The Democratic Party Leadership, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, say they are willing to work with President Trump, as reported by The New York Times. Isn’t that nice! We would advise the President and Congressional Republicans to be extremely wary of the overture coming from those two.In the article published in The New York Times on September 16, 2019, titled, “Schumer and Pelosi, Talking to Trump, Try to Sweeten the deal.” The Times reports that,“The top two Democrats in Congress, seeking to ramp up pressure on Republicans to pass legislation extending background checks to all gun buyers, told President Trump on Sunday that they would join him at the White House for a “historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden” if he agreed to the measure.The offer, made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, during an 11-minute phone conversation with Mr. Trump, comes as the president is considering a package of measures to respond to the mass shootings that have terrorized the nation in recent months. The three spoke only about gun legislation, according to aides.Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said in a statement that the conversation was cordial but that Mr. Trump “made no commitments” on a House-passed background checks bill that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are urging him to support.Mr. Trump “instead indicated his interest in working to find a bipartisan legislative solution on appropriate responses to the issue of mass gun violence,” Mr. Deere said.Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer want Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to take up the bill, but the senator has refused to do so without knowing whether the president would sign it. ‘This morning, we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access,’ their statement said, adding, ‘We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the president must sign it.’Their pressure continued a campaign on an issue that has dominated the political debate in Washington and on the Democratic presidential campaign trail since a string of mass shootings over the summer.A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal deliberations, said on Sunday that the president had instructed his advisers to continue to work to find a range of policies that would go after illegal gun sales while protecting the Second Amendment, and expand the role of mental health professionals.”The President needs to be very, very careful suggesting to Schumer and Pelosi that he is conducive to entertaining a gun measure that, on its face, may seem narrowly tailored to constraining the criminal or dangerous lunatic but that can, and most likely would, operate as a backdoor to restricting exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, for the population at large. He may find himself entangled in their antigun mythos. And, if so, he will find it exceedingly difficult to extricate himself from it. Clearly, Left-wing extremists, of which Schumer and Pelosi must be counted among them are desirous of controlling the law-abiding gun owners’ exercise of their Second Amendment right even as they claim only to be concerned with, or suggest that they are only concerned with reducing “gun” violence. But we are talking here of a population consisting of the criminal sociopathic element or dangerous psychotic element of society. Or are we? The Democrats aren’t really saying, and we’ve seen where all of this is headed, before. We know how this plays out; as it always plays out. The Democratic Party Leadership, along with more and more radical Leftist members of the Party, all of whom are taking their cue from members of radical Left-wing Socialist and Communist groups active in this Country, lurking in the shadows, ingratiating themselves with radical Congressional Democrats, have an agenda with items to tick off. One of the items, a key item, is to whittle away at the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry is an abomination for the Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats and for those operating closely with them, orchestrating policy. As they all abhor the Second Amendment, and they are fearful of an armed citizenry, these Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats will use every opportunity they can to constrain law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. If they succeed, tyranny looms._____________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART SEVEN

“Ladies and gentlemen, attention, please! Come in close where everyone can see! I got a tale to tell, it isn’t gonna cost a dime! (And if you believe that, we’re gonna get along just fine.)” ~ Stephen King, American author of horror, fantasy, and the supernatural; first quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991“There were people who lied for gain, people who lied from pain, people who lied simply because the concept of telling the truth was utterly alien to them . . . and then there were people who lied because they were waiting for it to be time to tell the truth.” ~Stephen King, second quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO NEGOTIATING WITH DEMOCRATS ON TERMS THAT DEMOCRATS CREATE.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If Government seriously wishes to deal with violence in society, we have an answer for the President and for Congressional Republicans. To begin, the President, along with House and Senate Republicans, should keep uppermost in mind that the issue that they are confronted with involves “societal violence,” not “gun violence.” For, construing societal violence as gun violence tends to create the illusion that societal violence equates with and reduces merely to a consideration of the existence of guns in society. Get rid of guns, so these Democrats will tell the American public and the problem of violence in society will take care of itself. But, that notion is simply false, and somehow suggests that Congress need not concern itself with the motives of a psychopath or dangerous psychotic in committing a violent act, but only with the implement a person prone to violence might happen to use to harm an innocent human being. And, on that score the concern is not with just any implement—a knife, a bomb, a truck, a hammer, a rope, an axe, one’s own hands, or anything else an evil or sick person bent on doing harm to an innocent person might conceive of using and then put to use—but with a very specific implement that the psychopathic criminal or dangerous psychotic lunatic might happen to use to commit a horrific act of violence: namely a firearm. That, of course, is ridiculous. Yet, reducing the issue of societal violence to gun violence compels one, say a medical researcher or legislator, to focus on the implement of violence rather than on environmental factors at work, along with the genetic markers, that predispose a person to engage in violence in first place. Indeed, the very fact medical researchers working for the CDC would waste research dollars focusing on “gun violence” is, in itself, singularly bizarre, as it compels fascination in the implement of violence a psychopath or dangerous psychotic might happen to employ in wreaking havoc, rather than on the state of mind of the psychopathic killer and of the dangerous psychotic that predisposes that person to commit an act of horrific violence in the first place. Yet, this is precisely what the Radical Left focuses on and what it would have the CDC spend time and money on. This is wasted effort directing medical researchers and legislators to chase after ghosts, and bugbears, and bugaboos. But, that is their intent, predicated on a false premise: that guns somehow predispose a person, any person, to commit horrific acts of violence. For, if true—and for those who have a phobia of or personal abhorrence toward guns, they would presume truth where none exists—the conclusion they seek, which is embedded in the premise, is preordained: the citizenry must be divested of its firearms.So it is that Radical Left Congressional Legislators constantly rant and rave over the scourge of “gun violence,” rather than on the real scourge in this Nation: “societal violence.” In so doing, these reprobates in Congress castigate the gun as if the inanimate object were the perpetrator of the violence, rather than the sentient being who happened to use the gun to harm innocent people. It is all a lie. A tale that Radical Left Congressional Legislators weave. These radical Leftists focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, notwithstanding that it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. By keeping public attention focused essentially on guns, rather than on the psychopathic or psychotic human agent who misuses guns, Congressional Democrats make clear their desire to enact laws targeting guns themselves and, by extension, targeting the vast majority of those who own and possess guns: the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner. The argument oft made by Democrats, either tacitly or expressly, is that gun violence is a function of the sheer number of guns that exists in the Nation and that since the vast number of guns are owned by law-abiding Americans, and not by the criminal or the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked, it is necessary to attack the volume of guns outstanding and that means attacking the millions of law-abiding citizens who own and possess them. But, one could more sensibly argue that, since the law-abiding gun owner does not commit the crimes that take place, it is illogical to conclude that the volume of guns outstanding is a legitimate factor in accounting for violence that ensues as a result of misuse of firearms as it is the relatively small population of criminals and psychotic lunatics who misuse firearms. So, it is those individuals who should be the focus of attention; not “the gun” nor the law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner. After all, guns are not sentient beings. Guns don’t commit violence in the absence of a human agent.Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. The President and Congressional Republicans must not for this. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. The President and Congressional Republicans must not lose sight of this fact for a moment.The real issue that Congress needs to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to  encourage Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda, as dictated to them by American Socialists and Communists. What they all want to do is continually weaken the Second Amendment, until the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essentially nugatory, amounting to the disarming the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to Congressional Republicans that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats that the nature of the issue to be addressed is how to best deal with the dangerous criminal element in society and how best to deal with the dangerous psychotic element in society. These are the issues to be addressed; and these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that the radical Left-wing Democrats seek to direct Congressional attention to, if only obliquely: disarming the law-abiding citizen, and oppressing the law-abiding citizen who seeks to exercise his natural right to keep and bear arms. If the President and Congressional Republicans allow Democrats to frame the issues and, thus, frame the debate, the result attained will do nothing to curb violence in society and will do everything to leave the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen defenseless, and, at once, invite tyranny. But, the most disturbing thing of all is that the President and Congressional Republicans will have had a hand in all of this, unaware that they have been manipulated and played for dupes all along.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE "GUN" NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE AND NOT AGAINST GUNS; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The real issue to be confronted is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence, in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances, i.e., the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once the President and Congressional Republicans mist focus their attention on the right issue, to avoid being led astray into the Leftist narrative. Otherwise they will be drawn into a morass, playing the Democrats’ game, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead the President and Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to encourage the President and Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical Left and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues to be addressed and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel them to address issues they wish for the Trump Administration and for Republicans to address. For the goal of Democrats is not the President’s goal or that of Republicans. The Democratic Party leadership and other Radical Left Democrats have only one goal in mind, even if they talk only obliquely about it: eventual total citizen disarmament.________________________________________

DEMOCRATS TREAT GUNS AS SENTIENT BEINGS AND THAT LIE INFORMS THEIR ACTIONS

PART EIGHT

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ~Jeff Cooper, U.S. Marine, firearms instructor, and author of, “The Art of the Rifle”Guns are not sentient beings. They are no more the perpetrator of violence than a knife, bomb, or motor vehicle is the perpetrator of violence. The issue that Democrats want the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans to deal with does not and never did have anything to do with guns, regardless of what those radical Left Democrats have said. They are setting a trap for President Trump and for Republicans if they even begin to think about negotiating with them over new restrictive gun laws. The salient goal of the Democrat Party leadership and of other Radical Left Democrats is to weaken the Second Amendment, not to preserve and strengthen it; and that salient goal has nothing to do with curbing gun violence, or curbing, for that matter, any violence. A Funny thing about that, though: one would think that all members of Congress would be doing their damnedest to preserve and strengthen the Bill of Rights—all ten of them. But, not all of them do. The Radical Left politicians seek to constrain and weaken the Bill of Rights. They seek to weaken the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. They seek to constrain and weaken the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. They seek to weaken the due process, equal protection, and just compensation clauses of the Fifth Amendment. And, they seek to disembowel the Second Amendment. And, when the Bill of Rights is gutted, our Free Republic will fall. But, placing that hard fact aside, we must ask: What really motivates Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats? Do they really seek to promote public safety and public order? Hardly! But, assuming for sake of argument that these Democrats do have public safety and public order in mind as the impetus propelling them to attack the Bill of Rights and, especially, to viciously attack the Second Amendment. At what cost are public safety and public order thereby secured? We know the answer to these question. There’s no reason to guess. The citizenry must forego exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, then, shall Americans truly forsake their fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable rights for purported public safety and public order that Democrats promise to give them in return for the sacrifice of those sacred, inviolate rights and liberties—sacred, inviolate rights and liberties that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution had fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for Americans, thereafter and ever after, and that good, decent, patriotic Americans have since fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for each and every American? If the citizenry does forsake its God-given rights, then the citizenry forsakes the very mechanism by which and through which it holds a capacious and rapacious Government in check. This isn’t bare and base conjecture. This is hard fact. And, this is principal reason why the Second Amendment must always be robustly defended.President Trump and Congressional Republicans must not fall into the Democrats’ snare. For, Democrats view the issue of violence solely from the standpoint of a need to take guns away from citizens as they abhor guns and they abhor civilian gun ownership. And that fact has become more in evidence in recent weeks and months. Democrats don’t even pretend any longer to preface their remarks, as they once did, with the phrase: “of course we respect the Second Amendment.” Obviously, they don’t; and they never did. And, they have since doffed the mask to convey the illusion that they did care in preserving the Second Amendment. The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans must not go down the path that Democrats are leading them. It’s a no-win situation for them if they do; it's a no-win situation for the Nation; it's a no-win situation for the people of our Nation; and it's a no-win situation for our Constitution.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST GET BACK ON TRACK IF THEY ARE TO REIN IN DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP AND OTHER RADICAL CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS

President Trump and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to the nonsense spouted by the Radical Left about the need for more restrictive, draconian gun laws: laws needlessly, mindlessly expanding background checks, and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to enacting unconstitutional national ‘red-flag’ laws, and laws that have, as their salient purpose, the removal of firearms—semiautomatic firearms, pejoratively and erroneously referred to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—that the anti-Second Amendment Left-wing extremists in Congress seek to confiscate from tens of millions of average, sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens. None of these restrictive gun proposals will work to protect innocent Americans. None of these proposals would ever work. And, here’s the kicker: none of these proposals was ever expected or truly intended to work! They are simply designed to whittle away the basic right, that is fundamental to the safeguarding of our Free, Constitutional Republic, and that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen. If President Trump and Congressional Republicans think that any one or more of these anti-Second Amendment gun measures would work to curb societal violence, and if they would even think of jumping on the bandwagon just to “play it safe,” politically, that would be one sure way to destroy their political futures. To play the game the radical Left Democrats want the President and Republicans to play means only that they have allowed yourselves to play into the hands of those forces in our Nation who seek nothing less than to destroy the very foundation of our Nation. They seek not to preserve the Nation, nor to preserve the life, safety, and well-being of Americans who reside in the Nation.

THE SUREST WAY TO DESTROY OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If someone wanted to destroy our Nation, the surest way to do so would be to undermine the Second Amendment. That, in fact, is what extremists in this Nation, seek to do; to reshape our Nation into something completely at odds with the vision of a free Republic that our founders sought to create and to preserve. Don’t Republicans see that? Can’t they see that? The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution saw the possibility that the foundation of our Nation could be threatened as much by dangerous, rabid forces within the Country, as well from threats arising outside the Country They knew this to be true. That is why they placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of our Nation’s Constitution, creating a citizen army. And, contrary to what some may Americans may believe, including some jurists, most prominently, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment, along with other rights, comprising our Bill of Rights, are fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights—rights that exist intrinsically in man, and, as such, they are rights that predate the creation of our Nation as a free Republic. The Second Amendment is as important today as it was at the time of the ratification of our Constitution. Indeed, the Second Amendment may be more important today. For, the Democrats, controlled now by the New Progressive Left and other radical Left elements within the Party seek to transform our society beyond anything the founders of our Nation could imagine or foresee, except, perhaps, in their worst nightmares. They would be absolutely appalled to envision our Nation moving in the direction the leading Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President seek to drive our Nation toward: a Marxist/Socialist nightmare, if any one of them were actually elected to that high Officee.____________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS  MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON GUN ISSUES, AND THAT MEANS STRENGTHENING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND DIRECTING ATTENTION ON THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE, NOT ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO SEEK MERELY TO EXERCISE THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART NINE

LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” ~ First Quotation, Vladimir Lenin, Russian Revolutionary, Head of Soviet Russia from 1917 through 1924“The goal of socialism is communism.” ~ Second Quotation, Vladimir LeninUnfortunately for us, Left-wing extremists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists have hijacked the Democrat Party. They did this so that they could use the Party—a well ensconced institution of Government—to their advantage; to work through their own agenda: an agenda antithetical to the best interests of our Nation as a free Republic and antithetical to preservation of our Constitution; antithetical to the best interests of the American citizenry; and antithetical to our rich cultural and historical heritage. They seek to subvert this Nation. They seek to transform our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship, and thence, to an out-and-out Communist State. But President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the Americans citizenry know this or ought to know this. Left-wing extremists are unapologetic in their aims. They are inveterate liars and ruthless to the core. Given these facts, why would the President and Congressional Republicans even consider negotiating with these reprobates at all, as these extremists seek, as the first item on their agenda to enact more restrictive gun laws that do nothing to protect the citizenry but leave the American citizenry defenseless—prey to the lowest common denominator in society, the criminal, psychopathic and sociopathic elements and to dangerous psychotic elements; and susceptible to an overreaching, overarching, overbearing Government that is capable of harassing, subjugating, and controlling the unarmed American citizenry?‘These Left-wing extremists seek to disarm the American citizenry, making the citizenry decidedly and decisively less safe. Criminals and dangerous lunatics would have open season on the innocent human beings in our Nation; and the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing elements in Government would have open season on the Constitution; ripping it from its moor; thrusting the Nation into chaos; enabling radical elements in our Nation to exploit the chaos to institute revolution—a revolution that is not designed to create a stronger Nation, nor to preserve the autonomy and individuality of each American citizen in it, but to twist and contort the fundamental underpinnings of our Nation into something abhorrent and horrific, something completely antithetical to what the framers of our Constitution, envisioned, proposed, and successfully implemented—a Dystopian vision of our future, completely at odds with the vision of that of the framers of our Constitution, the founders of a free Constitutional Republic..The American people tolerate much and can forgive much. But, Americans are very attuned to duplicity, mendacity, hypocrisy, and outright stupidity. Neither the President nor Congressional Republicans will save their jobs by failing to stand up for the Nation, for the American people, and for our Constitution against the Leftist extremists who seek to destroy it all.To behave like the New Progressive Left and other Left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party will, in the eyes of Americans, would only serve to make the President and Congressional Republicans, one of them. The President and Congressional Republicans will be be dead wrong if they think they can play both sides against the middle.___________________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART NINE

NINE POINTS  TO PONDERFirst, understand that the Radical Left Democrats focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, when it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. Don’t fall for it. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. Don’t lose sight of that fact for a moment. Second, so, then what is the real issue? The real issue you need to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead you astray. Don't let them, for they intend to encourage you to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to you that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. You should make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues that you wish to address, and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel you to address issues they wish for you to address, that they may attain their goal: eventual citizen disarmament.Third, so, then, make clear to all Congressional Democrats that you want to address societal violence. To do that, you must gain control of the narrative. Explain to the Democrat Party Leadership and to other Radical Left Democrats that if they truly wish to curb societal violence, then discussion and debate must be directed to the issue of societal violence and the perpetrators of that violence. The issue before you is not about guns or gun violence. The issue of societal violence never was about guns and gun violence. Redirect discussion in the direction it belongs: on the causes of societal violence and the measures to be taken against those that threaten innocent lives, regardless of the implements they use. You must create the narrative, and make Congressional Democrats follow your lead.Fourth if Democrats continue to scream for more gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, tell them that those laws that target misuse of firearms should be vigorously enforced. The Nation does not need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner, when the laws already enacted are not enforced against perpetrators of violence: the common criminal, the psychopathic gang member, and the dangerous lunatic.Fifth, if Democrats insist on enacting restrictive gun laws infringing the Second Amendment, then force these antigun elements in the Democrat Party to explain how further gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners will curb or curtail societal violence. These radical Left Democrats can’t, of course, offer a sound logical explanation because their goal is to disarm the civilian population. That was always their goal. A rash of “mass” shootings is, for these Democrats, simply a pretext to accomplish that end. But, they will never admit that. So, hit these Democrats with the truth. Tell them that their attack on firearms is and always was a fairy tale concocted by public relations firms at the direction of the extremist Left-wing elements who seek to wrest Government control from the hands of the citizenry, where power truly belongs, and that you will not assist them in delivering that power to those who seek to bring to fruition a new vision of our Country, a vision inconsistent with that of our founders. Tell these Democrats that you will not assist them in tearing down the U.S. Constitution. Sixth, tell these Democrats that you are well aware that their gun policies are not designed to safeguard of our Nation; tell them that enactment into law of the gun policies they seek won’t preserve our Nation, that the gun proposed gun policies they seek to enact into law would only endanger the very foundation of the Nation. Tell these Democrats that you are sick and tired of hearing the same “song” over and over again. Tell them that you have heard well enough from these anti-Second Amendment elements in the Democrat Party, in the seditious Press, and in the Nation at large, once again and ever again, as bring out of the attic the same old tired firearms proposals—and occasionally, as with “Red Flag” laws, concoct new ones—and that all of these proposals are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to weaken and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment in order to undercut the entire Constitution, the very foundation and framework of our free Republic, and a free, autonomous citizenry. Tell them you will not tolerate the constant unconstitutional and unconscionable battering of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Seventh, make plain to the reprobates in the Democratic Party that the best way to protect innocent lives is by enforcing those numerous laws against criminals and the criminally insane that we already have on the books, and make clear that Congress must aggressively enforce those laws before considering adding more restrictive gun laws into the mix. Ask those who seek to disarm the citizenry to explain why they think we need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, anyway. Make these reprobates produce sound evidence to support their position. Eighth, force Democrats to acknowledge that they are simply exploiting tragic incidents to bring their ultimate goal into fruition: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Force them to acknowledge that what it is they really seek, what it is they really want is not “gun control” but “citizen/population control” and what they truly seek to control is not the common criminal or the occasional lunatic, but the average, law-abiding citizen. Force these New Progressive Left and radical Left-wing Democrats to acknowledge that they see an armed citizenry as the real threat to the kind of Country they envision, and that the kind of Country they want to erect is abhorrent to the Nation the founders sought to give Americans and which they did give to Americans: a free Republic.Nine, tell Democrats that the gun policies they seek to enact into law, including, inter alia, unnecessary gun background checks and extended gun transfer waiting periods, bans on semiautomatic firearms, ‘red flag’ laws, and universal gun confiscation measures disguised as voluntary ‘gun buybacks,’ are inconsistent with the present framework of our Nation, and that, if Democrats are unhappy with that framework and seek to dismantle it in order to create another one to their liking, then you are not interested in talking with them; that the gun measures they seek to implement are beyond the pale, and that you are at an impasse.__________________________________________

IF GUN MEASURES ARE WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT, THEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD GIVE THEM ONE AND IT IS ONE REPUBLICANS HAVE PROMULGATED BEFORE

PART NINE

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of a noble spirit, the most corrupt congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. ~Reverend Nicholas Collin, writing under the pseudonym,” ‘Foreign Spectator,’ taken from an article he penned, appearing in a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette,  November 7, 1788“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Joseph Story, early Jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th Century; quotation from Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 1833“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” ~Alan Dershowitz, Contemporary American lawyer and academic; Professor Emeritus, Harvard University; and scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law; well-noted, self-ascribed Civil Libertarian; now apparently loathed by the Left-wing “power elite” for having the audacity to assail the ACLU, and for defending President Trump; often a guest on Fox News; but shunned by the mainstream networks, CNN, MSNBC, et.al.

