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.

RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS PROPOSES A SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE ANTIGUN ADVOCATE’S VEXING SECOND AMENDMENT PROBLEM: JUST GET RID OF IT!

PART SIX

RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS CALLS FOR A RADICAL CURB ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS: REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone. . . . Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation . . . inflicted by those who had no power at all?” Patrick Henry, Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention, 1788, quoted in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 51 (Jonathon Elliot ed., 1907), as quoted from the Case Note, "Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?”10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 470-471 (Spring, 2006) by John-Peter Lund. Jurists, whether retired from the Bench or not, should not be engaged in simplistic, bombastic Op-Ed newspaper rhetoric about the law. Failing to forbear undermines a jurist’s credibility. For, after the fact, an astute reader will not but wonder that the jurist’s visceral feeling about a legal matter has inevitably and irreparably intruded upon the jurist’s principled judgment, reducing what otherwise might seem a profound, erudite, nuanced argument, for or against a legal issue as set down in case law, to mere sophistry—a mask behind which a jurist hides his naked, raw abhorrence, even rage. In an Op-Ed that ran in the paper edition of The New York Times on March 27, 2018, and that appeared in the digital version of the Times, one day earlier, titled, simply and clearly and coldly, and uninspiringly, “Repeal the Second Amendment,” retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens says that it is time for the Nation to rid itself of the vestiges of its history involving an armed citizenry.The reader should note that retired Justice Stevens is not talking, here, about mere de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment has been going on for some time: accomplished through State and Federal legislative enactment of restrictive gun laws—laws that slowly and inexorably erode the force and efficacy of the Second Amendment—eventually reducing a fundamental right, codified in the Constitution, to a nullity. No! The retired high Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, calls resolutely, for absolute de jure repeal of the Second Amendment. What does that mean? It means, literally striking the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. If the Second Amendment were repealed, de jure—that is to say, repealed outright—it would be as if the words, “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”, had never existed, for the Second Amendment would be stricken henceforth from the U.S. Constitution.

AMENDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN EASY PROCESS AND IS NEVER TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

Amending the U.S. Constitution outright is no small matter and should never be taken lightly. The framers of the Constitution obviously frowned on it. Consistent with their concern, the process of amending the Constitution is difficult, deliberately so; as the framers of the Constitution intended.Article V of the U.S. Constitution lays out the procedure for adding to or repealing a Constitutional Amendment. Additions to the U.S. Constitution are rare. Since ratification of the Constitution in 1788, there have been only 27 Amendments to the Constitution—17 Amendments, if one concludes that the core of an American citizen’s rights and liberties, the Bill of Rights, constitutes one discrete, critical event. See, “The (myth of un) amendability of the US Constitution and the democratic component of constitutionalism, Int J Constitutional Law,” (2015) 13 (3): 575, by Vicki C. Jackson, Thurgood Marshall Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School.Repealing a Constitutional Amendment—that is to say, annulling an Amendment—is itself an action to amend the Constitution, but such action is virtually unheard of. To date, only one Amendment—the 18^th—the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages—was repealed; and it was repealed through enactment of another Amendment—the 21^st.There is also the question whether the first ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are even theoretically capable of elimination. For, if the rights and liberties codified in the first ten Amendments, as forged in stone, are fundamental rights—natural and inalienable, intrinsic to the individual, as the framers of the Constitution firmly believed and accepted as axiomatic truths, then those rights are not subject to dissolution. Since these core rights and liberties were never created by man, through government, but bestowed upon man by the Divine Creator, they are not subject to de facto or de jure repeal, ever. As they were not created by law enacted by men, they cannot be annulled by men. They are immutable, indelible, eternal—inherent in the soul of each citizen—necessitating, from those who serve in Government, recognition and obeisance.No less a distinguished scholar of social justice and professor of philosophy at Harvard University, John Rawls—whose specialty was political philosophy and who wrote the seminal work, “A Theory of Justice,”—steadfastly opposed tinkering with our Nation’s core fundamental rights. Although Rawls held in particular high esteem the import of the sacred rights and liberties codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and it should be noted that proponents of and advocates of “political correctness” have consistently, audaciously encroached on the sanctity of the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment as well as on the sacred right codified in Second—all ten of the core fundamental, natural rights are deserving of respect, recognition, and adoration, as the framers of the Constitution considered each of them to be sufficiently important to codify and etch in stone in the Bill of Rights.As one legal scholar, discussing John Rawls, wrote: “From diverse perspectives, Rawls’s opposition to constitutional amendments that repeal core constitutional freedoms is cogent. His critique of comprehensive doctrines and his defense of a political conception of justice offer powerful reasons to oppose repeal of the First Amendment. . . . Such a repeal by means of a valid constitutional amendment would also be in violation of core human rights and deny the basis of equality that Rawls saw as the foundation of the equal liberties.” “Panel I: The Constitutional Essentials Of Political Liberalism: Are There Limits to Constitutional Change? Rawls On Comprehensive Doctrines, Unconstitutional Amendments, and the Basis Of Equality, 72 Fordham L. Rev. 1487, 1535, by Charles A. Kelbley, Department of Philosophy, Fordham University.Make no mistake: to erase any one of the ten core Amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, would undermine this Nation more effectively and emphatically than would a successful, physical invasion by a foreign aggressor. For, no foreign aggressor can truly destroy the core rights and liberties of Americans. Those rights and liberties would continue undiminished in the American soul and psyche. But, if elements in our Nation could effectively erase any one or more of our fundamental rights and liberties—the cornerstone of a free Republic—is at an end. Unfortunately, there exists, today, in our Nation a concerted effort by anti-American elements to do just that—to break down and to reshape the American soul and psyche. That effort has been gaining traction. The American public bears witness to an insidious, invidious attempt to rewrite our Nation’s history, to redefine our culture, to replace this Nation’s traditional values with a bizarre, alien belief structure. If successful, the Nation is undone.Several Commentators note that the Second Amendment can never, as a matter of practicability be repealed—as much as they may wish for it to be repealed outright—and so, shrug off Stevens’ Op-Ed. But, those commentators miss the point. The fact that a retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice would even dare suggest de jure repeal of the Second Amendment is, in the very assertion, itself an incredibly audacious and irreverent act. One may be willing to shrug off a claim for de jure repeal of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment if the idea came from a less eminent individual, and non-scholar, such as New York Times Columnist, Bret Stephens, who has twice called for repeal of the Second Amendment in his own New York Time opinion articles. But, when a claim for de jure repeal of a core component of the Bill of Rights comes from any jurist—least of all one who sat on the Bench of the highest Court in the Land, that should give every American citizen pause.

WHY WOULD RETIRED JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS MAKE SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS CALL FOR ELIMINATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Some may point to the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy and the massive “March for Our Lives,” that billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s antigun advocacy group, Everytown for Gun Safety, organized and orchestrated for young people across the Nation in pursuit of a personal antigun agenda, trusting that a mammoth undertaking, utilizing and exploiting hundreds of thousands students, operating through raw emotion, rather than calm contemplation, would soften public resistance to the concerted, irreverent attack on the Second Amendment, thereby paving the way for its  eventual collapse and demise. The student-led “March” was, then, the overt impetus for and Stevens’ contribution to the anti-Second Amendment effort, as he so states in his Op-Ed. But, the fact remains that Stevens has been, for decades, an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment—well before the recent Parkland, Florida tragedy.When he served on the high Court as an Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent in the seminal Second Amendment case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), opining, in contradistinction to the opinion of the Majority, that the antecedent “militia” clause is critical to an exposition of a right to keep and bear arms, claimed. And, in his book, titled, “Six Amendments,” subtitled, “How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” published in 2014, four years after Stevens retired from the Court as an Associate Justice, Stevens proposed rewriting the Second Amendment to clarify and solidify his position as reflected in his Heller Dissent. Stevens evidently did this, in part, as a post-opinion rejoinder to the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the majority opinion in Heller and who shredded Stevens’ remarks that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is conditioned on an individual’s membership in a militia.Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”* Stevens may have felt that such tortured, bizarre reconstruction of the Second Amendment if adopted would make clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is categorically limited to a person’s connection with a militia and does not rest unqualified in the independent, operative clause. Still, contrary to Stevens’ supposition, this would not obviate the logical flaw in his argument, a flaw that would continue to persist. For if militias--as the expression, 'militia,' was understood by the framers of the Constitution, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, no longer exist—how, then, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be vindicated? But, suppose militias have continued to exist up to the present time, in the specific sense as understood by the framers, could the right still be vindicated if the right were tied exclusively to a person’s connection to a militia? Well, if the expression 'militia'  means no more than that the right of the people to keep and bear arms accrues to every able-bodied man, then it is not necessary to draw upon a connection between the expression, 'militia,' and the expression, 'people,' as there is no tenable distinction to be made. The attempt to do so simply admits of a redundancy. And the individual can, of course, continue to vindicate the right to keep and bear arms. But, Stevens apparently had something else in mind, when thinking about the meaning of the expression, 'militia.' Yet, in any other sense, the right is incapable of vindication. And, if a right is incapable of vindication, then, by logical implication, that is tantamount to no right at all. The Second Amendment, under Steven’s argument, as presented in his dissenting Opinion in Heller, is reduced to a legal nullity. Stevens must have realized the fatal flaw in his argument, and his ultimate response is simply to adopt the position that he previously sought secretly to hide. To avoid the legal and logical problems that beset any argument that ties the right of the people to keep and bear arms to one’s connection with a militia, just annul the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment would, then, have to be repealed outright.But, is repeal of the Second Amendment even theoretically possible, notwithstanding the practical impossibility of de jure repeal? No, it isn’t. De jure repeal of the Second Amendment through Article V of the U.S. Constitution, is not merely impracticable, it is legally impermissible because the right codified in the Second Amendment is a natural, fundamental right that accrues to one’s being. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a man-made construct. Since no man, nor government of men, created the right, neither man nor government of men can lawfully abolish it.

JOHN PAUL STEVENS DOES NOT ACCEPT THE NOTION OF A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AS A NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, PREEXISTENT IN MAN, AND EXISTING ETERNALLY IN MAN; AND THEREFORE INCAPABLE OF DISSOLUTION BY GOVERNMENT.

To retired Justice John Paul Stevens--who sat among the liberal wing of the high Court among others sympathetic to Stevens' disdain for the Second Amendment, and who share Stevens’ jurisprudential philosophy--core rights and liberties are not perceived as preexistent extensions of an individual that accrue to one’s very being, existing and persisting in man, but, rather, are perceived and accepted as man-made conventions or constructs, not unlike any lesser right created by man through statute, namely, as enacted by Congress. This is essentially a denial of the notion of such a thing as core, fundamental rights. The retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens and other liberal wing high Court Justices do not accept the notion of the preeminence of natural law and of the existence of fundamental rights that are endowed in man by the Divine Creator.Justice Stevens sees the entire body of laws, and rights, and liberties, as, together, nothing more than artificial forms, created by man. Thus, at a basic jurisprudential and philosophical level, Stevens and the entire liberal-wing of the high Court approach Bill of Rights’ issues from a completely different perspective than that perspective shared by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and by the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. So, it is not surprising that the legal inferences each Justice draws would follow from and be predicated on a completely different set of philosophical axioms.It is, then, unremarkable given Stevens’ disdain for the right codified in the Second Amendment—although, for all that, still disconcerting—that Stevens doesn’t even deign to talk of the Second Amendment as a codification of a fundamental right, intrinsic in the individual American citizen at all. He refers to the Second Amendment, in his Op-Ed article, as something substantially less than that—a mere “legal rule.” That is telling. And he goes further, He contemptuously refers to the right codified in the Second Amendment as a “relic” of the 18^th century.In the final analysis, it should not surprise one that retired Associate Justice Stevens would suggest outright repeal of the Second Amendment as a sure-fire means to remove the impediment of a right of the people to keep and bear arms. Antigun advocates may express consternation with Stevens for asserting categorically what it is these advocates for gun confiscation want but would never say openly to anyone but their cohorts. They would only intimate their disdain for the Second Amendment, discretely, when talking to the American public, always prefacing remarks with the obligatory, “but of course we support the Second Amendment,” when, clearly, they do not, as they sound the clarion call for ever more “sensible” gun restrictions. Antigun advocates intend to strangle the life out of the Second Amendment. That Stevens has made the grand design of antigun advocacy groups clear, the proverbial “cat is, now, definitely out of the bag.” For, once the Second Amendment is done away with, antigun advocates would then be able to preclude with the pretension that such a thing as a right of the individual American to keep and bear arms exists—a right that rests inherent in one’s soul, beyond the power of government to dislodge, beyond the power of government to erase.Those Americans who sincerely cherish their Bill of Rights—all ten of them—should take heed what is at stake for the future of our Country in the upcoming mid-term elections._________________________________________________________*The expression, ‘militia,’ as originally conceived, existed in two forms: the organized militia, as an adjunct to federal forces, and the ‘unorganized’ militia, consisting of every able-bodied man. As a hedge against tyranny, the unorganized militia, is as important today, as it was in the early days of the Nation—perhaps even more importantly given the depth and breadth of the Administrative, “Deep State,” and the size of and secrecy of the Shadow Government that, together, quietly and insidiously embrace  ever more power, and threaten the preservation of a free Republic and personal autonomy. One would think that, if Stevens seeks to emphasize the import of the expression, ‘militia,’ as it appears in the preamble to the Second Amendment, he would clarify its meaning. That he fails to do so suggests either deliberate sloppiness in his exposition or an infertile, stodgy, and stubborn mind, incapable of perceiving the nuances of legal claims, nor the legal and logical implications of those claims. As one academician asserts, “[t]he militia system existing at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification has disappeared. Instead, the United States now has an organized militia system, the National Guard; a federal unorganized militia as well as an unorganized militia in most states; and various police and law enforcement agencies.” The Minutemen, The National Guard and The Private Militia Movement: Will The Real Militia Please Stand Up? 28 J. Marshall L. Rev. 959, 960 (Summer, 1995), by Chuck Dougherty.” Another academic scholar writes, “Federal law currently divides the militia into two groups—the ‘organized militia,’ which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia, and the ‘unorganized militia,’ which consists of all able-bodied male citizens (or those who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of seventeen and forty-five who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. While certain arguments might be raised for broadening the definition of the unorganized militia, it is clear that the unorganized militia is the modern successor to the class of individuals whose rights were primarily intended to be protected by the Second Amendment.” Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?” 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 470-471 (Spring, 2006) by John-Peter Lund. The writer continues, “[i]n recent years, through the work of several noted constitutional scholars, the conclusion that the Amendment's Framers intended to protect an individual right to possess and carry firearms, as opposed to an amorphous ‘states' right’ to arm state militias or the National Guard, has been widely accepted by legal academics of all stripes.  Although the courts have been slow to adopt this interpretation, it seems inevitable that they will. The Department of Justice has promulgated a memorandum endorsing the individual-rights interpretation, sometimes called the ‘standard model,’ and the Fifth Circuit is the first federal appellate court to have adopted it. Even Congress has enacted statutory language that acknowledges the individual right to keep and bear arms. Several other circuits have rejected this plain-language interpretation in favor of one that reads the Amendment as guaranteeing a collective or states' right, relying largely on a probable misreading of the Militia Clause of the Amendment, or on erroneous extension of prior decisions. Under this reading, the Militia Clause would indicate that unlike the balance of the first eight amendments to the Constitution, all of which protect individual rights from governmental encroachment, the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to arm their militias. The purpose of this Note is not to detail the reasons why this position is untenable. They have been amply explored elsewhere. It seems all but inevitable that the rest of the courts will be forced to concede this point, if not by force of reason, then by an eventual U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the matter. . . .” 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. at 470-471. The author concludes with these poignant remarks:"Without recognition of the importance of preserving a well-regulated militia, the other rights guaranteed by the Amendment are in as great a danger as those protected by the rest of the Bill of Rights. In the spirit, and as the ultimate line of defense, of the entire Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was ratified to preserve the right of the people to possess arms for the purpose of organizing themselves, as needed, into a fighting force which could preserve order or stave off tyranny and oppression, whether from enemies foreign or domestic.  Originalists and conservatives cannot in good conscience simply wish away this fundamental premise behind the foremost of liberties that the Framers saw fit to preserve. Federal regulations of the firearms necessary to the very existence of the militia the Second Amendment seeks to preserve have increased to such an extent, and the penalties for violating them are so draconian, that few individuals dare hold themselves out as licensed federal firearms dealers. Few more will dare navigate the required morass of red tape in order to simply possess the weapon which ought to be not only their right, but their duty, to keep and bear. As a result, the well-regulated militia is in danger of extinction. Is this a silent death in which we wish to acquiesce, whether it has been accomplished by stealth, or by apathy, but in any case, by unconstitutional means? In the words of Judge Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit:My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."  10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. at 506-507 To go further into a detailed analysis of the meaning of ‘militia’ at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the ways in which the expression has been warped through time is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that the retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, either has no understanding of the various connotations and denotations of the expression, ‘militia,’ or he simply doesn’t care, as his aim is—as is clear from his most recent Op-Ed—to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FRONTLINE SOLUTIONS FOR SCHOOL SAFETY: MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL HAD NONE; WHY WAS THAT?

PART ONE

WORKABLE FRONTLINE SOLUTIONS FOR SCHOOL SAFETY ARE ULTIMATELY A STATE AND LOCAL ISSUE AND RESPONSIBILITY.

What are we doing to secure school safety for our communities? Kids are being seriously injured or killed in our schools. Doing something is better than doing nothing and there is, of course no excuse for doing nothing, but we must do the right thing. Innocent lives rest in the balance. All we hear about in the news, though, is accusation and denunciation, all laid at the feet of the usual convenient scapegoats through whom the public is encouraged to vent its frustration and outrage. We see displays of raw anger and antipathy, emotional outbursts, and sanctimonious posturing. And we are proffered feel-good single solution answers that, on careful examination, do nothing at all to protect the lives and well-being of our children, and scarcely mask their true import: to promote a social and political agenda.Those of us who have young children or grandchildren should not have to send them to school where they are not safe. If reasonable safeguards are put into effect in our schools, children will be safe. Think about it. Substantial security already exists at airports, in hospitals, in shopping malls, in corporate and governmental office buildings, in courthouses and banks, and in police stations. You get the idea. And yet, there are schools in America that have no security or, at best, minimal and inadequate security for our children.

THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO SECURITY AT MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL ON THE DAY OF THE SHOOTING. WHY IS THAT?

There was virtually no security at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School; and what minimal security did exist at the School that the public did hear about—namely the assignment of one Broward County Deputy Sheriff to the School—proved useless in preventing or, for that matter, in even attempting to prevent the tragedy that ensued. In an updated article, titled, “As Gunman Rampaged Through Florida School, Armed Deputy ‘Never Went In’”, The New York Times reports: “The only armed sheriff’s deputy at a Florida high school where 17 people were killed took cover outside rather than charging into the building when the massacre began, the Broward County sheriff said on Thursday. The sheriff also acknowledged that his office received 23 calls related to the suspect going back a decade, including one last year that said he was collecting knives and guns, but may not have adequately followed up. The deputy, Scot Peterson, resigned on Thursday after being suspended without pay after Sheriff Scott Israel reviewed surveillance video.”Matters didn’t improve once other Broward Sheriff’s Deputies arrived, for they, too, did nothing to confront an active shooter. The New York Post reported, in their article, titled, “Four sheriff’s deputies hid during Florida shooting,” “Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting, police claimed Friday — as newly released records revealed the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had received at least 18 calls about the troubled teen over the past decade. Sources from Coral Springs, Fla., Police Department tell CNN that when its officers arrived on the scene Wednesday, they were shocked to find three Broward County Sheriff’s deputies behind their cars with weapons drawn.” Broward County Sheriff, Scott Israel, has, for his part, much to answer for as he bears full responsibility for the action, or inaction, of individuals under his command, as well as for his own actions before, during, and after the tragedy. The parents of all the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School—not only the parents of those students who were injured, some seriously, or parents of students whose lives were lost—should ask for a full accounting of Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel’s actions. Parents of these High School students should also ask Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert W. Runcie why the school system had failed to institute even rudimentary security measures to forestall just such a tragedy that had occurred. It could not have been merely a matter of Broward County Public Schools having insufficient funds to pay for premier security for its schools--as if the cost of a child's life should ever devolve into a cost-benefit analysis. After all, Parkland, Florida, where Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is situated--nestled close to Boca Raton and Coral Springs, wealthy communities--is itself a wealthy City.

MANY STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, HAVE IMPLEMENTED SECURITY MEASURES FOR THEIR SCHOOL SYSTEMS. UNFORTUNATELY, OTHERS, LIKE MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL HAD NOT AND, TO DATE, HAVE NOT.

The public must ask: why are so many State and local governmental officials providing no security in and for their schools or are providing their schools with minimal and inadequate security? What are these public officials waiting for? To do nothing only invites another tragedy to occur in schools that have failed to implement even rudimentary security measures.All too many Americans, it seems, are waiting for the Federal Government to legislate a solution. They look for a quick fix. The Federal Government can recommend guidelines, to be sure, and can provide State grants and encourage other types of funding. But, school safety is, ultimately, a State and local matter. This is hard work, but it is doable. Several States and local communities across the Country have acted to institute multilayered security measures in their schools to protect the lives and well-being of their children. Those communities that have not taken action must do so now. They must be proactive, not reactive.

A CONCENSUS FOR CONCERTED ACTION TO MAKE ALL SCHOOLS IN OUR COUNTRY SAFE FROM LIFE-THREATENING VIOLENCE IS POSSIBLE.

We seek to get a consensus on measures that can be immediately implemented in all our schools to provide an initial layer of passive protection. At this juncture, we do not need to get bogged-down in detail.Video surveillance, both internal and external; secured entrances and exits; use of metal detectors; photo identification and written passes with appointment confirmations; and monitored alarm systems that are connected to police departments are all examples of neutral, passive security measures implemented for both business and government and, which, too, have been implemented in schools across the Country. These passive security measures have been shown to work well in real world situations. Had even a few of these security measures been implemented in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, injury and loss of innocent life would doubtless have been prevented or certainly reduced.Again, many communities across the Country have already employed many of these measures and other passive as well as active measures, in their schools. Those communities that haven’t done so should seriously consider doing so if they are truly serious about protecting the lives and well-being of their children._________________________________________

ACTION ALERT: CALL YOUR STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT!

Find out what your State and local government officials have done to make all the schools in your community—preschool, elementary, middle or junior high school, and high school—safe.This, ultimately, is your responsibility. If your government officials have taken no action or minimal action or are reluctant to discuss the issue with you at all, then you must join with other members of your community to make sure that your government officials are responsive to and do listen to your concerns and that they take immediate action to address the issue of school security if they haven’t already done so. These Government officials owe it to you to make sure that the life and well-being of your child is safe. There is no excuse for delay. Don’t wait for your child to become another statistic!______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

 ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.PHONE: U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121;PHONE: U.S. House of Representatives: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

COERCIVE BOYCOTTS AGAINST COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS WITH NRA ARE ILLEGAL.

In the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School tragedy in Parkland Florida, antigun proponents and activists, in furtherance of their agenda to destroy the Second Amendment, have renewed their attack on guns, gun owners, and on the NRA.This is a three-pronged attack: one, calling on Congress and on the States to enact new repressive gun laws, banning firearms that are in common use; two, demonizing and castigating the oldest civil rights organization in this Country, NRA, which Antigun activists and their fellow travelers in Congress and in the Press disparagingly refer to as the “Gun Lobby;” and, three, attacking companies that do business with the NRA. The demonization of the NRA is particularly detestable as the organization does nothing more than defend a fundamental right, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. To attack the NRA is to attack the Nation's Bill of Rights. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, "NRA Freedom, Join It!"Antigun groups, bankrolled by billionaire Globalists, who have their own agenda—destruction of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation State along with the dismantling of the Nation’s Bill of Rights—have orchestrated marches and demonstrations to urge State and Federal lawmakers to enact news laws banning semiautomatic weapons. And, as against the NRA, antigun groups have unveiled in recent days another strategy: the boycott. This tactic involves targeting companies that have partnership arrangements with NRA.

WHAT IS A BOYCOTT?

In the traditional sense of ‘boycott’ one may think of workers, picket lines, and of labor unions demanding higher wages for workers to preclude a “walk-out.” If management fails to accede to demands for higher wages, workers refuse to work. The union and management reach a settlement, or one side capitulates. This is a typical example of the “labor boycott."But, boycotts may have a non-labor purpose. “The purpose of these boycotts is to protest some condition and induce action on the part of the targeted parties to correct the condition. The condition protested against may be political, social or economic in nature.” Countless Free-Standing Trees: Non-Labor Boycotts After NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 71 Ky. L.J. 899, 900 (1983), by Carl Boyd.One sub-set of the non-labor boycott is the “political boycott.” “A ‘political’ boycott is one in which the primary goal of the protesters is to change governmental policy or to secure the enactment of new laws. This term includes anti-discrimination boycotts which are not primarily directed at economic opportunities such as jobs. One major distinction between ‘political’ and ‘economic’ boycotts is that the political boycott is basically secondary, with its primary focus on forcing the boycott target to use its influence to seek governmental change. Many boycotts have involved a political element.” Id. At 900, fn 8.We see this here. When using the tactic of political boycotts, antigun groups do not target NRA directly but, rather, target the companies that do business with NRA.Time.com reports:“Gun-control advocates have had some success pressuring businesses to cut ties with the National Rifle Association in the wake of the deadly Florida high school shooting. But several major companies are still under pressure. Even as businesses like Hertz, Enterprise, United Airlines, and MetLife end their partnerships with the NRA, firms such as FedEx continue offering discount programs for NRA members. And major streaming TV services run by some of the world’s biggest tech companies still give the NRA a platform for its message by showing its channel NRATV, advocates argue.’

ANTIGUN ATTACKS AGAINST COMPANIES THAT HAVE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS WITH NRA ARE BOTH MORALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND LEGALLY SUSPECT.

The mainstream media, long in bed with antigun groups, do not bother to inform the public that these boycotts may very well be illegal. “Boycott organizers and participants face two fundamental legal obstacles: 1) to be sustained, the boycott must withstand efforts to enjoin supporting activities, such as picketing; and 2) even if the boycott is successful, boycott organizers might be liable for large damages from tort claims. Both of these concerns are tied to a common issue, the ‘legality’ of the boycott. A finding of illegality may arise from three sources: 1) general tort principles concerned with interference with prospective advantage; 2) state statutes regulating picketing or attempting to limit interference with business activity; or 3) antitrust legislation, especially the Sherman Act. Underlying the legality issue is the fact that these boycotts create a conflict between the public interest in the goals espoused and the property interest of those boycotted, a conflict compounded by the issue of first amendment rights claimed by protesters.” NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. at 902.Antigun groups apparently believe that their actions will invariably withstand legal scrutiny because political boycotts fall within the free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, do they? If antigun groups’ actions against companies that do business with the NRA amount to extortion against companies—namely, “relinquish your association with NRA or face economic ruin”—their use of boycotts then crosses the line into forbidden territory.We need, then, to look at both the motives and the consequences of the actions taken by antigun groups. We do not presume that, because the purpose of a boycott is political or social in nature, such boycott does not amount to illegal tortious conduct under State law or does not amount to an illicit restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. Any use of a boycott to promote a political or social agenda must be scrutinized, carefully, no less so than as with labor boycotts.It is one thing to promote one’s personal political and social views in the public forum. It is quite another to threaten others, in the economic arena—to adopt a group’s private political agenda. Doing so amounts to extortion.“Using a motive test [alone] to determine the legality of a boycott ignores economic effects and may impair competition. . . . A political boycott exemption . . . does not simply permit groups with political grievances of offset the superior economic power of businesses that are on the opposite side of a political dispute. Rather, it favors the welfare of an interest group over the welfare of consumers in the aggregate. . . . Boycotts not only are objectionable on grounds of efficiency, but also deserve less First Amendment protection than other protest activities. While boycotts may contain elements of speech, association, and petition, they also introduce collusive economic pressure into political disputes. A truly effective boycott succeeds not by persuading, but by forcing a choice between political capitulation and economic bankruptcy. The claim that political boycotts are a form of protected speech therefore possesses little merit. The category of protected political speech is broad, but the most vigorous arguments, exhortations, and threats still allow the target more freedom than does direct economic pressure. The former can promise only adverse publicity, embarrassment, or ostracism; the latter holds the victim's very livelihood hostage until he changes his political position. However laudable the goals behind a boycott, courts should not allow a private group to dictate who will have access to the market and on what terms.” A Market Power Test for Noncommercial Boycotts, 93 Yale L.J. 523, 526-527 (January, 1984), by Paul G. Mahoney.Coercing Companies to adopt the antigun agenda is morally objectionable if not illegal; and, where, as here, antigun groups seek to destroy a sacred right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such actions of antigun groups are reprehensible. Antigun groups are attempting to promote their agenda and to simultaneously crush dissent by compelling, through threat of economic disaster, compliance with a political agenda that companies may not share.