A GUN MEASURE THAT WOULD WORK TO CURB SOCIETAL VIOLENCE

Democrats have recently proposed a flurry of restrictive gun laws targeting tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners. Those antigun measures are not carefully constructed to target the criminal and occasional lunatic. The American public knows this. Hopefully, the President and Congressional Republicans know this, too. Such draconian gun measures will not make our Nation safer, and are not designed to make our Nation safer. They are only designed to weaken the Second Amendment. But, if any federal legislation would tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Second Amendment, what would that legislation look like? There is such a gun law, and it is one that would enable the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner to carry a gun for self-defense wherever that person travels in this Nation and in the territories of our Nation. Such a gun law would deal effectively with societal violence. And such Congressional bills had been introduced to realize the goal of reducing societal violence.Perhaps Congressional Republicans need to be reminded that they had a bill once to deal effectively with societal violence. In fact they had several such bills, when they controlled both Houses of Congress when the 115th Congress was in session. These sets of bills involved National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity.* What happened to those bills? One that had actually passed the House, 115 H.R. 38, was allowed to die in Senate Committee. Well, it is high time to resurrect that bill. The best way to deal with Democrats’ concern over so-called “gun violence” is, after all, to enact a bill that deals effectively with all societal violence perpetrated by both the criminal psychopath and the dangerous psychotic lunatic. Looking at the issue of societal violence as “gun violence” in order to deny to the average American citizen the best means available to defend their life and safety, namely through that which a firearm provides, is a blind, nothing more; a media creation, hyped up by Democrats as if it were a real issue. It isn’t. And, media concocted phrases such as ‘assault weapon’ and ‘weapon of war’ are mere pejoratives and erroneous fictions at that. Such firearms are semiautomatic weapons specifically designed for civilian use, for legitimate purposes. Congressional Republicans should tell antigun Left-wing Democrats that Republicans will henceforth refrain from using glib terminology, a fiction, created merely to inflame the public, nothing more. Republicans should not encourage use of fictions that are created merely for their emotional impact and that enable Democrats to control the running narrative against guns and civilian gun ownership in order to promote an agenda designed to weaken the Second Amendment. What Should Congressional Republicans Do?Congressional Republicans should draft a new bill calling for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The answer to “gun” violence—an effective answer to any violence, really—is found in firearms in the hands of those who are best equipped to deal with that violence immediately when violence occurs or is threatened, before police officers can respond to it. This means that a firearm in the hands of the average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizen is the best response to a threat of imminent violence. Congress should also enforce laws against perpetrators of violence, and really enforce those laws; not pretend to enforce them. This is absolutely necessary before Congress gets swept up into the maelstrom of enacting any new restrictive “gun” laws that invariably target tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen gun owners.A national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bill will certainly get the attention of Leftist extremists self-righteously exclaiming that it is either “their way or the highway.” Republicans might tell the antigun Radical Leftists to take the highway and leave the Nation alone, in peace, for the tens of millions of Americans who believe our Nation is doing just fine as a free Constitutional Republic, with the Bill of Rights intact. Republicans should tell these radical Leftist Democrats that our Nation’s Constitution does not need more tweaking. It is time for Republicans to control the narrative on guns and on other major issues confronting our Nation, including illegal border crossings and at-will abortion.Republicans can present a reasoned and cogent argument for national handgun carry reciprocity as that law strengthens and preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Sure, the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing Democrats will scoff, or laugh, or walk off in a huff, but the fact remains that their attempts to create more and more restrictive gun laws only serves to make a mockery of our Bill of Rights.Did not President Trump make crystal clear in his State of the Union address that this Nation will never become a Socialist State? Did Republicans not notice that most Democrats did not applaud the President when Trump asserted the Nation will never become a Socialist State, but sat sullenly in silence at his remark?Republicans must remain true to the vision that the founders had for this Country, a vision that has allowed our Nation and its people to prosper for over two hundred years; a vision that has made our Nation the most powerful on Earth. Republicans might remind Left-wing Democrats and those who support them that this Nation has succeeded admirably and completely in defeating outside threats; and Republicans should tell these Left-wing Democrats that Americans will succeed in defeating threats emanating from within the Nation as well. President Trump and Congressional Republicans should explain to these reprobates on the other side of the aisle that, despite Left-wing Democrats’ intense distaste for the very existence of the fundamental, indelible, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and despite their singular intent and reprehensible desire to destroy the exercise of that primordial, natural right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, they will not succeed in their efforts to disarm the American citizenry—ever!__________________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this. See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article on House bill 115 H.R. 38 to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, a bill that passed the House but died in Senate Committee. Of Course, a federal law authorizing what already exists intrinsically in man, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, should not be necessary, as such law is at best redundant. But, there is another issue of more pressing concern with a federal mandate, or multi-State compact, permitting a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed throughout the Nation and throughout the Nation’s territories. There is the incipient danger in even countenancing that such Government action is necessary if the right exists implicitly in the American citizenry. For, asserting that Governmental action is necessary to secure the right, in effect, then, undermines, paradoxically, the very nature of the right secured—turning a fundamental right into something less than it is and what it was, as codified, meant to be—transforming it into a statutory right, which is, then, something less a fundamental right, something more akin to a privilege, which is what a Government-made right really is. For, if, truly, Government bestows a right, that can only mean that the right did not exist until Government created it. And, if Government creates a right that it bestows to this person or that person, then Government, as the creator of the right, may also, ipso facto, rescind one’s exercise of it or repeal it outright so that no one can exercise it. Thus, if Congress were to enact national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, there is a real danger in the public tacitly acknowledging that Government has created a right that had not hitherto existed before Congressional enabling legislation that created the right. This undermines the strength of the Second Amendment, essentially subordinating it to mere Statute; subjecting the Second Amendment to constant tinkering: modification, refinement, and loss of import and purport. But, we talk about the need for national handgun carry reciprocity anyway because of the many laws, through the decades that have whittled away at the efficacy of the Second Amendment; and we see this constant disturbing churning away of a God-given right, continuing through the recent flurry of restrictive gun proposals being actively bandied about now—another disheartening round of efforts to undercut the strength of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment._________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

PART ONE

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

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

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

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

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

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

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

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

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

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

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

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

CUOMO VERSUS NRA: NEW YORK GOVERNOR ATTACKS NRA AND SILENT MAJORITY IN BID FOR THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK.

“ ‘It is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages.  The importance to the state and to society of such discussions is so vast, and the advantages derived are so great, that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved, and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare, although at times such injury may be great.  The  public benefit from publicity is so great, and the chance of injury to private character so small, that such discussion must be privileged.’ ” New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 281; 84 S. Ct. 710, 727; 11 L. Ed. 2d  686, 707 (1964), citing, Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711, 724; 98 P. 281, 286 (Kan. 1908)(Opinion by Judge Burch, Kansas State Supreme Court).{Parenthetical Note to Our Readers: The Arbalest Quarrel took the original version of this article off the site yesterday in order to do an extensive rewrite. We apologize for any puzzlement this may have caused.}

IS CUOMO USING HIS CAMPAIGN FOR A THIRD TERM AS GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK TO LAUNCH A BID FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2020?

Andrew M. Cuomo, the 56^th Governor of New York and present sitting Governor, seeks a third term in Office. But is Cuomo contemplating a run for the U.S. Presidency in 2020, as the Democratic Party nominee? To the casual observer, it certainly appears so, even as he leaves the option open when asked.  That would certainly be in keeping with Cuomo's character, for Andrew Cuomo is an ambitious man. It is “Andrew M. Cuomo, 46^th President of the United States,” that Cuomo  may very well see in the mirror when he looks at himself. But, if this is indeed Cuomo's desire--this ultimate prize--the Silent Majority*  cannot allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must not allow this to happen. The Silent Majority must stop Cuomo in his tracks, and that means stopping Andrew Cuomo's election to a third term as Governor of New York.  But to stop Cuomo, the Silent Majority must first understand Cuomo.

WHO IS ANDREW CUOMO, REALLY?

Andrew Cuomo is a self-complacent, ruthlessly ambitious, smugly self-assured man. He is the last of “The Three Amigos,” all three of whom, under cover of darkness, spawned and machinated to secure enactment of the oppressive and reprehensible New York Safe Act—legislation that undercuts, and in its very conception is designed to undercut, the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The New York Safe Act also negatively impacts the personal property clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as language in the Act makes it impossible for one spouse to transfer his or her firearms to the other spouse as well as to other family members.But, what became of the two close allies of Cuomo—two of the “three Amigos” that we hear so little about today? One of the two Amigos, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York Assembly, resides in federal prison. The New York Post reports that a federal Court sentenced Silver to 7 years in prison, and  fined Silver $1.75 million dollars, having found Silver guilty of public corruption. In that article, the Post reports that the judge reduced an earlier sentence of 12 years imposed on Silver, apparently as an act of mercy, given Silver's advanced age.Ten days after Sheldon Silver, was sentenced, a U.S. District Court, as reported by the Daily News, sentenced Skelos, Speaker of the New York Assembly, to 5 years in prison, for bribery, extortion, and conspiracy, and ordered him to pay $500,000 in fines. Skelos presently remains free on bail, according to The New York Times, while the Court considers the former Speaker's conviction on the specific charge of graft.And what of the kingpin, himself, the third Amigo, Andrew M. Cuomo? The Governor of New York has since attempted to distance himself from his two former friends and allies. Cuomo seems to remain unscathed, while his underlings, Silver and Skelos, get hit with criminal indictments and convictions. But perceptions can be deceiving. Public corruption is systematic in, systemic of, and endemic to Cuomo’s Administration, and, in fact, to Andrew Cuomo, himself.

ANDREW CUOMO: A MAN OF THE PEOPLE? HARDLY!

Several years ago, when Cuomo first ran for Governor of New York, The New York Times wrote that Cuomo was a man of the people. But, fast forward several years to this present moment in time, it is clear that Cuomo is nothing of the sort. No doubt Cuomo would claim that, then, as now, he represents the best interests of New York residents, but, truthfully, Cuomo has done nothing to earn the trust, support and confidence of New York residents in the heartland of the State.In point of fact Cuomo is unaccountable to and dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of New York. By extension, Cuomo would be unaccountable to and would be dismissive of all concern for the Silent Majority of citizens of the entire Nation were he to win the Oval Office in 2020.Cuomo cannot wash the sins of public corruption away, much as he may try. Evidence of Cuomo's embrace of public corruption is legion. The New York Post's expose of Andrew Cuomo is telling. The New York Post writes, ". . . Gov. Cuomo’s political interference with his Moreland Commission panel’s investigation of public corruption pulled the veil from one of the biggest open secrets at the state Capitol: The governor is a liar and almost anything he promises will turn out to be false. Cuomo’s betrayal of major pledges is well known: the promise to cut taxes in a meaningful way, encourage job creation without government handouts, reduce local mandates, conduct public work transparently and have science — not politics — determine if fracking can be done safely.But it wasn’t until it Cuomo violated his No. 1 pledge to rid New York of the “culture of corruption’’ that has dominated Albany for decades that the full extent of his betrayal of the public became clear.People who have known Cuomo for years, including some who go back to the days he served as the thuggish chief enforcer of his father, then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, say they aren’t surprised Cuomo’s penchant for lying has finally exploded in full public view.Andrew Cuomo has surrounded himself with unsavory characters. His own disreputable character is longstanding and his ties to unsavory types deeply entrenched. A case in point: Joe Percoco, a former aide to Governor Cuomo who was sentenced for public corruption. The times union, pointing to charges brought against Percoco in a federal bribery and fraud case, in 2016—which, according to the NY Post, subsequently led to Percoco's conviction on several charges—said that:“Joe Percoco, ‘has long been a bruising political enforcer at times feared by those in the Capitol sphere.‘Trained as a lawyer, he had the guts, brains and stick-to-itiveness necessary to attack any project — hard,’ Gov. Andrew Cuomo called his longtime confidant and former aide in his 2014 memoir, ‘All Things Possible.’ Percoco [first] worked for Andrew Cuomo's father, Mario, during his time as governor, beginning political life at the age of 19, according to Cuomo's memoir. At Mario Cuomo's January 2015 funeral, Andrew Cuomo called Percoco ‘my father's third son, who sometimes I think he loved the most.” 

ANDREW CUOMO IS, DEFINED, FIRST AND FOREMOST, BY HIS OPPOSITION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND HE IS DEFINED, SECOND—WHETHER THROUGH PERSONAL CONVICTION OR SIMPLY THROUGH POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY—WITH THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT OF THIS COUNTRY, AS HE HAS, THROUGH BOTH HIS WORDS, AND ACTIONS, CAST THE FATE OF HIS POLITICAL FUTURE WITH THAT FAR LEFT-WING POLITICAL FACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Andrew Cuomo is known as the man who, more than anything else, detests the Second Amendment, and the NRA, and all those Americans, the silent majority who reside both in New York and in the heartland of this Nation. Nothing defines Cuomo more than his utter contempt for, and his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. His signature Legislation, the New York Safe Act, more than anything else, defines what he stands for and what his vision for America consists of. The NY Safe Act is a testament to his virulent, vitriolic, and absolute hatred of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.Residents of other States may scoff at Cuomo, perceiving him to be little more than a political con artist who, for political reasons, has consciously, calculatedly cast his lot with the most liberal elements of the Democratic Party, who also detest the Second Amendment and who have, of late, insinuated themselves inextricably into the web of the Democratic Party machinery. Centrists within the Democratic Party seem powerless to constrain these insurgent progressive left elements, or otherwise lack the will to do so, and have capitulated to their aims and wishes.The Democratic Party is the mechanism through which these insurgent progressive elements intend to destroy this Nation; and the centrist liberal elements within the Party, headed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, have shown, through their clearly abject weakness, a willingness to join these progressive forces by either echoing the sentiments of their sentiments and aims or otherwise standing by placidly, ineffectively, unable or unwilling to control them.  Make no mistake about this. The Progressive Left in this Nation seeks to undermine this Nation’s sovereignty, and to undercut this Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Ever since Donald Trump’s inauguration, as the 45th President of the United States, the Progressive Left in this Country have been systematically working toward their destructive goals—although more openly than they had wished; for, with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, much to their surprise and consternation, they have been forced to show their hand.To accomplish their reprehensible goal, those who would destroy our Nation and who would destroy our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values have launched an all-out war—a war against the very foundation of our free Republic and of a free People: a war against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is destruction of the Second Amendment that exists, first and foremost, in their crosshairs. It is the destruction of the Second Amendment they want. It is destruction of the Second Amendment they need.  And it is the destruction of the Second Amendment they intend to bring off, to effectuate their ultimate goal: subordination of the Country as an independent sovereign Nation State; subordination of the Nation's Constitution and the Nation's laws to international laws and international tribunals; and the erasing of our history, traditions, and values, and the subversion of the very concept of  'citizen,' paving the way for the infusion of tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens into the heart of our Country. To accomplish their despicable end game, Andrew Cuomo is their man.The destroyers of this Nation, no less so than the silent majority, know that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the very backbone of this Nation. Were the Second Amendment eliminated, the entirety of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, along with the autonomy and sanctity of the American citizen, and, too, the very structure of this Nation’s Government, as laid out in the Articles, as set forth in the Constitution, would topple like a house of cards. The socialists, communists, anarchists, and those that finance their operations in this Country are working tirelessly, unceasingly to see that this happens. The silent majority in this Country, for their part, must see to it that this doesn’t happen.

ANDREW CUOMO ATTACKS THE NRA

Lest there by any doubt, the National Rifle Association (NRA)—as the preeminent defender of the Nation’s singularly critical core, defining precept, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and as preeminent defender of the very bedrock of a free Republic—is the first civil rights organization. It was founded in 1871 ((incidentally, nine years before the founding of the National Association for the deaf (NAD), in 1880, and almost forty years before the founding of the NAACP, in 1909)). Left-wing progressives, becoming increasingly emboldened and radicalized, and with the backing of the mainstream media, have the audacity to call NRA a terrorist organization. Left-wing progressives seem oblivious to the fact that NRA is the first and certainly the most important civil rights organization in this Country. By calling NRA a terrorist organization, left-wing progressives are implicitly, ludicrously calling millions of NRA members, terrorists, too. And, by calling the NRA a terrorist organization, these left-wing progressives explicitly denigrate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, impugning Americans who choose to exercise their natural right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, and making a mockery of the Nation's Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a salient, critical part.The mainstream media does not so much as try to restrain the inane pronouncements of and the dangerous actions of these left-wing progressives elements in society but ignores—indeed, even repudiates—the sacred duty owed to all Americans, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, namely, to defend the rights and liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights—all ten of them—by seriously investigating and calling out the Un-American activities it observes through the words and actions of these left-wing progressive elements. The mainstream media unconscionably echoes the sentiments of this faction, thereby assisting in and hastening the breakdown of the institutions comprising our society; the destruction of our Constitution and its system of laws; the collapse of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation State; the extinction of our traditions, our history, our core values and our code of ethics; and the defilement of our citizenry.Of course, the silent majority of this Country can readily dismiss the vitriol and antics of these left-wing progressives who attack NRA, who attack supporters of NRA, and who seek de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. These left-wing progressives in our society have no credibility. For, the Silent Majority knows what they aim to do. They seek nothing less than to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and to subordinate our Constitution and laws to those of foreign bodies.It is one thing for individuals and for the Press to attack our Constitution, repugnant to the conscience as that is. It is quite another thing when politicians, themselves, denigrate the Second Amendment and attack NRA. For politicians—the representatives of the people—were elected to represent the citizenry. They have taken an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which includes the preservation, protection, and defense of the Second Amendment, as a critical, and, arguably, most critical component of the U.S. Constitution.When these politicians—these representatives of the people, themselves—voice opposition to the sanctity of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and to the premier Civil Rights Organization, NRA, that exists for the sole purpose of defending that right, then, they have betrayed their oath of Office; they have betrayed the Constitution they swore to protect, preserve, and defend; and they have betrayed the American people, the Nation's citizenry, they claim to represent. At that point, the American people, the silent majority of this Nation, can no longer remain silent; must no longer remain silent. The silent majority has the duty to call these disrupters out for the evil they do.

NRA FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST ANDREW CUOMO

On May 11, 2018 NRA filed a lawsuit against the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).** In the lawsuit, NRA sets forth: “This case is necessitated by an overt viewpoint-based discrimination campaign against the NRA and the millions of law-abiding gun owners that it represents. Directed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this campaign involves selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats with a singular goal – to deprive the NRA and its constituents of their First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and defend the Second Amendment. The foundation of Defendants’ selective-enforcement and retaliation campaign is a series of threats to financial institutions that DFS, an agency created to ensure the integrity of financial markets after the 2008 credit crisis, will exercise its extensive regulatory power against entities that fail to sever ties with the NRA.”Last month, NRA filed its Amended Complaint. Cuomo immediately fired back with a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that NRA’s lawsuit is “frivolous.” But, the appellation, ‘frivolous,’ is more aptly applied to Cuomo’s lack of regard for and respect for the Second Amendment. For, in his outrageous attack on NRA, incongruously using the mechanism of a boycott—a singularly bizarre and illegal maneuver by a Governmental entity to utilize—Andrew Cuomo has made clear that, as Governor, he intends to destroy the efficacy of the Second Amendment in New York. This should give all Americans pause. For, as President of the United States, Andrew Cuomo would do much, much more damage to the Second Amendment. He would work toward excising the Second Amendment from the Constitution of the United States, altogether. 

ANDREW CUOMO MUST BE STOPPED!

Cuomo’s malevolent ill will toward NRA is clear. Indeed, he has had the affront to call NRA--as the first and premier Civil Rights organization, defender of a sacred component of our Bill of Rights--an “extremist organization.” And, in a mocking tone,  as reported by the Daily News, denigrating NRA, and by implication, mocking the organization's members, millions of Americans, the silent majority of our Country, and mocking our Nation's sacred  Bill of Rights, Cuomo retorts: “If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”In making these insulting statements, Andrew Cuomo can no longer be considered a respectable leader of New York, much less of this Nation, in the event he decides to make a run for the Office of U.S. President in 2020. Cuomo has shown an utter lack of restraint and demonstrates a marked deficiency in character. He does not identify with and, obviously, he has no desire to identify with the vast number of Americans, the silent majority, both in New York and in the Nation as a whole, that reveres the great document, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution that our founders lovingly gave us and spilt their blood for, on our behalf. Cuomo identifies himself with a small, albeit vociferous, faction of society, left-wing progressives, who do not represent the vast majority of the American citizenry, who do not represent, we the silent majority. Cuomo has through both his words and deeds made himself into an outlier, even an outcast, who, has cast his lot with a small virulently Anti-American segment of the population, left-wing progressives. Cuomo is not the defender of our Nation's liberty and security that he pretends to be. He is, as with the left-wing progressives he identifies most closely with, a disruptor and destroyer of our Nation's traditions, values and history. He is openly contemptuous of the salient right of the people of this Nation to keep and bear arms as etched in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights, and therefore disdainful of all those--the silent majority of this Nation--that support NRA and that support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.Cuomo says he merely seeks to make New York and the rest of the Nation "safe" and will work with other States to make his vision of America a reality as he cannot get Congress on board with is plan for America. Yet Cuomo's vision for New York and for the rest of the Nation serves not to defend the American people but seeks to undermine our Nation and to dismantle our Constitution. Cuomo resides well beyond the pale of decency and respectability and properly merits the condemnation of the American people.

IN CONCLUSION

Andrew Cuomo has given up all pretense of representing the interests of the people of New York, and he has made abundantly clear, both through his statements and actions, that he has no desire or inclination, whatsoever, of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States. He should not serve a third term as Governor of New York. That would do a disservice to the citizens who reside in New York. And, Cuomo definitely should not serve as President of the United States, if he harbors any secret inclination to do so. For, were he to do so, that would inevitably prove fatal to the Nation’s Bill of Rights; fatal to the continued existence of a free Republic; and fatal to the continued existence of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State, neither subordinate to or subservient to nor beholding to any other nation, federation of nations, or transnational authority._____________________*The expression, ‘silent majority,’—referring to the vast majority of American citizens throughout the Country whose voice is drowned out by the cacophony of noise incessantly, unceasingly, and obnoxiously generated by the mainstream media and by a vocal minority of extremists around the Country and in the halls of Congress whom the mainstream media represents and with whom the mainstream media is closely identified—is, perhaps, most closely associated with and most likely popularized by President Richard Nixon, after a speech he gave to the Nation in 1969. But, significantly, it was President John F. Kennedy, not Nixon, who earlier coined the expression. The expression appears in President Kennedy’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Profiles in Courage,”where he wrote: “Some of them may have been representing the actual sentiments of the silent majority of their constituents in opposition to the screams of a vocal minority. . . .”  **See August 3, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in the Daily News, and the August 5, 2018 update to the NRA's lawsuit, as reported in The New York Times. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: FURTHER EROSION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EMPIRE STATE, AS ENVISIONED BY GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO

While Congressional and State Democrats and Centrist Republicans fret over and complain about President Donald Trump’s lawful immigration enforcement actions, directed at tens of thousands of aliens attempting illegal entry across our Nation's Southern Border, these same members of Congress and legislators in State Government are no less busy, albeit at the moment ever so quietly, at work machinating to deprive American citizens’ of their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is singularly odd that Congressional and State legislators and various State and Government officials and media commentators of a liberal bent bemoan what they describe, with a rhetorical flourish, as Border Patrol agents “stripping (or ripping) children from the arms of migrant Moms and Dads” who, for all that, when one stops to consider, have dared enter our Nation illegally. And, it is equally odd that these same legislators and federal Government officials and leftist media commentators wrongly and unabashedly slur federal ICE agents for simply doing their job, for the benefit of the citizens of this Country, and at considerable risk to their own lives, arresting illegal aliens who—showing contempt for our laws, having  illicitly entered our Country and having embedded themselves in our Nation, and who having further compounded their criminal actions by failing to report to the Courts for their deportation hearing—dare argue that these criminals have a moral and legal right to remain lawfully in our Country. And, third, these leftist legislators, leftist Government officials and leftist mainstream media types attempt, outrageously, to inflame public passion over HHS handling of illegal alien children and adults. But, these illegal aliens have dared to skirt our immigration and naturalization laws by entering our Country illegally. These leftist legislators and leftist Government officials and leftist news reporters and commentators ludicrously liken HHS detention of illegal aliens to concentration camp internment, yet, at once fail to acknowledge one inescapable, indisputable fact: American Government officials have not rounded up illegal aliens, spiriting them out of their native Countries, forcing them into detention in the United States.  No! These aliens came illegally to our Country through their own volition. They are, then, by any reasonable consideration, hardly in a position to contest their less than five star hotel treatment.Yet, despite, arguing for the existence of rights and liberties these illegal aliens simply do not have, and never have had--rights and liberties they would nonetheless lavishly bestow on illegal aliens--these sanctimonious leftist Congressional and State legislators, and leftist federal Government officials, and leftist media types, surprisingly, do not demonstrate equal concern for protecting the unalienable and fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms. We see just the opposite to be the case. These leftist Congressional and State legislators work strenuously, tirelessly to strip or rip away a sacred right of the American people, codified clearly and succinctly in the U.S. Constitution. And, our free Press, constantly heralding the right to spout dangerous nonsense—a right, just the same, protected under the First Amendment, constantly, consistently echo the work of these leftist Congressional and State legislators, proclaiming, and arguing for, the imposition of ever more restraints on the citizen’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, some among the media's commentators, like the New York Times' Op-Ed Columnist, Bret Stephens, even argue, outrageously and insidiously, for outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—even though it is only through the preservation of and through the continued force and efficacy of the fundamental, sacred, and natural right codified in the Second Amendment that the ultimate, failsafe check by the People, on a runaway autocratic Government, exists to impose accountability on a Government that might run amok.