ANTIGUN GROUPS’ USE OF BOYCOTTS ALSO INFRINGES THE RIGHTS OF CONSUMERS WHO DO NOT SHARE THE ANTIGUN GROUPS’ ANTIPATHY TOWARD FIREARMS AND TOWARD THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

Antigun groups will claim that, through use of boycotts, they are simply exercising their right of free speech under the First Amendment. But, what about the First Amendment rights of NRA members? Don’t their rights deserve protection, too?By forcing companies to discontinue offering discounts to NRA members, antigun groups are illegally and unconscionably seeking to crush dissent—essentially arguing that NRA members’ First Amendment rights of association and expression must be constrained while antigun members’ First Amendment rights are maintained, and given free rein.

CONGRESS CAN AND SHOULD ACT AGAINST ANTIGUN GROUPS THAT COERCE COMPANIES TO ACCEDE TO THE GROUPS' POLITICAL AGENDA.

“Congressional regulation of ‘political’ boycotts is similarly justified as a protection of the political process itself. Congress regularly applies restraints to political activities to ensure fairness. It has, for example, passed laws controlling the conduct of election campaigns, forbidding intimidation or coercion of voters, and prohibiting lying before government officials. Regulation of political protest to prevent economic coercion seems equally valid—and necessary to protect the integrity of the legislative process.” A Market Power Test for Noncommercial Boycotts, at 533.

ALERT: CONTACT YOUR REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS NOW!

Tell Congress to enact laws to prevent antigun groups from coercing and threatening retaliatory action against companies that do not adopt the groups’ political views.PHONE: U.S. Senate: (202) 224-3121;PHONE: U.S. House of Representatives: (202) 225-3121______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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.

IT’S TIME FOR NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY TO SECURE THE CITIZEN’S RIGHT OF ARMED SELF-DEFENSE, THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” (115 H.R. 38) amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms.Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And, rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But, there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?What is the U.S. Senate waiting for?Every day that goes by innocent lives are lost and crimes that could be avoided go undeterred because of restrictive gun laws. Although States like California, New York, and New Jersey have enacted laws allowing for issuance of concealed carry licenses (CCWs), in practice it is extremely difficult for most law-abiding citizens—and virtually impossible for many law-abiding citizens—who reside in any one of those States, or in other States with similar restrictive gun laws, to obtain a CCW. And none of those States recognizes a valid CCW issued in any other State.Having access to a firearm does save innocent lives. There are countless stories of law-abiding citizens who would have been seriously injured or who would have lost their lives if they did not have access to a firearm. U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Alexander Borrego, serves as a recent example of a man who, being armed, was able to thwart an attack on his life and that of his family. But, the lack of a national handgun carry reciprocity law means that lawful use of a handgun for self-defense is subject to severe jurisdictional constraints.It is not uncommon for an otherwise law-abiding citizen, who holds a valid CCW from one State, to face arrest, indictment on misdemeanor or felony charges, and incarceration if convicted, for having carried a handgun into another State that does not recognize that citizen’s CCW.Many American citizens have suffered calamity as a result. There are many examples. Elizabeth Anne Enderli, a decorated military veteran, and holder of a valid CCW from Texas, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when she carried her handgun into New York. Brian Fletcher, a volunteer emergency electrical storm repairman and holder of a valid CCW from North Carolina, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when he carried his handgun into New Jersey. And, Shaneen Allen, a single mother of two, and holder of a valid CCW from Pennsylvania, was arrested for unlawful handgun possession when she, too, carried her handgun into New Jersey. Law-abiding citizens who hold a valid CCW from their home State should not be restricted to their use of a handgun for self-defense only to their home State, but, they often are; and the personal costs are dire when a citizen steps foot into a jurisdiction that does not recognize the validity of that citizen’s CCW. But, why should this be?The right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment, as made clear in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Heller case. The Heller case also held that defensive arms is an individual right, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Yet, antigun proponents are reluctant to recognize the Heller rulings. They blithely disregard Heller, urging Americans to forfeit the right the founders of our Nation saw reason to sanctify in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.Antigun proponents argue that carrying a handgun for self-defense is a threat to public safety. Public safety is a common trope that antigun proponents appeal to when defending illegal gun laws such as the New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—sets of restrictive firearms’ laws that are inherently incompatible with the Second Amendment. But, that doesn’t stop antigun proponents from promoting them and promoting even more outrageous schemes.One self-described antigun extremist, Marc Jampole, political blogger, exclaims, in his article, “Gun Control Leads to a Civil Society”: “rights change over time. . . . Often we give up one set of rights to gain another one, or some people gain rights at the expense of others. . . . At this point in time, only extremists (like me) want to outlaw private ownership of guns. What mainstream organizations and elected officials are asking for is to restrict the absolute right to own and carry a gun—for the safety of society.”So, the safety and well-being of the individual is to be sacrificed for the presumed safety of an amorphous society?Dan Pfeiffer, a former aide to Barack Obama, contributor to CNN and antigun proponent, writes in his article, titled, “What to Bring to a Gun Fight," “The Democratic gun control strategy fails because it is defined by this poverty of ambition—the determination never to look beyond fear of political repercussions. . . . We are nibbling around the edges instead of proposing bold, meaningful solutions such as: . . . A national gun buyback program [actually, national gun confiscation] similar to the one Australia instituted after a mass shooting that killed 35 people.”What Pfeiffer fails to mention in his article is that Australia does not recognize a right of self-defense with a firearm. Antigun proponents such as Pfeiffer and Jampole hold views that are decidedly contrary to those of the founders of our Republic and with most Americans. Their views are inconsistent with our Constitution and with U.S. Supreme Court holdings, but that doesn’t seem to concern them. Their singular objective is to disarm the civilian population of our Country—under the pretext of safeguarding it—regardless of the strictures of our Constitution, of our jurisprudence, of our system of laws, and of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases.Antigun proponents attack the natural right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. With the active and avid assistance of the mainstream media, antigun proponents confound the American public. They use distorted facts, biased reporting, pretentious and dubious moralizing, fallacious reasoning, and empty, deceptive rhetoric.Antigun proponents seek to convince the public that it is in the public’s interest to forfeit the Second Amendment. Indeed, Brett Stephens, Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times, audaciously argues for repeal of the Second Amendment, outright. Brett Stephens apparently believes that repeal of the Second Amendment and a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms would better serve society. But, would it?The eradication of guns in the hands of the civilian population would entail the elimination of individual autonomy, the repudiation of individual responsibility, the destruction of individual rights and liberties; and, far from safeguarding life, a general ban on civilian ownership and possession of firearms would endanger the life, safety and well-being of Americans. Antigun proponents perceive the loss of these things as necessary to promote a safe and ordered society. But, their notion of a safe and ordered society is a controlled society.It is loss of Government control over the public that antigun proponents are most concerned about. So, talk of promoting the health, safety, and well-being of society through gun confiscation is mere dissembling. Antigun proponents don't care one whit about the health, safety, and well-being of individual citizens who comprise that society. They speak in terms of promoting the welfare of society as a whole even as the lives of individuals within that society suffer through implementation of their antigun schemes. Maximizing utility for an shapeless mass isn't what the Founders had in mind. It is the well-being of the individual citizen in a Free Republic that is sacrosanct and inviolate, not the well-being of a societal collective. The natural right of armed self-defense, embodied in the Second Amendment, makes that point abundantly clear.Antigun proponents must not dissuade us from advancing our goal to strengthen the Second Amendment. Our goal is at odds with their goal of mass gun confiscation to effectuate Government control of the citizenry. That is why we must see enactment of a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law now. The matter is certainly timely, and President Trump would sign such a bill into law were it to cross his desk. So, then, what are Republicans waiting for? Why are they stalling?The fundamental right of self-defense, and our Constitutionally codified right of defense of arms has saved innocent lives and will continue to save innocent lives. We cannot tolerate  and must not tolerate further Congressional inaction. We must meet the current wave of mainstream Press sentiment and antigun proponent efforts to defeat the individual right of armed self-defense, head-on.Contact your Senator. The phone number to call is: (202) 225-3121. Tell your Senator you want his or her vote on national handgun carry reciprocity now!______________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ORDER, BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, LIKELY VIOLATES FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

CAN A STATE OR ANY JURISDICTION WITHIN A STATE BAN PUBLIC GUN SHOWS OUTRIGHT, WITHOUT ILLEGALY TRAMPLING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

“And, now, come to this spot Where the spotlight is hot And you’ll see in the spotlight A Juggling Jott Who can juggle some stuff You might think he could not. . . Such as twenty-two question marks, Which is a lot. Also forty-four commas And, also, one dot! That’s the kind of Circus McGurkus I’ve got!” ~ From the Children’s Book, “If I Ran the Circus," by Dr. Seuss (published by Random House 1956) 

We see with disturbing regularity, Governments, be they the federal Government, a State Government, or Government of a County, township, or municipality, blindly, indiscriminately, with stunning alacrity, and feverish abandon, enacting laws, codes, regulations, ordinances, or, as in the case, recently, in the County of Westchester, in the State of New York, an Executive Order that negatively impacts substantive, fundamental Constitutional Rights. Those in power, like the Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, seek, in the fiefdom, they "rule," a fanciful, but nightmarish world, a personal circus, that mirrors a conception of reality acceptable to them--a conception of reality consistent with their personal philosophy and ethical system but one at once inconsistent with the blueprint for a free Republic that the founders of our Nation designed and established for the American people, and one inconsistent with the rights and liberties that the framers of our Bill of Rights insisted on as a critical component of the Nation's Constitution, as a safeguard against the very actions that people such as George Latimer take. People, like the present Westchester County Executive, filled with their own smug certainty of what is right and proper, would dare to force the ordinary citizens, who reside in their domain of power, to live in the "circus" they create, compelled to obey and abide by the law they lay down, irrespective of natural law, codified as sacred rights and liberties comprising our Bill of Rights--rights existent intrinsically in each American citizen, as placed in each American soul, by the hand of the Divine Creator, that no man, acting as a demigod, may rationally and lawfully counteract or nullify.

WESTCHESTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER OVERTURNS THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR, ROB ASTORINO.

On January 2, 2018, George Latimer, a Democrat, took the oath of Office in his White Plains, New York Office, as the new County Executive of Westchester County, and wasted no time to attack the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “On his second day as Westchester County Executive, George Latimer delivered on a promise from in [sic] his campaign, and signed an Executive Order prohibiting the sale of guns on Westchester County property.” What precipitated this Executive Order? Apparently, George Latimer sought to reimpose on the American public that resides in Westchester County an earlier ban on public gun shows ordered by a prior Westchester County Executive, Andrew J. Spano, that had been lifted by George Latimer's immediate predecessor, Rob Astorino. As explained, further, on the Westchester Government website,“In 1999, gun shows were banned at the Westchester County Center by former County Executive Andrew J. Spano [a Democrat] in the wake of the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. That prohibition was later revoked by Latimer’s immediate predecessor [Rob Astorino, a Republican].‘Westchester County government should not be in the business of advancing the sale of weapons and other items often sold at gun shows – plain and simple,’ said Latimer. ‘This is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but rather just on public land.’Text from the Executive Order states that 'WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth. Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for.'"Several websites dryly report this event; several with approval, some not.The seesawing of actions, up and down, back and forth—where one Westchester County Executive bans public guns shows, another County Executive lifts the ban, and a third County Executive reimposes the public gun show ban—reflects a clash of philosophies pertaining to import and purport of the Second Amendment, and to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as well, played out on a small scale. How this clash of philosophies ultimately pans out, when fought out on the broad national scale, in Congress and in the U.S. Supreme Court, though, will have, for the American citizenry, vast implications and ramifications, for good or ill, for generations of Americans to come.

THE INDEFATIGABLE OBSTINANCE OF THOSE FORCES THAT DENIGRATE AND REFUSE TO TOLERATE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS KNOWS NO BOUNDS.

George Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, represents the latest effort of antigun forces to place obstacles in the path of those American citizens who, as Latimer and his fellow travelers see it, have the audacity to exercise the natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that the framers codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The framers, for their part, with clarity of foresight, provided to them with guidance from Divine Providence, saw abundant need for this sacred right to be codified in the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights, the founders of our free Republic, knew full well that nothing but force of arms serves to check tyranny and nothing but force of arms best protects the life, well-being, and sanctity of the individual. Thus, as Latimer and his cohorts in the antigun conspiracy take exception with those American citizens who wish merely to exercise, unimpeded, the right to own and possess firearms for their protection and to safeguard the continued existence of a free Republic, George Latimer and his antigun cohorts must also take exception with the framers of the Bill of Rights, for it is they, who made clear enough, beyond the power of anyone to ignore, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does exist, that the right is sacred and indelible, and that this right, more than any other, defines our Nation and defines what it means to be an American citizen.

GEORGE LATIMER LAYS OUT FOR THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA PRESS THE PREDICATE BASIS FOR HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, SIGNALING HIS VEHEMENT DISAPPROVAL OF FIREARMS AND HIS STRONG DISAPPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Where George Latimer’s sympathies lie on matters pertaining to the right of the people to keep and bear arms, one can readily ascertain. Talking to the Press, Latimer resorts to use of simplistic, superficial, banal political oratory, eschewing erudite, logical discourse—treating the public with condescension and contempt, as politicians customarily and most sadly do—punctuating his well-rehearsed talking points with the confident self-assurance and moral certitude of a televangelist delivering a weekly sermon to his TV audience. “Latimer said Tuesday that gun shows do not represent the family values reflected in the other events held at the county facilities. The ban is not a restriction on gun shows in the entire county, but just on public land, he said. ‘The County Center hosts basketball, Westchester Knicks play there in the developmental league, we have had the Harlem Globetrotters come in for performances, we have a bridal show coming up, we have a model train show that normally comes into the arena, we have job fairs and high school graduations and concerts, all very friendly family fare,’ he said.”The County Executive, George Latimer, also proclaims: “I believe the majority of the Board of Legislators, and myself as executive, believe very strongly that this is the wrong venue for a gun show. . . .” Well, who would dare oppose George Latimer; for, after all, as stated in County Code: “The County Executive shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the county and the official head of the county government.” Westchester County Code of Ordinances, Part I, Charter, Article 110, County Executive.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S BAN ON PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY SIGNALS HIS SUPPORT OF GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO’S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD GUNS AND THE GOVERNOR'S ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARD THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

As George Latimer, County Executive, sets his imprimatur on the County level, one would do well to recall Governor Andrew Cuomo’s own actions, negatively infringing the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the State level. After all, it was Governor Cuomo who signed into law, on January 15, 2013, and who exclaims with visible pride, enactment of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY Safe Act), one of the most restrictive and draconian set of firearms laws ever to be enacted in the United States—and a direct and clear repudiation of and affront to the fundamental right, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other anti-Second Amendment Governors have used the NY Safe Act as a model for enactment of their own restrictive firearms laws. And, on the national stage, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein had envisioned and had hopes of engineering similar NY Safe Act legislation for the entire Nation—a direct and cold and calculated and audacious challenge to any American citizen who might wish to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Fortunately, she did not succeed in that endeavor. But, like a true fanatic, she employs indefatigable resolve, constantly introducing anti-Second Amendment bills in the U.S. Senate, and forever scheming behind closed doors.Antigun Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Westchester County Executive, George Latimer, and Senator Dianne Feinstein know they can always rely on the mainstream news media to trumpet, with great fanfare, their antigun message.

THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA “PRESS” SERVES IS OWN ENDS, AND THOSE OF ITS BENEFACTORS—THE WEALTHY, POWERFUL, RUTHLESS INTERNATIONALIST, TRANS-NATIONALIST GLOBAL “ELITE” THAT IT OBSEQUIOUSLY SERVES—TO DENIGRATE, INCESSANTLY, UNCEASINGLY, THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, CODIFIED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Arguably, one of the most unforgiveable actions of the ‘mainstream news media’—where the expression, ‘mainstream news media,’ is generally equated with the term, 'Press,' as the word, ‘Press,’ appears prominently in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution —is that the Press, id est, “this mainstream news media Press,” fails to defend the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment. That is bad enough. Worse, the mainstream news media Press caustically, audaciously, and emphatically attacks those who defend the right codified in the Second Amendment. This mainstream news media Press, scurrilously abets the actions of those governmental leaders, who, with the power they wield through the Legislative Office they hold, do their utmost to undermine, rather than defend the right.Mainstream news media organization newspaper publishers like The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, The Guardian, and USA Today, and mainstream news media broadcast outlets like ABC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, and BBC all provide a quick and ready and willing forum for those Congressional and State legislators and for those antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and for those obstreperous left-wing agitators that allows them to malign those American citizens who hold to traditional American values and who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. With customary malicious and malevolent bravado, and self-assured smugness, these mainstream news media newspapers and other mainstream media news organizations and their affiliates denigrate the Second Amendment and denigrate those who support it and denigrate those who support the framers' conception of the other Nine Amendments as well. Through their commentary and  Op-Eds, and through their news reporting, too--where mainstream media news coverage is seen less as hard, so-called "straight" news and more as editorial slants posing as news stories--these mainstream media news organizations deliberately and disingenuously concoct a central theme, a story-line, a story narrative, that, day-by-day, builds upon the story of the day before, not unlike what one sees when reading a work of fiction,that, chapter by chapter, builds sequentially on what came before, to a pre-ordained conclusion that the author mandates in the template for the work of fiction that the author creates.This same mainstream news media Press malevolently assails, with sanctimonious conviction and obvious glee, anyone who might dare challenge its pronouncements; for, the Press quickly reminds the American public that freedom of the Press is, after all, a fundamental right, even as that same Press insists that the right of the people to keep and bear arms isn’t. The irony in the claim—selectively and vehemently defending one fundamental right while viciously attacking another—is, apparently, lost on those who work for the mainstream news media Press, even if that irony isn’t lost on any other American.So, it should not be surprising that some Governmental leaders operate with characteristic aplomb and abandon to enact laws and take actions that undercut the right of the people to keep and bear arms as they have a powerful ally in the mainstream news media Press on their side. George Latimer evidently knows he has the backing of this mainstream news media Press, and with this Press on his side, he acts with impunity. Together, with a compliant County Government he leads, he obviously feels confident that his bold, legally dubious Executive Order, banning public gun shows, will go essentially unchallenged. For, who would dare confront him?Well, the Arbalest Quarrel does challenge Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County. And, we do proclaim loudly, assertively and confidently: Meaningful, compelling, deserving and discerning bases exist, in law, to challenge County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order, on that portion of the Executive Order we have seen, as posted on the County Government website.Why do we say this? We have the weight of legal authority on our side.

COUNTY EXECUTIVE GEORGE LATIMER’S ACTION, BANNING PUBLIC SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY IS LIKELY UNLAWFUL, AND A COGENT LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR CHALLENGING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN COURT.

Granted, the Arbalest Quarrel hasn’t had an opportunity to review the full text of George Latimer’s Executive Order. The reason is that the full text of the Executive Order has not been published on the Westchester County website. In time, perhaps, the full text of the Executive Order will be posted on the County Government website. There is, apparently, more to it.But, what we do see, from that portion of the Executive Order that has been published, namely that “recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for,” says enough for purpose of challenging the lawfulness of the Order. For, consistent with and supportive of George Latimer’s sentiments about firearms and about gun shows, as expressed to the mainstream news media Press, along with the language of the Executive Order itself, we conclude the language of the Order, as buttressed by the Westchester County Executive’s statements to the mainstream news media Press, demonstrate not only the County Executive’s open and visceral abhorrence of firearms, and not only his distaste for the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and not only his contempt for American citizens who wish to exercise that right, but constitute, too, unconscionable violations of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.That portion of the Westchester County Executive Order we have read, be it coupled with the Westchester County Executive’s statements to mainstream media newspapers and broadcast outlets, or not, amounts to an open admission of violation of the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment.The Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis in a future article. Suffice it to say, here, that George Latimer’s Executive Order, through its very language, contravenes United States Supreme Court law.In critical part, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, in the 1994 case, Turner Broadcasting System vs. FCC, 512 U.S. 622; 114 S. Ct. 2445; 129 L. Ed. 2d 497; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 4831; 62 U.S.L.W. 4647: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal. See Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. at 449 (citing Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284, 91 S. Ct. 1780 (1971));West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638, 640-642, 87 L. Ed. 1628, 63 S. Ct. 1178 (1943). Government action that stifles speech on account of its message, or that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by the Government, contravenes this essential right. Laws of this sort pose the inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information or manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion. These restrictions ‘raise the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.’ Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116, 116 L. Ed. 2d 476, 112 S. Ct. 501 (1991). For these reasons, the First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 393, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305, 112 S. Ct. 2538 (1992); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,  414, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342, 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989). Our precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content. See Simon & Schuster, 502 U.S. at; id., at (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment); Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45, 74 L. Ed. 2d 794, 103 S. Ct. 948 (1983). Laws that compel speakers to utter or distribute speech bearing a particular message are subject to the same rigorous scrutiny. See Riley v. National Federation for Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. at 798; West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, supra. In contrast, regulations that are unrelated to the content of speech are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny, see Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221, 104 S. Ct. 3065 (1984), because in most cases they pose a less substantial risk of excising certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Let’s deconstruct a portion of this high Court opinion: “At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for him or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence. Our political system and cultural life rest upon this ideal.” There is a marked tension between the words of the U.S. Supreme Court and the words expressed in Westchester County Executive’s Order; for the language of the Executive Order stands in clear, categorical defiance to the well-reasoned opinion of the high Court in Turner. Again, the specific language of the Westchester County Executive Order of George Latimer reads: “WHEREAS, recreational County facilities always serve our residents best when used for sporting events, concerts, trade shows, and educational opportunities for our youth [because] Gun shows are not what taxpayer financed property should be used for [emphasis our own].” This is a presumptuous, arrogant assertion. Latimer predicates this Executive Order on, and attempts to support an unlawful and despicable Governmental act on, false moral piety. It is a ruse; no less so, if George Latimer truly believes that his Executive Order is justified because, in his mind, he has generated it from a sense of superior moral conviction, and sees it as an act of beneficence toward the residents of Westchester rather than, for what it really is, an act of defiance toward the supreme authority, establishing, in no uncertain words, the fundamental rights and liberties etched in stone in the Bill of Rights. Yet, Latimer's Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, is nothing less than illegal gag order on free expression, posing as a righteous moral edict. For George Latimer is doing no less than thrusting his personal beliefs into the public sphere concerning what he sees, or what he would like to see, as the appropriate use of public County land and what he perceives as not constituting appropriate use of public land. Latimer obviously detests  guns, and he obviously abhors a citizen's exercise of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. By banning public gun shows, George Latimer uses his Office to make manifest in law, to actualize in Westchester County, his personal opinions and pompous high-minded moral judgments of what he deems to constitute appropriate behavior and what he signals as inappropriate behavior, informing residents of Westchester County, in no uncertain terms, as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in the County and what does not. Obviously, for George Latimer, those who wish to promote and hold public gun shows and those who wish to attend public gun shows are both engaging in inappropriate, immoral or amoral behavior, and he has signaled his clear disapproval of that behavior through the Executive Order he has issued on the matter. Undoubtedly, we will see more such Executive Orders emanating from his Office in White Plains, New York.George Latimer takes upon himself the role of guardian of public morality, and he has, through issuance of his Executive Order, given himself, albeit tacitly, the title of High Priest of Moral Order and Rectitude. It is George Latimer who determines what behavior is worthy of free speech protection under the First Amendment and what speech is not worthy of such protection, in Westchester County. Through his actions George Latimer demonstrates the height of arrogance and presumption. He uses a heavy hand to constrain the right of free speech that Westchester County residents might, one would think, reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy, as such right is codified in the First Amendment; and he uses a heavy hand to constrain, as well, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment--another fundamental right that Westchester County  residents might, one would think, also reasonably expect is theirs to enjoy. Not so, according to George Latimer. But, the Courts may think differently. Latimer's Executive Order is not likely to stand up to rigorous legal scrutiny. For, contrary to George Latimer’s assertions as manifested in his actions, the Bill of Rights doesn’t stop at the border of Westchester County. Moreover, that the County Executive would deign, at least for a time, to allow gun shows to proceed unimpeded on “private” land within the County, for those Westchester residents who would wish to attend them, the fact that private gun shows may be permitted in Westchester County, when public gun shows cannot, under Latimer's Executive Order, does not suffice to circumvent a charge of Constitutional violations impacting public gun shows, whether private gun shows are a feasible, practical alternative or not.Under our system of laws, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, George Latimer, in his official capacity as the Westchester County Executive, but also as an American citizen, thrusts a personal view toward firearms on others which sees expression as a ban on public gun shows. But, it is one thing for an American citizen to dislike guns, to dislike gun shows, and to dislike the Second Amendment and to hold personal views on what should, in that person's mind constitute limits on free expression under the First Amendment, and, thereupon, to express views consistent with those preferences. That is permitted. That itself reflects a sacred right that an American citizen shall, as he or she wishes, exercise, freely, without constraint. That entails, as well, the sanctity and inviolability of each individual American citizen to be individual--a basic precept that underlies the entirety of the Nation's Bill of Rights. But where, as here, an American citizen—who wields power as a Government official—would dare impose, indeed, inflict, his belief systems on others, by erecting barriers to another American citizen’s fundamental and substantive Constitutional rights, that cannot and must not be borne. Governmental officers are, after all, in this Nation, under our Constitution and under our system of laws, public servants. Their duty is to serve the people, not to command subservience of the people, to bend the will of the American citizenry to that official's will. The Bill of Rights operates as an absolute constraint on the authority of any Governmental official, whether serving at the Federal, State, County, or local level. The Bill of Rights cannot lawfully be overridden, either by Statute or by Executive fiat. The Bill of Rights sets the parameters beyond which no Governmental official is permitted lawfully to enter.The U.S. Supreme Court further stated, in Turner,“As a general rule, laws that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content-based. See, e.g., Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 197, 119 L. Ed. 2d 5, 112 S. Ct. 1846 (1992) (‘Whether individuals may exercise their free-speech rights near polling places  depends entirely on whether their speech is related to a political campaign’); Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 318-319, 99 L. Ed. 2d 333, 108 S. Ct. 1157 (1988) (plurality opinion) (whether municipal ordinance permits individuals to ‘picket in front of a foreign embassy depends entirely upon whether their picket signs are critical of the foreign government or not’). By contrast, laws that confer benefits or impose burdens on speech without reference to the ideas or views expressed are in most instances content-neutral. See, e.g.  City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104 S. Ct. 2118 (1984) (ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public property ‘is neutral—indeed it is silent—concerning any speaker's point of view’); Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 649, 69 L. Ed. 2d 298, 101 S. Ct. 2559 (1981) (State Fair regulation requiring that sales and solicitations take place at designated locations ‘applies evenhandedly to all who wish to distribute and sell written materials or to solicit funds’).”The language of Latimer’s Executive Order is, on its face, content-based, not merely neutral-based. The Executive Order, banning public gun shows in Westchester County, would, therefore, in our estimate, not withstand legal scrutiny if challenged.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES DO NOT EXIST IN AN ACADEMIC VACUUM. THEY AFFECT THE LIVES OF ALL AMERICANS IN A TANGIBLE WAY; AND TWO OR MORE RIGHTS, SUCH AS THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS OF THE SECOND, OFTEN COHERE. THEY OFTEN, AS HERE, IN THE CASE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS, GO HAND-IN-HAND.

Much of restrictive gun law legislation, apart from expressly conflicting with the Second Amendment, casts a bright light on the views of those who support such draconian legislation. It is demonstrative evidence for inferring that the proponents of such legislation seek not only to curb exercise of the fundamental, substantive right codified in the Second Amendment, but to curb the American citizen's First Amendment expression of that Second Amendment right. These two Rights go hand-in-hand. When antigun proponents talk disparagingly of a so-called "gun culture" or "culture of guns," that they seek to curb, they really mean to contravene, to place unconstitutional constraints on the free speech clause of the First Amendment too. George Latimer’s Executive Order, unlike many restrictive gun measures, overtly—not merely impliedly—infringes the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, afforded all American citizens and would, if challenged, likely be struck down as an unlawful overt and absolute attempt to control content of speech, well beyond the regulation of time, place, and manner of speech. George Latimer seeks to control expression of what to some constitutes an unpopular view as much as he seeks to contain gun shows in Westchester County. He sees public gun shows as unwanted displays of "gun culture" and of the "culture of guns" that he, along with other like-minded antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs denigrate, They thereupon attempt to contain, constrain and constrict and, eventually, to eradicate gun ownership and gun possession in this Nation, in the tangible, physical sense, But, they go beyond that. They seek much, much more. They seek no less than to eradicate, to excise from the memory of man, from the mind of the American citizenry, the very desire for, the very wish to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms--to erase, then, from the mind of each American citizen that anything sacred exists in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They seek for a day to arrive when people here perceive the Second Amendment as not merely archaic, anachronistic, and obsolete, but incongruent, bizarre, meaningless. To that end the mainstream news media Press and our Nation's Educational system is hard at work--hard at work to disrupt and destroy the Second Amendment and hard at work to destroy the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and hard at work to change the American public's perceptions toward and to severely constrain the notion of freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment

GEORGE LATIMER'S EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING PUBLIC GUN SHOWS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY RAISES OTHER LEGAL, AS WELL AS PERTINENT SOCIAL AND POLITICAL QUESTIONS, APART FROM THE EXECUTIVE ORDER'S NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

George Latimer's Westchester ban on public gun shows in Westchester County--a ban that does not simply regulate time, place and manner of public gun shows but amounts to a total prohibition on gun shows--must be seen for what it really is: pernicious, discriminatory State regulation, operating to deny to a substantial class of American citizens use of a public forum for a legitimate Constitutional purpose. The question posed for review is this: Does not George Latimer's Executive order operate overtly, and unconscionably, and contemptuously to unconstitutionally discriminate against an entire class of citizenry, namely those American citizens who desire to own and possess firearms, by denying to these American citizens a vehicle, in the form of a public forum, through which an American citizen, not under disability, may seek to view and purchase firearms and such other items, such as memorabilia, that an American citizen has the right to own and possess? If an American citizen seeks merely and only to exercise a fundamental, substantive Constitutional right and if a public accommodation allows that citizen to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right, on what basis can a Governmental agent--in this particular case, the County Executive, George Latimer--lawfully deny, in totality, to an American citizen, the use of a public accommodation in which that substantive, Constitutional right may be exercised? If a legal basis does not exist for a total ban on gun shows, then George Latimer's unilateral action constitutes no less than an overt, unconstitutional discrimination against gun owners who desire to own and possess firearms. If true, then, does not George Latimer's Executive order impinge on and infringe the due process and equal protection clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as operating as an infringement of the free speech clause of the First Amendment and as an infringement of the Second?That George Latimer deigns to allow private gun shows to continue to be held in Westchester County, apart from public gun shows--at least for the time being--does permissible use of private accommodations for gun shows obviate Constitutional issues associated with a total ban on public gun shows in Westchester County? Then, too, does not George Latimer's ban on public gun shows operate as a shifty and deceitful attempt to slide around what antigun proponents and antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators see as the public gun show "loophole" to the instant criminal background check system under federal law? For, if public gun shows do not exist, then, the perceived "loophole" issue disappears into mist. But, is not the "loophole" issue and is not the very expression 'gun show loophole' itself a myth perpetrated by and perpetuated by antigun proponents, antigun provocateurs and antigun conspirators to strain and constrain exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?We will continue with our analysis of the Westchester County Executive George Latimer’s Executive Order in a forthcoming article.

A CLOSING NOTE: WHAT WE ARE SEEING; WHAT IS AT STAKE.

We see, of late, and with more insistent and incessant fury, a bold attack on the very cultural traditions and core values and belief systems of this Country underway. Do American citizens not see that, despite the electoral triumph of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, there is a conscious, sinister, insidious, diabolical effort underway to undercut our most cherished rights and liberties, and that this process is being carried out by the sinister forces that crush Nation States? Do American citizens not see that these forces intend to crush our Nation State through a systematic, orchestrated scheme of disinformation, misinformation, pseudo-information, and non-information designed to demoralize the American citizenry; to impose a false sense of guilt onto the American citizenry; to confuse and confound the American citizenry; to devalue the Bill of Rights, to devalue the notion of 'American citizen,' to soften and mold and reshape the contours of this Nation's citizenry as if the American people were but a lump of clay; to transform the American citizenry into weak, guilt-ridden, anxious souls.We see that Americans have lost the right to privacy. They have lost the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They have lost the right of free speech, the right to speak their mind, as threat of public reprimand, and threat of loss of employment are omnipresent. They are slowly losing their God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms.We see monopolistic corporate mega-structures emerging in all business sectors: technology, finance, media, entertainment. We see these colossal mega-structures imposing bizarre, alien rules and bizarre principles of behavior on society, across society. They are doing this with impertinence, impudence, false piety, and with a disgusting sense of self-righteousness, and with impunity. And they are using their horde of wealth and outsize power to influence Government. They are operating as if they were Government, but as a Government free of constraints imposed on Government by the Bill of Rights--a Document that is systematically being dismissed as irrelevant. We see our Nation awash in waves of illegal aliens, falsely and loudly clamoring for and oddly claiming rights they do not have and should never be given. And, we see waves of unassimilable, poverty-stricken, ill-informed, mentally lazy refugees flooding into our Country from failed States. These individuals make an unwieldy welfare State, that we are becoming, even more untenable. They strain our resources and require support from our citizenry. And, many in Congress support this, would allow this; would encourage this. They would enact new immigration laws that would further disrupt our economy, and negatively impact our mores, our values, our sacred roots. We see, even now, our history revised; our children taught alien ideas. Our sense of National identity is being turned on its head. More than questioned, national identity, as perceived by the founders of our free Republic, is now scorned, and reviled, and slowly revised.How far can this awful state of affairs go? When will the American people fight back to recover their sacred birthright? _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE COURTS, NO LESS THAN CONGRESS, IS WHERE ONE WILL FIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT EITHER SAFEGUARDED AND STRENGTHENED OR ENDANGERED AND WEAKENED.

REPUBLICAN CONTROL OF ALL THREE-BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BOTH THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION STATE, AND THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS.

The mandate of a Republican controlled Congress, and of a Republican President and of a federal court system--comprising jurists who recognize the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution over foreign laws and over the decisions of foreign tribunals and who recognize and appreciate the critical importance of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, as codified in the Bill of Rights--is this: to maintain our roots as a unique People; to make certain that our Country continues to exist as a free Republic and as an independent, sovereign Nation, beholden to no other Nation or to any group of Nations; and to keep sacred the supremacy of our Constitution and our system of laws, grounded in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights--a Bill of Rights that has no parallel in any other Nation on this Earth. To succeed in this mandate it is imperative that: one, Congress retain a Conservative Republican majority; two, that Donald Trump remain as U.S. President through two terms in Office; and, three, that the U.S. Supreme Court hold a conservative-wing majority and that the lower federal Courts seat a majority of  jurists who recognize and appreciate the supremacy of our Constitution and of our laws and of our sacred rights and liberties, and who render opinions with that principle omnipresent.Obviously, those malevolent forces that seek to undermine the sovereignty of this Nation, that seek to subvert the will of the American People, that seek to undercut and subordinate our Constitution, our system of laws and our fundamental rights and liberties, are working for the precise opposite. They seek to gain Democratic Party majorities in both Houses of Congress in the midterm elections, and, if they can accomplish that, they will undoubtedly pursue efforts to impeach Trump, using the tenuous, ludicrous, tax-payer funded Mueller investigation, chasing after ghosts, as a springboard to destroy the Trump Presidency. These individuals and groups, bankrolled by a shadowy, secretive, ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite”, hope, as well, to create a liberal wing majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. To do that, they must win back the White House.Those who seek to destroy the sovereignty of this Nation and to undermine the true import and purport of the Bill of Rights are rankled by two specific events that they cannot, and, obviously, will not abide: one, the failure to usher Hillary Rodham Clinton into the Office of U.S. President, which they thought was an assured bet; and, two, the failure to seat Merrick Garland—the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and President Barack Obama’s nominee—on the U.S. Supreme Court. These critical and monumental failures of the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elite” who bankroll and control the Deep State of the federal Government—the forces that would dare crush this Nation and the American people into submission—have suffered an extraordinary setback in their plans for world domination. To reset the clock in accordance with their global strategy, they have been forced to show their hand. The negative forces that manipulate and control the Government of this Nation and that manipulate and control the Governments of those Nations that comprise the EU have emerged from the shadows and have forced their toadies in this Country to surface from the depths of the Deep State of the federal Government, to undermine, at every turn, the efforts of the duly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump. Not content to undermine and undercut the President's policy objectives, which they attack at every turn through the well-orchestrated media circus they control, they attack the man himself, disrespectfully, caustically, and reprehensibly; and, in so doing, they demonstrate as well their disrespect for this Nation, and  for this Nation’s core values, and for this Nation’s system of laws, and for the people of this Nation who elected Donald Trump, who was then inaugurated the 45^th President of the United States, on January 20, 2017, succeeding Barack Obama.The election of Donald Trump as U.S. President has thrown a wrench into the well-oiled and greased machine of the Deep State of the federal Government of the United States. This singularly important event has thrown the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist elites, headed by the international Rothschild clan, into a state of consternation, of befuddlement, of rage and turmoil, of chaos. Their well-laid plans for world domination sees the United States as an important cog in an expansive industrial and financial machine comprising the New World Order, for no other Western Nation has as impressive a military and as impressive an intelligence apparatus, and as adept technological capabilities as those of the United States. As the forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission have suffered a severe and costly set-back, they intend to set matters aright. The American people bear witness to the raw extent of the power and reach of these forces: one, the naked audacity of their actions; two, the evident contempt in which they hold the American people; three, the bald self-assurance and aplomb by which they plan and orchestrate a campaign of deliberate deception—through the mainstream media—a campaign of disinformation and misinformation through which they hope and trust they can manipulate the American people into accepting a bizarre worldview--one inimical to the needs and desires and well-being of the American people; four, the obscene loathing they express toward our Bill of Rights; five, the demonstrative malevolence they have shown toward the U.S. President and toward his Administration; and, six, the abject hatred they display toward this Nation’s Constitution, toward this Nation’s unique history, toward this Nation’s core values, toward this Nation’s system of laws and morals. And through the levers of media and of the Deep-State of Government that they control, they give mere lip-service and lip-homage to those very things Americans hold most dear.The Arbalest Quarrel has done its part. We have worked to help elect Donald Trump as President of the United States and have worked, as well, to defeat the confirmation of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. But our work has not ended. It has, perforce, just begun.We must continue to support President Trump from the forces that, having failed to prevent his electoral success, seek, now, to place obstacles in his path, making it difficult for him to implement the policies he has promised—policies that are at loggerheads with those hostile internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financial and industrial forces that seek global domination which, in accordance with their plans for world domination, requires the crushing of Western Nation States, including the crushing of our Nation State, the crushing of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation state; and, with that, the subordination of our laws to that of international laws and treaties and the subordination of our Courts to that of foreign Courts and foreign Tribunals; and the undermining of the sacred rights and liberties of the American citizenry. These extremely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, and abjectly ruthless and cunning globalist forces seek eventually to topple Donald Trump and his administration. They seek also to take back control of the two Houses of Congress. We must therefore work to maintain House and Senate Republican Majorities.Further, we must work toward and anticipation of the confirmation of at least one additional, and, hopefully, two or, better yet, three conservative-wing Justices to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. With the passing of the eminent and brilliant jurist and true American patriot, Justice Antonin Scalia, we have lost a mighty champion of liberty in the vein of the founders of this Nation, the framers of our Constitution. We hope and trust and pray that, before the end of this year, 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy and/or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and/or Justice Stephen Breyer will retire. That will pave the way for President Trump to nominate at least one and conceivably two, and optimally three more American jurists, to sit on the high Court who, as with Trump’s nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, hold jurisprudential values and who would apply the same methodology to deciding cases as do Justices Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, which the late Justice Antonin Scalia had set the course. With strong and true conservative-wing Justices on the high Court, who hold a clear majority, we will see the Court agreeing to hear critical Second Amendment cases and, thereupon, rendering decisions that, with the Court’s untarnished and supreme judicial imprimatur, makes clear the import of the natural, fundamental rights and liberties of American citizens as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers’ intended.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL LOOKS BACK ON WORK COMPLETED IN 2017 AND THEN FORWARD TO OUR TASKS FOR 2018

WHAT WERE SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2017?

Let us step back for a moment and look at just a few of the tasks we completed in 2017, and remark briefly on tasks we have set for ourselves in 2018. Much of our work, consistent with the primary purpose of the Arbalest Quarrel involved detailed, comprehensive analyses of critical federal and State Court cases impacting the Second Amendment. One of those cases is Soto vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC., 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2626; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,932. Soto is an active case. The Soto case arises from the deadly attack that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, when a deranged young adult, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School, fatally shooting twenty children and six adults, before turning a handgun on and killing himself. According to the allegations of the Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (CM), Adam Lanza murdered these school children and school staff with a Bushmaster AR-15, model XM15-E2S rifle. Defendant Bushmaster prevailed in the lower Superior Court (trial Court), and we analyzed the Superior Court decision in depth. Plaintiffs appealed the adverse decision directly to the Connecticut Supreme Court, bypassing the State Court of Appeals, and the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed to hear argument. We will be analyzing the Briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and will also analyze selected amicus (friend of Court) Briefs in that case. Over 50 amicus briefs were filed in that case. We also provided comprehensive analyses in an “assault weapons” case, (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), which we had hoped would be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court—the high Court failing to have granted certiorari in an earlier disastrous “assault weapons” case, Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015). Alas, the high Court failed to garner four votes, allowing the case to be heard in the high Court. Had the high Court agreed to hear the case, Americans would see a definitive ruling on whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of the Second Amendment’s protection. Obviously, the liberal wing of the Court and at least two "apparent" conservative wing Justices, likely, Anthony Kennedy and the Chief Justice, John Roberts, did not want to resolve this case, and, so, to date, resolution of “assault weapons” as protected firearms within the core of the Second Amendment remains in abeyance, with liberal Circuit Court of Appeal Judges ruling that semiautomatic "assault weapons" do not fall within the core of the Second Amendment and, so, are not protected.In addition, we looked at two Congressional bills that, if enacted, strengthen the Second Amendment. We looked at national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, pending in Congress, H.R. 38, and looked at Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”) which has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, on September 6, 2017 where it presently sits. We also did our part to sidetrack Obama’s attempt to sit Judge Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court. When we feel it critical that our representatives in Congress be notified of specific and extraordinary dangers presented to our Nation, we have not hesitated to contact them. When, after the passing of the exceptional U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, we have seen that President Barack Obama wasted little time in nominating a person to serve as a new ninth member of the high Court who would, given the opportunity, assist the liberal-wing Justices—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—in unwinding case law that Justice Scalia helped to shape in his many illustrious years on the Bench. That person who President Barack Obama had hoped to see confirmed is Merrick Garland, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Arbalest Quarrel took strong exception to the possibility of seeing Judge Garland sitting on the high Court. We sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, requesting the Senator to refrain from allowing a confirmation hearing to proceed. Had a confirmation proceeding been held, that would have resulted in Judge Merrick Garland sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice. Of that, we have no doubt, as U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch has articulated that point. According to the liberal political commentary website, "New Republic," Senator Hatch said that there was "no question" that Judge Merrick Garland would be confirmed were a confirmation hearing held. The Arbalest Quarrel explained the singular danger Judge Merrick Garland posed to the preservation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if Merrick Garland sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In our letter we took exception to pronouncements of several academicians who had also written a letter to Senator Grassley. Those academicians argued that nothing in the record of Judge Garland’s service as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals suggests that an inference can be drawn concerning Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment. We disagreed with the pronouncements of those academicians. We pointed to specific examples in the judicial record that establish beyond doubt that Judge Merrick Garland holds great and abiding antipathy toward the Second Amendment; and that Judge Garland’s antipathy toward the Second Amendment is very much in evidence in the judicial record, contrary to the pronouncements of those academicians who promote the Judge’s ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our concern was not directed to Judge Garland’s ability as a jurist. We have no doubt that Judge Garland has a bright and, conceivably, brilliant legal mind. But, when that brilliance is coupled with a philosophy at loggerheads with the philosophy of another brilliant Justice, Antonin Scalia, then we know that preservation of the natural, substantive fundamental rights of the American citizenry—particularly the right of the people to keep and bear arms—are in jeopardy. In a series of in depth articles, we have written extensively about Judge Garland’s jurisprudential philosophy. We pointed out that Judge Garland’s judicial approach is clearly antithetical to that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and that Justice Scalia’s illustrious work would be undone were Judge Garland to sit on the high Court. In our letter to Senator Grassley, we provided a link to the Arbalest Quarrel website and encouraged the Senator to peruse our analytical articles on Judge Garland, as the letter only touched upon the matters of concern.

THE MISSION OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL 

The mission of the Arbalest Quarrel is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Bill of Rights, and, principally, to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Arbalest Quarrel has written dozens of articles on newsworthy and noteworthy events, impacting the Second Amendment. Many of our articles appear in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Most of the articles we prepare are comprehensive, extremely detailed, highly analytical expositions on Second Amendment issues. Many of our articles are written as part of lengthy, continuing series. Given the exigencies of time and of new and pressing newsworthy matters, we are often compelled to sidestep continuous work on a series, returning to a series later. Since threats to the Second Amendment are constant and continuous, much of the work that we may have left uncompleted in previous weeks or months is and remains pertinent. Some work that we do, involving analysis of active legal cases, such as the Soto case, cannot, of course, be completed until further action is taken by a Court and, in that event, we must await action before continuing discussion. In other cases, such as Kolbe, where we have commenced work, as part of a series, a higher Court, in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a writ of certiorari, which means that the ruling or rulings of the second highest Court, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, remains the law in that judicial Circuit. But, as those cases involve an open-ended and critically important issue that the U.S. Supreme Court will, at some point be compelled to tackle, our analysis of lower U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions are still relevant and, so, hold more than historical value in terms of their impact on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Kolbe, for example, deals directly with the issue whether semiautomatic weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment. As antigun groups intend to deny American citizens the right to legally own and possess “assault weapons,” and, as they seek, eventually, to ban civilian ownership and possession of all semiautomatic weapons, it is incumbent upon us and important to consider the legal arguments they present. Thus, at some point in time when the U.S. Supreme Court does deal with the issue as to the extent of or whether semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment or whether semiautomatic weapons, as a broad category of firearms, fall within the core protection of the Second Amendment--and the high Court will, at some moment in time have to consider the issue--we will have addressed, in depth, all or virtually all of the salient arguments that litigants happen to make. As we look back at the work over the years, we note our article, titled “The Arsenal of Destruction.” Concerning antigun groups efforts to defeat the right of the people to keep and bear arms, what we mentioned in that article is as true then as it is today. We said: Here is what we deemed then, as now, to be the salient methodologies antigun groups use to undercut the Second Amendment. There are probably more; undoubtedly, the antigun groups are busy concocting others even as we publish this list:

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

• REWRITING/RECONFIGURING/RECONSTITUTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNDERCUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAUSE: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

• MILITARIZATION/FEDERALIZATION OF CIVILIAN POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

• USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS

• SYSTEMATIC EROSION OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

• ILLEGAL ATTEMPTS BY CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS TO WEAKEN OR OVERRIDE STATE LAWS WHERE SUCH STATE LAWS ARE DESIGNED TO EXTEND SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS TO THEIR CITIZENS

• CREATING CONFUSION OVER THE CONCEPT OF ‘CITIZEN’ AND CREATING CONFUSION AS TO THE RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES

• EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

• OVERRIDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH INTERNATIONAL PACTS, TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND CONVENTIONS

• FALLACIOUS REASONING OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND ANTIGUN GROUP DECEPTION AS TO THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL: DE JURE OR DE FACTO REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

• ATTACK ON GUN RIGHTS’ ADVOCATES’ MORAL BELIEFS AND ETHICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS

• BATFE ADOPTION OF ONEROUS REQUIREMENTS FOR GUN DEALERS AND BATFE INTRUSION/ENCROACHMENT ON TRADITIONAL U.S. CONGRESSIONAL LAW MAKING AUTHORITY

• MISAPPLICATION/MISAPPROPRIATION OF THIRD PARTY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LAW AND LEGAL DOCTRINE TO UNFAIRLY TARGET GUN MANUFACTURERS

• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT OF TRADE: COERCING LENDING INSTITUTIONS TO REFRAIN FROM GIVING LOANS TO GUN DEALERS

• MANIPULATION OF THE COMPOSITION OF STATE LEGISLATURES AND OF THE U.S. CONGRESS BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE/BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS THROUGH THE BANKROLLING OF POLITICIANS—WHO ACQUIESCE TO THEIR WISHES, AND WHO ARE WILLING TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT—AND THROUGH THE NAKED, SHAMELESS EXPLOITATION OF ATTACK ADS, TARGETING THE DEFENDERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THOSE POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO KOWTOW TO THE ANTI-AMERICAN AGENDA OF THE RUTHLESS MULTI-MILLIONAIRE AND BILLIONAIRE TRANSNATIONAL GLOBALISTS.

• GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN

• DESTRUCTION OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES AND OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF SOVEREIGN NATION STATES THROUGH THE CREATION OF, ESTABLISHMENT OF AND INEXORABLE EXPANSION OF AN INTERNATIONAL, NEOLIBERAL INSPIRED WORLD ORDER DEDICATED TO AND WORKING TOWARD THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES, AND THE ERADICATION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY

We intended to do an article on each of these 21 strategies within the series. We didn’t complete the series, but we did write on several of these strategies and some of the strategies were touched upon in other articles. For example, our most recent article on the NY Times new “gag order” policy preventing its employees from exercising their freedom of free speech on their own time in vehicles other than the New York Times newspaper, actually is a response to two strategies we delineated on in “The Arsenal of Destruction":ONE: GLOBAL CENSORSHIP/CONTROL OF EXPRESSION ON THE INTERNET: UNDERMINING THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY CONTROLLING MESSAGING WITH THE AIM, ULTIMATELY, OF INSIDIOUSLY DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH AN UNCONSCIONABLE INFRINGMENT UPON THE FIRST AMENDMENT: AS CONTEMPT FOR ONE AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS SHOWN, SO, AS WELL, IS CONTEMPT FOR THE OTHERS DEMONSTRABLY SHOWN; and,TWO: USE OF PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND INDOCTRINATION OF THE PUBLIC BY MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA GROUPS.Our principal mission and raison d’etre—as mentioned, supra—is to preserve, protect, and strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the preservation of, protection of, and strengthening of the Second Amendment all go hand-in-hand. There exist forces both inside and outside this Country that would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Of course, they realize that repealing, de jure, any one of the Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights is virtually impossible. As natural rights, there is no mechanism for repealing these rights and liberties anyway, since no man created them. The Framers of the Constitution merely codified the rights that exist intrinsically in each American citizen. That doesn’t mean that a sacred right cannot be ignored or de facto repealed which effectively reduces the right to a nullity even as the words remain intact. Thus, if the words remain, but the intent behind the words is absent, hollowed out, the right, in essence, ceases to exist. We have seen this before. The fundamental right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been hollowed out, as Government agencies like the CIA and NSA download and keep digital records on everyone and everything. This is patently illegal, but Federal Government agencies do it anyway. The fundamental right of free speech is beginning to be hollowed out, too, as censorship, in the guise of “political correctness” is taking its toll on free speech. The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms was dying a slow death until the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in two seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)), made clear what that right entails. The high Court made poignantly and categorically clear that this right—a right that must be recognized by both federal Government and by the States—is an individual right, a right, then, not connected to one’s service in a militia. Still, those Legislators and Jurists who seek to disembowel the Second Amendment have either ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court or have actively tinkered with it, working around the edges of the Heller and McDonald holdings to slowly weaken the Second Amendment. But, to weaken the right is tantamount to destroying it; for the rights codified must be understood in the context the framers of the Constitution intended, as absolute imperatives. This doesn’t mean restrictions ought not be enacted that operate as deprivations on some individuals but, this deprivation is justified only if the threat posed by the one threatens the lives of millions of others, or where the threat posed by an individual undermines the sovereignty of this Nation.Consider the Second Amendment. Federal law bars persons adjudged mentally incompetent from owning and possessing firearms. Thus, the absolute right to own and possess firearms infringes the right of a person adjudged mentally incompetent but this is necessary to protect the lives of millions of innocent, law-abiding Americans. Federal law also prohibits illegal aliens from owning and possessing firearms. And, in so doing, we protect the sanctity of the notion of a Nation State comprising a unique citizenry. Antigun groups, though, don’t perceive the Bill of Rights as a set of natural rights, existing intrinsically in the individual, endowed by the Creator to the individual. They see the Bill of Rights in the same vein as do internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites,” as mere man-made creations-- statutes enacted and repealed at the will and the whim of the of the rulers that draft and enact them. As they see nothing positive in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they see nothing that mandates the preservation and strengthening of that right. So, those who attempt to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms do not consider restrictions on the exercise of that right from the standpoint of the restriction's negative impact on the majority of rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who wish to exercise their right, but, rather, see restrictions on the exercise of that fundamental right from the utilitarian consequentialist position. Consistent with utilitarian consequentialism, it is firearms in the hands of law-abiding rational, individual, not the occasional criminal or lunatic, that is perceived as posing the real danger, the real threat. And, what is that threat? It is a threat perceived as directed against society— against an amorphous collective “hive”—a threat perceived, eventually, as one directed against the entirety of the “free” world, a free world constituted as a "New World Order." It is not the criminal or lunatic possessing a firearm that concerns those that hold to the utilitarian consequentialist theory of morality that poses the greater threat to the well-being of society. In a constant flurry of new draconian firearms bills introduced in Congress, we see, in the draft language of these bills, that it is really the average law-abiding individual--the rational, responsible, law-abiding American citizen--against whom restrictive gun measures are really targeted and leveled. These restrictive gun bills are drafted and enacted in clear defiance of the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.Our mission, our raison d’être, is to call out those disreputable groups and to call out those legislators and to call out those Hollywood film stars and moguls and to call out those mainstream news commentators and journalists and "comedians" and to call out those inordinately wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, extremely secretive, and absolutely ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist forces that mean—all of them—to destroy our Nation State and that mean to destroy our Bill of Rights, and that mean to do so all the while claiming their efforts have a rational, ethical basis. But their actions belie their assertions. Their actions belie their true intent. These individuals, these groups, these cold-hearted ruthless internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist “elites” that control the levers of finance and industry, that control major media organizations, that operate within and control the Deep State of Government within our own Nation mean to destroy the sovereignty and independence of this Nation and they mean to upend and to destroy the supremacy of our laws and of our Constitution.These individuals distort truth; they sow seeds of discord; they confuse and confound the ill-informed masses by challenging the Nation's core values and by interposing false substitutes for those core values. They rail against and dare to rewrite our Nation's history. They attack our Judeo-Christian ethic and our Christian heritage and traditions. They mean to destroy our Nation and our sacred Bill of Rights to pave the way for an antireligious, morally bankrupt trans-global corporate New World Order conglomerate—an amorphous, muddled indistinguishable conglomeration of once proud and unique independent Nation States—a union of populations comprising the entirety of the “free” world, which these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist financiers and captains of industry plan to rule. We are beginning to see what this portends for the U.S. as they consolidate their power in the EU, with the assistance of their technocrats, their puppets.In their concerted effort to destroy the structure of and the very notion of the sanctity and sovereignty of Nation States, and of the sanctity and sovereignty of our Nation State in particular, we see insidious and perverse attempts by these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites”—through the mainstream media whom they control and through members of Congress whom they have bought—to play with language—to suggest that the notion, the idea of ‘American,’ of what the word ‘American’ means is simply a matter of personal belief. Why is such a ridiculous notion fostered? It is fostered for a reason. For, if what it means to be an ‘American,’ or, for that matter, what it means to be a Frenchman, or German, or Italian, or Canadian, for example, comes down to personal opinion and belief, then, the bonds between a person and that person’s Country is tenuous, amorphous, fragile, elusive, even illusive, and, ultimately, unimportant. This has serious ramifications for Nation States and repercussions for the people residing in a Nation State. Thus, if a person is to be deemed an American, for example, who simply and essentially believes him or herself to be an American, then, on that basis, alone, may presumptuously presume a right to live in this Country, to emigrate to this Country and to be endowed with all the rights and liberties that the United States Constitution provides.This open-ended concept of what it means to be an ‘American’ is deliberately and unconscionably fostered by those who seek an end to the very notion of a Nation State; who seek to portray people not as citizens of this or that Country but, literally, as “citizens of the world”—who may freely move about as they wish. This “open borders” philosophy is anathema to the concept of the primacy and sovereignty of Nation States which demands that independent, sovereign Nation States have a right and duty and responsibility to maintain and control their borders, and, in so doing, forestall emigration of undesirables to this Country. To allow essentially anyone and everyone to emigrate to this Country, is to denigrate and ultimately destroy the very foundation of the sovereignty and independence of a Nation State. A Nation State’s core ethical and religious and social values are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s historical roots are in danger of erosion. That Nation’s jurisprudential values and core economic principles are in danger of erosion.When educators, along with news organizations and legislators in the United States proclaim that illegal aliens are Americans, the Arbalest Quarrel has stepped in to set the record straight. Co-Founder and President of Arbalest Group, LLC., Stephen L. D’Andrilli wrote a reply to an article written by the Vice President of the United Federation of Teachers that appeared in the Union’s publication. The Arbalest Quarrel's response was published in Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Stephen has penned other cogent responses to the UFT that we, as strong supporters of America’s Bill of Rights, have taken exception with.