LEFTISTS PERCEIVE THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, ACCRUING TO ALIEN PEOPLES, THAT SIMPLY DO NOT EXIST AND, AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, DARE TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF THE MOST SALIENT FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT CLEARLY, AND LITERALLY DOES EXIST, AS MANIFESTLY CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NATION’S CONSTITUTION.

In point of fact no non-citizen can assert, as a matter of right, a bald claim to reside in our Nation. Still, many individuals in Government, in the mainstream media, in entertainment, in liberal and socialist groups, along with “elitist” internationalists, assert that virtually anyone who seeks to reside in our Nation has the right to do so even when no such right exists either in our Constitution or in our Nation’s Statutes. At one and the same time these same leftists exclaim vociferously, incessantly, and inconsistently that parts of our Nation’s Constitution ought to be and can be patently ignored, even where the rights are etched firmly in stone.A collectivist mentality infects the airwaves. Collectivists have carefully orchestrated a campaign of propaganda, a campaign designed to divest a Nation’s people of their cultural heritage and history, of their sense of uniqueness and pride. These destroyers of the Nation State utilize a flexible sense of morality, predicated on utilitarian axioms that proceed from the notion that what is in the best interests of the world’s multitude, overrides what is in the best interests of the citizens of a Nation; and that what is deemed to be right, and fitting, and good, and fair, and just, in accordance with collectivist ideology, overrides the laws of a Nation; overrides a Nation’s Constitution; overrides the very needs, rights, personal safety, and sanctity of the individual citizen of a Nation.Collectivists do not like the fact that our Nation is an independent sovereign Nation State and that our Nation, as an independent sovereign Nation, operates through a set of concrete laws, and through a Constitution that exists as the supreme Law of the Land. The U.S. Constitution and the laws that Congress enacts are not subject to acceptance or rejection on a whim, predicated, ostensibly, on a collectivist notion of what constitutes correct action and what constitutes eggregious action. To deny the truth of this statement is to accept in its stead, a state of lawlessness, of anarchy. It is this lawlessness, this anarchy, that the destroyers of our Nation seek, even as they disingenuously and insidiously claim to defend our Constitution and the laws of the Nation. Consider, for example, the confounding, bizarre Collectivist message that proclaims a desire to destroy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And through the softening of our Nation’s laws and of our Nation’s Constitution, we, ourselves, become weakened, malleable. In the end, a new international world order, overseeing the conduct of all Nation States, would predominate, and our own free Republic would, in fact, not merely in name, cease to exist.Contrary to those dissemblers of our Nation, our Constitution is not to be toyed with. Our Country ceases to exist but for our Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made patently clear in the seminal immigration law case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270; 110 S. Ct. 1056, 1063; 108 L. Ed. 2d 222, 236; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 1175, that: “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution” “[and that] for better or worse, we live a world of nation-states in which our Government must be able to ‘function effectively in the company of [other] sovereign nations.’” 494 U.S. at 275; 110 S. Ct. at 1066; 108 L. Ed. 2d at 239. President Donald Trump understands this limitation and accepts this limitation and operates within the confines of our laws and our Constitution. And, by the same token, President Trump understands his duty, as Chief Executive of our Nation as an independent, Sovereign Nation-State, to maintain the integrity of our Nation’s Borders.Unfortunately there are all too many members of Congress and in the State Legislatures who allow raw emotion to cloud their judgment. They remonstrate against the President even as he operates within the stricture of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”Emotion must never override nor cloud reason. Collectivist notions of morality are not and never have been a justifiable reason for ignoring the authority of and stricture of Constitutional precepts. Yet, Democrats and Centrist Republicans—through the echo chamber of the mainstream media—daily denigrate our Constitution and our Statutes even as they assert, disingenuously, to operate within the confines of the rule of law.Both in the matter of immigration and naturalization matters and in the matter of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, we, Americans, are constantly beset with a fusillade of false and misleading pronouncements aimed at confusing us as to the meaning of and purport of our Statutes and of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution.Even before the two mass shooting incidents—one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, and the second at Santa Fe High School, in Santa Fe, Texas—State legislators contrived new ways to deprive citizens of owning any firearm, thereby directly impinging on and infringing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. States started looking at further ways to impede the citizen’s exercise of his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms.In New York, for example, in March 2017, Democrat, Brian Kavanagh, introduced A.B. 6994, in the State Assembly. The bill is described as: “AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, the criminal procedure law and the penal law, in relation to establishing extreme risk protection orders as court-issued orders of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.” AB 6994 has already passed the Assembly—the First Chamber of the New York State Government, in Albany New York—and it now sits in the Second Chamber, the New York State Senate. AB 6994 appears, fortunately, at least at this moment in time, to have a low chance of passage, but such passage should not be ruled out, especially in light of the two fairly recent high school mass shooting incidents.Those Americans who support our Second Amendment should bear in mind that New York’s AB 6994—along with similar predecessor bills that were introduced in the New York Assembly or State Senate, and that failed—is an altogether new restriction on gun owners. If enacted, this bill amounts not merely to a change in existing restrictive New York gun laws, but to the creation of a wholly new restriction in conjunction with New York’s present, extensive, oppressive set of restrictive gun laws.If enacted into law, AB 6994 says that “the civil practice law and rules are amended by adding a new article 63-A.”What does the bill say? The bill sets forth both the rationale and requirements, in addition those presently existent in New York, for removing firearms from a New York resident’s possession, along with a detailed list of mechanisms for such removal.

EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS: A NEW AND OUTRAGEOUS TWIST ON AN OLD LEGAL DEVICE--ORDERS OF PROTECTION AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

We first set forth the bill in its entirety, and then explicate the salient portions of the bill.AB 6994 [AMENDING ARTICLE 63-A OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK]:[NOTE: UPPER CASE LETTERS APPEAR IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE BILL; NUMBERING HAS BEEN REMOVED GIVEN EDITING DIFFICULTIES]EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERSDEFINITIONS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE:‘EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER’ MEANS A COURT-ISSUED ORDER OF PROTECTION PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM PURCHASING, POSSESSING OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.‘PETITIONER’ MEANS: (A) A POLICE OFFICER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH JURISDICTION IN THE COUNTY OR CITY WHERE THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT RESIDES; OR (B) A FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, AS DEFINED IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE-A OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, OF THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT.‘RESPONDENT’ MEANS THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS OR MAY BE SOUGHT UNDER THIS ARTICLE.APPLICATION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, A PETITIONER MAY FILE A SWORN APPLICATION, AND ACCOMPANYING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT RESIDES. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. SUCH APPLICATION FORM SHALL INCLUDE INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER THE PETITIONER KNOWS, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE RESPONDENT OWNS, POSSESSES OR HAS ACCESS TO A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN AND IF SO, A REQUEST THAT THE PETITIONER LIST OR DESCRIBE SUCH FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS, AND THE RESPECTIVE LOCATIONS THEREOF, WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE.A STATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT: DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT PURCHASE, POSSESS OR ATTEMPT TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHILE THE ORDER IS IN EFFECT AND THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN POSSESSED BY SUCH RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROMPTLY SURRENDERED TO ANY AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL;INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THAT THE COURT WILL HOLD A HEARING NO SOONER THAN THREE NOR MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER, TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WILL BE ISSUED AND THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF SUCH HEARING, PROVIDED THAT THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX DAYS UPON REQUEST IN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING; AND (III) INFORMING THE RESPONDENT THE HE OR SHE MAY SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY AND THAT AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED PROMPTLY; ANDA FORM TO BE COMPLETED AND EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT AT THE TIME OF SERVICE OF THE TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHICH ELICITS A LIST OF ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE PARTICULAR LOCATION OF EACH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LISTED.IF THE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS NOT GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE PETITIONER AND, UNLESS THE APPLICATION IS VOLUNTARILY WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER, NONETHELESS SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. SUCH HEARING SHALL BE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD PROMPTLY, BUT IN ANY EVENT NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. A NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE COURT AND SHALL INCLUDE THE DATE AND TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ADDRESS OF THE COURT, AND THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS OR AGENCIES. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF ANY SUCH PROTECTION ORDER, ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.UPON ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, OR UPON SETTING A HEARING FOR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER WHERE A TEMPORARY ORDER IS DENIED OR NOT REQUESTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION AND REPORT TO THE COURT AND, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE REDACTIONS TO PROTECT ANY PERSON, EACH PARTY REGARDING WHETHER THE RESPONDENT:HAS ANY PRIOR CRIMINAL CONVICTION FOR AN OFFENSE INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, USE OF A WEAPON, OR OTHER VIOLENCE;HAS ANY CRIMINAL CHARGE OR VIOLATION CURRENTLY PENDING AGAINST HIM OR HER;IS CURRENTLY ON PAROLE OR PROBATION;POSSESSES ANY REGISTERED FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS; ANDHAS BEEN, OR IS, SUBJECT TO ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION OR HAS VIOLATED OR ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED ANY ORDER OF PROTECTION.ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, NO SOONER THAN THREE BUSINESS DAYS NOR LATER THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, ALTERNATIVELY, NO LATER THAN TEN BUSINESS DAYS AFTER SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THIS ARTICLE WHERE NO TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO ISSUE A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND, WHEN APPLICABLE, WHETHER A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED BY, OR REMOVED FROM, THE RESPONDENT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO MORE THAN SIX BUSINESS DAYS IF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THE RESPONDENT REQUESTS A REASONABLE PERIOD OF ADDITIONAL TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING. WHERE NO TEMPORARY ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE RESPONDENT MAY REQUEST, AND THE COURT MAY GRANT, ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THE TEN DAYS TO ALLOW THE RESPONDENT TO PREPARE FOR THE HEARING.AT THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE PETITIONER SHALL HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW. THE COURT MAY CONSIDER THE PETITION AND ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, ANY TESTIMONY PRESENTED, AND THE REPORT OF THE RELEVANT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION NINE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE. THE COURT SHALL ALSO CONSIDER THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION TWO OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.AFTER THE HEARING PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND SETTING FORTH THE REASONS FOR SUCH DETERMINATION. IF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS GRANTED, THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH ORDER IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.UPON ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER: (I) ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN REMOVED PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR SUCH EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE RETAINED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE DURATION OF THE ORDER, UNLESS OWNERSHIP OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; (II) THE SUPREME COURT SHALL TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ANY EXISTING FIREARM LICENSE POSSESSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ORDER THE RESPONDENT TEMPORARILY INELIGIBLE FOR SUCH A LICENSE; (III) THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING OR POSSESSING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN; AND (IV) THE COURT SHALL DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO SURRENDER ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IN HIS OR HER POSSESSION.AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION SHALL EXTEND, AS SPECIFIED BY THE COURT, FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF SUCH ORDER WAS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THEN THE DURATION OF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER SHALL CONSTITUTE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION FOR A POLICE OFFICER TO REMOVE ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION. AS PART OF THE ORDER, THE COURT MAY ALSO DIRECT A POLICE OFFICER TO SEARCH FOR FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN A RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES OF ARTICLE SIX HUNDRED NINETY OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW.THE COURT SHALL NOTIFY THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH JURISDICTION, ALL APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND PROVIDE A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER. THE COURT ALSO SHALL PROMPTLY NOTIFY SUCH PERSONS AND AGENCIES AND PROVIDE A COPY OF ANY ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO OWN OR POSSESS FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS NO LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER ISSUING THE ORDER TO RESTORE SUCH RIGHT TO THE RESPONDENT. ANY NOTICE OR REPORT SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, IN A MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.UPON RECEIVING NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH ORDER TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO ALLOW THE BUREAU TO IDENTIFY PERSONS PROHIBITED FROM PURCHASING FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS. THE DIVISION SHALL ALSO IMMEDIATELY REPORT TO THE BUREAU THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER AND ANY COURT ORDER AMENDING OR REVOKING SUCH PROTECTION ORDER OR RESTORING THE RESPONDENT'S ABILITY TO PURCHASE A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN HAS BEEN SURRENDERED BY OR REMOVED FROM THE RESPONDENT, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUBSEQUENTLY FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF PROOF, THE COURT'S FINDING SHALL INCLUDE A WRITTEN ORDER, ISSUED TO ALL PARTIES, DIRECTING THAT ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO SUCH TEMPORARY ORDER SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE RESPONDENT.IF ANY OTHER PERSON DEMONSTRATES THAT HE OR SHE IS THE LAWFUL OWNER OF ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SURRENDERED OR REMOVED PURSUANT TO A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AND PROVIDED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE PERSON'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED OR REMOVED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT MAY, AFTER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, DIRECT THAT SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BE RETURNED TO SUCH LAWFUL OWNER.THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE NOTIFIED ON THE RECORD AND IN WRITING BY THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE MAY SUBMIT ONE WRITTEN REQUEST, AT ANY TIME DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, FOR A HEARING SETTING ASIDE ANY PORTION OF SUCH ORDER. THE REQUEST SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AND MANNER AS PRESCRIBED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS. UPON SUCH REQUEST, THE COURT SHALL PROMPTLY HOLD A HEARING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN TO PROVE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ANY CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY JUSTIFY A CHANGE TO THE ORDER.SURRENDER AND REMOVAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS PURSUANT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. WHEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TAKES ANY FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN PURSUANT TO A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR A FINAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, THE OFFICER SHALL GIVE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOM SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IS TAKEN A RECEIPT OR VOUCHER FOR THE PROPERTY TAKEN, DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY IN DETAIL. IN THE ABSENCE OF A PERSON, THE OFFICER SHALL LEAVE THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER IN THE PLACE WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS FOUND, MAIL A COPY OF THE RECEIPT OR VOUCHER, RETAINING PROOF OF MAILING, TO THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND, IF DIFFERENT, THE OWNER OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND FILE A COPY OF SUCH RECEIPT OR VOUCHER WITH THE COURT. ALL FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS IN THE POSSESSION OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN SHALL BE RETAINED AND NOT DISPOSED OF BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS UNLESS LEGALLY TRANSFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PERMITTED BY LAW TO OWN AND POSSESS SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN.IF THE LOCATION TO BE SEARCHED DURING THE EXECUTION OF A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER OR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS JOINTLY OCCUPIED BY TWO OR MORE PARTIES, AND A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN LOCATED DURING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH ORDER IS OWNED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE RESPONDENT, THE COURT MAY ALLOW RETURN OF SUCH FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN IF IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WILL BE SAFELY STORED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 265.45 OF THE PENAL LAW, SO THAT THE RESPONDENT WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR CONTROL OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN BY THE OWNER.REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. IF A PETITIONER BELIEVES A PERSON SUBJECT TO AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER CONTINUES TO BE LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS HARM TO HIMSELF, HERSELF, OR OTHERS, AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OR TWO OF SUBDIVISION (A) OF SECTION 9.39 OF THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW, SUCH PETITIONER MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIXTY DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF SUCH EXISTING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER, INITIATE A REQUEST FOR A RENEWAL OF SUCH ORDER, SETTING FORTH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSITATING THE REQUEST. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS SHALL ADOPT FORMS THAT MAY BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF SUCH APPLICATIONS AND THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION OF SUCH APPLICATIONS. THE COURT MAY ISSUE A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTYTHREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE, DURING THE PERIOD THAT A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER IS UNDER CONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.A HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTYTHREE OF THIS ARTICLE, TO DETERMINE IF A REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF THE ORDER SHALL BE GRANTED. THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE SERVED WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL A REASONABLE TIME BEFORE THE HEARING, AND SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THE COURT SHALL DIRECT SERVICE OF SUCH APPLICATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING PAPERS IN THE MANNER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTECTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER SET FORTH IN SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO OF THIS ARTICLE.EXPIRATION OF AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER. 1. A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND ALL RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, SHALL BE SEALED UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH ORDER AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHEREIN SUCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES, THE HEADS OF ALL APPROPRIATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, APPLICABLE LICENSING OFFICERS, AND ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THAT THE ORDER HAS EXPIRED AND THAT THE RECORD OF SUCH PROTECTION ORDER SHALL BE SEALED AND NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY, EXCEPT THAT SUCH RECORDS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO:(A)    THE RESPONDENT OR THE RESPONDENT'S DESIGNATED AGENT;(B)     COURTS IN THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;(C)     POLICE FORCES AND DEPARTMENTS HAVING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE GENERAL CRIMINAL LAWS OF THE STATE;(D)    ANY STATE OR LOCAL OFFICER OR AGENCY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO POSSESS A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, WHEN THE RESPONDENT HAS MADE APPLICATION FOR SUCH A LICENSE; AND(E)      ANY PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYER OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN SUBDIVISIONS THIRTY-THREE AND THIRTY-FOUR OF SECTION 1.20 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, IN RELATION TO AN APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT AS A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT EVERY PERSON WHO IS AN APPLICANT FOR THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH A COPY OF ALL RECORDS OBTAINED UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH AND AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION THERETO.UPON EXPIRATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE AND UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF SUCH ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE PETITIONER AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARM LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION ONE OF SECTION SIXTY-THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR OF THIS ARTICLE. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.EFFECT OF FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY CLAIM BASED ON COMMON LAW OR A PROVISION OF ANY OTHER LAW, NO FINDING OR DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE INTERPRETED AS BINDING, OR HAVING COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR SIMILAR EFFECT, IN ANY OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING, OR WITH RESPECT TO ANY OTHER DETERMINATION OR FINDING, IN ANY COURT, FORUM OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.PARAGRAPH (B) OF SUBDIVISION 5 OF SECTION 530.14 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, AS ADDED BY CHAPTER 644 OF THE LAWS OF 1996, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:THE PROMPT SURRENDER OF ONE OR MORE FIREARMS PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY SURRENDER FOR PURPOSES OF SUBPARAGRAPH (F) OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF SUBDIVISION A OF SECTION 265.20 OF THE PENAL LAW. THE DISPOSITION OF ANY SUCH FIREARMS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW  ; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT UPON TERMINATION OF ANY SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR SECTION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY-TWO-A OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, UPON WRITTEN APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER, WITH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE PROTECTED PARTY, AND EVERY LICENSING OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS LICENSE TO THE SUBJECT OF THE ORDER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, AND UPON A WRITTEN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THE SUBJECT'S POSSESSION OF A SURRENDERED FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN, ANY COURT OF RECORD EXERCISING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION MAY ORDER THE RETURN OF A FIREARM, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN NOT OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 400.05 OF THE PENAL LAW. WHEN ISSUING SUCH ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FIREARM SUBJECT TO A LICENSE REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE FOUR HUNDRED OF THE PENAL LAW, IF THE LICENSING OFFICER INFORMS THE COURT THAT HE OR SHE WILL SEEK TO REVOKE THE LICENSE, THE ORDER SHALL BE STAYED BY THE COURT UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF ANY LICENSE REVOCATION PROCEEDING.________________________________________________________ 

1. AN EXPLICATION OF AB 6994

A couple of observations are in order. First, this bill is not to be considered an adjunct of the Federal “Family Protection and Domestic Violence Intervention Act of 1994” even though a family member, pursuant to both AB 6994 and the Federal Act, may petition the Court for protection against another family member. Under both AB 6994, in the event it becomes law in New York, and, under the federal domestic violence statute, an individual, against whom a Court order is issued, will lose possession of firearms. That much is the same and is clear.In New York, revocation or suspension of firearms licenses, and concomitantly, loss of one’s firearms follows upon issuance of an order of protection. See, NY CLS CPL § 530.14. Second, the merits of statutes aimed at protecting individuals against violence notwithstanding, Americans are in danger of turning against each other as we become a Nation of undercover “shooflies,” constantly reporting on each other, turning family member against family member and turning the police against everyone.In their zeal to protect society from the misuse of firearms, antigun proponents attempt to negate the import of the Second Amendment altogether, leaving ever more people altogether defenseless against criminal assailants. No matter, as antigun groups would rather the Second Amendment did not exist at all. But, the codification of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, and the constant whittling away of that right under the mask of promoting public safety is not lost on those of us who place the Nation’s well-being on the strength of the citizenry’s Bill of Rights.In reviewing AB 6994, there is a presumption in the bill that sufficient due process requirements are met. But are they? Police officers and district attorneys and family members may both file a petition for a “temporary extreme protection order.” Once filed, that petition takes effect immediately, namely, prior to an evidentiary hearing. The individual against whom the petition is issued immediately loses his or her firearms, as the police are authorized to secure those weapons at once. The respondent is informed of a hearing date to present his case, and the petitioner has the burden of showing that the threat posed by the respondent warrants issuance of a permanent extreme protection order.  Disconcertingly, even before a hearing is held, the Court will notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the issuance of a temporary extreme protection order. That hardly accords with protecting the civil rights of an individual before he has had a chance to proffer evidence in his or her own defense that may warrant revocation of the temporary extreme protection order.As bad as this bill is, for Governor Cuomo, AB 6994, as written, doesn’t go far enough. He would include in the role of petitioners entitled to file for “temporary extreme protection orders,” classroom teachers, along with police officers, district attorneys, and family members. On June 5, 2018, wskg.org, in Albany New York, reported that:“Gov. Andrew Cuomo has proposed an expansion to his Extreme Risk Protection Order bill that would give teachers the power to go to court to prevent a student’s access to guns.Cuomo said the measure gives that power to teachers and school administrators who believe a student might use guns to be a danger to themselves or others.“If a teacher believes there is a troubled student who might be dangerous, that teacher has the legal authority to go to a judge directly,” Cuomo said.A judge could then determine whether the student needs a mental health exam, and whether the student’s or their family’s guns should be taken away.”The session is scheduled to end in a couple of weeks, and Cuomo concedes that he does not expect the measure to pass in the state Senate, which is gridlocked with 31 seats each in the Democratic and Republican factions.But Cuomo said he believes people in the state overwhelmingly support the measure and predicted that it will become an election issue in the fall.”It need hardly be said that teachers are not trained psychologists; nor are they police officers who deal with criminals on a daily basis; nor are they district attorneys, trained in the law; nor are they family members who have an intimate familial relationship with each other; and yet Governor Cuomo would bestow immense authority onto teachers to petition Courts directly against their students with whom they spend little time with. Of course, if teachers truly believe that a student poses a danger to self or others, the teacher may inform and should inform school officials. But, it is one thing for teachers to exercise authority to inform school officials of a possible danger posed by a particular student. It is quite another to grant to a teacher, on his or her own behalf, the power to file a petition with a court to secure a temporary extreme risk protection order. Imagine how this would play out, were a teacher permitted under law to secure such a protection order. Once such an extreme risk protection order issues, police officers would be empowered to go to the student’s home, and with court order in hand, the police would have the authority to secure the firearms belonging to the student’s parents, under the presumption that the student would otherwise be able to gain access to his or her parents’ firearms. The parent’s own firearm’s license would thereupon be suspended. If this scenario seems unlikely, keep in mind that Governor Cuomo hasn’t suggested any checks against such an occurrence. Bear in mind that in the few States that have enacted extreme risk protection laws, none have gone so far as to permit teachers to file such a petition. But, then, few individuals in any State have as far-reaching political ambitions as does Governor Andrew Cuomo, in preempting the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We will have to wait and see how AB 6994 plays out in the months ahead and whether Governor Cuomo’s desire to expand AB 6994 results in further amendment prior to further action in Albany. But, we know full well Cuomo's antithesis toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo has frustrated the right of citizens of the State to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That is bad enough; yet his power is constrained, limited to New York. But, Cuomo's ambitions extend well beyond that of Governor of a State. Cuomo has aspirations to become President of the United States in 2020. Were that to happen, the war he would wage against the Second Amendment would be far worse for Americans--the likes of which Americans have not yet seen--having a ripple effect throughout the Country._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN GROUPS PROMOTE GUN CONTROL, NOT SCHOOL SAFETY

PART THREE

THE INCESSANT ATTACK ON GUNS AND GUN OWNERSHIP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AND WILL DO NOTHING TO MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFE.