THE WORK AHEAD FOR THE ARBALEST QUARREL IN 2018

In 2018 we will continue to analyze federal and State gun laws; federal and State gun bills; and federal and State Court cases. We anticipate seeing one and perhaps two openings on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is imperative that President Trump have the opportunity to nominate one or more individuals to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.It is in the Courts, no less than in Congress that our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will be preserved, strengthened, and expanded. We will otherwise see our Bill of Rights debilitated, weakened, and restricted.The House and, more importantly, the U.S. Senate must remain firmly in the hands of Republicans and, more especially, in the hands of those who espouse a conservative philosophy, reflective of the views and philosophy and sensibilities of the Founders of our Nation, the Framers of our Constitution, the Creators of our Free Republic—not those Centrists like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, who hold to a decidedly globalist philosophy, who demonstrate globalist sympathies, and whose support of our Bill of Rights is lukewarm at best.The Democrats intend to take control of both Houses of Congress and they intend to weaken our Bill of Rights and to weaken especially the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, and the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. They intend, in league with their internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, to weaken, debase and eventually curtail our natural, fundamental rights and liberties. For they mean to draw us insidiously into the arms of a New World Order. They intend to do this through the vehicle of international pacts and treaties and through mainstream news organizations that condition the American public to accept open borders and to accept an amorphous notion of what it means to be a citizen; and by conditioning the American public to accept the legitimacy of foreign courts to hear cases impacting our fundamental rights; and to condition the American public to accept the supremacy of international law over that of our Constitution, and over our system of laws, and over our jurisprudence; and to condition the public to accept historical revisionism, to accept bizarre, alien notions of morality and gender identity; and to condition the public to accept the dismantling of a Nation that is grounded in Christianity and in notions of self-reliance and initiative, individual responsibility. All these things are on the table, as Democrats and many Centrist Republicans seek to weaken the foundation of a Nation as designed and understood by the Founders of it.

IN CLOSING, WE SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING POINTS AND CAUTIONARY IMPERATIVES FOR OUR READERS:

If the American people are to maintain their unique roots, we must work, first and foremost to keep sacred the Bill of Rights, and that means we must understand the import and purport of the Bill of Rights as the drafters intended, and we must insist that rights and liberties be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We must argue for the continued primacy of this Country as a sovereign, independent Nation State and we must insist that the federal Government’s first order of business, as servants of the American people, is to see to the needs of and well-being of, and security and safety of the American people. And, who are the American people? They are the citizens of this Country and those citizens, the American people, do not include anyone who resides here illegally, whatever that person's motive or circumstance for being here. And, no individual who resides elsewhere has a right to emigrate to this Country simply because that person seeks to live here, for good or for ill; and no one who has entered this Country illegally, whether consciously or through no fault of their own, can demand, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, the right to remain here. For law is not ad hoc. If Congress deigns to allow illegal aliens to remain here, then Congress must refrain from granting such individuals, citizenship. For, to grant citizenship to those who have consciously or not ignored our law, or who claim an exception to law that does not presently exist in law will serve only to destroy our system of laws. To change law or to ignore law on a whim sets a poor precedent and such action, in the seeming moral sense of it, will destroy this Country from within.We must hold to our core values. We must not be seduced into accepting notions of moral and legal relativism and we must not fall prey to historical revisionism. These notions are poisonous, pernicious, debilitating. We are a People with one common language, English. No Nation has remained a separate and distinct Nation State that has inculcated, internalized a notion of bilingualism or multilingualism or that has abided bilingualism or multilingualism.No one, whether inside or outside Government, shall indoctrinate the American people. Each American citizen has a right to free expression and to freely express his or her mind. That an individual may wish to express an idea or to possess a physical item that another individual may personally dislike, or even abhor, so what of it? The founders of our free Republic and the framers of our Constitution did not undertake to institute or to insinuate into the natural and fundamental rights and liberties of the American people a notion of “political correctness.” Such a notion is of modern invention and vintage, designed to serve an ulterior purpose. Indeed, had the founders of our Republic thought of such an absurd concept at all they would undoubtedly have held political correctness to be decidedly politically incorrect. Nothing is more devastating or destructive to the citizenry of this Nation or, for that matter, to the citizenry of any nation state, than the sins of hypocrisy and sanctimony. Unfortunately, both are in abundance in this Nation. We can for that thank the arrogance of mainstream media and of those with power and money and influence, both here and abroad, who wish to dictate a mode of thought the rest of us are obliged to adhere to. The American people should be particularly wary of those legislators and those presumptuous “elites” who bandy about such expressions as “rule of law,” and “living Constitution,” and “open borders,” and “citizen of the world” and “job creator,” and “commonsense gun laws,” and “social Darwinism, and “identity politics,” and “political correctness.” These expressions, and there are others, have become trite and dangerous clichés, shorthand simplistic sloganeering, that are either misunderstood and therefore misused, or are otherwise given to suggest or convey something overtly positive, even exemplary, when, in fact, their utilization is meant to harm the American citizen, meant to harm you! Always be mindful of seemingly noble sounding and high-minded verbiage thrown out to the masses for consumption like so much popcorn and roasted peanuts and cotton candy. Be observant, be cautious, think critically before throwing your lot in with everyone else simply because everyone else is “doing it” or “believing it.” You are no longer in high school. There is no longer any need for you to belong to this or that “clique,” in order to "fit in."The framers of the Constitution glorified the right of the individual to be individual and to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions. Our sacred rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights are a testament to that fact. That is our birthright. The right of free speech; freedom of association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These are not mere platitudes. These are a few of the most important natural rights, codified in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute and unconditional, and they are slowly being eroded. Americans should consider, critically, how the words of a news commentator, or of a Hollywood star, or of a mega-sports star, or of a legislator, or of a financier, or of a government bureaucrat, or of a highly paid comic on nighttime  television meant to cajole or persuade Americans would impinge on or infringe those rights and liberties before you throw your lot in with them. For you may be hoodwinked into giving up everything of real consequence._________________________________________________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.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ATTACKS GUNS AS HOLIDAY GIFTS; SUGGESTS INSTEAD GIFTING OR SELLING A FIREARM TO THE POLICE: FINE IN AUSTRALIA, BUT NOT IN AMERICA.

TRUCKS AND TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES; GUNS AND KNIVES AND SISSORS; BOMBS AND FIREWORKS AND OTHER EXPLOSIVE DEVICES; HAMMERS AND AXES AND SAWS: WHERE DOES EVIL LIE? SURELY, NOT IN THE THING ITSELF BUT IN THE SENTIENT BEING THAT CONTROLS IT.

“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” The Gunfighter Shane’s mild rebuke to Marian Starrett, wife of the rancher, Joe Starrett, head of the Starrett household, whom Shane protects from a ruthless cattle baron and from the cattle baron’s hired henchmen. ~ From the 1953 American Western Classic, “Shane.” Periodically, the mainstream media refocuses its attention on the Second Amendment and on firearms in its single-minded, obsession with—and goal to rid society of, as it sees it—the scourge of guns. Even during the Holiday season, the American public is not spared the mainstream media’s spewing of venomous and nonsensical vitriol toward an inanimate object.Notwithstanding the absence of its favorite pretext for attacking civilian ownership and possession of firearms—namely, a psychotic lunatic, or psychopathic criminal, or rabid terrorist, committing a reprehensible act of violence with a firearm or with some other implement—the mainstream media’s attack on civilian ownership and possession of firearms continues unabated. And, even when the psychotic lunatic or psychopathic criminal or rabid terrorist does violence by means other than with a firearm—say, through use of a truck barreling down on innocent individuals, or through use of a knife, or by setting off a bomb—still, it is the “gun” that is invariably singled out for denunciation; for it is the “gun” that the mainstream media, on behalf of its shadowy internationalist, trans-nationalist, globalist benefactors, vilifies as the worst of the “demon-kind.” The “gun” is forever perceived by the mainstream media as the convenient scapegoat even if the sentient miscreant happened to utilize another implement in attacking the innocent.Recall that, on October 31, 2017, an Islamic terrorist, Saifullo Saipov, an immigrant from Uzbekistan, proclaiming allegiance to Islamic State, committed murder. Saipov isn’t a citizen of the U.S. He arrived here through the Diversity Visa Program, which President Trump has said he will shut down. At some moment in time, Saipov decided how nice it would be to kill Americans. Apparently, murdering Americans is how Saipov shows his appreciation of having been given the opportunity to reside in our Country. This is how he repays America.Renting a pickup truck, Saipov hopped a curb in New York City, and, careening down a bike path at great speed, mowed down several people, killing eight and seriously injuring eleven others before crashing the vehicle into a school bus. Many of the dead and injured weren’t even Americans. They were citizens of Belgium and Argentina. They were dead all the same.The New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, speaking at a news conference, after the incident, expressed regret at the incident. How nice of the Mayor to do so. Bill de Blasio referred to Saipov’s crime as an act of terrorism but avoided use of the prefix, ‘Islamic,’ when referring to this species of terrorism. That he failed to tie the word, ‘Islamic,’ with the word, ‘terrorist,’ in his remarks about the incident, was deliberate, not accidental. Governor Andrew Cuomo, for his part, also weighed in at the news conference. Taking the podium, Cuomo—expressing his regret at the loss of innocent lives and extending his condolences to the families of those whose lives were so rudely and violently and suddenly taken—swerved inexplicably, incongruously, and discordantly, into a polemic on the need for the Nation to rid itself of guns. Did we miss something, here? Saipov didn’t use a firearm in his attack on innocent souls. He used a truck. Didn’t Cuomo know that? How could he not know that? Why did Cuomo suddenly bring up the subject of “guns”?Saipov, using a rented pick-up truck like a bowling ball, attempted to knock over—like so many “ten pins”—as many people as he could, and he succeeded in doing so—murdering eight, and severely injuring twelve others. Since Saipov used a truck to murder innocent people, why did Cuomo mention guns at all, during the news conference? Perhaps, Cuomo didn’t wish to waste an opportunity to mention his abhorrence toward firearms. So, then, he would he would blame the firearm for the violence that Saipov inflicted on hapless individuals. Perhaps, Cuomo thought, that, with time, the public would connect Saipov’s violent act with gun use, even though it was with a truck, not a firearm, that this demented individual violently attacked innocent people.But, Cuomo’s remarks about guns at the news conference is noteworthy for another reason. Consider: it would be odd to equate a truck with violence. After all, a truck is an inanimate object. It is the person behind the wheel who bears responsibility for harm done through use of a truck. Similarly, a gun is simply an inanimate object. It is the intent of the person who wields the firearm that is responsible if harm be done with it. Yet, being constantly, incessantly, bombarded with remarks about the “evil” of guns, the American public is blinded to the fact that guns are not “evil” at all. Just as there is nothing innately dangerous about trucks or cars, or knives or hammers, or axes or saws, there is nothing innately evil about guns. We do not hear news reports about “evil automobiles,” or “evil knives,” or even “evil explosives.”In and of themselves objects are not evil. It is the intent behind the use of the object where lurks evil. Yet, when Saipov committed a truly horrific act of murder and attempted murder behind the wheel of a rented pickup truck, we did not hear either de Blasio or Cuomo describe the resulting horror as due to the machinations of the truck itself. Yet, whenever a person commits a horrific act with a firearm, the public is instantly and incessantly bombarded with sensational headlines about the “evil gun” and the need to curb civilian access to guns. Often, the killer himself, plays second fiddle as airtime is given over to discussion about the guns utilized, in a crime, as if the true killer were the gun itself, and the sentient killer merely the abettor of the crime, committed directly by the “gun.” We rarely hear of the mainstream media referring to an instance where an individual defends him or herself with a firearm or defends the lives of other innocent individuals with a firearm. When an individual does defend self or innocent others with a firearm, the mainstream media downplays the significance of it, lest that fact undermine and weaken the narrative, namely that the gun creates violence; the gun does not guard against it.More recently, another Islamic terrorist, Akayed Ullah—this one who happened to be a citizen of Bangladesh—but apparently residing in this Country legally—attempted, unsuccessfully, to set off a homemade pipe bomb in a New York City subway. The bomb did detonate but not with the impact Ullah expected, intended, wished for. The botched detonation merely wounded the terrorist, but injured a few innocent New York residents as well. Once again, Mayor de Blasio, when speaking to the public, refrained from referring to the attack as an act of Islamic terrorism, even though Ullah had pledged allegiance to Islamic State, as did Saipov. In fact, de Blasio even refrained from applying the appellation, ‘terrorist,’ to the word, ‘attack,’ in order to deny that a ‘terrorist attack’ had even taken place. Rather, the Mayor referred to Ullah’s actions as an “attempted terrorist attack” even though the act of terror did, in fact, take place.  There is, in fact, nothing to suggest the attack was merely “attempted.” Ullah intended to set off an explosive device and he did set off an explosive device, and he did harm innocent subway riders waiting for a train, as well as himself, through his actions in setting of an explosive device that he had constructed for the specific purpose of murdering innocent people. The fact that Ullah’s explosive device didn’t do as much damage as he had hoped, as he had intended, still, Ullah did carry out his action. Ullah did set off the device and the device did harm innocent NYC residents. Yet, the Mayor shrugged off the attack, asserting, “The choice of New York is always for a reason, because we are a beacon to the world. And we actually show that a society of many faiths and many backgrounds can work. . . . The terrorists want to undermine that. They yearn to attack New York City.” The mayor’s feel good pronouncement is ridiculous. The point is irrelevant. You would think de Blasio would have concluded his remarks by offering support to Donald Trump’s attempt to curtail migration of refugees from Islamic Countries in view of the threats posed to this Country by practitioners of radical Islam. Yet, Bill de Blasio seems blasé over threats to our Nation’s citizenry posed by these denizens of Islam.We see this dismissive, callous, cavalier attitude to threats posed by Islamic terrorists toward citizens of other Western Nations echoed in the remarks of leaders of the EU as well. Yet, Islamic terrorism is real; it is virulent; it is constant. Either we get a handle on it or we can expect ever more frequent attacks, as in the Nations comprising the EU.It is odd that local, State, and National Democratic Party leaders expect the American public to shrug off the danger of Islamic terrorism as leaders expect the same of the citizens of the EU, even though federal, State and local Government in the U.S. can and do pinpoint and have pinpointed danger to specific types and categories of people, whom this Country can and should rid itself of, but doesn’t. We could take concrete steps to remove riffraff from society. This riffraff includes members of drug cartels and other criminal gangs—many of whom reside in this Country illegally—and anyone espousing loyalty to our sworn enemies, namely those who espouse murder in the name of Islam.Congress and the mainstream media and many others with a “liberal” bent go easy on the very creatures that would destroy us all. Yet, on the issue of firearms—a fundamental, natural right of American citizens, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—these same Party leaders along with the mainstream media and many others of a similar vein, demonstrate intolerance and disdain toward—in fact, they exhibit a virulent, vile wrath toward firearms. They condemn a firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, even though, strong statistical evidence supports a finding that a firearm, in the hands of responsible citizens, remains the single best defense against threats to individual American citizen and remains, too, as the best means available for the citizen to protect the body politic. So it is that, with a disturbing lengthy lull in mass gun violence and, lest the American public forget who “Public Enemy Number One” is, the mainstream media feels the need to remind the American public of that enemy.We are told, by these leaders of Democratic values that the greatest threat to “Liberal Democracy”—an expression used often by the “elites” in the EU—exists not in the wave of illegal immigrants, nor in the wave of refugees from Islamic Countries, but, rather, due to the American citizen’s “obsession” with firearms and concern over the continued viability of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In two opinion pieces, appearing back-to-back in the New York Times, one published on December 15, 2017, titled, “How to Get Rid of a Gun,” by Carol J. Adams, an author and feminist, and the other, published on December 16, 2017, by the editorial Board, titled, “Melting Guns Into Tools as Sales Boom,” the reader is led, once again, to believe that the best thing one can do for him or herself, this Christmas, is to trade in a gun for cash—receive pennies on the dollar for a firearm—that, one can rest assured, the police will destroy for the good of society. Both articles hark back to the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy.

THE GUN “BUYBACK”: SILLY IN THE CONCEPTION; CONDESCENDING TO AMERICANS IN THE APPLICATION

Of course, “gun buyback” programs on the local governmental level do not work if the purpose is to remove guns from society. It is akin to a Bank teller, taking upon himself, the task of removing from circulation a few worn federal reserve notes he comes across, to be wrapped up and sent to the mint for incineration, to be replaced with fresh, crisp, new federal reserve notes, believing that removing a few worn bills, among millions in circulation, will accomplish anything productive. It is ludicrous to contemplate. The same is true with gun buyback programs. So, why have them?Carol Adams asserts, in her op-ed, in response to her own question— “what does a gun buyback accomplish” — “Some studies claim that it reduces gun violence; others disagree.” She continues, “nevertheless it gives peace of mind to people who don’t want their guns anymore—and who don’t want their guns to be used in a crime.” Really? Contrary to Carol Adams’ supposition, gun buyback programs don’t reduce gun violence. Those who orchestrate these gun buyback programs promote them as something positive for society; but, these gun buyback programs are subversive to American values and demeaning to the gun owner as well.Consider Carol Adams' declaration that gun buybacks "give peace of mind to people to people who don’t want guns anymore." Is that so? The truth of the proposition is doubtful. The fact of the matter is that gun buyback programs are suffused with condescension toward the American public. Consider: a lunatic commits heinous acts with a firearm—or with any other implement for that matter—and, somehow, that taint of horror rubs off on the ordinary American. Gun buybacks—so saccharine sweet tasting on the surface—leave a sour aftertaste. Gun buyback programs destroy one’s own sense of self-worth and one’s own sense of self-esteem and one’s own sense of personal responsibility. Gun buybacks cause one to doubt one’s ability to trust one’s self. Indeed, those who design gun buybacks do so with the intent to sow seeds of doubt in one’s own ability to control his or her emotions. Having a gun in one’s possession is deemed retrograde, evil. One is deemed a reprobate who would dare keep one. Those who possess guns are made to feel guilty for having them in their possession.In the second article, published December 16, 2017, the Editorial Board of the NY Times, declaring its antipathy toward those Americans who have purchased firearms as Christmas gifts, wrote:“Not to crimp such holiday cheer, but the police department in New Haven, Conn., plans a small biblical twist to America’s avid gun culture: a gun buyback on Saturday in which prison inmate volunteers will transform surrendered weapons into gardening tools to be provided to schools so students can plant and harvest vegetables for soup kitchens.This takes the swords-into-plowshares dictum to a creative new level. The police running the buyback promise to ask no questions of anyone turning in a weapon. In return, they offer gift cards worth $25 per small, Derringer-like handgun. Rifles and shotguns come in at $50 each, pistols and revolvers at $100, and high-powered assault weapons are the most prized here, too, at $200.The police worked out the buyback in cooperation with RAWtools Inc., a gun safety program that specializes in breaking apart firearms and reforging gun barrels into safer things, and the Newtown Foundation, created after the massacre of 20 schoolchildren and six staff members five years ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown.No one expects drastic results in crime statistics. But buybacks are considered important by police officials in various cities for getting some guns off the streets and out of owners’ badly secured homes. They are a tangible commitment to gun safety, particularly as elected politicians prove largely useless on the subject. Over the past six years, the New Haven police have collected nearly 700 guns in buybacks, run at government expense, in which the firearms were broken apart and discarded."This article by the New York Times Editorial Board is absurd on multiple levels. First,  as alluded to, supra, voluntary gun buybacks are inane if the idea is to reduce guns in the hands of millions of law-abiding, responsible American citizens who are not under disability, who choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, or if one is talking about guns in the hands of criminals. In order for a gun buyback program to be effective in reducing the number of guns in circulation, gun buyback programs would have to be compulsory, applied against individuals on a national level. This occurred in Australia, during implementation of the Country’s infamous, National Firearms Act.  “The buyback program's effect was to reduce Australia's firearms stock by around one-fifth, or more than 650,000 firearms, which amounts to the government buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people. If these numbers were applied in the United States, the buyback program would equal the destruction of 40,000,000 firearms. Australia's gun buyback ranks as the largest destruction of civilian firearms in any country over the period of 1991-2006. . . . Another gun buyback was enacted in 2003 through the National Handgun Buyback Act, resulting in the surrender of about 70,000 handguns and more than 278,000 parts and accessories that did not comply with the new restrictions.” Note: "We Don't Come From A Land Down Under: How Adopting Australia's Gun Laws Would Violate The Second Amendment Of The U.S. Constitution," 24 Cardozo J. Int'l & Comp. L. 657 (Spring 2016) by Jonathan Weg, candidate for Juris Doctor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, May 2016, and Staff Editor for the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law.Removing guns from the hands of millions of law-abiding Americans would do nothing, concomitantly, to reduce gun violence since criminals would continue to obtain guns. National gun confiscations schemes would simply leave millions of law-abiding American citizens defenseless. Antigun groups and antigun legislators would have no quarrel with this. Neither would criminals. The overt reason for Governmental gun buyback programs, whether compulsory or voluntary—at least the reason usually if not invariably given—is to reduce gun violence. However, the tacit, and real reason for Governmental gun buyback reasons is to constrain ownership and possession of firearms by ordinary citizens. Second, if the purpose of gun buybacks is to reduce the number of guns in circulation among millions of law-abiding American citizens, then, to be effective, gun buyback programs would have to be compulsory. The problem is that a national gun confiscation scheme is patently illegal in this Country. Apart from the fact that compulsory gun buyback programs clash with the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is obvious, compulsory gun buyback programs also clash with the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and with the due process clauses in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution—clashes that may not seem as intuitively true, but that amount to Governmental actions at odds with the fundamental rights of American citizens nonetheless.Governments around the world—regardless of the nature of political rule over the citizenry—that attempt mass firearms confiscations do so to preclude Government accountability. Guns in the hands of citizens keeps Government honest. It is the only effective safeguard against tyranny and, at bottom, this is the salient reason the framers of the U.S. Constitution codified the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. This is clear and irrefutable and the main obstacle for antigun groups and antigun legislators who seek to reduce firearms’ ownership and possession among the American citizenry.Spokespeople for the antigun groups have argued that law-abiding American citizens would surrender their firearms en masse if the Federal Government so ordered a nation-wide confiscation of firearms—be such confiscation ordained through Congressional Statute or Executive edict. After all, mass gun confiscation worked in Australia. It would not, however, work here. Likely, the attempt would bring about a call-to-arms among the citizenry. The American citizenry would revolt. And that revolt would be with the blessing of the founders of our Republic._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SOTO vs. BUSHMASTER: THE NEW YORK TIMES TRUMPETS SANDY HOOK PLAINTIFFS’ ATTACK AGAINST MAKERS OF SEMIAUTOMATIC “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS GO AFTER FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS IN CONNECTICUT

NY Times reporters discuss, of late, a lawsuit filed in 2015 in Connecticut Superior Court by individuals, in their own capacity, and by the administrators of the estates of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, in Newtown Connecticut, that occurred on December 14, 2012. The killer, Adam Lanza, age 20, severely mentally disturbed, arguably psychotic, who could not legally own or possess firearms, gained access to his mother’s firearms, murdered her, and then, not content with that murder, sallied forth to a school in Newtown, Connecticut, where--still in fit of murderous rage--continued with a heinous shooting spree, murdering 20 children and six adults, before turning a handgun on himself and ending his own life.As for a motive, don’t try to find one, for there is none. Indeed, there can never exist a rational motive for a decidedly and decisively irrational, reprehensible act, try as criminologists and psychiatrists might to find one. Nonetheless, this tragedy should never have occurred and would not have occurred had Lanza’s mother properly secured her firearms, preventing her deranged son from gaining access to them in the first place. But, as the tragedy did occur, due to the irresponsibility of Lanza’s mother, we see antigun proponents in the State Legislatures and in the United States Congress using the tragedy, as they invariably do, as a pretext for enactment of ever more extraordinarily draconian firearms legislation—legislation directed less to curbing gun violence and directed more—much more—to curtailing the sacred, natural and fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms that millions of ordinary, rational, law-abiding American citizens wish to, and have the right to, exercise for the lawful, legitimate purpose of self-defense.

A TIME LINE AND HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES’ COVERAGE OF THE CONNECTICUT LAWSUIT AGAINST MANUFACTURERS OF FIREARMS

Roughly one and a half years ago, on June 14, 2016, the New York Times ran a story, titled, “Newtown Victims’ Families Look On as Gun Makers Ask Court to Dismiss Lawsuit.”  The Times’ reporters, Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora explained the case, thus:“At issue is a 2005 federal law, which shields gun companies from lawsuits when guns are used in a crime. This case — brought by 10 families in the 2012 shooting — has already made it further than many experts had predicted and represents one of the most serious legal threats to the industry in years. . . . Following the school massacre, Connecticut lawmakers passed a measure banning the sale of many semiautomatic rifles. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a Second Amendment challenge to the statute.To overcome the broad federal immunity granted by Congress, lawyers for the plaintiffs are arguing that both the manufacturers and distributors of assault rifles modeled on the AR-15, like the Bushmaster that was used at Sandy Hook Elementary School, have been negligent.Such guns are weapons of war, they argue, and they should never have been marketed and sold to civilians.

Near the body of a teacher, Victoria Soto the police found a weapon ‘designed to be used in combat to assault and kill enemies of war, in the fields of Vietnam and in the streets of Falluja,’ said Joshua D. Koskoff, a lawyer for the family members.

‘And there it was lying not on a battlefield but on the floor of Vicki Soto’s first-grade classroom,’ he continued. ‘How did it get there?’

The AR-15, which dates to the 1950s, is one of the most popular weapons in history, with dozens of gun makers issuing their own models and millions having been sold in this country.

James B. Vogts, a lawyer for Remington Arms Company, the maker of the gun used in Newtown, argued that that case was not ‘the place to debate gun laws.’”

As reported by the NY Times, Counsel for Soto Plaintiffs, Joshua Koskoff, explained the impetus for the lawsuit. But, Counsel for Soto Plaintiffs resorted to false remarks and rhetorical flourish--relying on antigun talking points and hyperbole--("[the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle] [is] designed to be used in combat to assault and kill enemies of war"), and relying, too, upon sloganeering ("such guns [the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle] are weapons of war")--rather than applying rational logical and legal discourse, when bringing to the public's attention the purported purpose of the lawsuit. In so doing Koskoff unabashedly and unashamedly targeted the public’s emotions, the lizard brain, not the public's intellect. Counsel’s aim in targeting the public's emotions was, obviously, to seduce, coax, distract, and horrify, not to educate and inform. Attorney for Defendant firearms manufacturer, Remington Arms Company's attorney, James Vogt, on the other hand, made the pertinent point that a debate on gun laws does not belong in a Court of law. Indeed, a critical examination of Soto Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and its Brief on Appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court aptly demonstrates Plaintiffs explication of applicable law as Plaintiffs would like it to be, dismissing the law for as it is and for what it says and the manner, then, in which it actually operates. In that respect the Soto case is not unlike other cases brought by antigun proponents. Antigun proponents begin with the assumption that gun ownership and gun possession by American citizens, in a civilian capacity, is simply wrong. They then attempt, inappropriately and deceptively, to shoehorn a utilitarian consequentialist ethical philosophy into legal argument, shunning any discussion of, and ignoring out of hand and displaying a clear lack of concern for, the plain meaning of the law as the drafters intended, and in the context of a fundamental right, which they seek, ultimately, to curtail.The case as presented by Plaintiffs’ Counsel, at the Press conference, fell, then, well short of cogent legal argument and, apart from mentioning the death of Vicki Soto, has no basis in fact, apropos of the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle. Unsurprisingly, Plaintiffs’ attorney sought, in the lawsuit, against the Defendant arms manufacturer, to make the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle, along with the rifle manufactured, the real culpable parties in the tragedy that unfolded in 2012 in an Elementary School, in Newtown, Connecticut, and, therewith, shied from placing blame, where, alone, blame is due. And, where is blame due? That blame should be placed squarely on the sentient perpetrator of the harm done, Adam Lanza. That name, 'Adam Lanza,' counsel either failed to mention at all at the Press conference or, if he had mentioned it, then the NY Times failed to relay that information to the reader of the Times newspaper. Perhaps the Times’ reporters felt that the name of the killer, Adam Lanza, was not worth mentioning, as the name of the killer would not further the narrative. The narrative is that guns are the singular cause of gun violence, not the perpetrators who use guns to do violence. Adam Lanza's mother also shares blame for the tragedy that ensued through her failure to properly secure the firearms from her severely mentally disturbed son--and paying the price for her failure to take responsibility in the securing of her firearms, through loss of her own life at the hands of her son.On Saturday, October 14, 2017, the New York Times ran a second story titled, “Judge Dismisses Suit Against Gun Maker by Newtown Victims’ Families.” The Times’ reporters, Kristin Hussey and Marc Santora, attempting, ultimately, and unsatisfactorily, to explain the lower Court’s decision, said this:"The judge, Barbara N. Bellis of State Superior Court, had surprised even some of the plaintiffs by allowing the case to move toward trial this year, despite a 2005 federal law that offers firearm manufacturers and sellers broad protection from lawsuits when guns are used in crimes.

But in a decision filed on Friday, Judge Bellis repeatedly cited the law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, as the basis for her reasoning. 'This action falls squarely within the broad immunity provided' by the act, she wrote.

Lawyers for Remington Outdoor, whose AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was used by Adam Lanza in the attack at the school, in Newtown, Conn., had argued for dismissal of the lawsuit. The complaint also named the wholesaler and a local retailer as defendants.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include relatives of nine of the 26 people who were killed in the shooting, as well as a teacher who survived, contended that the law’s exception for cases of negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it, justified the complaint.Judge Bellis ruled that their claims were too broad to fall under negligent entrustment, and said Congress had already deemed the civilian population competent to possess the weapons by the nature of its law.'To extend the theory of negligent entrustment to the class of nonmilitary, nonpolice civilians — the general public — would imply that the general public lacks the ordinary prudence necessary to handle an object that Congress regards as appropriate for sale to the general public,' she wrote. 'This the court is unwilling to do.'"The Times’ reporters seeking to explain the Court’s decision succinctly, skirted over complex issues of law and quoted the Court on less critical points. The result is a simplistic, faulty, and essentially indecipherable accounting of the lower Court’s reasoning, which reasoning, on deep analysis, is thoughtful and flawless. The crux of the Superior Court's sound reasoning is that a claim of negligent entrustment must be grounded in Connecticut law in order to fall within the exception set forth in the applicable federal Statute. One salient point--and the most critical point--underlying the Superior Court's decision, granting Defendant Remington's (Bushmaster's) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is as follows:"Although PLCAA [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] explicitly preserves claims that fall within its enumerated exceptions, such as negligent entrustment actions, it does not create them. 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(ii) and (5)(C) (2012). PLCAA explicitly provides that 'no provision of this chapter shall be construed to create a public or private cause of action or remedy."'15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(C) (2012). By its own terms, therefore, PLCAA cannot be read as creating a cause of action. Accordingly, the court concludes that for a plaintiff's negligent entrustment claim to be permitted under PLCAA. it must arise under state law." Donna L. Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, Conn. vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, Super Conn. 2016 Conn. Superior Court LEXIS 2626. Thus, to make a sound, cogent claim of negligent entrustment, in order to defeat Defendants' qualified immunity under PLCAA, Plaintiffs must cohere with Connecticut's definition of 'negligent entrustment' under Connecticut law. If the Soto Plaintiffs succeed, then those Plaintiffs can bootstrap that claim into the PLCAA, in which event Defendants' qualified immunity under PLCAA is defeated. In order to prove 'negligent entrustment' under Connecticut law, "entrustment can be considered negligent only if (1) there is actual or constructive knowledge that the entrustee is incompetent or has a dangerous propensity, and (2) the injury resulted from that incompetence or propensity." No one doubts that the entrustee, Adam Lanza, had a dangerous propensity. But, the question falls to whether Defendant manufacturers, the entrustors, knew or should have known of the entrustee's incompetence or dangerous propensity. On the legal principles of actual or constructive knowledge, the Soto Plaintiffs' claim of negligent entrustment fails. That is a fatal flaw in Plaintiff's claim of negligent entrustment. And that flaw is not overridden by a bald claim, unproved--but more to the point, irrelevant--that Defendants marketed the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to the entire civilian population that included, ipso facto, deranged individuals, such as Adam Lanza. Thus, Plaintiffs attempt to make a sound claim of negligent entrustment fails. Defendants' qualified immunity from suit sticks. And the Superior Court properly dismissed the lawsuit.*On Monday, November 13, 2017 the New York Times ran a third story involving the suit against the manufacturer of the weapon that Adam Lanza utilized in his murderous shooting spree, titled, in the print edition of the newspaper, “High Stakes for Gun Companies As Court Weighs Newtown Suit.” A digital copy of the story, titled, “Appeal Offers Hope for Newtown Families in Suit Against Gun Companies,” was posted a day earlier."This week, the families of the victims plan to be in Hartford, listening as lawyers lay out in state Supreme Court their case that the companies that manufactured and sold the military-style assault rifle used by the gunman bear responsibility for the attack in which 26 people, including 20 children, were killed.

They are deploying a novel strategy that the families and their lawyers say could pierce the sweeping shield created by federal law that protects gun companies from litigation and has thwarted countless lawsuits after their weapons were used to commit crimes.

Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates. It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability."

But, the gun companies' internal communications pertaining to the marketing of its firearms--however trivial, or insightful, or embarrassing, or damning--are altogether irrelevant to a claim of negligent entrustment under PLCAA. That is why the Superior Court dismissed the suit against the Defendant firearms manufacturers. Discovery is therefore unnecessary. To allow the case to proceed to trial would make a mockery of precedential authority, for there exists no basis under Connecticut or Federal Statute, nor under Connecticut case law, upon which Plaintiffs can ground a cogent legal argument to support a claim for damages or injunctive relief against Defendants. The novel strategy that the Times' reporters mention is simply code for an attempt to impose liability out of whole cloth--ad hoc application of law to fit Soto Plaintiffs desire to inflict punishment on Defendants.

The Times newspaper followed up the November 13, 2017  story with another, one day later, on November 14, 2017. The follow-up story is titled, “Connecticut Supreme Court Hears Newtown Families’ Appeal Against Gun Companies." NY Times reporters, Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey report that:

"The Connecticut Supreme Court heard an appeal on Tuesday brought by relatives of victims in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School who argued that the companies that manufactured and sold the military-style assault rifle used by the gunman should be held responsible for the 2012 attack.

A lawsuit filed by the relatives said that the AR-15-style Bushmaster used to carry out the shooting in Newtown, Conn., that killed 26 people, including 20 first graders, was specifically marketed as a weapon of war, with slogans and product placement in video games invoking the violence of combat. The lawsuit claims that such promotions were a deliberate effort to make the weapon attractive to young men, like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman.

'Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years,' Joshua D. Koskoff, one of the lawyers representing the families, told the panel of judges, referring to the gun maker that was named in the suit, along with a wholesaler and a local retailer. 'The courtship between Remington and Adam Lanza is at the heart of the case.'

The lawsuit, brought by family members of nine people who were killed and a teacher who was shot and survived, was elevated to the State Supreme Court after years of working its way through the court system. The case started in state court, where it was first filed in 2014, and then it moved to Federal District Court before returning to the state level, where a judge dismissed the suit last year. The families appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the judge’s decision and allow a jury trial.

 The families “have infinite patience to see justice done and utmost faith in the legal system to serve the people it is meant to protect,” Ian Hockley, whose 6-year-old son, Dylan, was killed, said outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday. 'We have not lost one ounce of confidence.'"

Actually, firearms manufacturers have not and do not "court" lunatics and maniacs and criminals. This is merely a bizarre attempt to insinuate actual or constructive knowledge onto Defendant firearms manufacturers through naked allegations that Defendants, entrustors, directed marketing to the civilian population that, in Plaintiffs' mind, included marketing of the AR-15 to Adam Lanza, as a entrustee. But, the AR-15 was not marketed to Adam Lanza or to any other maniac. Moreover, Adam Lanza was not permitted to own or possess firearms under federal or State law, and Plaintiffs have not suggested that Defendants, in any manner, have sought to market firearms to individuals that are not permitted under State or federal law to own and possess them. To suggest that firearms manufacturers, such as Remington, court unstable individuals like Adam Lanza through the marketing of firearms and that such firearms manufacturers should be held liable for misuse of firearms by individuals who were never meant to have them, would be to rewrite both federal law and Connecticut law. In fact, such ad hoc application of law would open other entities to liability. Consider: Hollywood studios would find themselves vulnerable to lawsuits on the ground that they court maniacs to commit violence. It is hardly a secret that Hollywood studios make fortunes selling violence on film through their depiction of violent acts committed with guns, knives, bombs, and so forth. Video game manufacturers could, in the same vein, also be said to court mentally disturbed individuals to commit violence with guns or, for that matter, to commit violence with any other implement, such as with trucks, and bombs, and knives, simply for conveying such imagery to the American public through the marketing of their video games and through the imagery existent in those games. Furthermore, contrary to arguments or suggestions or hypotheses of gun proponents, gun manufacturers do not have absolute immunity from lawsuits. They have qualified immunity under federal law. But Plaintiffs in Soto would dare to make gun manufacturers absolutely liable for the misuse of their products by anyone who misuses their products. If they were to prevail, not only would federal law under PLCAA, and Connecticut law pertaining to negligent entrustment, be patently ignored or given odd and absurd ad hoc treatment, but the entire legal area of products liability would be turned on its head. Antigun proponents obviously don't care. Their interest in the law extends no further than obtaining the results they want even if the end result is a miscarriage of justice and the destruction of the principle of stare decisis--legal precedent in favor of ad hoc treatment, predicated on a plaintiffs' personal normative feelings about the way the law should be rather than the way the law is. If legal precedent goes out the door, then law would become truly chaotic. No one would be able to rely on the clear meaning of Statute or on the large body of case law. Law would be changed "on the fly," which would mean that law, upon which the public could rely, would cease to exist. Law would be reduced to ad hoc decisions predicated on the will of the decider of law and fact who happens to be personally sympathetic to the claims of one party over another and who would decide cases on personal whim and predilection rather than on the law as written. The legal and jurisprudential underpinnings of our system of laws would lose their grounding. Anarchy in law and in society would result.

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS WILL NEVER LET A VIOLENT GUN TRAGEDY GO TO WASTE

The New York Safe Act, signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on January 15, 2013, coming on the heels of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy, became the model for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new federal assault weapons ban, which, had it been enacted, would have been yet a more ambitious replacement for the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and which was never reauthorized. Fortunately, Harry Reid, who, at the time, was the Senate Majority Leader, when Democrats controlled the Senate, did not permit Feinstein’s assault weapon ban provision to be included in the broader antigun bill. Feinstein was livid. Still, even without the assault weapons ban provision, the bill failed miserably. The LA Times reported, on April 17, 2013, in an article titled, "Senate votes down Feinstein's assault weapons ban":“In a final appeal to her colleagues to reinstate an assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) displayed on the Senate floor Wednesday a New York Daily News front page from the day after her ban was pulled from a broader gun control bill: It shows the photos of the 20 first-graders shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School with the headline: “Shame on U.S.” And then, Feinstein told her colleagues, “Show some guts.” But her attempt to attach the ban to the gun bill failed, drawing just 40 votes, with 60 senators voting against it. That was fewer than the 52 votes she received in 2004 in her unsuccessful effort to renew the now-lapsed 1994 ban." Nonetheless, antigun proponents continue, inevitably and inexorably, to attack the Second Amendment, which they detest, with a vengeance. They reemploy the same strategies against the Second Amendment or concoct new ones through introduction of bills in Congress and in State Legislatures and through assaults on the Second Amendment through the Courts. As with the Hydra of Greek Mythology, lop off one head and another grows to replace the one lost. Antigun proponents never tire of unleashing vindictiveness against inanimate objects and against those law-abiding American citizens who seek to exercise their natural fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.So it is that, with the latest effort, we see a lawsuit in Connecticut that, prior to the NY Times series of articles, saw little, if any Press coverage. This was probably by design.But, in its stories, the NY Times fails, as the mainstream media is wont to do, to name the Court cases it refers to and to provide citations for them. Nonetheless, the case is Soto vs. Bushmaster, filed in Superior Court of Connecticut, Fairfield County. It is an unreported case, meaning that you cannot obtain the case in a formal legal reporter, but an unreported version may be found, once again, as stated supra at: Donna L. Soto, Administratrix of the Estate of Victoria L. Soto, Conn. vs. Bushmaster Firearms International, Super Conn. 2016 Conn. Superior Court LEXIS 2626, which the Arbalest Quarrel obtained. In the Times' discussion of the case, we reiterate the point that reporters Rojas and Hussey say, namely, that plaintiffs “are deploying a novel strategy that the families and their lawyers say could pierce the sweeping shield created by federal law that protects gun companies from litigation and has thwarted countless lawsuits after their weapons were used to commit crimes. Supporters believe that if the court clears the way for a jury trial, the gun companies’ internal communications — which the companies have fought fiercely to keep private — would surface in discovery, a potentially revealing and damaging glimpse into the industry and how it operates. It could also chart a legal road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings as they pursue accountability.”What this “novel strategy” means is that plaintiffs cannot rely on precedential authority for their case--there is none--and, in fact, Plaintiffs' cause of action is contrary to law. Undeterred with weight of legal authority against them, Soto Plaintiffs are, nonetheless, asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to ignore federal statute that precludes actions against firearms manufacturers who are not in privity with those individuals who misuse their firearms; and Soto Plaintiffs are also asking the Court to ignore the weight of Connecticut case law and State Statute that clearly prohibits relief for the kinds of claims they are bringing, on the allegations that they made. One of the Plaintiffs, David Wheeler, Administrator for the estate of Benjamin Wheeler, stated to the NY Times: “'It doesn’t make any sense at all that these products [referring, apparently, to semiautomatic rifles modeled on the original AR-15 by Armalite, such as one that Adam Lanza brought with him to Sandy Hook Elementary School] are free of liability,' Mr. Wheeler said in a recent interview. 'It’s not a level playing field. It’s not American capitalistic business practice as we know it. It’s just not right.'" The statement, full of emotion, but devoid of legal substance, is, itself, the stuff of nonsense. The Times' reporters do accurately report that: The lawsuit, brought by the families of nine people who were killed and one teacher who was shot and survived, faces significant legal hurdles. The case was elevated to the Connecticut Supreme Court after a lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year after she found that the claims it raised fell “squarely within the broad immunity” provided by federal law.” The Times’ reporters refer to the earlier Times article, published on October 14, titled, “Judge Dismisses Suit Against Gun Maker by Newtown Victims’ Families,” supra

HOW DID THE SOTO CASE FIND ITS WAY TO THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT?

One unanswered procedural question concerns the events that led up to the Connecticut Supreme Court hearing the case. Upon a final appealable order, the losing party does, of course, have an opportunity to appeal an adverse decision. Generally, an adverse decision would be appealed to the next higher Court. In Soto, that would mean an appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court. For some unexplained, inscrutable reason that is difficult to decipher, the case skipped the intermediate Connecticut Appellate Court and wended its way directly to the State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court granted the appeal, hearing oral argument on the Connecticut Superior Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ suit, where the Superior Court granted, in its entirety, Defendants’ Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint. Clearly, Plaintiffs, Soto, and others, want a trial. A trial means that each side may undertake discovery. A motion to strike, in Connecticut, challenges the sufficiency of the allegations of a complaint. In a defendants’ motion to strike, a court has an obligation to take as true the facts alleged in the challenged pleading and then to determine whether those facts, if proven, would support a cause of action. If the Court determines that the allegations do support a cause of action, then the motion to strike is denied. Otherwise, the motion is granted. See Johnson vs. Department of Public Health, 48 Conn. App. 102; 710 A.2d 176; 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 110. The Soto Plaintiffs, miffed that their desire to undertake discovery was deflected through the dismissal of their suit, fail to appreciate that the Superior Court determined that discovery is irrelevant as there is nothing in the allegations of the First Amended Complaint, which the Superior Court had to take as true, that would support their claims. Thus, there is nothing concrete to support a trial.As was true in Soto, the Superior Court concluded that, even accepting the allegations of the First Amended Complaint as true, the allegations still fail to support a cause of action. The Superior Court therefore properly dismissed the Complaint. Inexplicably, the Connecticut Supreme Court, allowed the Plaintiffs to bypass the Connecticut Appellate Court and agreed to hear arguments on whether Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint did set forth allegations sufficient to support an action, contrary to lower Court's determination that the First Amended Complaint did not. Plaintiffs want to present at trial, through discovery, that Bushmaster and other Defendants marketed the AR-15, extolling its virtues as a military rifle to the civilian population. Plaintiffs then hope to buttress their prayer for damages for wrongful death and to enjoin Defendants from marketing the weapon the AR-15 in Connecticut. The problem with this avenue of attack--apart from the fatal flaw flowing from the fact that there exists no basis in law upon which to ground actual or constructive knowledge on Defendant firearms manufacturers --is that marketing claims are often little more than puffery, utilized to support sale, but are not to be taken seriously. The fact is that the semiautomatic AR-15 is not a military assault rifle and saying that it is a military weapon does not make it so. If Defendants made such claims in their marketing of the rifle, such claims do not thereby turn a non-military weapon into a military weapon. Otherwise, any firearm is deemed a military weapon, and, in fact, those who abhor firearms seek to disarm the American citizenry of all firearms. That is clear enough from a consideration of the actions of antigun proponents--as they attack one category of firearms and then another, until all firearms are banned from the hands of American civilians. But, even if the Plaintiffs are rigThe NY Times, in its stories on the Soto case, gives a superficial treatment of the history of Soto along with a perfunctory, cursory treatment of abstruse issues of law—omitting any discussion of the Superior Court Judge’s well-reasoned opinion in support of dismissal of the case on Defendant Bushmaster’s (et. al.) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Had the Plaintiffs not appealed the case—which, again, is a costly proposition—that would have been the end of the matter.The case has wended its way to the Connecticut Supreme Court, where, according to the NY Times, the two sides presented oral argument. If Defendants prevail, that will effectively end the matter. If Plaintiffs prevail, the case will be remanded to the trial court, with instructions on how the case is to proceed.

WHY THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT

Although the Plaintiffs in their prayer for relief for wrongful death have demanded monetary damages, punitive damages, Attorneys fees, and Court costs, from Defendant, what Plaintiffs are really after is a complete, total ban, in Connecticut, of all semiautomatic firearms—all semiautomatic rifles that might be subsumed under the fiction, “assault weapons.”  One cannot but wonder if this case is being funded by well-heeled billionaires, like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg, whose antipathy toward the Second Amendment is well known. If such people are funding this lawsuit, the NY Times isn’t saying. In fact, there is a noticeable silence as to the costs of the lawsuit, which must be massive and likely well beyond the ability of Plaintiffs to fund it. If counsel for Plaintiffs are taking the case on contingency, still there are court costs associated with the case as well as the day-to-day work of the counsel to prepare the case. And, as the case lacks precedential support, it is a long-shot at best. So, again, we ask: who is funding this case?Apart from wrongful death claims, seeking damages, Plaintiffs in the Soto case, are praying for injunctive relief. They seek to obtain an order from a Connecticut Court that enjoins Defendants from marketing AR-15 type rifles in Connecticut. If they are successful in that endeavor, antigun proponents will likely bring similar suits against firearms manufacturers in other jurisdictions, and a Democratic Party controlled Congress would then draft a bill and attempt to enact a bill on the federal level, in effect placing semiautomatic rifles in the same position as fully automatic firearms are now placed. This is heinous and particularly dangerous to Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because a ban on so-called assault weapons would be implemented at the source—the manufacturer—rather than, after the fact of manufacture, through dealers. If Soto and the other Plaintiffs are successful in their endeavor, the impact on the civilian market will be dire. Consider: New production of fully automatic weapons and selective fire weapons are unavailable to civilians, under the National Firearms Act of 1934.  If the Soto Plaintiffs are successful in convincing the State Supreme Court to remand the case to the Superior Court for trial, and if the Soto Plaintiffs prevail, then semiautomatic firearms, namely those semiautomatic rifles defined as ‘assault weapons’ that trace their lineage to the original Armalite AR-15 rifle, will be treated like machine guns are now treated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This means that, in Connecticut, no citizen who is a civilian, will be able to obtain a pristine, brand new mint AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, newly manufactured, just as no civilian can now obtain a mint condition, newly manufactured machine gun, or selective fire assault rifle, or submachine gun.The tacit goal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 is to make all fully automatic firearms unavailable to the civilian population. Once the present supply of previously manufactured fully automatic firearms or selective fire weapons are depleted, no civilian will be able to obtain one even if that person wishes to obtain one and notwithstanding that a person can obtain one so long as one does not fall within a federal disability that otherwise precludes that person from obtaining a true military, fully automatic machine gun or submachine gun or selective fire assault rifle or any other firearm. Similarly, if manufacturers are precluded from lawfully selling any semiautomatic firearm in the civilian market, they will not manufacture new weapons, and previously manufactured weapons, grandfathered in, would no longer be available to civilians once the present supply is exhausted. And those semiautomatic firearms that are available would be extremely costly to obtain--the prices rising to the stratosphere, as the present supply becomes sparse and finally exhausted.

SHOULD SUPPORTERS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT BE UNDULY CONCERNED OVER THE SOTO CASE?

Even if the Soto Plaintiffs succeed in having their case remanded for trial to the Superior Court, that does not mean that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their case. The Connecticut Supreme Court has to provide the trial Court with guidance as to how the Soto case is to proceed to trial. While Plaintiffs seek a jury trial—a point emphasized by the NY Times--no supporter of the Second Amendment--that would also love to see a jury trial—it is more probable that the case will be decided on motions for summary judgment. Likely, once discovery has concluded, the Bushmaster Defendants will move for summary judgment and the Bushmaster Defendants should, then, prevail on the ground that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law.Likely, the Soto case will not even be remanded to the Superior Court for trial. We predict that the Connecticut Supreme Court will decide the case in favor of Defendants, affirming the Superior Court’s dismissal of the case. But, suppose the case proceeds to a jury trial and, suppose, further, that Plaintiffs prevail with a verdict in their favor, Defendants may still file a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, asking the Superior Court to set aside the verdict, on the ground that the evidence presented does not support judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. See, the Connecticut Supreme Court case, Labbe v. Hartford Pension Comm'n, 239 Conn. 168, 682 A.2d 490, 1996 LEXIS 340.But, if Plaintiffs ultimately do prevail—a longshot at best, as this would require ignoring Connecticut and federal Statutory law as well as ignoring a body of Connecticut common (case) law—the result only impacts Connecticut. Defendant firearms manufacturers, in Soto, are not precluded from manufacturing semiautomatic rifles of the type that Connecticut happens to ban. The downside is that an adverse decision against firearms manufacturers can have a ripple effect, emboldening similar actions in other States. Soto would be mark the first successful case against a firearms manufacturer, under PLCAA. If the Democratic Party takes over control of both Houses of Congress, it is possible, if highly unlikely, that Congress may enact, or at least propose, legislation similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934 as applied now to the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms. Firearms manufacturers would then be prevented from manufacturing new semiautomatic rifles for the civilian market. That is a worst case scenario but one that antigun groups and antigun legislators, and the mainstream media, are hoping for, if not betting on. If firearms manufacturers are prohibited, by federal Statute, from manufacturing new semiautomatic rifles, then what happens next? A ban on the manufacture of all semiautomatic firearms for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of all double action revolvers for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of all single action revolvers for the civilian market? A ban on the manufacture of muzzleloaders for the civilian market? Well, you get the picture!_________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel, for its part, will provide a comprehensive discussion of the well written opinion of the Connecticut Superior Court judge, in a separate article, to be posted shortly on the Arbalest Quarrel website, to be followed with an analysis of selected briefs of Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case and a review of a few amicus briefs._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A COMIC BOOK NEWSPAPER CREATES A COMIC BOOK WEAPON: USA TODAY'S "CHAINSAW" GUN

TO TRUST THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO DENY TRUTH AND, MORE, IT IS TO FORFEIT FAITH IN ONE’S OWN GOOD JUDGMENT

A RELOOK AT CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

“A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that's unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.” ~ in Culture and Value, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Early to Mid-Twentieth Century British-Austrian Philosopher, translated from the German by Peter Winch“The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.” Ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United StatesThree and one-half years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel published an article titled, “Of Chainsaws and Guns.” Ammoland Shooting Sports News posted the article under the title, “Time to Ban ‘Assault Saws’ – Commonsense Chainsaw Laws.” "Of Chainsaws and Guns" is satire, but the purpose in our drafting and posting it was and is deadly serious. We illustrated and demonstrated, through example, how perceptions form beliefs and how beliefs create reality—a reality that is amorphous, fluid, ever-changing, shifting with the currents of time and circumstance and the demands of those who dare control us, the American citizenry. Yet, contrary to this wisdom, the public is told that reality is based on truth, that truth is based on facts, and that facts, posited in reality, are concrete constants, readily ascertainable; never changing, never shifting, never subject to prevailing moods and circumstance of the populace.Guns—the public is told, and forever reminded, through the constant chime and cacophony of the mainstream media chorus that obviously abhors guns and that frowns upon, even detests those Americans who choose to exercise their fundamental, natural right to possess them—are the incarnation of evil; invidious; disgusting. The mainstream media perceives chainsaws, too, as ominous, demonic, inherently, intrinsically evil—dangerous, menacing, quick to bite the hand that would wield them and corrupting those that would possess them. Lo, what has come to pass is the dubious marriage of “gun and chainsaw”—bespeaking an unparalleled horror—a smirking grimace of evil.We should not be surprised, then, that those elements in society that loathe guns and gun ownership would take an unspeakable tragedy and use it to their advantage. The comic book that holds itself out as a legitimate newspaper, USA Today, took a semiautomatic rifle and added a “chainsaw bayonet” to it. USA Today was compelled to issue a "clarification." See, "USA Today issues a clarification after depicting a rifle with a 'chainsaw bayonet'", in Business Insider. If USA Today intended this to be amusing, it had the opposite effect. And, if USA Today did this in an unabashed attempt to create fear and horror in the mind of its target audience toward guns, USA  Today created indignation instead.Whatever the publishers and editors at USA Today intended, through the incongruous marriage of chainsaw and gun, USA Today was evidently alluding to the 1976 horror film, the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” as should be clear to devotees of horror movies. In this low budget silly, comic horror film, the antagonist, referred to as Leatherface--whose face is hidden behind a frightening "leather" mask to hide an equally horrifying visage--uses a chainsaw to wreak havoc on innocent young men and women. There is no humanity in Leatherface. The person wielding the chainsaw isn’t distinguished from the implement. Rather, Leatherface and chainsaw are one creature—a horrific amalgamation of flesh and machine, mindlessly, aimlessly, killing all those who happen, unfortunately, to cross his path.Coming on the heels of the deadly Texas Baptist Church shooting, in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the publisher and editors of the USA Today evidently thought and hoped and intended that creating a caricature of a semiautomatic rifle, through a ludicrous and hideous merger of firearm and chainsaw, carrying unmistakable hints to the man/creature “Leatherface,” would spark fear and abhorrence and loathing toward firearms in the public mind and that it would stoke public outrage and condemnation toward and over guns and toward those who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. For some Americans it might, indeed, have had the effect. If so, that was the point of creating the caricature of semiautomatic rifle married to a chainsaw. The unspoken words, created through the image, is of a fiendish figure, running amok, whose one purpose, whose only purpose in life is to commit murder and mayhem and to do so in a vividly graphic and gruesome manner. Killer and implement become one object, one thing--indistinguishable.But, for most Americans, as soon became clear to the publishers of USA Today, the caricature they created did not have the desired, intended effect; for, while the cartoon image of rifle and chainsaw sparked outrage, the outrage was directed, not to guns, but toward the newspaper itself--opening the paper up to public ridicule, a ridicule richly deserved. But, the USA Today doesn’t care. Not content to report the news, the writers and editors of the USA Today and writers and editors and commentators of similar mainstream media sources seek shamelessly to make news, peppering news accounts with salacious, unsubtle emotive spurts, aiming to persuade the public, rather than to inform the public. These mainstream media organizations disturbingly use their "news" vehicles to manipulate public thought, urging public action, with the goal of compelling policy makers to remove firearms from the hands of the citizenry, shamelessly baiting and attacking anyone who does not come on board with the game plan.