With the latest shooting tragedy—this one at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida—antigun groups wasted little time in singling out a culprit—the AR-15 5.56 NATO / 223 semiautomatic rifle. The mainstream media quickly echoed the sentiment of antigun groups and their fellow travelers in Congress: if Government would just confiscate guns from the civilian population, commencing with “assault weapons,” society would be better off for it and all would be right with the world.In the hysteria of the moment, it is considered anathema to counter this sentiment or to question the underlying assumption. Banning civilian ownership and possession of firearms is proclaimed a panacea to preventing gun violence. It is the mantra of anti-Second Amendment proponents, activists, and legislators; and it is the drumbeat of a compliant, duplicitous Press. It is accepted by many as a categorical imperative; an irrefutable truth. But is it?Do we not see, rather, the naked desire and effort of those who seek to destroy every vestige of responsible gun ownership in our Country? They would do so under the guise of promoting public safety. But, this is a false promise; an outright lie. Those who seek to end gun ownership and gun possession in this Country attempt to shoehorn international norms and United Nations’ mandates involving firearms, into our Nation’s norms and values. It doesn’t work. Our Nation, unlike all others, is structured on natural and unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights—a Bill of Rights that is the very backbone of our Nation.Americans would do well to note that the oppressive restrictions on firearms’ possession seen in the laws of other nations exemplify a basic and malevolent mistrust the governing bodies of those nations extend toward their own people.

WHY DID THE PARKLAND, FLORIDA TRAGEDY OCCUR?

Lost in discussion about gun violence is any mention of one obvious and incontrovertible fact: the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would not have happened—could not have occurred—if a multilayered set of strategies were utilized to harden the school against security breaches. The School didn’t do this. The result, while horrific, cannot and should not be construed as altogether unexpected and inexplicable in the peculiar age we live in and the tragedy should not be blamed on guns.We live in an age marked by broken homes and social alienation. It is an age beset by the rupture of core values and the seeding of a new ethos consisting of a hodgepodge of multicultural influences, multilingualism, and moral relativism; a hollowing out of sacred traditions, the denigration of basic Judeo-Christian values and virtues and of the traditional nuclear family. It is an age seeking instant gratification; immersed in perverse multivarious sexual experimentation. It is one extolling anomalous gender diversity; and, it is an age of rampant exploitation of human weakness.We see an endless parade of new, ever more violent, hyper-realistic video games, along with a continuous procession of cinematic “treats” of gratuitous violence marched out by Hollywood studio heads to encourage, and exploit, and reinforce the public appetite for depictions of violence and carnage. And we see the blatant hypocrisy of Hollywood actors—those who take evident pride in their onscreen portrayals of psychotic, psychopathic killers, engaged in over-the-top murderous sprees, pretending to be knowledgeable about the firearm props they use on-screen, while off-screen, sanctimoniously, denouncing those very guns, and denouncing the law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their unalienable and natural right of self-defense with defense of arms, as codified in the U.S. Constitution, and who do so in a proper, safe, and lawful manner.

ANTIGUN GROUPS SHAMELESSLY MANIPULATE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS.

A new tactic of antigun groups and one that is most reprehensible involves the recruitment of and exploitation of teenagers and young children as message boards in the continuing effort to destroy our sacred rights and liberties. We find, of late, young, articulate, students carrying messages for antigun groups. They know that no one would dare directly challenge a youth’s apparent preconceptions about guns and gun violence, however simplistic and flawed those preconceptions happen to be. These students have not, however, voiced outrage at gun violence spontaneously. They have been carefully coached. How do we know this? Consider what they are saying. They are using the typical phraseology and sloganeering of the antigun groups. They refer to AR-15 semiautomatic rifles as “weapons of war.” They call for “universal background checks.” They tell the American public to vote pro-Second Amendment legislators out of Office. They attack the NRA, the oldest civil rights organization in the Country, labeling it, pejoratively, the “Gun Lobby.” They aren’t speaking solely for themselves. They are the puppets of antigun political activists and legislators and of the ruthless, secretive internationalist benefactors that bankroll them. These antigun groups and their internationalist benefactors have an agenda to pursue; and the children and teenagers, who operate from emotion, and who are easy to manipulate, present a useful tool for these groups.Doubtless, many of these students speak from the heart. They would not be compelling were that untrue. But the messages come from activist sponsors, who are using these innocent young adults as their “stand-ins.” The words sound new, and fresh and heartfelt, and emphatic even if they aren’t. The speed to which these young people have been mobilized and organized reflects, substantial funding and professional antigun operatives, well-schooled in psychological warfare, behind the scene.Teenagers—even preteens and young children—have been shamelessly recruited to assist in the work of those who seek to destroy this Nation’s Second Amendment. Many of these children and young adults are caught up in the heat of the moment, as impressionable young people generally are—as child psychologists and activists and propagandists in the antigun movement certainly know. Young people often act through the compulsion of social pressure. They are unusually susceptible to the forces that urge conformity to the dictates of the many and of those who shout the loudest or who appear to be the stronger willed. Those who wish to interject a contrary quiet, albeit reasoned, viewpoint, know full they will face the wrath and castigation of and suffer ignominious ostracizing from their fellow classmates if they do.

ANTIGUN GROUPS ARE THE UNSEEN “HAND” BEHIND THESE STUDENT “WALKOUTS”

"School walkouts" occurred on March 14, 2018. An operation of this magnitude, involving schools across the Country, obviously requires money, and organization, and coordination well beyond the ability and monetary capacity of students to orchestrate. The organizers made certain that the event would zero in on the singular topics of “guns” and “gun violence.” This effort had nothing to do with ensuring school safety, and it had nothing to do with curbing violence in schools. ABC News reports:“Women’s March Youth Coordinator Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs, one of the few adults helping with the youth-led movement, told ABC News that while today's walkout is in reaction to the Parkland shooting, the event is about calling out gun violence.This isn't a protest against schools but a way to encourage school administrators to help students ‘amplify their voices,’ she said.She added, ‘Some schools are looking to this as an opportunity to really educate their young people about what it means in this moment to be engaged.’”In other words, this walkout is teaching children to become agents’ provocateur and agitators for anarchist and communist groups. Even elementary grade school students have been recruited. That is particularly reprehensible. Very young children have no comprehension of the import and purpose of this grand charade. They are shamelessly being used as pawns. Does this orchestrated drama have anything to do with school safety? No! It has everything to do with forcing an antigun agenda down the throats of the American public.Some schools have permitted a walkout; but others have not. Contrary to Tabitha St. Bernard Jacobs’ remarks, many school administrators made clear their displeasure of students’ insolence. One school board president said, “those who went outside to protest despite warnings of penalties would get suspensions.” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2018, at A7.   The American public is witnessing a ramping up of disobedience to the rule of law on a massive scale. Anarchist groups and other ruthless internationalist socialist/communist influences are actively encouraging our youth to take an active role in the tearing down of our Nation. They make no pretense of this. They attack the very core of our laws, our culture, our morality, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our sacred rights and liberties—the very fabric of our Nation.We see the intentions of these disruptors played out in the recent and blatant actions of California Governor Jerry Brown; Oakland, California Mayor Libby Schaaf; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo; House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer; and declared Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.It is time for Americans to take a stand against deceitful influences and deceitful individuals.______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW.

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

WHAT DOES PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DECLASSIFICATION AND RELEASE OF THE NUNEZ MEMO PRESAGE FOR THE NATION?

PART EIGHT

As anyone who keeps abreast of the news knows, the “Nunez Memo,” prepared by Congressional Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by order of the Committee’s Chairman, Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), documenting DOJ/FBI abuse of the FISA Court is now out. President Trump declassified it, as is his Presidential prerogative, and authorized its release to American public. The Memo illustrates clear wrongdoing of the DOJ and FBI in the way Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI obtained a warrant to conduct secret surveillance of an American citizen, Carter Page, a one-time bit player in Donald Trump’s campaign. Senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI likely violated Carter Page’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and likely violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well. And, they certainly violated several Federal Statutes. To his credit, President Trump did not redact the names of those DOJ and FBI Officials.Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media wasted no time excoriating both the release of the Memo and the contents of it. More memos from Congressman Devin Nunez, will be forthcoming. This isn’t something that Congressional Democrats and those whom they protect within the Deep State and Shadow Government want. They aren’t pleased with the light that is beginning to shine on them all, and they have orchestrated plans to deal with it, now that the Nunez Memo is in the public domain. One tactic involves preparation of a Memo supposedly rebutting the Nunez Memo. That “Schiff” Memo has been drafted and voted upon by the entire the House Intelligence Committee. The Committee has voted to release the Memo. As with the Nunez Memo, the Schiff Memo will be submitted for President Trump’s review and action.Congressional Democrats along with reporters and editors of mainstream newspapers, prominently and particularly, The New York Times, and news commentators and news anchors in mainstream cable news networks—like ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC—berated Congressional Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee for releasing the Memo, claiming it constitutes a threat to our National Security, and, in the same breath asserting, incongruously and inconsistently, that the Memo failed to live up to its hype. So, which is it? Does release of the “Nunez Memo” constitute a danger to the security of our Nation, or is it nothing more than a tempest in a teapot?Through deliberate mixed messaging Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media “screw with” the American psyche, to confound, disorient the American public so that the public doesn’t know what to believe concerning the Nunez Memo. Hence, Congressional Democrats and their shills in the mainstream media offer to the American public two primary, but inconsistent accounts. Yet, they are wrong on both scores.The Nunez Memo is critically important. It is hardly “hype.” President Trump’s declassification of the Memo and release of the Memo to the American public alerts Americans to the presence of rogue elements in the highest ranks of the DOJ and FBI who have betrayed their Nation. That is information Americans have a right to know and need to know. So, release of the Memo neither threatens the security of our Nation, nor is it hype. Indeed, far from amounting to a threat to the security of our Nation, the Memo’s release serves to safeguard it.The Nunez Memo serves as the most important information of serious criminal abuse in the Federal Government to come to the attention of the American electorate in the last several decades. It is an earth-shattering exposé of FISA Court abuse by the DOJ and FBI. Granted, the language of the Memo is dry and pedantic, but Republicans on the House Committee of Intelligence aren’t writing a novel. No colorful verbiage exists in the Memo because the Memo’s authors do not wish to entertain Americans, but, rather, to educate and inform them. And, they did that.The Memo exposes the dangers of secrecy in a free Republic, where high-ranking Federal Government bureaucrats operating in the spheres of intelligence, police, and law, wielding immense power, render decisions and take action on those decisions, based on their own personal philosophical and political beliefs, whims, and predilections, caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions tread on the rights and liberties of the citizenry as laid out in the Bill of Rights, and caring not one whit whether those decisions and actions extend well beyond the parameters set by Federal Statute. Indeed, it is abundantly clear, from a perusal of the Nunez Memo, that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI act in extravagant defiance of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute.What can the American citizenry do to correct this abuse in high Government Office? Very little it seems. The American citizenry has no recourse, except for the oversight that Congress provides. It is curious, then, that Congressional Democrats would object to Congressional Republicans’ bringing to light Federal Government abuses. But, Congressional Democrats do object to release of the Memo. Among their other purported concerns, they claim that the Memo would cause the American citizenry to lose faith in the DOJ and FBI. But, then, that is the point. The public should be concerned.One must ask: Does it serve Americans’ best interests to doubt the integrity of the DOJ and FBI when sufficient cause exists to doubt that integrity? Or does it serve Americans’ best interests to live under the illusion that senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI operate within the bounds and constraints of the U.S. Constitution and Federal Statute, when, in fact, they do not, and have betrayed the American citizenry’s trust?Apparently, Congressional Democrats, such as Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Eric Swalwell (D-CA), members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence believe it better for Americans to live under illusion. Congressional Republicans clearly do not, and it is fortunate that Americans have individuals such as Representative Devin Nunez (R-CA), Chairman of that Committee, who, along with other Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence realize their responsibility to inform the American citizenry of serious abuses in the DOJ and FBI when serious criminal abuses come to light. Americans obviously cannot rely on Congressional Democrats, nor can they rely on the mainstream media Press, to keep Americans informed of betrayal of the public trust by high ranking Officials in the most powerful and secretive police, intelligence, and legal institutions of this Country.The public should keep in mind that, if the Democrats gain control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, Representative Schiff will gain the chairmanship of the powerful House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This is a man who, recently, in his continuing diatribe against release of the Nunez Memo, seemingly inexplicably brought up, as an aside, that Russians now support the right of the American people to keep and bear arms? From what bizarre realm of horror and fantasy did Representative Schiff pull that idea? And what was the point of it: that Russians, according to Schiff, suddenly have reverence for our sacred Second Amendment, so we should not; or, perhaps, that Russians hope that Americans around the Country will suddenly go on a massive shooting spree, killing each other?This man, Adam Schiff, is a menace to all that is holy. What he is doing in Government has nothing to do with protecting this Nation and its people and upholding the U.S. Constitution. It has everything to do with tearing down this Nation under the guise of protecting it; destroying the rights and liberties of its people under the cloak of strengthening them; subverting the Constitution behind the mask of preserving it. He seeks, through his position as Ranking Member of the Intelligence Committee, just below Representative Nunez, Chairman of the Committee, to undermine the will of the American electorate through his constant, pertinacious, presumptuous, indefensible, intolerable and singularly bizarre attacks on the Chief Executive of this Nation, President Trump.President Trump, to his credit—unlike Representative Schiff and his fellow Congressional Democrats—holds the American citizenry in high regard. Through declassification of the Nunez Memo and its subsequent release to the American citizenry, President Trump has opened a window to the machinations of  high-ranking Officials of the Deep State and Shadow Government, operating beyond the bounds of law. The American public bears witness to the contempt by which those who should be serving the public, have rebelled against it, and seek to oppress it.We continue with articles, bringing to light the game plan of those who have engineered a silent, insidious coup d’etat of the Government of the United States. The betrayers of the Nation haven’t yet lost. The American public is just now beginning to gain a glimmer of insight of the power wielded by insidious forces within the bowels of the Federal Government. Americans must remain vigilant.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: SENIOR DOJ AND FBI OFFICIALS LIKELY COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES IN THEIR UNLAWFUL ATTEMPT TO TAKE DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP.

PART THREE

THE SWAMP MUST BE DRAINED; CONSPIRATORS’ HEADS MUST ROLL; THE GUILTY MUST BE HELD FULLY ACCOUNTABLE.

As intimated in the account of the contents of the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) have alluded to on Fox News, it is not enough that Senior DOJ and FBI Officials, whose names appear in the House Intelligence Memo, simply lose their jobs (which would allow them to collect retirement benefits). The fact that DOJ and FBI senior officials like Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, and undoubtedly many others, continue to hold onto jobs in the DOJ and FBI, is reason for consternation.Clearly, other senior Officials of the Deep State are protecting them. How high up the Government ladder does this insidious subterfuge extend? The President’s call to drain the swamp now takes on immediate and critical urgency.The “swamp” of the Federal Government is, it is now evident, more than mere metaphor—much more. The expression takes on literal meaning. Why are these senior DOJ and FBI officials still holding positions in the Federal Government? Why are they still receiving paychecks, courtesy of the American taxpayer? Why do they still hold top secret security clearances? These people and others should be fired immediately, and they should be investigated for serious crimes against this Nation and the American people. Why hasn’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions acted against these individuals? After all, Jeff Sessions holds the highest position in the Department of Justice? Why hasn’t Sessions cleaned house? Is he unable to do so, notwithstanding that he holds the top position in the DOJ? If that is the case, then, do high-ranking officials in the DOJ, and in the FBI, and in other Cabinet-level Departments, and in the Military, and in the Intelligence Community, and in Congress too, hold sway over the entirety of the Federal Government. If these high-ranking senior Officials, these Conspirators who have betrayed their oath of Office, who have betrayed the U.S. Constitution, who have betrayed this Nation, and who have betrayed the American people, do hold sway over the Federal Government, then, we must conclude that this Shadow Government—this Deep State within the Federal Government—these Conspirators hold sway over the American people as well. Has a coup d’état of the Government already taken place notwithstanding their failure to seat the shrew and puppet of the trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist “elite,”—Hillary Clinton?If Attorney General Jeff Sessions does muster the strength to exercise the authority vested in him and hold to account those officials of the DOJ and FBI, who have betrayed this Nation, who have betrayed our Constitution, and who have betrayed the American people, then we should see investigations commencing at once. If the Attorney General does not have the courage to assert his authority, then he should resign; and, if Sessions does not voluntarily step down, then President Trump should demand his resignation, or otherwise, simply fire him, and appoint a person who has the stomach to clean house!In the interim, these Betrayers of our Nation, of our Nation’s Constitution, and of our Nation’s citizenry must be prevented from doing further harm to our Nation, to our Nation’s President, and to our Nation’s people. Accordingly:

• THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DOJ OR FBI SHOULD BE TERMINATED AT ONCE!
• THEIR SALARIES SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!
• THEIR SECURITY CLEARANCES SHOULD BE REVOKED!
• THEIR MISCONDUCT SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!

Once evidence of the serious federal crimes--that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI committed and are even now still committing--has been systematically collected, collated, and analyzed by prosecutors—and it is certainly clear that a plethora of such evidence exists—then legal action must commence forthwith:

• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE INDICTED!
• THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD THEN BE TRIED IN A COURT OF LAW FOR THEIR CRIMES!
• IF CONVICTED, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD RECEIVE NO LENIENCY IN THE METING OUT OF THEIR SENTENCES.
• AND, THESE BETRAYERS OF THE NATION SHOULD BE DENIED RECEIPT OF PENSIONS AND BENEFITS!

IF SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE DOJ AND FBI HAVE COMMITTED SERIOUS FEDERAL CRIMES AGAINST THIS NATION, AGAINST THIS NATION’S CONSTITUTION, AND AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AS IS NOW MANIFEST AND CLEARLY CERTAIN, WHAT WOULD THE NATURE OF THOSE CRIMES BE? WE PERCEIVE AND ANTICIPATE THE FOLLOWING: CONSPIRACY; PERJURY; SUBORNATION OF PERJURY; DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW; AND OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES.

One serious crime falls under Title 19 of the United States Code: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Part I, Crimes, Chapter 19, Conspiracy.19 USCS § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States) sets forth in principal part:  If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. A second serious federal crime falls under Chapter 79 of the United States Code. Chapter 79 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 1621 (Perjury generally) sets forth in principal part: Whoever—(1)  having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or(2)  in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.Since the Fusion GPS Dossier is a lie, those DOJ Officials who presented it to the FISA Court, swearing to the authenticity of the contents have committed perjury before the Court; and, since they did this to secure a warrant from the FISA Court that would allow Special Counsel Mueller to undertake an investigation of Trump Campaign Officials, predicated on presumptive collusion between Russian officials and Trump, those DOJ Officials who lied before the FISA Court to affect or influence the FISA Court to issue a warrant have committed a third serious federal crime, that these senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have likely committed is subornation of perjury.A third serious federal crimes falls under Chapter 79 of  Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1622 (Subornation of perjury). 18 USCS § 1622  (Subornation of perjury) sets forth in principal part:Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.A fourth serious federal crime falls under Chapter 13 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law). 18 USCS § 242 (Deprivation of rights under color of law) sets forth in principal part:Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. . . .By betraying their oath to uphold the laws of this Nation, they have deprived the citizens of this Nation of their rights as they have attempted to subvert election laws by allowing an ignominious individual, Hillary Clinton, to campaign for the highest Office in the Land, when Clinton should, instead, have been indicted on several criminal charges. The Arbalest Quarrel has detailed these crimes at length, in several articles. See for example, “Pay to Play: The Clinton Foundation’s Open Secret and Silent Purpose.” These senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI have compounded their crimes by unlawfully utilizing tools, such as appointment of a Special Counsel—Robert Mueller—to undertake a lengthy, expensive investigation of the U.S. President, Donald Trump, when appointment of Special Counsel and investigation of Donald Trump is altogether unfounded, as the basis for such investigation is grounded on nothing but bald-faced lies, unsubstantiated hearsay, unfounded assumptions, and mere innuendo.Having failed to seat a likely criminal, Hillary Clinton, in Office, these Conspirators—senior Officials of the DOJ and FBI—have now turned their attention to removing the U.S. President, Donald Trump, from Office. They are doing this out of spite and they are doing this because, in their mind, they won’t accept this President’s policy initiatives; and they won’t accept the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump in a fair and lawful election. They arrogantly assert that they know what is best for the American people and thereby subvert the very Constitution and laws of this Country that they have taken an oath to serve.And, a fifth serious federal crime falls under title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) 18 USCS § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees) sets forth in critical part:Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years. . . .News Commentator, Sean Hannity, reported on Fox News, Monday, January 22, 2018, that hundreds of anti-Trump text messages have inexplicably vanished from FBI databases. The website, Sean Hannity "Release the Memo," further elucidates the point raised and expounded upon on Hannity's evening program. If, as almost certainly appears to be the case, senior officials of the DOJ and/or FBI deliberately destroyed messages—amounting to pre-emptive document deletion or shredding—in anticipation of civil or criminal investigation of wrongdoing, this amounts to anticipatory obstruction of justice and they may be subject to criminal liability under the obstruction of proceedings Statute mentioned, supra.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL WON’T REST UNTIL THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMO, COMPLETE, UNABRIDGED, AND UNREDACTED IS DECLASSIFIED FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

In Part Five of our ongoing “Release the Memo” multi-series set of articles, we will look at whether the most serious charge of all, “treason,” can be leveled against these Senior DOJ and FBI Officials who have betrayed their Oath of Office. In Part Six, we will look at the actions of Congressional Democrats who--as with the mainstream news media, that has tacitly assisted the agents of the Deep State by censoring reporting of news pertaining to the House Intelligence Committee Memorandum--are impeding the release of the House Intelligence Committee Memo, and, through their actions are demonstrating, as well, their contempt for the American people. We are speaking here, namely and particularly, of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) Ranking Democratic Party Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.We are doing our part. Please do your part. Tell Congress to release to the American public the House Intelligence Committee Memo that describes DOJ and FBI FISA Court abuses. The phone number to call is (202) 224-3121. That number will connect you to the U.S. Capitol switchboard. Follow the prompts to connect to U.S. Representatives and to U.S. Senators in your State._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RELEASE THE MEMO: REPUBLICAN HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHOCKED BY CONTENTS AND CALL FOR ITS RELEASE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

PART ONE

HAVE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI CONSPIRED TO OVERTHROW PRESIDENT TRUMP? IS THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION PART AND PARCEL OF THIS COUP ATTEMPT?