FAKE (PHONY) NEWS VERSUS TRUTH IN NEWS REPORTING

Pontius Pilate, we are told, posed to Jesus, this question: “Quid Est Veritas” ((“What is Truth” or “What is the Truth”) (John chapter 18, verse 38)). Did Pontius Pilate ask the question in jest? Did Pilate intend the question as nothing more than a rhetorical, perfunctory gibe? Most commentators believe this to be so; yet, perhaps, Pontius Pilate did not intend the question as an immodest quip at all. Perhaps he posed the question as a profound, serious inquiry into what is an abstruse, difficult, philosophical concept, surmising that, of all individuals on Earth, Jesus, alone, could enlighten him and that Pilate sought that enlightenment.As seekers of truth ourselves, we at the Arbalest Quarrel, believe that Pontius Pilate truly sought to understand this notion, this idea, this concept of ‘Truth.’The mainstream media, we are told, with an air of confident certitude shown by those who work for it and who operate in it—denigrating and disdaining those who operate in the alternative media sphere—claims to understand truth, and seeks to convey truth to the target audiences and that it is they, who work in the mainstream media, rather than those who work for alternative media sources, who see themselves as best equipped to perceive "the truth" and, so, claim sole right to convey the truth--but truth as they perceive truth, which they understands to be the truth--to the American public. So, it follows that those who work in the mainstream media feel they alone should be permitted to speak and write  on contemporary news subjects as they alone are guardians of and heralds of the truth. But such belief in their own certitude is the height of arrogance. Obviously, the mainstream media is loathe to compete with alternative media upstarts. But, for all their smug complacency, those who work in the mainstream media do not understand the concept of ‘truth’ at all, even as they surmise that they do.We begin with this presupposition: the concept truth, contrary to the glib certitude of the mainstream media toward the concept, is not a thing easy to grasp; nor, for that matter, is truth easy to come by. The mainstream media says that truth is a concept easily understood and that it is based on hard, cold, concrete fact. This suggests that truth exists when it coheres or corresponds to the facts. But, what is a ‘fact.’ A ‘fact’ is no less easy to comprehend, on analysis, than truth. Truth, and its obverse, falsity, are tied to propositions, not to facts, whatever a “fact” is. If there is a common thread running from a proposition—a declarative statement—to a fact, what is it but what common convention decrees. The mainstream media intends to have a lock on what that common convention is. Those that work for mainstream media organizations desire to tell a person, the American citizen, what that American citizen should believe, what it is that the American citizen is expected to believe and ought to believe—wherein and whereof, then, the truth consists, wherein and whereof the truth can be found; of what the truth, truly consists of; of what the truth, truly, is.Those individuals who work for mainstream media organizations delude themselves if they think they espouse truth. They delude themselves because they mistakenly think that what they assert happens to cohere with or correspond to concrete facts when their written or spoken expositions merely expose their own biases, their own attitudes, their own belief systems. But these belief systems have nothing to do with the world, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with truth, nothing to do with “facts.” Still, they take their written and verbal assertions to be authoritative gospel about the world, about the way the world is, about the way the world works, about reality, about truth. They either pretend or delude themselves into believing that their belief system coheres or corresponds with reality. But, their belief system, which infuses their written or verbal expositions, is not equivalent to or equated with the world, with reality, with truth, with facts, with a state of affairs. It is really nothing more than their fanciful notion of the world, of reality, of truth; and that belief system simply coheres with or corresponds to their personal values, their normative belief system; nothing more. Thus, they confuse the idea of the way the world is with the idea of the way they think the world ought to be, taking the public along for the ride—insisting that the public come along for the ride. They seek to thrust their belief system about the world—which is nothing more than their perception of reality, their personal false conception of truth about the world—upon everyone else, namely, the American public. They seek to thrust a simulacrum of truth on the public, compelling the public to accept the simulacrum as reality. It isn’t, and never was, and never can be. Truth and falsity are, in the final analysis, tied to propositions, not to things. One never can remove the veneer of perception to reality. Only God can remove the veneer. Only the Creator can see World as the thing in and of itself.So, the mainstream media, for all its heralding of truth in the news is not a source of truth at all. The most perceptive agents working for the mainstream media may know this and, therefore, may not actually delude themselves into believing that they are reporting “truth.” The most perceptive are not interested in reporting truth anyway, if such were even possible.

THE GOAL OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO CONVEY, TO INSERT, TO IMPRINT IN THE MIND OF ITS TARGET AUDIENCE, A WAY OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD—CREATING AN APPEARANCE OF THE WORLD THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS. THE GOAL OF THOSE WHO WORK IN AND FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS TO MISLEAD AND TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY AND TO DISGUISE THEIR INTENTIONS WHICH, UPON CLOSE EXAMINATION IS DELITERIOUS TO THE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION, AS AN INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN NATION STATE AND IS HARMFUL TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE NATION'S CITIZENRY.

The goal of the mainstream media is to convey a way of looking about the world upon its target audience. Sometimes this is done consciously. Often, it is not. This has absolutely nothing to do about the way the world is. And this has nothing to do with a quest for truth. It has everything to do with urging the public to march willingly behind the policy makers in government who have, themselves, no idea of the way the world is either, and would not care to know the way the world is even if they could catch a glimpse of the way the world really is, beyond the veneer of perception. Policy makers simply desire to shape the world in a way consistent with their policy objectives. The public for its part has no say in the matter, but is led by the nose, through the machinations of the mainstream media to believe that it agrees with the policy objectives of government policy makers when, rather, the public is merely conditioned through propaganda to believe it is giving its unfettered consent.The mainstream media is a conglomerate of propagandists, not journalists. The job of the mainstream media, through its legion of reporters, editors, analysts, commentators, and “experts,” is in the business to impose a world view on the public. The job of the mainstream media is not to educate; nor is it to inform the public. Contrary to its declarations, the mainstream media is not in business to provide information to the American citizen in order that each American citizen can derive his or her own conclusion, from the information given. No! The job of the mainstream media is to misinform the public and to misdirect it, in the same vein as a stage magician or illusionist, tricking its audience into believing that what it sees is truth—predicated on reality—when in fact the public is only being exposed to a chimera, a charade—something taken to be reality that is really nothing more than a fiction—a misperception of reality, and one that, on balance, is altogether inconsistent with the American's citizen's own personal desires, hopes, security, and well-being.The reporters, editors, and commentators of the mainstream media seek to misdirect the target audience like the magician, like the illusionist. The mainstream media seeks to shape beliefs and, therein, to shape one’s perception of reality—a fabrication, a template that the mainstream media focuses on the fabric of a person’s mind. Through manipulation of perception, these propagandists, on behalf of government, seek to form and to transform attitudes and beliefs. They do this through misinformation, disinformation, and non-information. They do it through confabulation and by manipulation of data. They do it through psychological devices designed to stir emotion. They use rhetorical flourishes and deliberate fallacious reasoning. These propagandists mold and shape public attitudes like so much clay wielded by a sculptor.

GUNS ARE NOT EVIL BUT FOR SO SAYING MAKES IT SO.

The public is told that guns are evil. The public is told that guns make good people, bad, and that they make bad people, worse. These propagandists—pretending to be journalists—use tragedy to their advantage—immerse the public in the filth and muck of it, repeating, incessantly, hypnotically, the same mantra, the same “talking points,” the same images and messaging played on and on in the printed medium and over the airwaves, a vicious, endless loop—cementing a bizarre perception of the world, of “truth” about the world in the public’s mind. The “truth” about the world that the mainstream media conveys is that the root cause of violence in America is tied to guns. These mainstream media image makers thread normative concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, through their “news” accounts, transforming ostensible neutral news accounts into disingenuous opinion editorials. The mainstream media image makers do this for the specific purpose of  swaying public mood and temperament; for the purpose of persuading public sentiment toward their cause; for the purpose of disciplining the masses and controlling their actions; and for urging public conformity to policy objectives they, rather than the public, champion. These image makers decide when it is right and ripe to make the public weep; when it is proper to make the public angry; when it is appropriate to move the public toward action. These image makers are adept at moving the public to believe, albeit wrongly, that such negative beliefs the public holds, say, toward guns, emanate from within the public consciousness itself, rather than outwardly, as such beliefs really do, from the image makers themselves--as a projection emanating from the propagandists' own verbal and written subconscious commands, mapped and imprinted onto the mind of the subject—the target audience, the American citizenry. Negative attitudes toward guns have, then, as their genesis, external psychological conditioning. Such negative attitudes do not exist inherently in the individual but what is injected into the mind of the recipient audience.These propagandists of the mainstream media insert, like a hypodermic needle into the brain—ludicrous notions—memes—about and toward inanimate objects. The public is encouraged to believe, wrongly, that negative thoughts about guns are of the public’s own making. They are not. Still, the public is directed by the propagandists to seek revenge against the salient culprit—the gun. The public is told, as well, that any individual can go off the deep-end and that because no one can know for certain who that will be and when that might happen, therefore everyone is suspect. Everyone’s rights are suspended because everyone is guilty of “precrime.” The average American citizen is treated as a random bit of dangerous energy whose impulses must be checked. Thus, the Deep State Government bureaucrats and policy makers believe it necessary to curb, to curtail that person’s natural, fundamental rights; to curb freedom--to do this in order to better control the masses.It becomes necessary to watch a citizen’s every thought, the citizen’s every deed. People, thus, begin to doubt themselves. That is by design. People begin to doubt their own sense of self; their own sense of self-worth; their own sense of self-control. They look for something outside themselves to protect them from themselves. They look to government for the answers. This is what government wants. This is what mainstream media is designed to do. The public looks to government as a balm for their worries, for their concerns. Self-doubt is the new reality, the new truth.The Bill of Rights is denigrated, must be denigrated. For the Bill of Rights is grounded in the sanctity of the individual. It is grounded in self-reliance and personal responsibility; maximizing freedom of action and minimizing government control over one’s actions. The Bill of Rights is dangerous to Order in the World--dangerous to the New World Order. The Bill of Rights is deemed the antithesis of truth. It does not fit in with the new reality; it does not fit in with the way the World is supposed to be. It does not fit in with this New World Order—a phrase that the mainstream media, once avoided referring to, but is now beginning to insert in its news coverage, in its news analysis, in its news commentary. Why is that?Is the mainstream media, on behalf of its internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist benefactors setting the stage for the final act, the coup de grâce to the Nation, notwithstanding that its darling child, Hillary Clinton, failed—failed her handlers miserably—to assume the mantel of the U.S. Presidency? Is not the mainstream media doing what it must, what it has been told to do: set the stage for the removal of the American people’s choice for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump? Is this not deemed necessary by the internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist community so it can proceed with the final step in the creation of a new reality, a New World Order, demanding, then, the de facto dismantling of the United States as a sovereign entity, a sovereign Nation and, thence, accomplishing with that, the destruction of the very notion of the sanctity of and reality of the concept of the “Nation State” and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual that resides in it?Public attitudes are synchronized with and to public policy. Remove guns from the citizenry! Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is undercut. Control Speech! Thus, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause is weakened. Collect and collate and analyze and synthesize all private information and communication! Thus, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment is undermined. And the public comes to believe that this is all for the good, that this is what it seeks and what it really wants. The public fails to see that it has been played for a fool; that it has been hoodwinked all along.The American people fail to see that negative thoughts toward the Bill of Rights is not of their own making; and never was. They fail to see that they have been led like willing sheep, to accept policy that they have never had a hand in making. They willingly give up their birthright and walk willy-nilly into the sausage machine, to be ground up and spewed out and stuffed into casing for consumption by the internationalist trans-nationalist globalist “elites.”

IF WE LOSE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND IF WE LOSE OUR PRIVACY, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC  WILL DIE A SLOW DEATH; BUT IF WE LOSE OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, OUR NATION, OUR FREE REPUBLIC DIES INSTANTLY, INSTANTANEOUSLY, IRREVOCABLY.

As much as the mainstream media would like Americans to see themselves as part of a larger international community that does not embrace gun ownership and possession, it must be understood that Americans are not like the populace of other Nations, and choose not to be. We are not Australians, nor Canadians, nor Brits, nor Mexicans. We are not Spaniards, nor Portuguese, nor French, nor Germans. Our firearms and our cherished Second Amendment are not to be swept aside and under, into the dustbin of history. And those Americans who own and possess firearms and who sanctify our right to keep and bear arms are not to be mocked. The ruthlessly powerful, obscenely wealthy, and inordinately secretive internationalists and trans-nationalist globalists who operate silently behind the scenes, through the Deep State and through the mainstream media, know that, so long as the Second Amendment remains intact, the sovereignty of our Nation and of our People, cannot falter; cannot fall. Thus, they work toward the eradication of the Second Amendment.To do this, the tactic of the internationalist, globalist “elite” is to manipulate public thought—to manipulate perception—to create a reality that the American public ought never to accept—namely, the destruction of the sovereignty and independence of our Nation State; the destruction of our fundamental, natural rights, codified in our Bill of Rights; the destruction of the glorification of the individual spirit, and of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual’s right to be and remain individual; lord over his or her own well-being and destiny. The right of the people to keep and bear arms keeps is not mere slogan. It is an assertion of the indomitability of American spirit and pride. It is a statement of the sovereignty of the American citizenry over government. It is a reminder to those who serve the American public that ultimate authority rests in and with the American citizenry. And it is a declaration of defiance directed to those secretive, powerful forces that seek to crush America and Americans into submission. The Second Amendment must ever remain omnipresent and omnipotent. It is the singular truth of what it means to be an American citizen. It underlies our core values, our history, our culture, our singular and unique identity. This is our reality and it is not to be tinkered with or tampered with.Those that mock us, and who mock our beliefs and who openly and shamelessly sneer at our President, and those who seek to thrust a new reality upon us, and who dare inject a new “truth” into our being, into our very soul, should keep well in mind that any attempt to undercut the authority of the American People and to undermine the supremacy of our Constitution, and to denigrate and warp our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, shall incite in the American people a fury that will not be, will never be constrained.The use of clever, adroit psychological programming and propaganda will not fool us. Gifts of money or sweetmeats will not tempt or sway or soften or corrupt us. Pabulum in the way of entertainment will not distract us. And if, ultimately, these internationalist, trans-nationalist globalist “elites” become frustrated with us and feel obliged to resort to force of arms to break us, we will meet such force with force of arms of our own. For we know full well the mechanism of force of arms, as did the founders of our free Republic, the framers of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights; and we will not shirk from using such force of arms as necessary to preserve the soul of our Nation and to preserve the sanctity of our own individual American soul and spirit._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017: A REAL POSSIBILITY OR A WILL-O'-THE-WISP?

BUT WHO WOULD PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IF NOT THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES?

{Antifederalist, founder of our free Republic, Patrick Henry’s prescient argument, given before the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, recognizing the need for an armed citizenry as the great bulwark against a tyrannical government. Note: the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified a few short years later, in December 1791}.“But, Sir, I have strong cause of apprehension: In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone-not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege is gone: But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our Representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands: I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny: Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism. Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition: And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? . . . . The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited: Exclusive power of Legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square; and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies: Those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress also in another part of this plan: They will therefore act as they think proper: All power will be in their own possession: You cannot force them to receive their punishment: Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the State; for as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them. Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power, ‘To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ By this, Sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress: The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous: So that this pretended little remains of power left to the States may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: Nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shewn, that a very small minority may prevent it; and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression: Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there even an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? Was there even an instance?” Speech of Patrick Henry (quoted at length, passim); Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1788  in The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Jonathon Elliot ed., 1907).

IMAGINE PATRICK HENRY GIVING THE ABOVE SPEECH TO THE 115TH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES. DO YOU NOT THINK THAT PATRICK HENRY WOULD SUPPORT NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION? WHAT, DO YOU SUPPOSE, WOULD BE DEMOCRATIC PARTY REACTION TO PATRICK HENRY'S SPEECH? IMAGINE DEMOCRATS AND CENTRIST REPUBLICANS TELLING PATRICK HENRY THAT HIS WORDS, HIS PERCEPTIONS, HIS LOVE FOR THE SACRED RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT! ALL THE WORSE, THEN, FOR WE, AMERICANS, OF THIS "BRAVE" NEW WORLD ORDER.

National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity, also referred to as "Constitutional Carry," is an issue of great importance to Americans who hold dear the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, many members of Congress—and need we daresay, most members of Congress—do not share the same sensibility and enthusiasm toward this sacred, sacrosanct, and inviolate right that the founders of our free Republic, not least of all Patrick Henry, felt important enough to enshrine in the most critical component of our Constitution: Our Bill of Rights. In fact, it is apparent that many members of Congress—virtually all Democrats, along with a good many centrist Republicans—feel that the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment should be whittled away to nothingness; and, by their way of thinking, good riddance, grounded on the reason, often given, and fervently believed, that the Second Amendment has long outlived its usefulness, its purpose, its very significance. They have, accordingly, passed legislation to accomplish that very goal, enacting numerous laws to destroy the free exercise of our most sacred right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

FIVE CONGRESSIONAL ENACTMENTS THAT HAVE HARMED THE AMERICAN CITIZEN’S EXERCISE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The comprehensive National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) did significant, substantial, perhaps even irreparable damage to the right codified in the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. But, lest one be under the illusion that anti-Second Amendment Congressional legislators were confident that the NFA and GCA amount to the veritable endgame in weakening the Second Amendment, Congress was far from done. Congress has since amended the GCA, further beleaguering the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We witness the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA)*; the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993; and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB) (now, fortunately, expired).

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY LEGISLATION

Congressional Republicans attempted to push back against the NFA, GCA and against an onslaught of further anti-Second Amendment bills, presented by Congressional Democrats, by drafting bills of their own that, if enacted, would strengthen the Second Amendment in accordance with the intent of the framers of it. From 2011 to date Republicans in the House and Senate introduced thirteen bills, any one of which, if enacted, would allow individuals, not under disability, who have a valid license to carry a handgun concealed in one State to lawfully carry a concealed handgun in every other State. Where are they now? Four of the bills failed in Committee. The other nine are stalled in Committee. The Arbalest Quarrel has written on this dismal state of affairs in the article, titled, “Second Amendment Handgun Carry Reciprocity Among the Several States—A Right Denied!”, posted on September 29, 2017.  None appear to be going anywhere soon.Although the basic mechanics of how a bill becomes law is no secret, and readily discernible, still, nonetheless, the inner workings of the U.S. Congress is inscrutable. One thing, though, is clear. No bill comes to the Floor of the House or Senate, for open hearing, debate and vote, without the backing of House and Senate leadership. So, if the Senate Majority Leader, at the moment, Senator Mitch McConnell, and if the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, at the moment, Representative Paul Ryan, do not wish to give a bill so much as an even chance of passage, then the bill will die in committee or, otherwise, the bill will be cast into a committee limbo. Such is the fate of most bills. Such is the fate of all national concealed handgun carry bills, to date.

H.R. 38: CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017

H.R. 38 is merely the latest of the national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills to be introduced in Congress. The purpose of the bill is set forth thus: “A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State.”In full, H.R. 38 sets forth:SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017".SEC. 2. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a)  IN GENERAL. – Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:  "§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms "(a)  Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that- "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or "(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. "(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that- "(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or "(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. "(c) (1)  A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section. "(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b). "(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee. "(d) (1)  A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief. "(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. "(e)  In subsection (a): "(1) The term 'identification document' means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals. "(2) The term 'handgun' includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine. "(f) (1)  A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. "(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public: "(A) A unit of the National Park System. "(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. "(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. "(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. "(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.". (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. – The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following: "926D.  Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms."(c)  SEVERABILITY. – Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. (d)  EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Representative Richard Hudson, R-NC, introduced the bill in the House of Representatives on January 3, 2017. There were 84 Cosponsors: 83 Republicans and, curiously, one Democrat. The lone democrat who cosponsored the bill is Henry Cuellar, D-TX.

WHO SIGNED ON AS COSPONSORS OF THE H.R. 38? **

Sponsor and original Cosponsors of H.R. 38  as of the date of the bill's introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives, on 01/03/2017:Hudson, Richard (R-NC) - Sponsor; Lamborn, Doug (R-CO) - Cosponsor; Chabot, Steve (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Smith, Lamar S. (R-TX) -Cosponsor; LaMalfa, Doug (R-CA) - Cosponsor; Graves, Tom (R-GA) - Cosponsor; Yoder, Kevin W. (R-KS) - Cosponsor; Huizenga, Bill (R-MI) - Cosponsor; Cole, Tom (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Duncan, Jeff D. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Hensarling, Jeb (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-FL) - Cosponsor; King, Steve (R-IA) - Cosponsor; Franks, Trent (R-AZ) - Cosponsor; Emmer, Tom (R-MN) -Cosponsor; Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) - Cosponsor; Walorski, Jackie (R-IN) - Cosponsor; Smith, Jason (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Cook, Paul (R-CA) -Cosponsor; Buchanan, Vern (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Olson, Peter Graham (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Harper, Gregg (R-MS) - Cosponsor; Gaetz, Matt (R-FL) - Cosponsor; Hartzler, Vicky (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Johnson, Bill (R-OH) - Cosponsor; Farenthold, R. Blake (R-TX) -Cosponsor; Brooks, Mo (R-AL) - Cosponsor; Kinzinger, Adam (R-IL) - Cosponsor; DesJarlais, Scott Eugene (R-TN) - Cosponsor; Cramer, Kevin (R-ND) - Cosponsor; Holding, George B. (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Meadows, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Mullin, Markwayne (R-OK) - Cosponsor; Pittenger, Robert (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Wagner, Ann (R-MO) - Cosponsor; Williams, Roger (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Sanford, Marshall C. (R-SC) - Cosponsor; Brat, Dave (R-VA) - Cosponsor; Buck, Ken (R-CO) -Cosponsor; Katko, John M. (R-NY) - Cosponsor; Newhouse, Dan (R-WA) - Cosponsor; Ratcliffe, John Lee (R-TX) - Cosponsor; Walker, Mark (R-NC) - Cosponsor; Westerman, Bruce (R-AR) – Cosponsor

Added Cosponsors, on January 4, 2017:
Bishop (R)-UT	Rouzer (R)-NC	Barr (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors on January 5, 2017:
Bost (R)-IL	Harris (R)-MD	Grothman (R)-WI
Shimkus (R)-IL	Gibbs (R)-OH	Perry (R)-PA
Knight (R)-CA	Comstock (R)-VA	Kelly (R)-PA
Bucshon (R)-IN	Cheney (R)-WY	Taylor (R)-VA
Added Cosponsors, on January 6, 2017:
Sessions (R)-TX	Posey (R)-FL	Gohmert (R)-TX
Comer (R)-KY
Added Cosponsors, on January 9, 2017:
Black (R)-TN	Pearce (R)-NM	Gowdy (R)-SC
Davis (R)-IL	Kelly (R)-MS
Added Cosponsors, on January 10, 2017:
Wilson (R)-SC	Young (R)-IA	Budd (R)-NC
Rooney (R)-FL
Added Cosponsors, on January 11, 2017:
Hultgren (R)-IL	Rokita (R)-IN	Banks (R)-IN
Added Cosponsors, on January 12, 2017:
Young (R)-AK	Thompson (R)-PA	Johnson (R)-LA
Mitchell (R)-MI
Added Cosponsors, on January 13, 2017:
Bishop (R)-MI	Denham (R)-CA	Byrne (R)-AL
Walberg (R)-MI	Barletta (R)-PA	Collins (R)-NY

{Congress has lost its way. Congress does not serve the interests of the American people. But, if it is not the American people whom Congress serves, then whom is it that Congress does serve? Congress must be reminded that its duty is to serve the American people. Those Legislators who fail in their duty to the American people must be voted out of Office.Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment.} ________________________________________*Supporters of FOPA might argue that it operates as a positive step forward, toward strengthening the Second Amendment and they might point to support garnered from NRA that supported various aspects of FOPA. But, “Despite its magnanimous sounding title, and notwithstanding some of its more generous provisions, the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) also contained a Trojan Horse. While the NFA severely restricted possession of fully automatic weapons, the 1986 FOPA, signed into law by President Reagan, made possession of any fully automatic firearm which was manufactured before 1986 a felony, with certain narrow exceptions. Given that possession of fully automatic firearms was already heavily regulated by the NFA, the immediate impact of the FOPA was minimal. However, as 1986 fades into the past, the law has begun to manifest its twofold effect. First, it insures that even fully registered fully automatic firearms in private possession gradually become more and more obsolete. They are now twenty years old. Eventually, they will appear as quaint as the flintlocks that some faux-originalists claim are the only weapons protected under the Framers' intent. Second, as older weapons are gradually decommissioned, fewer of these weapons are available for civilian ownership, reducing the collective firepower of the militia and increasing the price of those full automatics still on the market. The eventual effect of the statute will be a de facto ban on civilian possession of all full automatics, except for a few museum pieces.” And, fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 are banned from the civilian market altogether. “Do Federal Firearms Laws Violate the Second Amendment by Disarming the Militia?”, 10 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 469, 484 (Spring 2006), by John-Peter Lund, A.B. 1997, M.A. 1999, University of California at Berkeley; J.D. 2006, University of Texas. See also, “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 Great Gun Control War of the Twentieth Century—And Its Lessons For Gun Laws Today, 39 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1527, 1574 (October 2012), by David B. Kopel, Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. Research Director, Independence Institute, Denver, Colorado. Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. Kopel is the author of fourteen books and over eighty scholarly journal articles, including the first law school textbook on the Second Amendment: Nicholas J. Johnson, David B. Kopel, George A. Mocsary & Michael P. O'Shea, Firearms Law and the Second Amendment: Regulation, Rights, and Policy (Aspen Publishers, 2012). This article is a revised and extended version of a portion of the textbook written by Kopel. See David Kopel's website. “Because of an amendment added on the floor of the House, FOPA also banned the sale of new machine guns (manufactured after the date that FOPA became law, May 19, 1986) to the public. The NRA successfully challenged the ban in district court, but lost in the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. (The challenge had asked that language allowing the sale of new machine guns ‘under the authority of the United States’ be construed to allow sales that complied with the Federal National Firearms Act of 1934).”** Roger Katz and Stephen D’Andrilli, Co-creators of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, are regular guests on Lock and Load Radio with Bill Frady. Toward the end of the 6:00 show, that took place this past Thursday evening, October 18, 2017, Bill informed Roger Katz that a listener to the show had contacted Bill through the show’s “Chat Room.” The listener requested a list of all Republican House Members who did not support H.R. 38. Roger explained that he would post an article, responsive to the listener’s request. Stephen and Roger are, accordingly, doing so through this article.Responsive to the listener’s request, be advised that the 115^th Congress has 435 House Members, broken down as follows: 239 Republican House members, 194 Democrats, and two vacancies. Concerning the vacancies, the Honorable Tim Murphy resigned on October 21, 2017, and the Honorable Jason Chaffetz resigned on June 30, 2017.  For a list of the names of House and Senate Members, the following websites provide a wealth of information: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.aspx; https://www.house.gov/; and https://contactsenators.com/party.php?party=republican. Rather than listing the names of those Republican House Members who did not add their names to the list of cosponsors of H.R. 38, Stephen and Roger have listed the names of those who did add their names as cosponsors since the list of cosponsors of the bill was readily ascertainable.It would be unnecessarily labor intensive to list the names of over 150 Republican House Members who did not sign on as cosponsors of the bill, but those individuals who would like to ascertain the names of the Republican House Members who did not add their names as cosponsors to H.R. 38 can readily ascertain who those House Members are by comparing the names of the sponsor and cosponsors of the bill which Roger and Stephen have provided in this article, with those who did not. The web links provided in this article, supra, set forth the names of each House Member. But, keep in mind that, notwithstanding that a House Member adds his or her name as a cosponsor to this bill, or, for that matter, to any other bill, this does not mean the House Member would vote for enactment. A Member of Congress is not required to do so. Similarly, the fact that a House Member did not sign on as a cosponsor of H.R. 38, this does not mean that the House Member would not vote for enactment of H.R. 38 were it to move forward to a full House Floor vote. In fact, many House Members might have cosponsored H.R. 38, knowing full well that its chance of passage, based on what they, and we, have seen of previous similar bills, is slim to nonexistent. Cosponsors of H.R. 38 might, then, wish to create the impression they are fervent supporters of the Second Amendment generally and of national concealed handgun carry legislation particularly, when in fact they are not, knowing that it is highly unlikely that they will ever have to place their honor and integrity on the line as it is highly unlikely—at least at the present time—that H.R. 38 will ever make its way out of Committee, let alone find its way to the House Floor for a full public hearing and debate and, then, on to a full House Floor vote. That is not to say that many--and, probably, or, at least, hopefully all or most--of the cosponsors of H.R. 38 do not in fact strongly support the bill that they have lent their name in support to and that they would not decidedly and definitely like to see passage of the bill in the event, however unlikely it might be, that Representative Paul Ryan, will relent and allow H.R. 38—or any of the other similar national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bills, presently stuck in Committee—to wend its way through Committee and on to the House Floor for full public hearing, debate, and vote. Quite simply, we don't know._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

STEPHEN PADDOCK, MASS MURDERER

PART ONE

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

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

WE MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS*

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY: Roman Buhler, Director of the Madison Coalition: http://www.madisoncoalition.org/.The individual rights guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd Amendments of our Constitution are under attack.  A dangerous new movement has emerged in American politics, one that seeks to upend the 225-year tradition that in America laws are made only with the consent of the governed. Many so-called progressives believe that when, sooner or later, they regain control of the White House they can erode and weaken the 1st Amendment rights like free speech and religious feedom as well as the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms, not by passing legislation, but, through regulations dictated by the President's un-elected bureaucrats in Washington.In short these so-called progressives want a system where regulatory edicts issued by a President’s appointees can fundamentally change the meaning of a law in ways that were never intended by the Congress that passed that law. As each controversy over legislation or a political leader's tweet in Washington distracts the media, legislators, and the public, one fundamental question stands out. What will be the PERMANENT legacy of this era of a Republican President and Republican majorities in Congress, and in 33 states' legislatures? Will it be executive orders and laws that last only until the voters elect a liberal President and Congress as voters have done at least once a generation or so for the last 100 years.1912, 1934, 1964 and 2008 all saw the election of Democratic super majorities that dramatically expanded the size and power of government. There is no reason to believe that this will not happen again, continuing the trend towards bigger and bigger government.To reverse this trend, the legacy of our majorities and our control of the White House today must be something more permanent than executive orders and laws. To rein in the abuse of federal power, we need constitutional reform that will last for generations, not just for the term of one administration or of one Congressional majority.Our challenge is to persuade the majorities we now have in Congress and the states right to permanently and constitutionally strengthen checks and balances on the abuse of federal power.Perhaps the most important lasting pro-limited government reform of the last 75 years was the 22nd Amendment for Presidential term limits, ratified in 1951. That Amendment was proposed by Congress in part because of pressure from the states who favored it. Now, just as pressure from the states helped force Congress to propose the Bill of Rights and presidential term limits, pressure from 2/3 of the states could force Congress to propose a popular Amendment as soon as 2019, without Convention. In fact three times in American history, pressure from the states has forced Congress to propose an Amendment states wanted. 12 of the 27 Amendments to our Constitution were proposed in this way. The 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 17th Amendment for direct election of Senators, and the 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to two terms were all proposed by Congress because Congress realized that 2/3 of the states favored them, and Congress did not want the states even thinking about proposing the Amendment through a Convention.  If states, working with allies in Congress could help force Congress to propose an Amendment, what kind of Amendment could it be?Constitutional curbing the administrative state so future Presidents and their regulators could no longer dictate the rules that govern us would be a powerful permanent legacy. The good news is that than 1000 state legislators, 7 governors and former governors, including Mike Pence, a unanimous vote of the RNC, language in the 2016 Republican Platform, and Resolutions passed by 25 state legislative chambers have already urged Congress to propose the "Regulation Freedom Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution. The Regulation Freedom Amendment  would require that major new federal regulations be approved by Congress before they can take effect. And Congress, not bureaucrats would decide what is a "major" regulation.Conservatives in Congress including Sen. Ted Cruz, House Rules Chair Pete Sessions, House Natural Resources Chair Rob Bishop, and past Constitution Subcommittee Chair Trent Franks have endorsed the Regulation Freedom Amendment. Polls show 2-1 support for the Amendment from voters. Curbing the administrative state is an issue that could unite Conservatives and libertarians of all kinds while appealing to swing voters in 2018.Most so-called progressives do not want to answer a simple question: Should the rules that govern us be dictated by un-elected Washington bureaucrats or should they be approved by elected representatives of  the people? But we can make progressives answer that question and reveal them for the "Undemocrats" they really are. In fact we could even call pro-Washington Democrats who prefer bureaucracy to democracy the "UNDEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY."The Madison Coalition, is helping to build a national network of grassroots, political and business leaders to urge state legislators and Members of Congress to support the Regulation Freedom Amendment. Big change happens from the bottom up, not just the top down. Just one phone call or personal email to a legislator from each of hundreds and eventually thousands of people like those of you who are reading this article can make "ending regulation without representation" an issue that cannot be ignored.Every voting U.S. House Republican along with some courageous Democrats voted for and many Republican U.S. Senators support a bill called the REINS Act which would require that major new federal regulations that impose costs of more than 100 million dollars must be approved by Congress. But the REINS Act does not protect 2nd Amendment rights, free speech or religious freedom from regulations with a cost of less than $100 million. Creative regulators could also evade it by proposing multiple "mini" or "micro" regulations, each with a small cost. And the REINS Act could be repealed by a future more liberal Congress or overturned by a liberal U.S. Supreme Court.The Regulation Freedom Amendment, on the other hand, allows one quarter of the U.S. House or Senate to designate any regulation as a "major” regulation which would then require a majority vote of both the House and Senate to take effect. First and Second Amendment rights would be fully protected, and a Constitutional Amendment could not be repealed by a future Congress or overturned by the supreme Court. Most elected officials, and especially most Republicans do not know of this Constitutional alternative to the REINS act that has been endorsed by the RNC, the GOP Platform, and 25 state legislative chambers. When they hear about it from the grassroots, they certainly become interested. But we need the help of people like those of you who are reading this article to spread the word about this unique opportunity to permanently curb the bureaucracy and preserve the regulatory reforms we are now seeing.Our historic majorities are not permanent. If we don't act soon we will miss our chance. But if we do, we can change the course of American history. If you would like to learn more, visit the Regulation Freedom Amendment website at www.regulationfreedom.org. Or you can email us at Leaders@RegulationFreedom.org. Or call us at 202-255-5000.We hope to hear from you!________________________________________________*Roman Buhler is the Director of the Madison Coalition. He served for 14 years as a lawyer for the U.S. House of Representatives. He was Newt Gingrich's first House Committee Counsel. The present article was submitted for consideration for publication in the Arbalest Quarrel by its author, Roman Buhler, on July 8, 2017. The editors of the Arbalest Quarrel approved the article for publication shortly after presentation of the article for publication. Due to exigencies, unrelated to the submission, there has been an unfortunate delay in posting the article to this website. The editors of the Arbalest Quarrel apologize to the author for the delay in posting.As a further note, the editors of the Arbalest Quarrel have made minor, minimal grammatical and syntactic changes to the article where deemed appropriate, and have formatted the article, consistent with the font and style utilized in the website. The editors have, however, made no semantic changes to actual content, and the article appears here essentially as submitted by its author, complete and unabridged. As a final note, the ideas expressed in the article, reflect those of the author. The Arbalest Quarrel respects the ideas expressed, as consistent with the aims and purport of the Arbalest Quarrel website.The Arbalest Quarrel supports all efforts that serve to strengthen our Bill of Rights and supports, especially, all efforts to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This article is copyright protected by its author, Roman Buhler, and is published by the Arbalest Quarrel with express permission of the author.  

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: GUARANTEEING THE SUPREMACY OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NOW IS THE TIME TO GET MEANINGFUL FEDERAL SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS PASSED INTO LAW: LET'S GET THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT ("SAGA") UP TO SPEED.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson, Resolutions Relative to the Alien and Sedition Acts, in 1 The Founders' Constitution 292 (Philip Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds., 1987).Our fundamental rights, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, are under constant assault. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in the continuous, contentious, cavalcade of laws emanating on the State and federal and local governmental levels—laws that slowly but inexorably chip and whittle away at the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But why is that? One reason for this aggressive assault on the right codified in the Second Amendment is that those supporting restrictive gun legislation view the right as an anathema, a thing of no positive value today. Those who support ever more arcane, restrictive, ponderous laws—a veritable cascade of them with no end in sight—may acknowledge that the right set forth in the Second Amendment had some import and merit, perhaps, at one time, early in our Nation’s history, but no longer. They see the right, today, as something archaic, anachronistic and, therefore, not a thing to be legitimately considered a right at all but, at most, a privilege, something that may be bestowed by government on a select few, whom Government trusts as worthy “caretakers” of society. What then becomes of the right as exercised by the common man? It is a thing lost, never to be recovered.Commoners—average Americans—are conditioned through propaganda to view firearms as an evil, as things to be reviled, and to view those who desire to own and possess them as individuals who are out of touch with reality, out of touch with the way the world works today, out of touch with the way things are or, as projected in the mind through incessant propaganda, out of touch with the ways things ought to be. The mainstream media pompously, piously, at the behest of its internationalist, globalist benefactors, proselytizes, telling us that firearms are responsible for the ills in society and that individuals who seek to own and possess them are rightfully to be shunned and viewed as slightly unhinged. The mainstream media, with the assistance of teachers and advocacy groups, condition children to fear firearms. Woe to the child caught bringing a toy gun to school or even pointing a finger at another child, simulating or suggesting a firearm. The school board ejects that child from the school, with great fanfare, as an object lesson for others. Thus, at an early age a child learns that “incorrect thinking” will turn that child into a pariah.Mainstream news sources at the behest of their benefactors—the secretive overlords of western civilization—seek, through constant, tedious, repetitive opinionating, to repress the desire in man to own and possess firearms. The argument made—specious though it is—is that firearms have no place in a “civilized” society. This modern-day excuse for a “Press” contends that Americans who desire to own and possess firearms are throwbacks to an earlier day and age and, so, need to be reeducated to forsake firearms. At times mainstream news sources—at the behest of their wealthy, powerful benefactors, the secretive, powerful, overlords of society—make these points overtly. At other times, the points are tacit, hidden in news accounts of criminals and lunatics who prey on us all. Yet, the American public is endlessly and noxiously bombarded with specious arguments remonstrating against firearms, arguing for destruction of firearm caches and castigating those who would deign to keep them. The ill-informed public thus perceives, in the constant barrage and fusillade of slogans and chastisements spat out by the propaganda machine of the mainstream media, that the loss of the right to keep and bear arms is nothing to be concerned about. The truth is ever lost on the public, as the very linchpin of the Bill of Rights falls to hundreds of unconstitutional restrictive State and federal statutes and dozens more of governmental edicts, and to tens of thousands of deliberately vague and ambiguous sentences and clauses and paragraphs tucked away in numerous local governmental rules, regulations, codes, and ordinances, designed to confound and mislead those among us who would dare to exercise the right believed important enough by the framers to carve in stone, but now to be dumped, unceremoniously, in a warehouse—like the statues and memorabilia of our Nation’s Confederacy—out of sight and, so, out of mind—lest raging anarchists and pseudo-moralists be offended.To convert the average American to its cause celebre—and to its way of thinking—to encourage the average American to accept the need for more and more firearms restrictions the mainstream media denigrates and trivializes the right embodied in the Second Amendment and, at once, castigates and ostracizes those who would dare support it.Clearly, it isn’t the career criminal, the psychopathic gang and drug cartel members, and the occasional lunatic, that gun restrictions are meant to target. No! It is, rather, the average, rational, law-abiding, American. It is that person who is the real target of ponderous gun restrictions. But, why is that? Why is it this individual that the mainstream media, and various like-minded politicians, and their benefactors—the inordinately secretive, extraordinarily powerful, insatiably and exorbitantly wealthy, and coldly ruthless internationalists, the destroyers of the Nation State and of a Nation’s laws—truly detest and truly fear? The answer is clear on reflection, and we see the answer in the mask shrouding the overt reasons the mainstream media blares out to the American public when extolling the virtue of ever more restrictive gun measures.The overt, pervasive reasons given for destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms masks a more insidious reason the Second Amendment is under constant and vicious assault and it is the salient, true reason. It is one never given, nor dared to be given, nor is it even hinted at. Yet, it lurks ominously, in the shadows, ever present—and evident to those who pause to consider the constant, dogged, unwavering, and rapacious efforts to destroy the Second Amendment. It is clear enough to those who reflect carefully on the wording of the Second Amendment.The reason the gun grabbers truly seek to undercut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is hidden in plain sight. It is found in the prefatory clause: “a well regulated militia being necessary to a free state.”  The framers of the Constitution, the founders of our free Republic, expressed concern over two primal threats to the young Nation. One threat emanates from outside. It is the threat posed by foreign aggressors. The other threat—by far the more serious and insidious one—operates from the inside. It goes by the name, “tyranny.”The dependent “militia” clause has no purpose other than to make clear why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary. The operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and absolute. The operative clause is not conditioned by the prefatory, dependent “militia” clause. It is not conditioned by anything. The prefatory clause simply sets forth the salient reason for the codification of the right, as set forth in the operative, independent clause—the supreme importance of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the mechanism by which and through which the Nation guarantees that it remain a free Republic and, in that, therefor, the need for the right.Consider: there is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, justifying the right of Free Speech and Free Press. There is no prefatory clause in the First Amendment because the framers of the Constitution knew that freedom of expression and freedom of the Press—although powerful and critical rights—are not, in themselves, a check against armed invasion from the outside, nor do they constitute infallible checks against tyranny arising from within the Nation. Indeed, we see that the Press has been coopted by those who seek to destroy our Republic, thereby inviting tyranny—in fact, working indefatigably to see that tyranny comes to fruition even as the Press poses, deceptively, as a force poised against it—hence, the inherent, insidious, destructive nature of it--born from a poisonous seed within the Nation and nourished along by a chained Press. And, we see, in recent months attempts to constrain freedom of expression—deviously—through claims that it is improper for one to voice opinion that others might find objectionable. But, there is no equivocation in the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry either exists or it does not. If it exists, there is, in that armed citizenry, a perfect check against tyranny. If an armed citizenry does not exist, there is nothing to constrain tyranny.That is the salient reason for including a prefatory clause, a preamble to the Second Amendment. The prefatory clause serves no other purpose and it has no other purpose. But, those who seek to install autocracy in this Country see, in the inclusion of a prefatory, dependent clause, not the impetus the framers had for including it at all, but, a sly, devious way to suggest that the absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that, in its clear wording, is not and cannot be infringed—is not absolute, but structurally conditioned through the prefatory clause: namely, that one’s right to keep and bear arms is limited by and through and to one’s connection to a militia. That notion is false to be sure. In fact, the notion is ludicrous; and that notion has, fortunately, thankfully, finally, been laid to rest by the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller case.The intent of the framers in codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms is abundantly clear. For, if the right could be infringed, namely, in the event one sought to keep and bear arms but had no connection to a militia, then the prefatory, dependent clause would contradict the import of the independent clause, namely, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As a matter of formal logic, either the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed or it cannot.Under the law of non-contradiction, it must be one or the other. It cannot be both. The independent clause makes clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. If the prefatory clause were truly to suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms could be infringed, as the gun grabbers insist, then the Second Amendment would make no logical sense. Its legal import would be totally lost; and the right expressed in the independent clause would be reduced to a nullity—which is how the liberal-wing of the U.S. Supreme Court sees it, anyway.Thus, the import of the Second Amendment is determinative here by the absolute principle of sound logic, quite apart from its import in law. To suggest that the framers would deliberately draft a self-contradiction would be to presume them insane. On the other hand, to suggest the framers drafted a self-contradiction, negligently, would be to presume they were dunces. Neither, of course, is the case. The framers of the Second Amendment were extremely intelligent, extremely capable, competent, and rational men and, as well, they were extremely wary of the nature of the existence of some ambitious but ruthless men—men, not at all like them--who would be capable of transforming and predisposed to transforming a free Republic into an autocracy if given half a chance, to serve their own private purposes and desires.The Second Amendment, as with every other component of the Constitution, was crafted with great care. The Second Amendment is a hedge—the one best hedge against the introduction of tyranny into a free State. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed makes clear that, in the event Government sought to impose tyranny upon the American people--and intrusion upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be clear evidence of such design to introduce tyranny--such illegitimate encroachment upon a sacred right shall be met with lawful force exerted by the American people, to preclude any Government attempt and effort to insinuate unlawful power against the true Sovereign of this Nation: the American people themselves. The prefatory clause must, then, have no use and serve no use other than to make clear to those servants of Government, the reason why the right cannot be infringed: namely, to remind those servants of Government that the People are Supreme; that Government was designed to serve the people, and not the other way around; and that, if the servants of Government should forget their role and should forget Government's place in the grand Constitutional scheme, the American people will remind them of their role and will remind them of Government's place in that scheme, and the American people will do so harshly, exacting a heavy price upon those who have thoughts of grandeur—those who have thoughts that it is the People who serve them--the Government Heads--and not the other way around. And, Government Heads will roll for the audacity to attempt to exert control over the American people.Thus, it is that the framers of the Constitution intended for the Second Amendment to be the one, true, and absolute check on tyranny. The late Justice Scalia knew that to be so, but was reluctant to make that point manifest in the seminal Heller case—instead discussing the tacit reason for the presence of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights—that of self-defense. Justice Scalia had to get Justices Roberts and Kennedy on board, and they, likely, would not have done so, had Justice Scalia asserted that the primary import of the militia clause was to make clear that an armed citizenry was necessary as the best check against tyranny. To mention the salient import  and purport of the Second Amendment is, apparently, today, to make too emphatic a statement; but, then, that tells us just how far we have fallen as a Nation and how expansive and powerful and treacherous the federal Government has become and as it continues to devolve, unless our present U.S. President, steps on the brake and reverses the trend toward dissolution of our Bill of Rights and our free Republic. Passing effective federal legislation that serves to strengthen our Second Amendment, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended, would be a good start toward reversing the deadly trend and tendency of an increasingly powerful federal Government to thwart the Bill of Rights, thereby instituting tyranny. Justice Scalia must have been aware of this horrible trend and, given the opportunity, in Heller, to set things right, he made clear the import of the Second Amendment as the drafters of the Second Amendment made intended: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one's service in a militia. In that regard, Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, pointed to the natural right of self-defense as implicit in the individual's exercise of that sacred right.Still, Justice Scalia’s discussion of one's right self-defense through firearms means--as I am sure he was aware--not only defense of one’s physical self but also defense against oppression, whether that oppression manifests outside this Country or, more frighteningly, within it. And, we have seen, in the regime of Barack Obama and as we would have seen in the regime of Hillary Clinton tyranny raising its ugly head, manifesting obliquely, tangentially, but most assuredly. We see in the Presidency of Donald Trump, a circumambulation around our Bill of Rights—an attempt to set things right, as Chief Executive of our Nation. But, he has his job cut out for him for the Deep State does not wish to cede the stranglehold of tyranny it has been weaving around this Nation for many years and which it shad ought to complete through the coronation of Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, that "coronation" never took place. Americans weren't hoodwinked.But, the failure of the secretive internationalist forces to elect their puppet, Hillary Clinton, hardly means we are out of the woods.We see the insinuation of tyranny through the instigation of international pacts and treaties, that operate to circumvent the sovereignty of our laws. We see it in the use of our military for purposes altogether unrelated to our national defense. We see it in attempts to draw this Country—an independent sovereign Nation—into the throes of the EU; we see it in the opinions of the liberal wing Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who argue that international law and jurisprudence should govern the decisions of cases impacting our fundamental rights, effectively subordinating, then, our Constitution and our written law to that of foreign bodies. We see it in the subordination of our laws and our sacred rights and liberties to that of international courts and tribunals. We are slowly, inexorably being sucked into a whirlpool that reshapes our laws, and our rights—to be twisted and molded and reformed into a thing that effectively loosens the underpinnings of our core values, traditions, and history. Our Bill of Rights, and, particularly, our Second Amendment, has no place in this new world order and must therefore be consigned--so the architects of our Nation’s destruction have ordered--to the dustbin of history.To that end, State and federal statutes and local governmental rules, regulations, and ordinances are enacted, to attack the free exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms to excoriate it; to exorcise it from conscious thought and memory—ostensibly to benefit society in its entirety, to benefit the collective, to benefit the “beehive,” never the individual, and, thus, to see our once independent sovereign Nation incorporated, as but one cog, into a larger “grand” design that embraces many other Nations in one seemingly seamless, cohesive whole. We see governmental regulations enacted in a scarcely disguised attempt to destroy the sacred right the framers of our Constitution knew to be necessary to restrict the power of Government and they saw the necessity of etching those rights and liberties in stone. But, attempts are made to undercut the Bill of Rights, and, particularly, to undercut the Second Amendment. Ominously, State and federal statutes are enacted to attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms at the root level. Statutes are enacted to attack the right codified in the Second Amendment in the hope that, at some point in the future, the Second Amendment will wither and die of its own accord, since de jure repeal of it outright is virtually impossible.Indeed, the framers intended that de jure repeal of the Bill of Rights would be, ought to be, must be, extremely difficult to accomplish. Repeal of fundamental rights should be difficult to accomplish, lest an uneducated or ill-informed public, hoodwinked by, and easily manipulated by  propaganda, spouted by a compliant Press, controlled by those who place no stock in the Bill of Rights, be led by the nose to believe that Americans really, truly, don’t need this or that right, codified in the Bill of Rights, and that we would all be better off to do away with the right altogether.Since actual de jure repeal of the Second Amendment outright won’t happen, cannot happen, even as those who detest the continued existence of the Second Amendment would love to see that happen—would fervently love to see formal repeal of the Second Amendment—it behooves those who seek to destroy it to find some other way or means to do so. And, they have done so, through a process that takes longer, but, through the inexorable tide of time, money, and effort expended in enacting ever more exacting, restrictive, convoluted, and redundant firearms legislation and through an easily malleable, complacent, compliant ill-informed public, they have exacted their toll on the Second Amendment, and have successfully eroded Americans’ exercise of the sacred right. Thus, the net result, if not reversed, would reduce the Second Amendment to a virtual nullity, even as it continues, formally, to exist.Thus, where we see the creation of ever more State and federal laws, and federal governmental rules and edicts, and local governmental codes, rules, regulations, and ordinances—enacted in defiance of the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and in clear defiance to U.S. Supreme Court rulings, we become aware that the destruction of the Second Amendment is no less certain than had the Second Amendment been repealed outright. This is what is meant by de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment continues to exist “on paper” but it has no efficacy. It means nothing. It means that no right exists that can be exercised through it.De facto repeal, then, has the same effect as outright de jure repeal. It just takes a little longer. Of course, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court seeks to destroy the Second Amendment in its own way, through its misinterpretation of law, rather than through misuse of legislation. We see this in the dissenting opinions of liberal wing Justices. By corralling the operative clause of the Second Amendment—“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”—in the dependent clause, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” and as the concept of a State militia, as understood by the framers of the U.S. Constitution is essentially non-existent today, the Second Amendment would be nugatory, as it would be impossible for an American ever to exercise the right under it.” Thus, if those Justices who dissented in the Heller and McDonald cases, had been writing for the Majority, the Second Amendment would effectively be reduced to a nullity. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would be transformed into a mere privilege, something Government could grant to a person or deny a person, at whim.Occasionally, as in Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act, we do see some relief—a welcome pushback against offensive restrictive firearms’ legislation. Yet, as we also see, that pushback is often gratuitous, designed merely to award a Congressman political points for taking a stand that, although unpopular to some, is welcomed by many, and should, even if it never were enacted into law, be heralded by all.But, Chris Collins’ bill, will wither and die, like the Second Amendment could, itself, unless the public spurs Congress to action. *Proponents of strong pro-Second Amendment bills must have the fortitude to see their bills through to fruition to the same extent, if not more so, than do opponents of the Second Amendment when introducing their own anti-Second Amendment bills. For we have seen, on several occasions, how opponents of our sacred right push their bills through to upend our most sacred right. It is unfortunate that those Legislators who ostensibly espouse their support of the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrate, at the end of the day, a lack of fortitude to see their work through to completion. They certainly do not exhibit the same exuberance as those who seek to undermine the Second Amendment exhibit, for, when introducing anti-Second Amendment legislation, such legislators generally work toward moving their bills along. They are serious about getting their anti-Second Amendment bills enacted into law. Such anti-Second Amendment bills don't simply die in Committee, much as we would like to see them do, unlike pro-Second Amendment bills, which we would like very much to see passage of.Thus, the best crafted bill in the Nation doesn’t get us anywhere unless serious effort is made to push it forward. We can get started on the first part—assisting Legislators—to craft effective legislation, and we are doing so. Yet, without a strong nudge from the public we see Congressional legislators unwilling to do their part, proceeding half-heartedly, at best, and then stopping short of their goal. That is hardly encouraging and we find it wholly unacceptable.The Republicans, for the moment, at least, control both Houses of Congress; and we have a U.S. President who has not been bought and paid for by internationalists—unlike Obama and the Clintons who have taken their marching orders from these internationalists—these ruthless and cunning individuals who owe their allegiance to no Nation—who seek to undermine all Nations, to bring them under the sway of their corporate control, operating through private charters that would undercut the constitutions of Nations. This we see as the fate befalling the Nations of the European Union. Lest we fall under the sway of the EU directly or otherwise fall prey to an EU styled dictatorship, it is necessary for Americans to take a stand and do our best to strengthen our Constitution and our Bill of Rights--those sacrosanct and inviolate documents that the founders bequeathed to us through their tremendous courage and through their great sacrifice.______________________________________*Let your U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative know how you feel about your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Phone (202) 225-3121. It is a fast and easy process; and a critical one. Only through your active participation, can we help secure our Second Amendment right. _________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.         