For those of you who tuned into Hannity’s Fox News program Thursday evening, January 18, and Friday evening, January 19, 2018, you learned that our Government is in the throes of a silent but deadly coup. U.S. House Representatives Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), appearing on Hannity, Thursday, stated they had reviewed a classified House Intelligence Committee Memorandum that, as they strongly intimate, provide conclusive proof of a deliberate, calculated, categorical, treacherous attempt by senior FBI and Justice Department Officials to topple the Trump Presidency. They describe the Memo as “shocking.” Jordan and Gaetz want this Memo to be released to the public. They are insistent. They say the public has a right to know the contents of the Memo. And, we do.If half of what these House Republican Intelligence Committee members suggest is true—and, keep in mind that House and Senate Intelligence Committee members rarely, if ever, call for release of classified material to the American public—the public not only does have a right to know the contents of this Memorandum; they must know. But, House Democratic Party Intelligence Committee members according to Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, have demurred, claiming national security concerns, even, as they show, incongruously, lack of interest in the material. Very few House Democrats have reviewed the Memorandum and have, curiously, expressed no wish to do so.Government Officials and Legislators routinely cite national security concerns when they do not wish to release the contents of classified material; and, when they do, the contents are generally heavily redacted, and, so, essentially indecipherable. But national security is not at stake when Governmental documents contain content merely content that may be deemed merely embarrassing or humiliating. Worst of all, when Government documents contain evidence of ethical or criminal wrongdoing, transparency, not secrecy, is mandated. Evidence of criminal or ethical misconduct cries out for disclosure. The federal Government is, after all, our Government. It doesn’t belong to Congress and it doesn’t belong to bureaucrats. They are supposed to serve our interests, not their own. In refusing release of this House Intelligence Committee Memorandum to the American citizenry, House Democrats demonstrate complicity in the coup attempt and cover-up.Representatives Jordan and Gaetz, true patriots, having come forward with knowledge of this deeply disturbing Intelligence Committee Memo, have made abundantly clear that, once the American citizenry has access to the contents of it, heads will roll.The American public should not be surprised if, once the Memo is released, hopefully uncensored, some of the names that appear in the Memo happen to include:Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the DOJ; Andrew McCabe, acting Attorney General after the U.S. President Donald Trump fired James Comey; Andrew Weissman, Chief of the Criminal Fraud Section of the DOJ, and senior managing official on Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team; Peter Strzok, senior counterintelligence official in the FBI, who served on Mueller’s team until Mueller was compelled to oust him for conspiratorial comments coming to light in his “insurance policy” email to Lisa Page, FBI lawyer; Lisa Page, FBI lawyer who failed to notify her superiors of Strzok’s conspiratorial intentions as she was probably complicit in the conspiracy; Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General to then-President Barack Obama, and acting Attorney General after the departure of Loretta Lynch—the latter of whom served as Attorney General in President Barack Obama’s Administration immediately after the inauguration of Donald Trump to the Office of U.S. President Trump—whom President Trump rightfully fired for insubordination after Yates defiantly refused to defend the U.S. President’s order to close the Nation’s borders against terrorist threats from the Middle East; Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General, demoted, for concealing his secret meetings with Officials of Fusion GPS; James Comey, fired Director of the FBI, who leaked classified documents to The New York Times, through a friend, Daniel Richman, Professor at Columbia Law School. Comey’s documents served as a basis, along with the Fusion GPS Dossier, as the pretext for Rod Rosenstein’s appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel, whose tacit directive is to take down the U.S. President. And, we surmise that Robert Mueller’s name, too, may be one of the names that appears on the memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refers to.Robert Mueller served as FBI Director from 2001 to 2013. As FBI Director, he must have had knowledge of and may have been complicit in approving illegal sale of uranium to the Russians. If true, it would be singularly odd for the DOJ's Robert Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller to head a team to investigate, inter alia--as reported in the letter (Order No. 2915-2017) from Rosenstein to Mueller--“any links and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” We may surmise that Hillary Clinton’s name appears in this classified House Intelligence Committee Memo, too, along with the name of Loretta Lynch, who served as President Barack Obama’s Attorney General, from April 27, 2015 – January 20, 2017. And, is it possible that the name of Barack Obama, too, appears in this Memo? If, Clinton’s name and Obama’s name appears in this House Intelligence Committee Memo, we can well imagine why House Democrats adamantly refuse to release the Memo to the public. For, the entirety of the Democratic Party will be held up to shame. The shameful and likely criminal acts of these individuals are too numerous to mention here, but we have touched on several—especially those that point to serious criminal acts on the part of Hillary Clinton. Imagine a person such as Hillary Clinton in the White House.Senior Federal Government Officials, having failed to achieve their goal of depositing Hillary Clinton into the Oval Office—having hatched and orchestrated a plan, through then-FBI Director James Comey and others, to absolve Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Hillary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing on multiple counts of multiple felonies so that she could continue to run as the Democratic Party choice for U.S. President, hatched their secondary plan. They presented, as is abundantly clear, false and fabricated information, namely the notorious Fusion GPS Dossier—paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—to the FISA Court. These high-level Officials in the FBI and DOJ, in a plot to topple the U.S. President, Donald Trump, attempted to obtain a warrant that would give these disreputable, and arguably, despicable, Officials legal cover by allowing the FBI to secretly, and ostensibly lawfully, to investigate senior Trump campaign officials on false allegations of having had nefarious dealings with the Russians. If true, this would serve, conceivably, as the principal feasible basis to impeach Trump and, if successful, would lead to his removal from Office.Comey’s own memoranda to The New York Times was instrumental in the appointment of  a Special Counsel in the first instance. The Fusion GPS Dossier, a compilation of damnable lies and uncorroborated, baseless rumor, innuendo, and hearsay, is a manuscript of deception put together by an ex-British spy, Christopher Steele. Steele is an expert on deception and intrigues, who worked for British intelligence, MI-6. The Dossier became the vehicle through which the FISA Court issued a warrant, allowing/authorizing the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, to investigate presumptive collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government. This Dossier, this lie, this work of fiction, serves as the predicate basis for the Mueller investigation. Therefore, the Mueller investigation is itself grounded on a lie, made worse through misuse of exorbitant taxpayer monies and wasteful Governmental resources. Further, presenting false information to a FISA Court, swearing that it is true to obtain a warrant from the Court that the Court otherwise would not have issued--subornation of perjury--constitutes a fraud on the Court—compounding other serious wrongdoing by senior Officials of Government who have been working secretly and inexorably to bring down Trump and his Administration. These senior FBI and DOJ Officials, who may include senior and mid-level Officials in both the State Department and in the Intelligence Agencies as well—hold-overs from the Obama Administration, have betrayed, through color of law and their Office, their sacred oath to this Nation, to this Nation's Constitution and to this Nation's citizenry. Their weak defense, for their heinous betrayal, which will not operate as a tenable defense at all in a Court of competent jurisdiction, is that it is their belief that Donald Trump will lead this Nation on a path that is at loggerheads with foreign and domestic policies of previous Administrations which they had wish to see continued. This is the height of arrogance, and contrary to the will of the American people who elected Donald Trump to the Office of President of the United States. What these senior and mid-level Officials of the Deep State want, or, what they unwittingly would be working toward if they would only stop to think about the matter, is subordination of our Nation, its Constitution, its Bill of Rights, its system of laws, its jurisprudence, its core values, its system of ethics and morality, to that of a new trans-nationalist, internationalist, globalist world order, as  exemplified in the present undermining of the political, social, and financial fabric, and independence, and sovereignty of the Nations that comprise the EU.Is the Mueller probe, then, nothing more than a monstrous step in a planned, coordinated, coup d’état of the Executive Branch of Government? Does the House Intelligence Committee Memo that Representatives Jordan and Gaetz refer to evidence of that? We think so, as this is the only intelligible inference that can be drawn on the facts so far illuminated. Further facts would, we believe, serve only to  buttress this sound conclusion.In Part two of this multi-series, we look to the mainstream news media organizations. Why does the American citizenry hear so little about this? We will post Part two of this series, on the Arbalest Quarrel website, tomorrow. In Part three, immediately following the posting of Part two of this series, we will look at a few of the specific crimes that senior DOJ and FBI Officials likely committed--serious crimes that these Officials can feasibly be charged with through the contemptible, dishonorable, thoroughly reprehensible hoax they perpetrated on both the FISA Court and the American people, a hoax that is, as of the date of posting of this article, still being played out!_________________________________________________ Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEW YORK TIMES NEWSPAPER’S NEW “GAG ORDER” POLICY PREVENTS ITS EMPLOYEES FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH? SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? GOING, GOING GONE IF THE NEW YORK TIMES WERE TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!

THE NEW YORK TIMES BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH ‘GROUPTHINK’ AND ‘DOUBLESPEAK: WELCOME TO “1984” IN THE 21^ST CENTURY.

“We are poor little lambs Who have lost our way. Baa! Baa! Baa! We are little black sheep Who have gone astray. Baa! Baa! Baa!” ~ from the Wiffinpoof song, circa 1910; traditional closing number of the Wiffinpoofs, an a cappella group of Yale UniversityAs is our wont, the creators of the Arbalest Quarrel often peruse on Amazon.com—books, on philosophy, politics, science, and law, among various other categories of knowledge to assist us in the work we do for our readers in defense of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we write this, we came across a book, serendipitously, and one which we may purchase, titled, “Reasons Why,” by Bradford Skow. The illustration on the book’s cover is whimsical: a platypus seemingly contemplating a strawberry. And, lest one believe the book was written for a child, the answer is decidedly, “no.”Notwithstanding the straightforward, seemingly, superficially simplistic title, the material is decidedly tantalizingly complex. We perused a few pages of the book, on-line, as Amazon sometimes permits. We bring this matter up here because the subject matter of the book, “why questions,” drew us to consider something about the mainstream media that is somewhat mystifying to apprehend and, at once, frightening to contemplate. Mainstream media organizations—comprising major newspapers, radio, television, and internet—are drawn more and more to proselytize to the American public rather than to simply report the news, and this is contrary to the basic import and purport of news organizations. But, what is the purpose of a news organization? We ask:

WHAT IS THE IMPLIED GOAL—THE TRADITIONAL, PRIMARY PURPOSE OF NEWS ORGANIZATIONS? THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF A NEWSPAPER IS TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC A RECORD OF THE DAY’S EVENTS: TO REPORT THE NEWS, THEN, AND TO REPORT THE NEWS CLEARLY, ACCURATELY, OBJECTIVELY, WITHOUT EMBELLISHMENT.  IN PROVIDING AN ACCOUNT OF EVENTS IN THE WORLD, A NEWSPAPER MUST REFRAIN FROM WEIGHING IN ON THE EVENTS IT REPORTS ABOUT THE WORLD. FOR, ONCE A NEWSPAPER WEIGHS IN ON EVENTS THAT IT REPORTS, THAT IT DESCRIBES, THE NEWSPAPER, THEN, IS NO LONGER, AND CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AN OBJECTIVE, NEUTRAL OBSERVER, NAMELY, ONE OPERATING APART FROM THE EVENTS, BUT, RATHER, BECOMES, INSTEAD, AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE EVENTS—IN THE VERY SHAPING OF EVENTS A NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON. AND, ONCE A NEWSPAPER BECOMES PART OF THE EVENTS, THE OBSERVED, RATHER THAN THE NEUTRAL OBSERVER, THE NEWSPAPER, THEREUPON LOSES ITS OBJECTIVITY—LOSES ALL OBJECTIVITY. BUT, THIS DOES NOT SEEM TO BOTHER MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS IF THEY BOTHER TO CONSIDER THE LOSS OF OBJECTIVITY IN THEIR REPORTING THE NEWS AT ALL. TODAY, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS, LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, ARE NOT CONTENT MERELY TO REPORT THE NEWS, BUT ARE TELLING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HOW THEY ARE EXPECTED TO THINK ABOUT THE NEWS. OBJECTIVITY IS THEREBY COMPLETELY LOST. REPORTERS BECOME MINISTERS OF PRIVATE BENEFACTORS, UNKNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY BECOME PROPAGANDISTS. EVERYTHING REPORTED IS SUSPECT.

MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS ARE NOT OBJECTIVELY, NEUTRALLY, AND DRYLY TELLING THE PUBLIC ABOUT CRITICAL EVENTS IN THE WORLD—AND THEY ARE NOT REPORTING ON ALL THE CRITICAL EVENTS. RATHER, MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS SELECTIVELY REPORT EVENTS AND THEY DO NOT ALLOWTHE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND ABOUT THE EVENTS REPORTED. THESE MAINSTREAM NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA NEWS ORGANIZATIONS ARE, AT ONCE, TELLING THE PUBLIC HOW THEY SHOULD REACT TO EVENTS, HOW THEY ARE TO THINK ABOUT THE EVENTS, REPORTED.

Journalists, also referred to as—and, traditionally, more inclined to prefer the term, ‘reporters,’ as the latter expression is narrower, suggesting specifically what these professionals do, namely reporting news events rather than journalizing whatever may come to mind—learn, in college, before commencing work for mainstream news organizations, what reporting of news encompasses and, just as importantly, what it does not. Whether through the written or spoken word, reporters are expected to—well—report the news, nothing more and nothing less. To do their job correctly, appropriately, reporters are expected to report news accounts clearly and dryly, without embellishment, utilizing nouns and verbs, eschewing the use of adjectives and adverbs, to avoid “coloring” their reporting. They are expected to propound propositions that mirror truth, under the epistemic correspondence theory of truth they ascribe to, with the goal of providing the American public with reports on facts--'states of affairs' as philosophers prefer to refer to these “things,” “facts”--about and in the world, rather than propounding subjective  evaluations, about the facts, that is to say, providing extraneous comments about the states of affairs reported on.Reporters answer fundamental ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and, occasionally, ‘how’ questions. It is not the purpose of reporters to ask and to discuss ‘why’ questions, which brings us back to Skow’s book, directed principally to the philosophy of science, as “why” questions set the stage for causal explanations for events. Yet, today, we see mainstream media encroaching more and more on ‘why’ questions. They do so—as they may say—to engage the public in open and lively discussion, and to give context to their news reporting. They attempt to explain the reasons for events and, they proceed, then, to a consideration of changes that they believe should occur for the benefit of society. But that is shifty, deceptive, and not the basic motivation of mainstream news reporters for dealing with “why” questions at all. They provide answers to “why” questions to manipulate thought. They sermonize. Sometimes they do this calmly and collectedly. More often they do this callously and caustically; bombastically and sanctimoniously; stridently and angrily. They do this to cajole the public into accepting the nonsense they spout, attempting to convince the public that their prescriptions for dealing with the many events they report on, that they write about, is right, and proper, and just, and should be acted upon by policy makers. Many Americans—all too many members of the American public, to date, but, increasingly, fortunately, fewer members of the American public, through time—do still accept, unconditionally and uncritically, the presumptuous and vapid claptrap the mainstream media offers up for the American public’s consumption. Indeed, these reporters—now propagandists —working for mainstream newspapers and other mainstream news organizations, attempt to disguise the subjective evaluations they propound about events as true, simple, to-the-point, objective, accurate accounts of the events reported on, when subjective evaluations and objective reports about states of affairs in and of and about the world merge into each other, or where one becomes the other, and the public is left with the impression that it has received bare factual accounts about news events when they are really obtaining subjective appraisals of the events reported on.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S DANGEROUS PREOCCUPATION WITH FIREARMS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT:

One of the favorite topics of the mainstream media involves news about ‘gun crimes,’ which are particularly susceptible to this subterfuge that mainstream news reporters engage in which is to mix objective news accounts into subjective evaluations.  If newspaper and cable networks and radio simply reported instances of ‘gun crimes,’ dryly and matter-of-factly, and left the matter at that, that would be fine. But, then, mainstream newspapers and cable news networks, were they true to their creed, would also report on defensive uses of firearms. Yet, the mainstream newspapers and their affiliates on cable news invariably remain silent on defensive use of guns by law-abiding citizens who forestall gun violence, through use of their own firearm or who use a firearm, as necessary, to defend themselves or to defend other innocent lives. One would think that accurate reporting would require newspaper accounts to strive to report all news events: to report, then, on the use of firearms by ordinary Americans to thwart violent criminal acts, as well as to report gun crimes committed by lunatics, terrorists, criminal gang members, and by your garden-variety common criminal.

SELECTIVE NEWS REPORTING IS DEMONSTRATIVE OF “FAKE NEWS” NO LESS SO THAN FALSE REPORTING OF NEWS

The non-reporting of critical news events constitutes deception no less than the false reporting of news events and no less than the habit of mainstream news reporters of adroitly stirring subjective evaluations into news accounts. The mainstream media, including, prominently, The New York Times—whose motto is, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”—infers, or, more correctly, assumes that defensive use of firearms isn’t news that’s fit to print at all; so, the American public doesn’t see it. But, it is news just the same and, to our mind, this news does fall squarely into the domain of “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” The New York Times refuses to report on instances of defensive uses of guns as that tends to denigrate and weaken the running narrative that guns cause only bad things to happen. Still, if The New York Times stuck to reporting gun violence and refrained from proselytizing about the “evil” of guns, we might accept reporting of those events involving gun violence alone even if the Times’ accounting of “use of guns” is incomplete—as in the case of utilization of firearms for self-defense. Unfortunately, The New York Times and other mainstream news organizations do not and will not stop with reporting the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence. These mainstream news organizations tread dangerously into the realm of the ‘why’.’ They dare to ask, rhetorically, ‘why did the individual commit a violent act with a gun.’ The ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when,’ ‘where,’ and ‘how’ of gun violence, then, is merely a side-note. It is merely incidental to and serves to buttress their argument for strengthening draconian gun laws and adding ever more to the serried ranks of restrictive federal and State gun laws and local gun ordinances. And, it is these arguments for ever more restrictions on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms that the mainstream media makes, constantly, ad nauseum: sermonizing, proselytizing to the American public.The reporting of news merely operates, then, as an introduction to what it is that mainstream news organizations really wish to do which to address “the need to get rid of guns in this Country.” So, reporters and editors of mainstream news organizations, like The New York Times, mention instances of gun violence in order that they might proceed with their long-running, never-ending polemic on why gun violence occurs and wherefore gun violence happens and ‘why civilian access to guns is wrong and why, therefore, guns ought to be abolished. And, that is where mainstream news organizations have gone astray. They should protect this Nation, this Free Republic; but they have, instead, hijacked this Nation as they work strenuously, and actively, and insidiously against it, undermining the Nation’s Bill of Rights, all the while masquerading that they are the guardians of it, oblivious to the inherent invidiousness of their pronouncements.Mainstream news Reporters and Editors wrongly assume the role of psychologists, and psychiatrists, and sociologists, and politicians, and ethicists, and attorneys among others. They do not merely report the news, they attempt to explain the news. In so doing, the mainstream media no longer remains the outside, neutral observer of news events, coolly describing events, but insinuates itself into the events themselves, observing itself and thereupon reflecting its own image onto the American public’s psyche, and, in a most contemptuous fashion, proclaiming to the American public how the public ought to see the world and how the world ought to be molded and shaped.And, with that—with attempts to answer “why” questions—these mainstream news organizations carefully construct and carefully calibrate their explanations and use these explanations as springboards to “ought imperatives” such as: ‘no American civilian ought to have access to firearms;’ and ‘this Nation ought to have more stringent, common-sense gun control laws’; and ‘this Country ought to perceive gun ownership and gun possession as unnecessary and dangerous to the well-being of a modern society;’ and ‘Americans should abhor guns like most citizens do who reside in other Western Countries, like those citizens of Nations that comprise the EU do;’ and ‘ everyone has the right of free speech as long as one’s comments do not offend another person’s sensibilities; and ‘employers ought to be able to control their employees thoughts and ideas, whether on the job or off,’ and that ‘censoring of ideas and opinions and beliefs is wrong, except that, sometimes, it could be right.’Not content to declare what it is that happens to be the case—the “thus and so” of a given news event—mainstream news reporters and editorial boards tell us what “ought to be the case.” Now, generally, newspapers have used opinion editorials—“Op-Eds”—as a place where they feel they are at liberty to answer the ‘why,’ the cause of such event, and, therein, to express and expound upon the ‘ought,’ as they see it, from the occurrence of a given event. But this seeming bright-line separation between “news” and “opinion” is no longer perceptible or tenable in the age of mind control and psychological conditioning through various media mechanisms. The one flows seamlessly into the other. But normative ‘ought’ statements—normative prescriptions of the way the world should be, according to mainstream media—do not logically follow from ‘is’ statements—descriptions of the way the world happens to be, notwithstanding that mainstream news Reporters and Editors assume that ought prescriptions can be derived from and deduced from “is” descriptions, and we see, now, that Reporters and Editors of mainstream news organizations commence to operate as if the one can be derived from and deduced from the other. But, they cannot.It is hardly a secret that mainstream newspapers, like The New York Times, vehemently, indeed virulently, oppose possession of firearms by anyone in society, other than law enforcement, and other than the military and--although they won’t admit it--other than by the powerful, ruthless billionaire class that increasingly rules us and that seeks to destroy our free Republic, and that seeks to destroy the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State, and that seeks to destroy our unique and sacred Bill of Rights.Now, even as the owners of mainstream media vehicles will quickly deny—at least in their reporting of events—any specific position toward firearms and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the fact of the matter is that the owners of these mainstream media news vehicles have, as with any other subject discussed in their media vehicles’ “bag of tricks,” specific opinions that infiltrate, insinuate themselves into, and seep and filter in and through, descriptions of news events. So, the public is not obtaining merely descriptions of news events, but prescriptions about how the public should think about those events and the sorts of actions that should be taken by policy makers from those events. Bad enough that mainstream media is reduced to propagandizing and proselytizing to the public through control of virtually every major form of media apart from a few outlier websites such as the Arbalest Quarrel, but mainstream media seeks, of late, to control the thoughts and actions of their own employees, too.Consider, one mainstream media news organization, The New York Times, goes so far as to control its reporters’ exercise of their personal First Amendment right of Free Speech even when they are not writing specifically for the newspaper. This is reprehensible and, likely would not survive Constitutional muster if challenged and is odd, too, when one considers that The New York Times, and other mainstream media news organizations, vociferously, presumptuously, and hypocritically argue that the President wrongly attacks their First Amendment right of freedom of the Press. Yet, the U.S. President is also a citizen and, as a citizen, he certainly has the right, guaranteed under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to call out “fake news” narratives when he sees it. And, he rightly does so, on behalf of himself and on behalf of those Americans who support him.