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT: A REAFFIRMATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT SHOULD, AS THE TITLE OF THE ACT ASSERTS AND AS PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, DO NOTHING MORE NOR LESS THAN RETURN, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL RIGHT SLIPPING FROM THEM: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

WHAT MISBEGOTTEN CONGRESS AND MANY OVERZEALOUS STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE WROUGHT MUST BE CORRECTED

THREE SCENARIOS THAT REQUIRE CONSTANT VIGILANCE ON THE PART OF AMERICANS:

ONE: SOMETIMES LEGISLATIVE ACTS HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF ONE'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OR RESULTING IN AN ABRIDGMENT OF OR AN ATTENUATION OF THOSE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, IF NOT IN AN OUTRIGHT LOSS OF ONE'S RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

TWO: AT OTHER TIMES LEGISLATORS ENACT LAWS THAT, ALTHOUGH DIRECTED TO ACCOMPLISHING ONE GOAL, NOT DESIGNED TO IMPACT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES, NONETHELESS, WHEN IMPLEMENTED, HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

AND, THREE: AT TIMES--AS IS MOST OFTEN THE CASE--LEGISLATORS OPERATE WITH ABANDON, DRAFTING AND ENACTING LAWS THAT ARE DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY TO CURTAILING AMERICANS' FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES.

When State Legislatures and Congress propose legislation—legislation that may touch upon fundamental, natural rights codified in the Bill of Rights—there exists a possibility that the proposed legislation will negatively impact the citizen's exercise of a fundamental right, protected by the Bill of Rights. The danger of an abridgment of or attenuation of a citizen’s rights and liberties may occur through accident or through invidious design. Either way, a danger to the rights and liberties of American citizens is ever present in any legislative action. Americans must, therefore, be ever vigilant of that possibility to preclude elected officials and bureaucrats from undermining Americans' rights and liberties.If an abridgement of a citizen’s rights and liberties occurs through accident, as a result of careless drafting of legislation, this tells us that State legislators and U.S. Congressmen must be conscientious in drafting legislation to avoid unintended negative consequences and must be mindful of bureaucratic overreach that operates to curtail a citizen’s rights and liberties—bureaucratic overreach that operates beyond the extreme of legislation--beyond the parameters of seeming enabling legislation that, on the surface, may suggest, in the rules bureaucrats promulgate to effectuate Legislative intent, that bureaucrats have carte blanche to promulgate rules abridging constitutionally protected rights and liberties, when, in fact, they do not have such authorization and when, in fact, it was never Congressional intention or a State Legislature's intention to cede to federal and State bureaucrats such authority to override Constitutionally protected rights and liberties.If, however, State legislation or Congressional legislation directed to accomplishing one objective, has anticipated indirect and negative impact on a fundamental right, what does that tell us? It tells us that legislators are operating deviously—clearly out of normative bounds of duty and decency, machinating behind the back of voters, and in clear violation of their oath of Office. In that event, those legislators who manipulate legislative powers to destroy the Bill of Rights must be called out for their actions and that means impeachment.Most often, though, those individuals drafting federal or State laws do so with clear cold, calculated deliberation, with a categorical objective in mind, one that cannot be mistaken for something else or for something less, namely, the goal of creating law that has, at its salient purpose, impinging fundamental rights and liberties and, in fact, infringing fundamental rights, specifically. Legislation is expressly drafted with that goal in mind. In these circumstances, legislators do not attempt to hide their intentions. In such circumstances, legislators act with cheerful abandon and with a very heavy hand, demonstrating little concern over whether they have overstepped acceptable legal and moral bounds when impinging on or infringing, altogether, a fundamental right—if we presume, from the get-go, that there are such things as acceptable legal and moral boundaries in the matter of curtailing an American’s exercise of his or her fundamental rights and liberties But, to be sure, there exist none! Still a rationale—really an excuse—for such legislation is provided, trumpeted by legislators' willing accomplices in the mainstream media. The American public must not allow such legislators to remain in Office.In the last case presented here, the excuse, posing as a legitimate rationale, that is invariably given, is that federal or State legislation restricting the American citizen's exercise of this or that fundamental right and liberty serves or promotes a compelling State interest. That is the test the United States Supreme Court has devised to ascertain the constitutionality of a State or federal statute when the very core of a natural, fundamental right is impinged on or infringed outright.In practice, courts of competent jurisdiction that share the sentiments of government, as expressed in a State or federal regulation, will often, although, fortunately, not invariably, find the offending regulation constitutionally permissible even if, on logical and legal grounds, it isn’t.Government, whether State or federal, must, nonetheless, articulate its compelling interest to restrict the people’s exercise of a fundamental right when a plaintiff, that has standing to sue, directly challenges the constitutionality of a State or federal statute or local governmental regulation or ordinance.Rarely do we see Congress or State Legislatures enacting legislation impacting natural, fundamental rights that serve to strengthen the right as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Congressman Chris Collins; bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, is one example of legislation the intent of which is to strengthen rather than to weaken a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, when all is said and done, such legislation should be unnecessary anyway; for, a fundamental right—namely any right codified in the Bill of Rights—has no parameters and legislation should never be enacted to create parameters unless, if done so very, very circumspectly. For, example, illegal aliens do not have the right to keep and bear arms, for they are not understood to be "the people" to whom the right of the people to keep and bear arms attaches. So, a law that precludes illegal aliens from possessing firearms is not really establishing a parameter around the Second Amendment anyway, as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment by the framers of our Constitution, did not have illegal aliens in mind. As Congress, has authority, under Article I, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution to enact laws governing naturalization. An illegal alien--for which the term, 'undocumented,' is nothing more than an euphemism and a poor and inexact term to be applied to such a person--is by definition an individual who is not of this Country as he or she is merely in this Country, and should not have been in this Country at all.Parameters are set by legislators in statute or by Courts, when interpreting statute. But, as is clear from the language of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights, there are no true parameters. The rights expressed therein are absolute--as applied to citizens of the United States. It is a legal shibboleth, nothing more than a platitude, really, running as a constant thread through all State and federal legislation and through local rules, regulations, codes and ordinances. It is a platitude asserted by jurists and politicians alike—repeated with regularity, wearily and eerily, and as no more than an afterthought—as no more than cliché—a thing that has become a strange jurisprudential adage. It is that State and federal governmental regulations and local governmental rules and regulations, and codes and ordinances, that routinely and negatively impact basic rights might pass constitutional muster anyway since no right is absolute—including, and especially, those rights and liberties, clearly articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, as handed down to us by the framers of our Constitution—the founders of our free Republic. Hence, the rationale, we see, is really nothing more than a paltry excuse, a mirage, a meager attempt to legitimize the undermining of fundamental rights of the People. This has led to a monstrous curtailing of the rights of the people of this Country. It has occurred incrementally, quietly, insidiously, seductively. And, many Americans have, unfortunately, grown accustomed to accepting out of whole cloth the illusion that they really don’t need to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that they don’t really need to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, as that right is codified in the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the  U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding that these two rights were deemed sufficiently important to the founders of our Nation that they set them down, expressly, in our Constitution. And now we are beginning to see that the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, as guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, too, are under assault. And we, Americans, are led to believe that this is, somehow, in some undefined way, in the natural order of things to see our fundamental rights and liberties curtailed and that we should no longer have any real expectation that we have any fundamental rights or liberties except to the extent that Government deigns to grant such rights and liberties to us, explaining, thereby, the extent to which such rights and liberties are granted, for a time, to this one or that one among us. This is to suggest that fundamental rights and liberties are to be perceived as fads, trivialities, things easily and infinitely malleable, to be kneaded like clay, or sloughed off like old clothes--things to be transformed or deleted, according to the norms of the time—as “new norms” are thrust on us by those who arrogantly, yet erroneously, claim the moral high ground and who claim a tacit right to decide what is best for the rest of us.Another platitude we constantly hear is that we are a Nation that is ruled by laws and not by men. We live under the profound illusion that there exists a natural order existent in this platitude, forgetting or failing even to consider that it is men, after all, that make the laws that govern our actions and that govern our very lives, and that it is men that make the laws that denigrate our Constitutional rights and liberties, claiming, all the while, as they do so, as they forever inform us--artfully, deceitfully--that destruction of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the freedom of speech and destruction of the right of the people peaceably to assemble under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and that destruction of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, are necessary--that destruction of these rights and liberties are, indeed, for the common good and that they are for the good of society, for the good of the collective, for the good of the hive. We are seduced into believing or otherwise cajoled into accepting that destructions of our fundamental rights and liberties, destructions set down in federal or State statute, and destructions set down in local rules, and codes, and regulations, and ordinances are yet, somehow, all created and implemented for our own good, for the good of the Nation or for the good of the community, or for the good of the people. We are told that these laws and codes and rules and regulations and ordinances that undercut our sacred rights and liberties are, nonetheless, to be taken as just and moral things. We are to accept these changes, and we are told that we should applaud these changes, as things consistent with the norms and standards of the time and of a "civilized society." We are told to accept the notion that our Bill of Rights is, no more than any man-made law, something mutable, and like all things mutable, contingent, not meant to last. But, that is the myth thrust on us, to make us pliant little lambs.

OUR BILL OF RIGHTS CAN NEVER BE DESTROYED, NOT REALLY, NOT EVER--TRY AS SOME MAY TO DO SO.

What these scoundrels—these makers of “laws” that rule us, suffocate us—don’t tell us is that the laws they create are designed to supersede the Constitution, thereby denigrating the most important Truth of all—the singular, quintessential Truth which tells us that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Yet, the fact of the matter is that no Statute, Rule, Regulation, Code, or Ordinance stands superior to the U.S. Constitution. No man-made law carries sway over our natural rights and liberties as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. To say that we are a Nation ruled by laws and not by men is, thus, a horrible lie—a monstrous lie because it carries--as many effective lies do--a kernel of truth—namely that we are ruled by laws, but they are all arbitrary laws--laws that come and go, like the light of a firefly at night. But it is the light of the Ten Amendments that comprise our sacred Bill of Rights that shines forever and can never be dimmed or snuffed out. Those Laws--the Ten Amendments that comprise our Bill of Rights--are Sacred Principles, Sacred , Sacrosanct, and Inviolate Truths. These Truths embodied in our Bill of Rights cannot be muted, or undercut, or diluted, or deleted, or destroyed. To attempt to destroy our sacred Ten Amendments is to destroy this Nation and, yet, these Ten Amendments cannot ever truly be destroyed. They can never be destroyed because they live in us. They are intrinsic to our very being as Americans.We are a Nation that, ultimately, is ruled not by men, not by contingent, transient laws of men, and not by the edicts of men, but solely by the American People, as the Nation is in us as we are the embodiment of the Nation. The Nation is: We the People; and the sword and shield of the American People resides not in our laws--those contingent, transient things that come and go with the flow and ebb of time--but solely in the primordial, immutable, natural rights codified in the first Ten Amendments of the Nation’s Bill of Rights, a document seamlessly sewn into the fabric of the United States Constitution.

WHAT, THEN, SHOULD WE, AMERICANS, UNDERSTAND, FROM PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT BILLS, SUCH AS CONGRESSMAN COLLINS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Congressman Chris Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act must be viewed not as extending the right of the People to keep and bear arms—as those who oppose it would undoubtedly assert and thereupon argue that the bill should not be enacted into law--but should simply be understood as a reaffirmation of that fundamental, natural, primordial, preexistent, immutable Right as it exists, unconstrained: Pure, Infinite, all-Powerful, Supreme. As such, the Second Amendment remains, second to none, as the best guarantor of our freedom and our best hedge against tyranny.As a reaffirmation of the import of our sacred Second Amendment, Chris Collins' Second Amendment Guarantee Act can be improved. We explain how to do so, commencing with our next post._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT (SAGA) REALLY ALL IT IS CRACKED UP TO BE?

WITH MANY “CRACKS” IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT, IT GUARANTEES NOTHING CONCRETE.

This is a follow-up to our recent post on Congressman Chris Collins’ bill, titled the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” (H.R. 3576) (“SAGA”).In our previous post we explained some major failings of Congressman Chris Collins’ bill as drafted. In our next post we will set down our own suggestions for a possible redraft of pertinent federal legislation that, in our humble opinion, will, we feel, more adequately accomplish Congressman Collins’ objective, and transcend it. Even so, we are mindful that drafting firearms legislation on the federal level—even with the best of intention and care—can invite unintended consequences. But, before we proceed with a suggested redraft of H.R. 3576, some explanation is in order—hence the need for this interim article. There are several problems with the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as drafted. The bill, in its present form, does not, in our estimate, accomplish the immediate goal the bill’s sponsors hope, trust, and pray it would accomplish, namely the toppling of New York’s Safe Act, and, by extension, the toppling of similar restrictive, draconian firearms’ legislation, such as Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—an Act the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit gave its “good housekeeping seal of approval” on in the disastrous Kolbe decision ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)). In Kolbe Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban and “LCM” ban. In revisiting the three Judge panel's decision in that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit--hearing the case “en banc”--held that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act ban on "assault weapons" and "LCMs" did not infringe the Second Amendment. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ignored U.S. Supreme Court precedent, essentially overriding and shredding the U.S. Supreme Court Majority Opinions in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case (554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) and in the subsequent seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Hopefully, Kolbe will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned by the high Court. If so, that will, in our estimate, accomplish more—and accomplish more directly and categorically and unequivocally—to defeat Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act and to defeat similar legislation, like New York’s notorious “Safe Act”—than Congressman Collins’ bill will do on the Legislative front, even if the Congressman’s bill were, in its present form, enacted. But, we do not see Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act, even in the language of the present, weak and equivocal form ever moving out of Committee to full House Debate, and eventual House vote, absent concerted effort on the part of the public urging House Republicans to move the bill along.Our previous comments concerning what we see as failings in the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as presently drafted are not meant to cast aspersions on the bill or on the bill’s sponsors. Quite the contrary, we commend Congressman Collins for his efforts, commend those who drafted the bill, and we commend those U.S. Representatives who signed on to the bill—assuming those U.S. Representatives who signed on to the bill are truly serious in pressing forward with their efforts to strengthen the Second Amendment on the federal level.But, we are faced with two disturbing, incontrovertible realities that must be recognized and dealt with.

FIRST:

Notwithstanding his goal in introducing his bill (H.R. 3576) in the House—overturning New York’s Safe Act—we wonder whether Congressman Collins and the other sponsors of the bill have the heart to see their actions through to completion. If introduction of the bill is mere grandstanding to serve a political end but nothing more—namely to illustrate that Congressman Collins and others who signed on as sponsors to the bill are strong supporters of the Second Amendment—the introduction of a bill that goes nowhere, and is not really intended to go anywhere, does not serve the interests of the American people but, rather, serves only the interests of Legislators themselves who seek to secure their political futures. Legislators must have the courage and strength and fortitude of their conviction to see their initial efforts through. We hope that Congressman Collins is one of those intrepid Legislators. If not, and if other Republican Legislators, as well, who added their names in support of the bill, demonstrate reluctance, rather than boldness in following through on their efforts, then the American public should rightly be circumspect--as we are circumspect--in applauding what may amount to, at most, half-hearted efforts to “look good” to a Legislator’s base. In matters involving our Bill of Rights, caution should be thrown to the winds.We would rather see temerity demonstrated here than timidity. We have already seen how numerous national handgun carry reciprocity bills are still stuck in Committee. But, why is that? Were the sponsors of those bills intent on seeing their actions through? If so, why has there been no action on those bills?Indeed, why have we heard nothing about the bills, apart from their introduction in Congress? Not one of those bills, to the extent we are aware, has moved even one step beyond the initial stage of Congressional introduction of the bill even though the most recent has been introduced in Congress a couple of months ago, and others have been introduced several months ago; and all of them languish in Committee.We see no House or Senate Committee action. We see no House or Senate debate. We see no amendment to any one of those bills. We see no House or Senate vote. We see nothing concrete beyond introduction of a bill. From what we can see and deduce from a disturbing inaction on the part of Congress is that no action on any one of these pro-Second Amendment bills is expected anytime soon, if ever. So, from this experience, we ask: Why should anyone expect Congressional movement on Congressman Collins’ bill? The question is rhetorical. For, no one should expect action on Congressman Collins’ bill, if past experience is our guide. There must exist, then, an urge to action, and that urge, or nudge, will have to come, it is apparent, from the outside—from the public.So, don’t expect House members to act on this bill. But, why is that? Why must the public urge Congress to action? Why can’t Legislators follow through on their actions? Apart from introduction of pro-Second Amendment bills, accompanied by muted Press Releases, nothing is ever accomplished. Of course, we cannot expect the mainstream media—a tool of powerful, ruthless, nefarious, internationalists who seek nothing less than destruction of our Second Amendment—to herald enactment of pro-Second Amendment bills. The mainstream media only urges action to weaken and dismember the Second Amendment, not to offer its support of it and to strengthen it. That being the case, those Republicans in Congress who do truly support a strengthened Second Amendment must work all the harder to see their initial efforts through to completion.

SECOND:

Even if the Second Amendment Guarantee Act were enacted, still, as drafted, the Act guarantees nothing, to our mind, that is concrete. The Act as drafted is extraordinarily brief, modifying one and only one Section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. While brevity is preferable over length for length’s own sake, simplicity in construction is not a good thing if ambiguity, vagueness, and critical gaps in legal drafting exist.In this instance, H.R. 3576 is truncated, vague and ambiguous and therefore invites the antigun crowd to challenge it, or, simply, to ignore it. were the bill enacted, as restrictive State firearms legislation may claim the bill--as federal law--is too indefinite to be considered, from a legal perspective, inconsistent with State law. Thus, contrary to the assertions of Congressman Collins Press Release, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, in its present form, would not, then, likely accomplish what Congressman Collins and the other sponsors of it believe it would accomplish. There is too much wiggle room in it. Apart from inviting a challenge by restrictive gun law States, there is nothing in Congressman Collins' bill that would legally prevent States from continuing to enforce their restrictive gun Statutes.

WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT IS AN IMPERFECT BILL THAT LIKELY WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT CONGRESSMAN COLLINS SAYS IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH WERE IT TO BE ENACTED

Apart from the reality that no Committee action on this bill is to be expected, we again emphasize that, even if, by some miracle, this bill made it out of Committee, passed the House and then moved to the Senate where it received a super majority of votes, leading to enactment, it is highly doubtful that the bill would, in its present form, operate as an automatic repeal of restrictive gun laws such New York’s Safe Act or Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, or of any other draconian State restrictive firearms Act that openly, glaringly infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

HOW DOES CONGRESSMAN COLLINS’ BILL MODIFY EXISTING FEDERAL LAW?

The bill (H.R. 3576), as written, operates as a redraft of one and only one federal firearms’ Statute: A Statute that may be construed as a federal firearms’ preemption Statute—in a sense, an “anti-preemption” Statute, given the weak wording of it. The preemption Statute, Section 927 (Effect on State Law) of Chapter 44 (Firearms), of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) of the U.S. Code, as enacted, reads as follows:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as written, basically tells States that, on the matter of firearms, generally, States have a free hand to regulate the field unless there is a direct and positive conflict and the two cannot be reconciled or stand together. The operative words, here, are ‘unless,’ and ‘direct and positive conflict,’ and ‘the two cannot be reconciled or stand together.’Congressman Collins bill rewrites that Section to read:“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.”This redraft of one Section of Title 18, namely, Section 927, is, in this instance, insufficient to defeat the Safe Act’s “assault weapons” ban, or to defeat “assault weapons” bans of any other State, because, among other things, there is nothing in federal law that talks about “assault weapons.” Pay particular attention to the words of the bill that read:“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun . . . than is provided under Federal law.” The problem is that federal law is silent or essentially silent on the matter of regulation of any firearm other than those defined as machine guns, as ‘machine gun’ is mentioned and defined with particularity in the Internal Revenue Service Code [Title 26 of the U.S. Code] and which, in Title 18 of the U.S. Code [18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4)]  sets forth, with particularity, the intention of Congress to regulate destructive devices, machine guns, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns: “[i]t shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver--to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 [1986] [26 USCS § 5845]), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity; . . .” So, then, by the very language of Congressman Collins’ bill, States such as New York would, arguably, remain free to regulate, through registration and transfer, all manner of firearms—rifles, shotguns, and handguns—apart from those clearly identified as and defined in the U.S. Code.Because federal law is essentially silent on the regulation of rifles, shotguns, and handguns, it does not follow, logically or legally, from the language of the proposed modification to Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, that States are categorically prohibited from regulating any firearm other than machine guns, as defined in 26 USCS § 5845(b), short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and destructive devices, as the expression, 'destructive device,' is defined in 26 USCS § 5845(f). Thus, if H.R. 3576 were enacted, NY Safe and other draconian State gun laws that operate to ban, within the State, weapons defined in State law as 'assault weapons' and components of firearms defined in State law as 'large capacity magazines' ('LCMs') could very well remain effectively untouched and, therefore, unaffected in accordance with the modified Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, because by the very language of the Congressman Collins' bill, NY Safe and other similar restrictive gun laws of other States remain may be arguably considered to be consistent with or might otherwise be construed as capable of being reconciled with provisions of federal law. New York’s NY Safe and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, and similar draconian firearms legislation existent in other States would therefore remain intact. Hence, States might find that a Tenth Amendment challenge or other challenge to H.R. 3576 may be necessary. Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act could survive a Tenth Amendment challenge, but its impact on State firearms’ laws would be nugatory. States would simply ignore the Second Amendment Guarantee Act as they could still register and regulate the transfer of firearms or ban outright many categories of weapons—including and especially, those defined as ‘assault weapons’ under State law, which the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was targeting. Thus, any guarantee of movement of, say, assault weapons in interstate traffic, would still be subject to heavy State regulation in intrastate traffic. One’s guarantee of exercise of one’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would then end up as an empty gesture.

MUCH WORK IS NEEDED TO MAKE THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT AN EFFECTIVE ACT, ENABLING A PERSON, WHO IS NOT UNDER DISABILITY, TO LAWFULLY OWN FIREARMS THAT SEVERAL STATE STATUTES PRESENTLY PROHIBIT, NAMELY AND SPECIFICALLY, THOSE DEFINED AS ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS.’

The Second Amendment Guarantee Act is an extensive redraft of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, only. But, had the bill been drafted effectively, to preclude a State from banning an entire category of firearms defined as “assault weapons,” Congressman Collins could have done so and should have done so by modifying not only Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but by modifying, explicitly, Sections 921, 922, and 926 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, and modifying, as well, Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Service Code (of the U.S. Code), 26 USCS § 5845, concentrating more expressly on guaranteeing one's right to own and possess semiautomatic weapons, the bane of antigun legislators and antigun groups--as they deposit ever more semiautomatic weapons into the category of 'assault weapons'--prohibiting the average law-abiding citizen from legally holding any of them. 

AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT TO MODIFYING ANY FEDERAL FIREARMS LEGISLATION

As we cautioned at the beginning of this article, Federal legislation operates across the board. If done improperly, the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms could be substantially curtailed or, at least, negatively impacted, and decidedly and decisively impaired.Consider: Federal law preempts State regulation of machine guns, “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns, and “destructive devices” altogether. The federal Government regulates ownership and possession of these firearms, together with destructive devices, through the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and through the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Would Americans be willing to accept federal registration of firearms defined as “assault weapons” for the privilege of lawfully owning and possessing them? Well, for residents of New York and Maryland and similar States that ban possession of assault weapons, outright, and that ban various components of firearms, except for those firearms and, possibly, those components of firearm that have been grandfathered in, federal registration of firearms defined as “assault weapons” may seem a small price to pay. But, for those of us who reside in States that do not presently impose bans on possession of weapons that other States routinely proscribe, such residents of States that do not impose bans on or registration of so-called assault weapons may not see that legislation, such as the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, a great and wonderful thing to be enacted. For, once enacted, H.R. 3576 must then be implemented and, if federal preemption truly does supersede State law regulation of firearms, we could expect the Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives of the Justice Department (BATFE), to regulate the ownership and possession and transfer and licensing of “assault weapons,” just as it now regulates the ownership and possession and transfer and licensing of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices. That would likely—and conceivably, inevitably—entail the creation of a massive registry of the names and whereabouts of Americans who seek to own and possess all manner of firearms. Thus, there are hidden costs associated with federal firearms preemption Statutes.The best thing that can be said about State regulation of firearms is that the impact of draconian firearms legislation is limited jurisdictionally to that particular State. Thus, the NY Safe Act, while impinging awfully--indeed, catastrophically--on one’s right to keep and bear arms in New York, has, fortunately, no legal force or effect in, say, Ohio, or Texas, or Wyoming.Congressman Collins’ bill, as written, is too open-ended and, if it were enacted, as is, we believe that it would be of little, if any, benefit to those individuals living in States that have stringent firearms’ laws in place and, further, Congressman Collins' bill could, actually harm those that live in States with more permissive firearms’ laws. Moreover, even if the federal Government enacts laws that tend to strengthen the Second Amendment—which would be an anomaly anyway—remember full well: what the federal Government giveth, the federal government can taketh away. Thus, Congressman Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act must be redrafted with the aim of emphasizing the word, ‘Guarantee.’ It must not be an empty gesture or worse, something that manifests as the inverse to the loftiness of its title or as something that devolves into a massive firearms’ registration and eventual firearms confiscation scheme--which could happen in the event Democrats gain control of both Houses of Congress, as Democrats, given the chance, would do their damnedest to repeal outright--or with a tweaking of a word, here and there, transform the Second Amendment Guarantee Act into a nightmare--a new federal assault weapons ban; and THAT, would definitely not be a good thing.Thus, one should always be mindful of the adage: “Be careful what you wish for”—certainly, one should be ever mindful of negative consequences--definitely where federal government agencies are given the opportunity to tinker with the Second Amendment. Keep in mind, Government agencies are tasked with implementing federal law through the promulgation of Administrative Rules, published in the Code of Federal Regulations, and these bureaucratic agencies of the Federal Government charged with drafting and then implementing rules to effectuate Congressional intent through Congressional legislation, often do so with a very, very heavy hand, creating and implementing rules that go well beyond the parameters of and intention of Congress.  The Devil is an artful twister of one's desires, no matter how carefully a person calibrates his stated wishes.**_______________________________   *The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the Kolbe case and will continue to do so.**As a deadly serious example of what we are talking about here, take a look at the excellent comedy, "Bedazzled,"--the original, 1967 version with Dudley Moore and Peter Cooke, not the remake of that film. For another example, see the Arbalest Quarrel article, "The Flaws in Judge Garland's Reasoning," posted on the Arbalest Quarrel website on April 14, 2016._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.