GROUPTHINK VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

Lest the reader of this article think that the Arbalest Quarrel has made a false claim about The New York Times controlling its employees’ expression of personal opinion, outside of employment, we point out that the Times, itself, expressly admits as much. On October 16, 2017, a reporter for the New York Times, Jim Rutenberg, writing in the Business Section of the Times newspaper, in an article titled, “Seeing Right Through Tech Chiefs’ Talk of Better ‘Transparency’”, said: “My newspaper [The New York Times] is [when reporting on Tech Companies control of their employees’ opinions], also dealing with the question of how transparent a person should be on social media. On Friday, it announced a new policy for its journalists requiring them to avoid say anything on the platform [that is to say, reporters must avoid saying anything on any and all vehicles, aside from The New York Times, when, on their own time] that they could not say under the banner of The New York Times. At a TimesTalks event in Washington on Thursday night, the Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, said that overly opinionated or partisan tweets could undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly.’” Who is Baquet kidding? The assertion is nonsensical and disingenuous to boot. For, it isn’t “objective and clear reporting” that the NY Times newspaper is interested in protecting. It is, rather, a specific “subjective viewpoint” that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times seeks to foster and buttress, and it is a subjective viewpoint that the drafters’ of the newspaper’s new policy obviously presume that every employee of the newspaper knows or should know. In fostering and buttressing that viewpoint, the newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board would squelch a reporter’s right of free speech in that reporter’s capacity as an American citizen, even when, on that reporter’s own time, the reporter wishes freely to express his or her own viewpoint on a subject, absent constraints imposed on the reporter in the course of his or her work for the newspaper. Obviously, it isn’t objective facts that the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times is concerned about protecting—despite what Baquet says; for, after all, the facts can take care of themselves. Rather, it is the running narrative—the “why” and of a story—that The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board wish to maintain an overarching monopoly on. It is the running narrative, as it were, that they wish to control and that they intend to control, through the Times’ new policy.The newspaper, thereupon, muzzles and censors its own reporters First Amendment free speech rights, through a policy that operates essentially as a “gag order” lest its reporters, and any other employee, working for the newspaper, weaken the running narrative the newspaper’s publisher owners and Editorial Board wish to convey and to maintain clear, categorical, and unequivocal. Consider, too, that, this new policy directive of the New York Times, as issued by the executive editor, Dean Baquet is logically absurd, as well as legally insupportable. For, if a newspaper is simply describing events, objectively and clearly—the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ ‘when, ‘where,’ and, occasionally, ‘how,’ of the news—an account that “mirrors” a state of affairs in the world, how can such objective description feasibly be subject to subjective analysis? The answer is that it cannot; for such descriptive account of a news event, of a particular state of affairs in the world, can only admit of one accurate descriptive account, not multiple accounts. Only subjective analyses—one’s opinions—of descriptive accounts can admit of and allow for multiple and incompatible propositions about an event. Thus, there can only be one accurate descriptive account about any given actual state of affairs but many subjective opinions about that one descriptive account. If so, then how can one’s opinion about an objective news account, the ‘why’ statements and ‘ought’ statements, “undermine the paper’s mission of reporting ‘objectively and clearly?’” The answer is that opinions cannot undermine a newspaper’s objective reporting of an event.Recall what we said, supra. Normative, prescriptive ‘ought’ statements about the way the world should be do not logically follow from or entail descriptive ‘is’ statements, namely declarative propositions about the way the world happens to be. So, then, take the example of a lunatic, or psychopathic terrorist who kills innocent people with a gun. The newspaper reporter recounts the event in a news story. Likely, the news account will be, as well, laced with inaccurate, suggestive wording regarding the gun incident. Then, suppose that the reporter that wrote the story for the newspaper, writes, on his own time, on a social media site, that he supports the arming of all American citizens, as a method for reducing criminal gun violence. Would that supposition undermine a newspaper’s mission of reporting accurately and objectively? How can it? It cannot. It cannot because logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of an event—that is to say, logically accurate, objective, clear reporting of a state of affairs in and of the world—does not implicate and cannot implicate, anything, intelligible about the way the world—from one perspective or another—ought to be. Yet, you and I both know where this goes. For, assume, then, the newspaper’s editorial board, follows up the descriptive account of a terrorist murdering innocent people with a firearm, with an Op-Ed calling for new restrictive gun laws, impacting law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens' exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, if a reporter working for the newspaper were to argue, contrary to the position of the editorial board, that all law-abiding, sane, responsible Americans ought to be armed and that Congress should enact a national handgun carry reciprocity law, such normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession would be at loggerheads with the editorial board’s own normative viewpoint on gun ownership and possession--one calling for confiscation of all firearms in the hands of civilians.It is not the descriptive account of a violent gun incident that the newspaper owners and editorial board are concerned about protecting. Rather, it is the normative, prescriptive remarks concerning the buttressing of restrictive gun laws that The New York Times owners and Editorial Board is desirous of protecting. For, the two normative, prescriptive viewpoints—one viewpoint expressing the desire for more restrictive gun laws and the other viewpoint calling for a relaxing of restrictive gun laws—are semantically incompatible and logically inconsistent. The reporter who writes something, on his own time, in another medium, arguing for the arming of civilian population in America could end up receiving a “pink slip” from his employer, a mainstream news organization, for that employee's troubles—and he may receive a very public rebuke as well.Extrapolating from this, to the new policy of the NY Times, it should be evident that the mission of the newspaper is not, contrary to Dean Baquet’s assertions, undermined if the newspaper were only concerned about protecting clear and objective and accurate reporting of news events. It is, rather, something other or, at least, in addition to the protection of objective and accurate reporting of news events. For, the more emphatic, persistent, and ominous mission of The New York Times is one not of reporting news events, it is, rather, one of persuasion—persuading the American citizenry, for example, that civilian gun possession should be radically restrained and constrained, and that the Second Amendment is archaic and should be repealed. And, these normative prescriptions of the way the Nation ought to look, of the way things ought to be are conveyed to the American public constantly, vociferously, incessantly, through the medium of The New York Times. Obviously, a reporter that does not share the normative worldview of the newspaper’s publisher and owners and of the Newspaper’s Editorial Board and who wishes to make his or her contrary thoughts known in another medium, on his or her own time, will be skating on thin ice, for it is this person’s personal opinion that the newspaper’s owners and editors really see as undermining one specific mission of the paper—a mission that is directed to restricting and thereby weakening gun rights, not expanding or strengthening gun rights. The objective reporting of a particular instance of gun violence is not affected by differing opinions concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The matter of restricting or strengthening gun rights has, then, absolutely nothing to do with the mere reporting of a particular incidence of gun violence. Normative, ethical pronouncements have nothing to do with and do not follow from a descriptive accounting of a particular event in the world. But, the newspaper’s owners and editors don’t wish to acknowledge this. They do not wish to be seen as preventing their employees from exercising their fundamental right of free speech. So, they concoct a subterfuge. They come up with a ludicrous rationale for their news policy—a rationale that is tantamount to doing just what they do not wish to be seen as doing: preventing their reporters from exercising their First Amendment right to speak freely, and on their own time, whatever it is that their reporters may wish to say, pertaining to personal opinions about this or that subject, through a medium other than through The New York Times newspaper.The NY Times’ owners thus deny to their employees the free exercise of a fundamental right guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a right they, as members of an “aristocratic elite,” as they fashion themselves, garner for themselves. And, of course, these aristocratic “elite” see no inconsistency in reserving for themselves those fundamental rights that they would deny to their employees, as American citizens, and which they would deny to most every other American citizen if they could, whether it be the right of free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that they would like to restrict or the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Imagine, for a moment, that the writers of the Arbalest Quarrel happened to work as reporters for the NY Times. Would the Times’ publishers and editors suffer us to write in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Not under this new policy as heralded by Dean Baquet, which he, as a spokesperson for The New York Times, sees as a good thing, as a positive thing. But that can only mean The New York Times does not draw a tenable distinction between its opinion articles and its news articles. Objective facts and subjective opinion are conflated. Opinion and Fact are all one and the same for the owners and Editorial Board of The New York Times. Thus, The New York Times owners and Editorial Board, through this incongruous sleight-of-hand, argue that its reporters cannot offer an opinion, even on their own time and through a medium other than the newspaper they work for if that opinion happens to be inconsistent with and therefore is perceived as operating to the detriment of the newspaper owners’ and Editorial Board’s running of an Op-Ed/News narrative. This, though, has nothing to do with protecting objective facts which can very well take care of themselves. It has everything to do with controlling the thought processes of the public. The public is coerced into accepting one line of thought regarding any subject that The New York Times happens to write on and the Newspaper will suffer no viewpoint to the contrary.

THE OWNERS AND EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE HYPOCRITES

The hypocrisy of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board toward the First Amendment free speech protection—a right it would retain for itself, as coupled with freedom of the Press, and which it has the audacity to refuse exercise of by the Newspaper’s employees—was not lost on another mainstream newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, no less a mainstream newspaper—a “gatekeeper” ostensibly on “the right” of the political spectrum, but still a mainstream media newspaper just the same, representing the wealthy “nobility” in this Country. William McGurn, writing an Opinion, titled, “The NFL vs. the New York Times,” on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, quoting the NY Times editor, Baquet, at length, which the NY Times itself dared only to touch upon ever so slightly for its readers, noted the hypocrisy and doublespeak and smug self-assurance coming from the Times. “Mr. Baquet says ‘. . . In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation. Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively. These guidelines apply to everyone in every department of the newsroom, including those not involved in coverage of government and politics. . . . We consider all social media activity by our journalists to come under this policy. . . . While you may think that your Facebook page, Twitter feed, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media accounts are private zones. Separate from your role at The Times, in fact everything we post or ‘like’ online is to some degree public. And everything we do in public is likely to be associated with The Times.” If this is the rationale for gagging a citizen’s right of free speech, it is a poor argument, as it denigrates the very idea inherent in a newspaper—the notion of factual reporting of events. It also denigrates the very notion of free expression, one of the essential legs upon which a free Republic—our free Republic—stands. Indeed, it is the very notion of critical comment and commentary that the American public has a right to demand. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of critical comment, commentary, and review. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board admit their fear of public consumption of opinions different from and contrary to their own. The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board fear open and public and lively debate. All this the American public now hears from a newspaper that loudly proclaims the right of a Free Press, codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—but, apparently, only so long as there exists one voice—that of the NY Times’ owners and Editorial Board which they would deign the American public to hear. Through this policy The New York Times’ owners and Editorial Board are telling their employees that the purpose of The New York Times goes far beyond the mere reporting of “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” far beyond the recitation of objective facts. The newspaper’s owners and Editorial Board has informed the American public, “clearly and objectively and accurately, that the newspaper engages in influence peddling and, more, that it will suffer no viewpoint on any subject other than its own, as dictated to it by its benefactors: the enclave of  incorrigible, intractable, ruthless, secretive, inordinately wealthy and powerful internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elite,” both here and abroad, who seek to undercut the sovereignty of this Nation, who seek to undermine the supremacy of this Nation’s laws, and who seek to pervert and debase the sanctity of the natural and fundamental rights of this Nation’s citizenry.The New York Times’ new policy goes well beyond the import and purport of the Hatch Act that applies to Federal Government Bureaucrats. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast Federal Government Bureaucracy from taking part in political campaign activities, but the Act does not prevent a Government Bureaucrat from expressing his own political or social or philosophical view on social media, on his or her own time, as that would be at loggerheads with the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Yet, the new policy of The New York Times' Editorial Board goes must further. For, here we have a mainstream newspaper, the fervent promoter of and benefactor of the Freedom of Press clause of the First Amendment, that dares to deny of its own employees the right of free speech—which also resides within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—when those employees wish to exercise, outside of their employment in their capacity as American citizens, the right embodied in the First Amendment. Thus, The New York Times disparages and decries of others what it would monopolize for itself—the right to express an opinion. Clearly the Times Newspaper is not interested in protecting objectivity in reporting. It is only interested in controlling opinion and, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the NY Times intends to control opinion--to control the narrative--completely, even if the exercise of that control amounts to denying--denying of its own employees, in their capacity as citizens of the United States, and denying to those employees, hypocritically, as well as denying to those employees, unlawfully-- the very right of free speech, which it would jealously guard for itself.Apparently, The New York Times is taking its cue from Germany. In an article posted on June 30, 2017, titled, “Delete Hate Speech or Pay Up, Germany Tells Social Media Companies,”  NY Times Reporters, Melissa Eddy and Mark Scott, write:“Social media companies operating in Germany face fines of as much as $57 million if they do not delete illegal, racist or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours under a law passed on Friday.The law reinforces Germany’s position as one of the most aggressive countries in the Western world at forcing companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter to crack down on hate speech and other extremist messaging on their digital platforms.But the new rules have also raised questions about freedom of expression. Digital and human rights groups, as well as the companies themselves, opposed the law on the grounds that it placed limits on individuals’ right to free expression. Critics also said the legislation shifted the burden of responsibility to the providers from the courts, leading to last-minute changes in its wording.Technology companies and free speech advocates argue that there is a fine line between policy makers’ views on hate speech and what is considered legitimate freedom of expression, and social networks say they do not want to be forced to censor those who use their services. Silicon Valley companies also deny that they are failing to meet countries’ demands to remove suspected hate speech online.Still, German authorities pressed ahead with the legislation. Germany witnessed an increase in racist comments and anti-immigrant language after the arrival of more than a million migrants, predominantly from Muslim countries, since 2015, and Heiko Maas, the justice minister who drew up the draft legislation, said on Friday, that it ensured that rules that currently apply offline would be equally enforceable in the digital sphere.”As a prime example of hypocritical, contradictory “doublespeak,” the Times Reporters, add this remark of Maas:“‘With this law, we put an end to the verbal law of the jungle on the internet and protect the freedom of expression for all,” Mr. Maas said. “We are ensuring that everyone can express their opinion freely, without being insulted or threatened.’“That is not a limitation, but a prerequisite for freedom of expression,” he continued.” What? Taking away a person’s right of free speech is to be equated with giving that person the right of free speech? Unless something was lost in translating the German into English, here, this remark by Heiko Maas is a contradiction in terms and the quintessence of bombastic absurdity. Maas should be ashamed of himself. Apparently, though, The New York Times felt there was something noteworthy in the remarks of Maas to the extent that The New York Times felt that Germany’s new National policy is worthy of adoption by the Times newspaper itself. Incredible! But, the absurdity fostered transcends well beyond the Times itself. As the newspaper reports, major publishing houses are hiring so-called “sensitivity readers”—at the moment directed to the writers of children’s books. In an article, published on December 24, 2017, titled, “In an Era of Online Outrage, Do Sensitivity Readers Result in Better Books, or Censorship?,” by Times reporter, Alexandra Alter, we are told that,“In today’s hair-trigger, hyperreactive social media landscape, where a tweet can set off a cascade of outrage and prompt calls for a book’s cancellation, children’s book authors and publishers are taking precautions to identify potential pitfalls in a novel’s premise or execution. Many are turning to sensitivity readers, who provide feedback on issues like race, religion, gender, sexuality, chronic illness and physical disabilities. The role that readers play in shaping children’s books has become a flash point in a fractious debate about diversity, cultural appropriation and representation, with some arguing that the reliance on sensitivity readers amounts to censorship. . . . Behind the scenes, these readers are having a profound impact on children’s literature, reshaping stories in big and small ways before they reach impressionable young audiences. Like fact checkers or copy editors, sensitivity readers can provide a quality-control backstop to avoid embarrassing mistakes, but they specialize in the more fraught and subjective realm of guarding against potentially offensive portrayals of minority groups, in everything from picture books to science fiction and fantasy novels. . . . Some see a downside to publishers’ growing reliance on sensitivity readers, and warn that it could lead to sanitized books that tiptoe around difficult topics. Skeptics say the heightened scrutiny discourages authors from writing about cultures other than their own, resulting in more homogenized literature. “Can we no longer read ‘Othello’ because Shakespeare wasn’t black?” the novelist Francine Prose wrote recently in an essay about sensitivity readers and censorship in The New York Review of Books."The NY Times' reporters, continue:

"Others have echoed that view, arguing that sensitivity readers might have derailed works like William Styron’s “The Confessions of Nat Turner,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” or Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” After the subject was covered in Slate, a writer for National Review fretted that “if ‘sensitivity readers’ are given the freedom to hijack authors’ visions, we’re going to lose some beloved works of art that we could have otherwise enjoyed.”

Is The New York Times’ “gag order” policy anything less than an attempt to censor opinion? Does not The New York Times impose its own sensitivity readers—its Editorial Board—on all ideas expressed. We are seeing, in this Country, an attempt to second-guess every written and spoken word. The American public is not the better but all the worse for it.This attempt by the Deep State and by the mainstream media to control guns, to control thoughts, to control actions is leading to societal upheaval, mass hysteria, pandemonium. Perhaps this is by design—an attempt to create volatility and confusion in order to weaken this Nation, to weaken its resolve, to weaken the Bill of Rights so that we, American citizens, will be ripe for takeover by the powers that seek to crush us into submission.

HOW FAR WILL THE NEW YORK TIMES AND OTHER MAINSTREAM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS GO TO TRAMPLE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AS WE ENTER A NEW YEAR?

As this year draws to an end, The New York Times has commenced a series of articles, “The Home Front,” where the newspaper’s Editorial Board is calling for a major transformation of the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 USCS § 921(a)(33)(A)(i). What is the Lautenberg Amendment? Essentially the Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, following in the footsteps of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, makes it unlawful for any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a gun. Here we have the NY Times Editorial Board writing an extensive series of articles on a law—subsumed under the Gun Control Act of 1968—that the Editorial Board knows little, if anything about, and seems to care even less of what it may know about, the law, but writes with presumed and presumptuous authority and certitude about a law as if it knows full well whereof it speaks. Yet, it knows nothing. Nonetheless, the NY Times Editorial Board skirts broad discussion of the actual law itself and yet writes extensively and boldly about why the law needs to be strengthened.The NY Times' Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public on matters beyond its professional ability to explain and decipher. Actually, the Editorial Board should not be proselytizing to the American public at all, but certainly not on matters of law, especially those impacting fundamental Constitutional Rights. The Editorial Board, likely, does not include lawyers. Unfortunately, that doesn’t prevent, the Editorial Board from expounding upon the law. That it chooses to do so is illustrative of an overbearing pompous attitude exhibited in discussing legal matters. This pompous attitude adds to, rather than distracts from, this Newspaper’s condescending attitude toward its readers. The Editorial Board apparently believes it can successfully cloak its ineptitude concerning law and legal matters by cultivating an air of moral superiority when pontificating on matters involving firearms and on the exercise of the right to keep and bear them.The Editorial Board of the NY Times suggests—nay, demands—as seen in this series, which has yet to conclude, that the law—the Lautenberg Amendment—ought to be transformed. The Editorial Board would create a monstrosity, denying to millions of Americans their right to own and possess firearms.We will take to task in forthcoming articles on the Lautenberg Amendment in the New Year. We will provide you with the language of the Statute as it exists—something The New York Times will not provide for its readers. We will explain the meaning of the law as drafted and enacted, and will discuss problems with it, in the context of the Second Amendment and in the context of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as well. The law is poorly drafted. The New York Times would make a poorly drafted law even worse, as it calls on the public to blindly go where the newspaper leads it—to the edge of a cliff.Returning, for a moment, to the Yale a cappella group’s Wiffinpoof Song, consider, in light of the foregoing remarks set down in this essay:

WHO REALLY ARE THESE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP IN THE WIFFINPOOF SONG WHO HAVE LOST THEIR WAY? ARE THE BLACK LITTLE SHEEP THOSE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHO HOLD TO TRADITIONAL VALUES, MORES, CODES OF CONDUCT, HISTORICAL PURITY—WHO VIEW THIS NATION AS THE FOUNDERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, ESTABLISHED—OR DO THEY INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THIS NATION: NAMELY AND PARTICULARLY, THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE  MAINSTREAM MEDIA; VARIOUS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS; THOSE PEOPLE WHO STAFF THE VAST BUREAUCRACY OF GOVERNMENT; AND NOT LEAST, THOSE CONFUSED AMERICANS WHO HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE CAREFULLY PLANNED AND ORCHESTRATED RUSE THAT NATIONALISM IS BAD, THAT OPEN BORDERS ARE GOOD; THAT ANYONE WHO BELIEVES HIM OR HERSELF TO BE AN ‘AMERICAN’ IS AN ‘AMERICAN’ EVEN IF THAT PERSON IS RESIDING HERE ILLEGALLY; THAT GUNS ARE EVIL AND THAT GUN BUYBACKS ARE GOOD; THAT GENDER IS NOT BIOLOGICAL AND ABSOLUTE BUT INFINITELY MALLEABLE, SO THAT A MAN IS A WOMAN AND A WOMAN IS A MAN AS ONE WISHES TO BE; OR, PERHAPS, NEITHER, OR PERHAPS, BOTH AT ONCE; AND THAT WE, AMERICAN CITIZENS, ARE NO LONGER TRULY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, BUT, RATHER, CITIZENS OF THE WORLD—ONE BIG, GLORIOUS HAPPY FAMILY, FIXATED ON MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE: SPORTS, ENTERTAINMENT, CLOTHES AND JEWELRY AND COSMETICS—THE DAILY DOSE OF SOMA TO KEEP A PERSON, HAPPY, CONTENTED, AND ASLEEP? PERHAPS, TO SOME EXTENT, BOTH ARE “BLACK LITTLE SHEEP”: AMERICANS WHO SEEK TO HOLD ON TO THEIR BIRTHRIGHT, WHO CHOOSE NOT TO “GET WITH” THE NEW PROGRAM, THE BRAVE NEW WORLD ORDER, ON THE ONE HAND, AND THOSE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO SEEK TO DEMOLISH THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT THE FOUNDERS OF THIS NATION, OF THIS REPUBLIC, HAD SO LOVINGLY BEQUEATHED TO US, THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY? PERHAPS THIS NATION AND ITS CITIZENS AND THE IGNORANT, ILL-INFORMED AMONG US AND THE DEMON KIND WHO WISH TO RULE OVER EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL WELL LOST AND HAVE ALL GONE ASTRAY. PERHAPS IT IS MUCH TOO LATE FOR THIS NATION AND MUCH TOO LATE FOR ALL THE DENIZENS IN IT. IF SO, THEN, LET US ALL CHIME IN: “BAA, BAA, BAA!” BUT, WE HOPE ALL IS NOT LOST FOR US, TRUE AMERICANS, WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR CONSTITUTION'S MOST SACRED AND CRITICAL COMPONENT--THE BILL OF RIGHTS--WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE OUR NATION AND OUR CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALISTS, TO UPHOLD OUR TRADITIONS, OUR VALUES, IN THE MODE OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS GREAT NATION, IN THE MODE OF THE FRAMERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WE MUST CARRY ON; WE MUST PERSEVERE, AND WE MUST BE EVER WARY AND CAUTIOUS OF THOSE WHO TALK ABOUT CHANGING OUR NATION, CHANGING OUR CORE VALUES AND CORE TRADITIONS, CHANGING OUR HISTORY, "TO KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES;" FOR THESE ARE PSEUDO AMERICANS; THEY ARE THE BETRAYERS OF OUR NATION, THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF THE FOUNDERS OF THIS FREE REPUBLIC; THEY ARE BETRAYERS OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OF OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS. THEY USE AN ODD NOTION OF MORALITY TO CLOAK THEIR DESIRE TO TEAR DOWN THIS NATION STATE; TO DESTROY OUR SOVEREIGNTY; TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION; TO DESTROY OUR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES--RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT EXIST IN US INTRINSCIALLY AS THEY COME TO US FROM THE CREATOR AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE LAWFULLY TAKEN FROM US BY GOVERNMENT. WE MUST PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN OUR RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE. ALL THESE NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER CONCERTED ATTACK BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND BY THEIR FELLOW TRAVEVLERS IN CONGRESS AND BY THOSE BUREAUCRATS THAT LURK IN THE SHADOWY CORNERS OF GOVERNMENT, UNSEEN AND UNHEARD, AND BY THE SECRETIVE AND RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST ROTHSCHILD CLAN AND BY THEIR TOADIES IN THE UN AND IN THE WTO, IMF, WORLD BANK AND IN OTHER "INTERNATIONAL" ORGANIZATIONS--EVER SCHEMING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS TO INCORPORATE THIS NATION INTO THE EU AND EVENTUALLY TO DISMEMBER ALL WESTERN NATION STATES, MERGING AND SUBMERGING THEM INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER, PRESIDED OVER BY A COLD-HEARTED WEALTHY AND POWERFUL RULING "ELITE," DICTATING POLICY TO WE, THE NEW SERFS OF THAT NEW WORLD ORDER, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS, NO LIBERTIES, SAVE THOSE THAT THE RULING "ELITE" DEIGN TO GRANT TO US AND WHO MAY, ON A WHIM, TAKE FROM US.

The Arbalest Quarrel seeks to awaken the American public from its slumber. As always, and most importantly, the Arbalest Quarrel will set the record straight on matters involving this Nation’s most sacred right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2018 we will press for enactment of national handgun carry reciprocity and propose our own language to avoid attempts by some States to ignore the national handgun carry reciprocity if, or, hopefully, when, enacted. We will explore the qualifications of certain individuals we would like to see on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we will continue with our detailed expositions of Federal and State firearms legislation and of Federal and State case law impacting on the Second Amendment. We will return to completing series we had commenced writing on in 2017 and in previous years. We have a lot of work to do, and much to accomplish.Antigun groups and antigun legislators are not sitting idly by. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment. But, like brave Horatio at the Bridge, the Arbalest Quarrel intends to stop these anti-American groups and anti-American people. But, we intend to do much more. We intend to take the fight to them, strengthening the Second Amendment, along with and in conjunction with the critical work NRA does on behalf of Americans.We will never give up our values, our history, our traditions, our Bill of Rights!Our articles and our essays stand as a testament to our commitment in support of our Bill of Rights and, especially, in support of our sacred Second Amendment. Please feel free to explore our site at www.arbalestquarrel.com. We encourage you to join our list of readers. It is easy to add your name to our list. You will receive immediate notification of the posting of our articles. There is no cost to you.We all have our work cut out for us. But, together, taking nothing for granted, and working hard to preserve and strengthen our Bill of Rights, and supporting our President in this effort, we can succeed in holding our Nation together, in the vein the Founders of our Republic intended. Won’t you join us?_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS ARE THE PROBLEM. THERE IS A SOLUTION: IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF H.R. 5271

THE TIME TO DEAL WITH HILLARY CLINTON IS BEFORE SHE ENTERS THE OVAL OFFICE; NOT AFTER, FOR, BY THEN, IT WILL BE TOO LATE, BOTH FOR CONGRESS AND FOR US, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. INDICTING AND PROSECUTING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON NOW FOR HER SERIOUS CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT WILL MAKE IT LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBILE FOR CLINTON TO SECURE THE U.S. PRESIDENCY BECAUSE SHE WILL HAVE TO FORFEIT THE NOMINATION EVEN AS SHE INSISTS THAT HER NAME REMAIN ON THE BALLOT. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY COULD NOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALLOW HILLARY CLINTON TO REMAIN AS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE FOR THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IF SHE WERE INDICTED AND PROSECUTED ON FELONY CHARGES--CHARGES THAT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY RESULT IN CONVICTION AND THEREAFTER INCARCERATION IN FEDERAL PRISON TO SERVE TIME--MANY YEARS TIME--FOR HER CRIMES AGAINST THE NATION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

PART ONE

 “Et tu, Brute? Then, fall Caesar!” ~William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” Act III, Scene I (Assassins in the Roman Senate conspire to murder Caesar and they carry out their murder of Caesar).

HAS THE U.S. CONGRESS JOINED THE ASSASSINS WHO DARE DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, OUR COUNTRY’S CONSTITUTION, AND OUR COUNTRY'S INSTITUTIONS? IF SO, WHAT MOTIVATES CONGRESS? WHAT IS THE CAUSE OF OR FOR ITS INACTION? IS IT SIMPLY TIMIDITY—IS CONGRESS AFRAID TO TAKE ACTION? OR, IS IT TEMERITY—IS CONGRESS RECKLESSLY INDIFFERENT TO THE DANGER POSED BY HILLARY CLINTON? OR, WORST OF ALL, IS IT CONSANGUINITY--IS CONGRESS, IN FACT, OF THE "SAME BLOOD" AS CLINTON--NEITHER TIMOROUS, NOR TEMERITOUS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BUT CONSANGUINEOUS--SHARING AN INCESTUOUS POLITICAL KINSHIP WITH CLINTON, WORKING QUIETLY, SURREPTICIOUSLY, IN THE BACKGROUND, IN THE SHADOWS, TO ASSIST THE ASCENT OF A MONSTER TO THE WHITE HOUSE? WHETHER IT IS THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER, WE, AMERICANS, LOSE OUR COUNTRY, OUR CONSTITUTION, OUR INSTITUTIONS, OUR HERITAGE, OUR VERY IDENTITY AS A UNIQUE PEOPLE. FOR CONGRESS WILL HAVE SHOWN IT HAS CONDONED AND PARDONED CLINTON'S CRIMES AND WILL HAVE, AS WELL, LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR A MONSTER TO COMMIT YET FURTHER CRIMES AGAINST THIS NATION, AGAINST ITS PEOPLE, AGAINST THE NATION'S CONSTITUTION AND SYSTEM OF LAWS, AND AGAINST ITS INSTITUTIONS. OUR NATION'S FIRST BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, CONGRESS, WILL HAVE, THROUGH ITS ACTION OR INACTION, ABETTED THOSE WHO HAVE MURDERED OUR NATION, MURDERED ITS PEOPLE, MURDERED ITS CONSTITUTION AND LEGAL SYSTEM, MURDERED ITS INSTITUTIONS--ALL THE HORRORS IMAGINABLE AND MANY HORRORS UNIMAGINABLE, HAVING PLACED A MONSTER IN A POSITION WHERE ITS BOUNDLESS BLOOD LUST--UNCHECKED--WILL BE UNLEASHED TO FULL EFFECT.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a criminal--a criminal of the worst sort--less so a person, she has become a creature--one that has betrayed its Nation. This creature has betrayed its Nation many times over--would do so many more times in the future, if given the chance. Of that, no doubt exists. But few in Congress care to prevent this creature's rise, its ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency--the ultimate horror, the ultimate travesty ever to face the American people, as a Nation.Clinton has committed serious federal crimes, felonies. Three we know of: mishandling classified government information, lying to federal investigators; public corruption in high Office. If convicted of any one or all of them, Hillary Clinton would face both large monetary penalties and lengthy imprisonment in federal prison. The Justice Department has come down quickly on offenders who have committed the same crimes. And, the Justice Department has come down hard on offenders who have committed the same acts. But, the Justice Department takes no action against Hillary Clinton. It takes no action against the one person who, as U.S. President, can and would harm this Nation, horribly, irreparably. Why?The enormity of Clinton’s misconduct dwarfs those of others whom the Justice Department indicted and prosecuted. Yet the Justice Department gives Clinton a pass. It does so despite the clarity, the cogency, and completeness of evidence of Clinton’s criminal misconduct. It does so despite the sheer volume of evidence pointing to Clinton’s criminal misconduct. It does so despite the eagerness of Clinton to commit criminal misconduct. It does so despite the multivarious nature of Clinton’s commission of crimes. It does so despite the profuseness of her crimes over extended period of time. It does so despite the repetitiveness of specific criminal acts over an extended period of time. And, it does so despite the vast time scale in which Clinton’s criminal misconduct took place. What is Clinton’s response? Just this: she covers up her misconduct by destroying evidence and lying to the F.B.I. investigators. She also urged her underlings to do the same, and they complied. Under 18 U.S.C. Appendix § 3 C1.1, titled, “Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice,” a trial court could extend Hillary Clinton’s prison sentence for covering up her crimes. But, Clinton walks away free as the wind. She is contemptuous of our Nation’s laws. Why shouldn’t she be? The Justice Department shows the Nation that Hillary Clinton is Above the Law, that she is Too Big to Prosecute.The Justice Department has failed to mete out justice. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of crime. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of multiple instances of crime. It has failed to mete out justice despite clear evidence of extraordinarily serious crimes.

THE PRESIDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE F.B.I. DIRECTOR ARE CLEARLY CULPABLE OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT IN FAILING TO BRING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON TO JUSTICE.

An interesting editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, on October 24, 2016, titled, “‘Rigged’ Was Hillary’s FBI Case.”  The author, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., member of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, said “that Hillary Clinton is her party’s nominee and her way to the White House only because the Obama Administration decided to waive the law on handling classified material—and the FBI went along in order to assure that its designated heiress would succeed to the presidency.” Jenkins added, “Mrs. Clinton was verbally convicted by the FBI chief for mishandling classified information yet somehow not formally charged.”On one point Jenkins is dead wrong. The Obama Administration cannot “waive” application of federal criminal statute. If Obama did so, he violated his oath of Office, set forth in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.“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.’”If Obama waived application of federal criminal statute, he also violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. That Section says the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Were Obama to “waive” a Congressional Statute means he places himself above the law—that he is a law unto himself. To waive any portion of the federal criminal code is an impeachable offense. Article II, Section 4, says, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”Jenkins also says that “somehow” the Justice Department didn’t charge Clinton with a crime. We know how and why Justice Department Officials didn’t charge Hillary Clinton for violations of federal law. Political constraints—possibly threats—hindered the Justice Department’s legal obligations to this Country; to its system of laws; to the Constitution, and to the citizenry.Hillary Clinton emerged unscathed because the Executive Branch of Government would not indict and prosecute her for her felonious conduct. Events suggest the U.S. President Barack Obama, and the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and the F.B.I. Director, James Comey acted, in concert, to preclude indictment and prosecution of Clinton. They did so knowing Clinton should face indictment and prosecution.If the Attorney General indicted and prosecuted Clinton for her crimes, Clinton would have to step down. She could not remain the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. President. Obama and Lynch intend for Clinton to remain in the race. Those two must have compelled Comey to go along. He did. Perhaps he did so reluctantly. But Comey did go along. He therefore bears responsibility for his actions, no less so than Obama and Lynch.These three individuals, Obama, Lynch, and Comey, have undermined our Free Republic, one ruled by law, not by men. These three individuals have undermined our Constitution and our system of laws. These three individuals risk the lives of 324 million plus American citizens; for, Clinton’s domestic and foreign policies will undercut the security of this Nation.These three individuals, Obama, Lynch, and Comey have, through their actions, enabled a criminal to hold the highest Office in the Land. How outrageous is that?Obviously, Obama, Lynch, and Comey worked in concert, making certain Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the White House wouldn’t be foreclosed. These three individuals, all trained and well-versed in the law and in our jurisprudence, knew that Clinton should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of federal law. But they didn’t act properly and reasonably, as our system of laws demand. The conclusion to draw: Obama, Lynch, and Comey conspired to foreclose prosecution of Clinton. Are other powerful, secretive, corrupt people or groups involved in this conspiracy? To place a criminal in the White House requires the effort of many.But, this much we know: Obama, Lynch, and Comey are high Government Officials. They are the faces we see, regardless of those directing them, behind the scenes. These three owe a duty to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation. They have, instead, trampled on our Constitution, on our laws, on our jurisprudence. They have disgraced themselves in the eyes of our Nation and we call them out for it.

EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY HAVE CRIMINALLY CONSPIRED NOT TO INDICT OR PROSECUTE HILLARY CLINTON, DESPITE CLEAR AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF CLINTON’S SERIOUS CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT. OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY HAVE, THROUGH THEIR CONSPIRACY TO REFRAIN FROM METING OUT JUSTICE WHERE JUSTICE IS DEMANDED, HAVE KNOWINGLY MADE IT FEASIBLE FOR A CRIMINAL TO GAIN HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE—THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN THE LAND. THUS, THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS, OBAMA, LYNCH, AND COMEY, HAVE CONSPIRED TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE AGAINST THIS COUNTRY AND AGAINST ITS PEOPLE. CONSPIRACY IS A FEDERAL CRIME.

Conspiracy, itself, is a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 371 says, “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”Evidence supports a charge of criminal conspiracy against the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and against the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and against the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey.So, Clinton isn’t the only criminal here. To seat a criminal in the Office of the Chief Executive of the United States requires criminal machinations by many, many people and organizations.The Obama Administration is itself a criminal enterprise. Therefore, it cannot police itself. This Country requires independent counsel, appointed by the Judiciary and answerable to Congress, not to the Chief Executive. Independent counsel would indict and prosecute Hillary Clinton for her crimes. Independent counsel wouldn’t stop there. Counsel would investigate Obama, Lynch, and Comey. Independent counsel would investigate how far this criminal conspiracy to seat a criminal in the Oval Office goes. Independent counsel would indict and prosecute all such persons for criminal conspiracy.But, no mechanism for appointing independent counsel now exists. We must correct this. We must do so at once._______________________________________

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS REFUSE TO ENACT H.R. 5271! THEY ALL NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE UNDER OUR LAWS.

PART TWO

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created the independent counsel position. The Act ensured ethics and integrity in Government when the U.S. Department of Justice failed us.The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 had a built-in sunset provision. It would lapse at the end of five years unless reauthorized by Congress.Congress reauthorized the Act in 1982, 1987, and 1994. But the law lapsed in 1999 after Congress, under pressure from both Bill Clinton’s Administration and the Democratic Party, allowed it to lapse. Fifteen plus years passed, and then two Congressmen, Republicans, Michael Turner and Rick Allen, sought to revitalize ethics and integrity in Government. They introduced the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271, on May 20, 2016. What happened to the Act? The Arbalest Quarrel tried to find out. See our article of August 27, 2016, titled, “The Foundation of Justice Undone By The Foundation, Clinton.”  We haven’t heard a word. Apparently, the Act languishes in Committee. Republicans, no less so than Democrats, have no interest in mandating integrity in Government. The result: Hillary Clinton, a person who shouldn’t run for any elected Office may become the 45^th President of the United States.It defies belief that any rational human being would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for U.S. President. It is absurd she could be the next U.S. President. Clinton’s ascent to the Presidency makes a mockery of that Office, and of our Country; and of our Constitution, and of our system of laws. Clinton will shred the Constitution. The shredding of our Constitution will begin with loss of our sacred Second Amendment.Gangsters preside over our Executive Branch. Congress must act against the treachery that seeks to destroy our Country from within. Congress must enact the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. They must do so immediately. Understand: We are witnessing a coup d'état of our Government. It’s not occurring noisily, through a military seizure of Government, but quietly, insidiously, by elements that lurk in the shadows. We must fight this despicable effort to wrest control of Government from the People.You must help us. You must do so for the good of our Country, its Constitution, and its People. And, you can help. Please read, the “Take Action Notice,” below._________________________________

IMPORTANT TAKE ACTION NOTICE

You can make a real difference for Donald Trump and deliver a knock-out blow to Hillary Clinton’s bid for the U.S. Presidency.Hillary Clinton has committed many serious crimes against the U.S. and has avoided justice due to widespread corruption in the Obama Administration. Too little has been said about this by the mainstream media and nothing has been done by Republican Centrists and Democrats in Congress to bring her to justice.  But it’s not too late if we act now!We must prevent a travesty of justice. An independent special prosecutor to properly investigate Clinton’s crimes would have an immediate impact on her election campaign. It would literally stop her in her tracks and plug-the-hole on her campaign. Thereafter, a special prosecutor could investigate others who have conspired to wrest control of the United States Government from the People of the United States, by placing a criminal in the Office of the U.S. Presidency.But, Congress must enact a law enabling appointment of independent counsel.Draft legislation exists. It is H.R. 5271: the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016. Congressmen Rick Allen and Michael Turner sponsored H.R. 5271. But it apparently rests dormant in Committee. This draft legislation must be debated and voted on by the full House, in full view of the American Public, and this must take place without further delay.The American People must know whether Government still reflects the will of the People. Congress cannot sit idly by. But, at the moment, it looks like Congress is doing just that. Congress is sheepishly allowing the Government to be wrested from control of the People.Don’t let Congress off the hook! Each member of Congress must take a stand.If you sincerely care about the direction our Nation is seek to hold onto your rights and liberties, you must act to compel Congress to act.What is required is easy and won’t take more than a minute of your time.Here’s what you need to do:Call and/or email your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative. Tell them to call for an emergency session to enact H.R. 5271 and bring back ethics in government. Let them know you will not vote for them if they do not support this bill.The number to call is: (202) 224-3121. A recording at the U.S. Capitol Office will ask you for your State and zip code. It will then ask you to press #1 for your U.S. Senator and/or #2 for your U.S. Representative. Within seconds you will be connected to a staff assistant.To email go to: www.house.gov and follow the instructions.You can also follow-up by contacting Ammoland Shooting Sport News at www.ammoland.com and leave a comment.Remember, the choice is yours. You can do nothing and pay the consequences of your inaction or you can do your part and make a difference; a big difference!  We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, are doing our part to ensure a “Trump” victory and are counting on you to do the same![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.

ONE MAN, JAMES B. COMEY, DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I., COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF SEATING A LIKELY CRIMINAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE; HE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, is Hillary Clinton's best enabler and as that enabler, who would suffer her evil, he forsakes and abandons not only his own good character, but the well-being of a nation.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“. . . you never exactly lie, but often you don’t exactly not lie, either. You tell people only what you want them to know, and not a word more or less, and let them make of it what they will.” ~Taylor Caldwell, Captains And The Kings, Part Two, Chapter 5, page 497, Doubleday & Company, Inc. (1972)

FIRST HYPOTHESIS: A MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION, BUT ONE WHO WIELDS LITTLE TO NO POWER AND WHO FALLS PREY TO CORRUPTING INFLUENCES OR WHO OTHERWISE FINDS HIMSELF COMPROMISED, BRINGS DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, TRULY; BUT SUCH A MAN HARMS ONLY HIMSELF. HE HAS LITTLE CAPACITY FOR HARMING HIS HOUSE—AN ENTIRE NATION.

SECOND HYPOTHESIS: A MAN OF GOOD CHARACTER AND REPUTATION BUT ONE WHO HAPPENS TO WIELD CONSIDERABLE POWER, AS WELL, HAS TREMENDOUS POWER TO PERSUADE. AND, IF THAT MAN SHOULD HAPPEN TO FALL PREY TO CORRUPTING INFLUENCES OR, IF THAT MAN SHOULD OTHERWISE FIND HIMSELF COMPROMISED, DISHONOR BEFALLS NOT ONLY HIMSELF BUT HIS HOUSE AND CAN, MOST ASSUREDLY, WITH HIS WORDS —HIS HALF-TRUTHS, HIS EVASIONS, HIS LIES—CONTRIBUTE TO THE DOWNFALL OF HIS HOUSE—AN ENTIRE NATION.

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, the House Judiciary Committee held a second oversight Hearing on FBI operations.The Committee called on the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, once again, to appear and to testify on behalf of the Bureau. House Democrats tried, however unsuccessfully and certainly inappropriately, to steer the Hearing toward irrelevant policy matters, several of which were clearly outside the purview of the Bureau and outside the true purpose of the Hearing. But House Republicans were, fortunately, not persuaded to follow suit and kept the Hearing on target. They focused their attention on the critical matter at hand: the conduct of the F.B.I. in undertaking its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her underlings.House Republicans grilled Comey on the F.B.I.’s mishandling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s own mishandling of classified federal Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. Comey was, as always, perspicacious, articulate, respectful toward Congress, candid, and ostensibly sincere, rarely showing irritation. He was also cautious, attentive, intransigent, keenly observant, and adamant. He wouldn’t budge on his decision not to recommend, to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, indictment of Hillary Clinton on multiple federal felony charges. In Comey’s estimation, as he declared to the House Judiciary Committee, neither Hillary Clinton nor her underlings merit indictment under federal statute.Comey’s protestations are both weak and at times patently ludicrous, in light of, one, the weight of evidence screaming for indictment of Clinton—evidence Comey had himself reported in his July 5, 2016 statement to the American People; and in light, two, of the mass of inconsistencies House Republicans brought to the Director’s attention, concerning the conduct of Clinton’s cronies during the course of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation and, too, the odd manner in which the F.B.I. conducted several of its interviews—a matter which House Republicans also brought to the F.B.I. Director’s attention.During the course of the Hearing, one inescapable and very disturbing inference, as voiced by one Republican member of the panel, could not but be drawn. It was this: the decision to let Clinton and her underlings off the hook—whosoever it was who made it—must have been decided well before the F.B.I. criminal investigation into violations of federal law had concluded—in fact, perhaps, before the criminal investigation even began. The unstated presumption, implied by the inference, is that the entire criminal investigation was an elaborate and extremely expensive but ultimately vacuous performance, predicated on necessity, no doubt and, so, definitely no hoax, for serious misconduct by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and by her underlings, did exist, and serious crimes had been, on balance, committed—but such probability of crimes the F.B.I. found were never meant to be prosecuted. Someone or some powerful vested interests here or abroad made certain that would not happen.The painful realization is that the F.B.I. has allowed Hillary Clinton and her toadies to avoid criminal prosecution for serious crimes against the Country, against this Country’s Constitution, and against this Country’s citizenry. Americans may one day—assuming this Country, as an independent Sovereign Nation still exists—bring the U.S. Department of Justice itself to account for shirking its most sacred duties to God, Country, People, and Law.

WHAT COMEY’S DECISION HAS WROUGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Through the failure of the F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, to recommend indictment of both Hillary Clinton and her cronies on felony charges and through the failure of the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to charge Hillary Clinton and her cronies with multiple felony counts, the Justice Department has laid the groundwork for placing the most despicable—and, let us say, to use one of Clinton’s own words, deplorable—person ever to hold public office in the highest Office of the Land—a selfish person, an amoral person, a person loathsomely consumed by the naked lust for power, rabidly consumed by the lurid desire for personal aggrandizement, and ravenously consumed by the noxious need to accumulate vast sums of money, ignominiously, through the sale of high public Office; a person who has clearly broken our Nation’s laws, has broken many of them, and has broken them many times over, and has urged and encouraged others to do so as well; a person who cares not one whit for the honor of our Country; or for our Constitution; or for our Country’s laws; or for our sacred rights and liberties—those sacred rights and liberties hard fought for by the founders of our Nation; or for our Countrymen, many of whom have sacrificed their life that we may remain a free People and a free, sovereign Nation.If Clinton wins the election both she and her cronies will have carte blanche to complete what Clinton, as Secretary of State, had begun: destruction of this Country’s laws, its Sovereignty, its economy, its culture, its heritage, its security, the rights and liberties of its citizenry—indeed, everything upon which this once mighty Nation once stood for and represented.At the September 28, 2016, Congressional Hearing, House Republicans once again asked the F.B.I. Director, lamely, to reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misconduct and those of her underlings. Comey again refused to do so; nor would he be willing to look into his Bureau’s own mishandling of the investigation.Congress is, as well, apparently unwilling to allow the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014 out of Committee. Doing so would circumvent a recalcitrant Justice Department, reluctant to enforce our Nation’s laws.The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014 requires the appointment of outside, independent counsel to investigate serious crimes of high public officials when the Department of Justice is unable or unwilling to uphold the laws of this Nation. Congress and the Courts take over the duty of seeing that justice is served when the Executive Branch is unable or unwilling to police itself through the U.S. Department of Justice. The failure of Congress to allow open debate and a full House vote on the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2014, means that many members of Congress, as with the Executive Branch of the federal Government, are not too keen on embracing integrity in Government. Integrity does not, apparently, rank very high in importance in the conduct of our Nation’s business.The Arbalest Quarrel has previously discussed the need for appointment of independent counsel to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton’s misconduct during her tenure as Secretary of State and has written to the sponsors of the bill, Representatives Michael Turner and Rick Allen, urging them to act. The Arbalest Quarrel Article is titled, "The Foundation of Justice undone by the Foundation, Clinton." To date we have heard not a word about action on the bill. The silence is deafening.Apparently, Congress has neither the will nor the fortitude to compel integrity in the federal Government. Is this not an act of betrayal against the Country and the American People?Clearly, there is blame aplenty to go around, but what does it take to shame the Government to act at the behest of the People to prevent the calamity of a likely criminal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, seated in the White House?_____________________________________

IS HILLARY CLINTON, LIKE THE BIG BANKS, TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE, EVEN IF—ESPECIALLY IF—HER MISCONDUCT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF TREASON?

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

“He said to himself—though not without a dim inner protest: We are our own destiny. If we are victims at all, or conquerors, we have done it in our minds, and our will, or with our faulty judgments or our illusions. If we permit others to exploit us, in private life or in government, we chose it. Or we made the fatal error of acquiescence, and for that we should be condemned. The world forgives everything but weakness and submission. It forgives everyone but a victim. For there is always battle, even if you die in it. In any event death comes to all men. How you died was your own choice, fighting or submitting.” ~Taylor Caldwell, Captains And The Kings, Part One, Chapter 17, page 178, Doubleday & Company, Inc. (1972)

APART FROM SUBSTANTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FELONY CRIMES INVOLVING, ONE, THE MISHANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, TWO, CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY IN HIGH PUBLIC OFFICE, AND, THREE, INTENTIONALLY LYING TO OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING A LEGITIMATE INVESTIGATION INTO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, DID HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, AS SECRETARY OF STATE, ENGAGE IN ANY CONDUCT THAT RISES TO THE LEVEL OF OUTRIGHT TREASON? IF NOT, DOES THE TOTALITY OF CLINTON’S MISCONDUCT AS SECRETARY OF STATE SUPPORT A CHARGE OF TREASON?

To answer these questions we should first take a look at the history of “treason.” We need to place the crime of “treason” in historical context. We can trace the notion of ‘treason’ to English law. An Eminent English Jurist of the Eighteenth Century, Sir William Blackstone “wrote that treason ‘imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith.’ Blackstone further noted that treason against the sovereign—termed ‘high treason’—amounts to the ‘highest civil crime.’” “State Treason: The History and Validity of Treason Against Individual States," J. Taylor McConkie, Brigham Young University, B.A.; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 101 Ky. L.J. 281, 283 (2012/2013).Although U.S. law takes its cue from English law, the betrayal against the Sovereign that Blackstone talks about is betrayal against the Monarch, the King of England. Of course, the U.S. does not have a Monarch although one might argue that, in effect, we do have a Monarch. But, even as the U.S. President has, in evident ways in recent years, assumed ever more power unto himself, still, under our Constitution and our system of laws, it is the American people in whom sovereignty ultimately resides. The People of the United States as a singular body are essentially the Country. An act of betrayal against Country is, then, an act of betrayal against the People of the United States in whom ultimate power exists under our system of laws and under our Constitution.

CAN A CHARGE OF TREASON BE LEVELLED AGAINST THE HIGHEST OFFICIAL IN THE LAND?

Where power to make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws rests in a Monarch—that power is absolute. A subject of the Sovereign can betray the Sovereign and thereby commit treason. But, the Sovereign cannot betray himself if he is the Supreme Law of the Land.In the United States, though, the U.S. President, as a citizen of the United States, is not a law unto himself—certainly not if our Constitution has any force and efficacy.Yet some U.S. Presidents have, in their deeds, if not in their words, ascribed such power to themselves. If betrayal, treachery, or breach of faith to Country is, in essence, as William Blackstone said, the sine qua non of “treason,” what specific conduct of an actor rises to the level of betrayal, treachery, or breach of faith to Country?

THE LAWS OF TREASON IN AMERICA

The crime of treason appears in two significant places. First and foremost, the crime of treason appears in the United States Constitution. Article III, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 set forth:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.""The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”Of note, the President of the United States, and other high-ranking officers are not exempt from a charge of treason levelled against them as it relates to their betrayal of the American People while in Office. The U.S. Constitution makes specific provision for this betrayal. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”The crime of treason is also codified in federal Statute. You will find the crime of treason in the United States Code: Title 18, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure:” “Part I, “Crimes;” “Chapter 115, “Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.” 18 U.S.C. § 2381, titled, clearly, plainly, and succinctly, “Treason,” sets forth: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

TAKE NOTE OF TWO IMPORTANT POINTS IN THE ABOVE ACCOUNT OF TREASON AS CODIFIED IN OUR CONSTITUTION AND IN OUR STATUTES

One, the founders of our Republic felt that the crime of treason was so horrific that they made specific provision for it in the U.S. Constitution, specifically warning the highest public officials in the Land, that they, no less than any ordinary citizen, are not above the law and that they may be charged with the crime of treason if their actions ever betray their duties to Country, to the citizens of the Nation, and to the Constitution whom they are sworn to serve.Two, concomitant with and consistent with the Constitutional provision, the federal statute clarifies the Constitutional prohibition and is, to our knowledge, the only federal Statute that specifically, directly, and unequivocally, within a few words of mentioning the crime, calls for the possibility of death for those individuals who are convicted of it. Thus, Congress made abundantly clear the particular heinousness of the crime of treason.

ENDNOTE

We continue our exposition of the crime of treason in forthcoming articles. Our purpose is to ascertain whether a reasonable legal basis exists under our law and under our Constitution to indict Hillary Rodham Clinton on the charge of treason.With less than six weeks remaining before the U.S. Presidential election every American citizen has a critical choice to make. It is absolutely incumbent on all Americans—who care deeply for the continuation of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation, beholding to no other Nation, subordinated to no other Nation, who truly believes in the rule of law and who holds to our inviolate rights and liberties as codified in our sacred Bill of Rights—to make certain that a likely criminal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, sets not one foot into the White House.There is only one way to prevent a travesty and calamity from ensuing. The stakes could not be higher. Regardless of your past or present Party affiliation, you must cast your vote for Donald Trump.How Donald Trump comports himself as U.S. President is, as we must concede, of concern. This is predicated on specific statements he has made. Yet, the Nation can survive Trump’s excesses. But, the Republic will be well lost if Hillary Clinton—a person who cares little for any American and even less for our Constitution, and especially for our Bill of Rights; and for the continuation of our Country as an independent, sovereign Nation; for our traditions, our culture, and our unique history; for our jurisprudence, and, not least of all, for our system of laws, given clear, ample, and irrefutable evidence of Clinton having broken many of them—actually becomes the 45^th U.S. President.[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.

THE FOUNDATION OF JUSTICE UNDONE BY THE FOUNDATION, CLINTON

The American People Must Demand Integrity In Government

“The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in office.” ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, Five Star General, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during World War II, and 34th President of the United StatesBy failing to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton to justice, the U.S. Department of Justice has failed the American People. Only God and Congress can now right a most serious wrong. Corruption has become endemic in our Federal Government. It has become practice. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, Bill, embody corruption. They have twisted a vice into a virtue. The two of them have, in fact, raised corruption to an art form, and their supporters ignore this or are otherwise simply blind or inured to it. But, if allowed to fester, corruption, as a common Governmental practice, can and will bring the Republic. Corruption, if allowed to continue unchallenged, will inevitably destroy the U.S. Constitution, reducing our precious Constitution to empty words on a page, a document with no import, no application--a document reduced to, at best, an historical curiosity, nothing more.The Republican nominee for U.S. President, Donald Trump, understands this. He sees that those who commit crimes—especially serious crimes against our Nation and its People—must be brought to trial and, if convicted, they must be punished. Our system of laws demands this. The condoning of crime by our institutions of Government—especially by those agencies of Government our Nation relies on to root out crime and mete out justice—serves only to make a mockery of the entirety of our criminal justice system. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, makes use of our tax dollars, of late, pursuing false claims of civil rights violations by State police agencies, yet sees no need to bring to justice one of the worst transgressors of federal law this Nation has seen—Hillary Rodham Clinton—the creature who would be Queen, clamping down on the sacred rights and liberties of all Americans as she illicitly gathers power unto herself, unto her husband, unto her Foundation and, eventually, unto the fruit of her loom. Trump realizes that, since the Justice Department has refused to prosecute Hillary Clinton, even though substantial evidence exists of serious wrongdoing on her part—evidence to support charges of violation of several federal laws—multiple counts of serious misconduct—outside counsel must be brought in to investigate and prosecute Clinton. Indictment of Clinton on felony charges will stop her bid for the U.S. Presidency at once. She will have no choice in the matter. She must forfeit her bid for the White House and shut her campaign down immediately.But insidious, powerful influences both inside our Government and outside it, and inside our Country and outside it, intend to seat their puppet, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the White House—someone they have paid the Clintons handsomely for—that continue to pay the Clintons handsomely for—to do their bidding. Those powerful interests have made certain that the Department of Justice would handcuff itself and, in fact, the Department of Justice has handcuffed itself.Donald Trump knows this. He knows this has happened. That is why he has called for—and rightly so—outside counsel—someone completely outside Government—to step in and handle, anew, the investigation of and prosecution of Hillary Clinton and investigation of and prosecution of the Clinton Foundation on charges of having violated federal Statutes—crimes amounting to felonies.Trump’s heart is definitely in the right place. He knows that failure to bring a high Government Official to justice weakens our Constitution, defeats our system of law and order, and endangers our citizenry; for the condoning of crimes by those in high Government Office will inevitably destroy our Nation as a free Republic—a Republic rooted in rule by law, not by men. But, there is a slight problem with what he asks.

DONALD TRUMP CALLS FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTONS AND THE BILL, HILLARY AND CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION

On August 22, 2016, Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for U.S. President called for the U.S. Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton’s multiple instances of misconduct.  See, for example, the article published by Reuters, titled, "Trump calls for special prosecutor to investigate Clinton Foundation."That’s good news to be sure, but it comes a little late—hopefully, not too late. Congress should have seen to the appointment of a special prosecutor long ago. In fact, the Arbalest Quarrel has called for the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to reopen the investigation into serious misconduct on the part of Hillary Clinton all along, well over a month before Trump mentioned the need to do so. We talked about this in our article titled, "Hillary Clinton Must Be Indicted and Here's the Reason for it."We have insisted on the appointment of outside counsel to renew the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s serious misconduct, consistently, since publication of our article. Major news organizations jumped on the appointment of a special prosecutor issue only after Trump had called for such appointment.For example, Time magazine, on August 22, 2016, reporting on Trump’s call for a special prosecutor, said, that,“Under current U.S. law, independent counsel can be appointed when the Attorney General determines that an investigation by the Department of Justice ‘would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel.’”That is absolutely false. The Time reporter, Tessa Berenson who wrote the Time piece, titled, “Donald Trump calls for Special Prosecutor to Investigate Hillary Clinton,” evidently has no knowledge of the current and true state of the law involving the appointment of special prosecutors or independent counsel to investigate serious misconduct of high level Officials in the Executive Branch of the federal Government. In her article Berensen says, “Under current U.S. law, independent counsel can be appointed when the Attorney General determines that an investigation by the Department of Justice ‘would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint and outside Special Counsel.’”Berensen is, apparently, citing to “Ethics in Government Act of 1978.” But, the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978,”--an Act that compels integrity in public officials who work for the Executive Branch of the Federal Government--lapsed in 1999, in accordance with the sunset provision embodied in the Act, since Congress failed to extend its operation for another five years, commencing from the date of its expiration in 1999. So, Contrary to Tessa Berenson’s remarks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot, at the present time, turn over federal investigations and prosecution of serious violations of federal law to special prosecutors or independent counsel even if the DOJ had wanted to; and, as we know, it doesn’t. And, Congress, for its part, cannot compel the Justice Department to turn over, to special prosecutors or independent counsel, federal investigations and prosecution of serious violations of federal law by high level Officials of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government even if it seeks to do so; and, at least two U.S. Congressmen wish to do just that.Once again, and we emphasize: The authorization for the appointment of special prosecutors or independent counsel to take over investigations of serious violations of federal law committed by high level Officials of the Executive Branch of Government, along with the power to prosecute those charged with commission of felonies under federal law, died in 1999, when Congress allowed the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” to expire, in accordance with the sunset provision originally written into the law--hence the need for the Act's reauthorization. The Arbalest Quarrel wrote a comprehensive article on this, titled, “The Un-Justice Department Gives Hillary a Free Pass.” We posted the article, on August 4, 2016, on our site, well before Trump, or anyone else, for that matter, discussed, in a cogent, serious and comprehensive matter, the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate, inter alia, the serious misconduct of Hillary Clinton, relating to her use of private email servers to conduct official Government businessAfter the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” lapsed, U.S. Representative, Mike Quigley, attempted to resurrect the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” and similar bills, by sponsoring, on March 25, 2010, the “Transparency in Government Act of 2010,” 111 H.R. 4983. The bill went nowhere, apparently dying in Committee.On June 23, 2011, Mike Quigley tried again. He, along, with another Democrat, Jackie Speier, sponsored, on June 23, 2011, the “Transparency in Government Act of 2011,” 112 H.R. 2340. That effort, too, went nowhere. The bill died in Committee.Yet, a third time, on March 13, 2014, Representative Mike Quigley reintroduced the bill as the “Transparency in Government Act of 2014,” 113 H.R. 4245—and the bill died in Committee, a third time.Then, a fourth time, Representative Mike Quigley—along with Representative Jackie Speier and, now, a third Democrat, Krysten Sinema, introduced "the Transparency in Government Act of 2015, 114 H.R. 1381." That bill was no more successful than the previous three—never getting out of Committee.Even so, had any one of these four bills passed, the most important provision of the original Act—the appointment of a special prosecutor or independent counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute serious misconduct by high level Executive Department officials—was nowhere to be seen in any of the bills Mike Quigley sponsored.Now, on May 17, 2016, six months before the U.S. Presidential Election of 2016, two Republicans, Mike Turner and Rick Allen introduced a bill that, if passed, would truly resurrect “the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.” They introduced the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” 114 H.R. 5271. That bill, if passed does require the DOJ to turn over the investigation and prosecution, of cases involving serious misconduct of Executive Branch Officials, to outside counsel, namely, independent counsel, commonly referred to as “special prosecutors.” The Arbalest Quarrel insists that Congress debate this bill and vote on it before the U.S. Presidential Election—an Election that is rapidly approaching—less than three months away. If the full House votes on this bill, the American people will see, first-hand, those U.S. Representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who demand accountability and integrity in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and those who do not. If the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” passes, Congress will itself have the clout necessary to bring Hillary Clinton to justice. It need not rely on the Executive Branch—through its Justice Department—to police itself—something the Department—as has become depressingly, indeed, excruciatingly clear—cannot or will not do.Independent counsel need not constrain him or herself to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton alone. Counsel will have the power and authority of Congress to investigate and prosecute the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation, along with the principals, Bill and Hillary Clinton, for possible violations of the federal RICO Statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961. Congress, through independent counsel, will be able to bring down the entire corrupt Clinton Dynasty. You would think Congress would have acted well before we came to this point in time—the Eleventh Hour.Sometimes, though, as we know all too well, Congress needs a kick in the behind to get moving. For those Congressmen and Congresswomen who wish to sit on the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,”—Republicans as well as Democrats—we hope that, with a little encouragement from the citizenry, they will be compelled, however grudgingly, to take a stand. This is no time for Congress to remain passive and silent. Their timidity is painfully obvious to all Americans. Let Americans assert: “We see you cowering in the shadows.”To spur Congress to act on the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016," the Arbalest Quarrel has formally written Representative Mike Turner, and has copied the cosponsor of the bill, Rick Allen, and has copied, also, other influential Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, whom, we believe, truly seek to bring the Clintons to justice and who seek to prevent the occurrence of a travesty and horror—one that would see a likely felon become President of the United States.In our letter, we have asked Representative Turner to give us an update on the status of his bill, and we have urged him to move on this bill if it is stalled in Committee—as, apparently, it is. We seek to remind Congress that this is no time for dawdling.The letter, which the Arbalest Quarrel sent to Representative Turner by Federal Express, has been, we have confirmed, received by the Congressman’s Office.We provide readers with the content of the letter we sent to Representative Turner, in the Part three of the present article.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S LETTER TO U.S. CONGRESSMAN, MIKE TURNER

We provide, here, in full, our recent letter to Representative Mike Turner, Republican, Ohio, sponsor of the “Independent counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.”  The letter reads:August 23, 2016Via Federal ExpressThe Honorable Michael TurnerThe United States House of Representatives2239 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515Re: H.R. 5271Dear Sir:I am an attorney who specializes in Constitutional law. With my colleagues we publish the Arbalest Quarrel, a unique, informative website, specializing in formal analyses of State and federal firearms’ legislation and court decisions. Our articles are published throughout the Nation, in major magazines, read by millions of people.We are writing to you in reference to H.R. 5271, a bill you sponsored and that Representative Rick Allen cosponsored. You introduced the bill on May 17, 2016. The public knows the bill by its short title: the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.” If enacted, H.R. 5271 would reauthorize Chapter 40 of Title 28 of the United States Code. H.R. 5271 amends Section 599 of Title 28. Your bill also amends the sunset provision of the previous bill: the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.” Specifically, the present bill amends the expiration date of the previous bill, codified in Section 591(b) (7) of Title 28, from five years to eight years.H.R. 5271 was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary on the day you sponsored it, May 17, 2016; and we know, too, that H.R. 5271 was also referred to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, on May 20, 2016. What we don’t know—and what we would like to know—is the status of H.R. 5271 at this time.You sponsored H.R. 5271 over three months ago. The bill appears to be languishing in Committee and Subcommittee. The United States Presidential Election is around the corner. Have the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice acted on H.R. 5271? If not, why not? Do you anticipate H.R. 5271 passing Committee? If not, when do you and Representative Allen anticipate that both the House Committee and the Subcommittee will pass the bill so it may be debated in Chamber and, eventually, voted on before the full House? We implore both you and Representative Allen to spur action on H.R. 5271 if it is deliberately being held in abeyance.We know that both you and Representative Allen share our concern. Were that otherwise, you would not have sponsored H.R. 5271. The American people have dire need of it.Without passage of H.R. 5271 Hillary Rodham Clinton will escape justice. Worse, were Hillary Clinton elected President of the United States, the American people will have elected a person who likely violated federal law during her tenure as a Cabinet level official, Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and who likely continued to violate federal law thereafter. Historical records will document that the American people had elected, for the first time in our Nation’s history, a person whose corruption is manifest before that person assumed the highest Office in the Land.Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793. Title 18 of the U.S. Code is titled “Crimes and Criminal Procedure.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 falls within Chapter 37. Chapter 37 is titled, “Espionage and Censorship.” 18 U.S.C. § 793 is titled, “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 because substantive and substantial evidence exists that she mishandled, either intentionally or through gross negligence, classified Government information during her tenure as Secretary of State. If convicted of mishandling classified Government information, Hillary Clinton has committed a felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Hillary Clinton likely violated, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. That Section falls within Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code, titled, “Fraud and False Statements.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001 is titled, “Statements or Entries Generally.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because substantive evidence exists that she lied to the F.B.I., during the Bureau’s criminal investigation. If convicted of lying to F.B.I. agents, Hillary Clinton has then committed a second felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 201. That Section falls within Chapter 11 of the U.S. Code, titled, “Bribery, Graft, and Public Corruption.” 18 U.S.C. § 201 is titled, “Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses.” Hillary Clinton likely violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 because substantive and substantial evidence exists that, while serving as Secretary of State, both she and her husband utilized the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation as a conduit through which wealthy donors—including individuals, foreign governments, NGOs, and multinational corporations—obtained favorable treatment at the expense of the American people and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of our laws.Evidence suggests that Hillary Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as an extension of the United States Department of State, doling out favors for money, reaping a personal fortune through the influence she wielded as Secretary of State. If convicted of bribery, graft, or public corruption, Hillary Clinton has committed a third felony. She cannot serve as President of the United States.Will accountability exist in the federal Government or not? The “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016” would provide the clout to bring accountability to Government, reinvoking the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978.Congress reauthorized the 1978 Act—an Act, compelling integrity in the Executive Branch of our Government—four times. Congress did not, though, reauthorize the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” a fifth time, in 1999. Congressional failure to reauthorize the “Ethics in Government Act of 1978” occurred, curiously, during the impeachment of the 42^nd U.S. President, Bill Clinton. The U.S. Senate instituted impeachment proceedings against President Clinton on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.Need exists for immediate enactment of the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016.” Only through passage of H.R. 5271 into law will remediation be possible. The U.S. Department of Justice will not perform its duties. Therefore Congress must step in.H.R. 5271 should be debated openly in Congress; and it should be voted on by the full House. The American people must know those Legislators in Congress who demand integrity in the Executive Branch of the federal Government and those Legislators in Congress who do not.Sincerely,Roger J. Katz, Attorney at LawCo-founder, Arbalest Group, LLC.cc: The Honorable Rick AllenThe Honorable Jason Chaffetz, Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government ReformThe Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Judiciary CommitteeThe Honorable Trey Gowdy, Chairman, Select Committee on Benghazi______________________________You can help us and yourselves, and you can help our Nation, our system of laws, and our sacred Bill of Rights by contacting your Representatives in Congress. Contact them today. Tell them that you will not let them sit this one out. Reluctance to take a stand, to act, is not an option, not now, not when so much is at stake—more so now, than ever before. The future of this Nation hangs in the balance. Tell your Congressional Delegation that you are aware a bill is pending in Congress, the “Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016,” that will give Congress the clout it needs to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her husband, and the Clinton Foundation—the entirety of the Clinton Dynasty—to justice.Tell your Representatives in Congress that you demand integrity in the Executive Branch of Government and that, since, the Executive Branch refuses to police itself and is obviously content to allow corruption in the Executive Branch to continue to exist and, in fact, to grow unchecked, Congress must step in and put a stop to that corruption and Congress must step in and put a stop to that corruption now.Congress must do so to prevent even the possibility that Hillary Clinton might set foot in the Oval Office.The possibility of a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency is too horrible even to contemplate. Let a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency be consigned to fiction—to a novel in the genre of horror, such as Mary Shelley’s classic, “Frankenstein” or Bram Stoker’s, “Dracula.”Do not allow a Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidency become a Reality, for she and her family and the family’s Front Group--the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation-- will prey on all of us, and bleed us dry. Make no mistake. That is what is in store for us. That will happen if Americans fail to prevent it from happening.[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.