RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES FEAR AND HATE AN ARMED CITIZENRY AND WILL STOP AT NOTHING TO DESTROY IT

PART THIRTEEN

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS DON’T ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF BILL OF RIGHTS AS NATURAL RIGHTS AND WANT TO CREATE A NEW SET OF UNNATURAL RIGHTS TO REPLACE OUR NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS

THE SEVEN COMMANDMENTS1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.3. No animal shall wear clothes.4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.5. No animal shall drink alcohol.6. No animal shall kill any other animal.7. All animals are equal.~ George Orwell, “Animal Farm” ((a satire on the duplicity and idiocy of the Communist vision of the perfect world order)(published in 1945)) (quotation from Chapter 2)

THE RADICAL LEFT’S GRAND DESIGN IS CLEAR: THRUST OUR NATION INTO THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Rothschild clan and its minions in the EU are no longer even attempting to disguise their contempt for Western Nation States and for the populations of those Nations States. And, they are no longer attempting to disguise their plans to destroy the Nation States of Europe, along with the Commonwealth Nations—those that embrace Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.  They intend to destroy the independence and sovereignty of all Western Nations, including the destruction of the independence of the United States. These ruthless, diabolical, insufferable transnationalist “elites” have made their contempt of Western Nation States and of the common people of those Western Nation States transparently, poignantly obvious.’Consider the words of the outgoing European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, as reported by the website, Kentucky Hunting:"Ahead of the EU elections, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has blasted 'stupid nationalists,' who dare to 'love their own countries' and dislike migrants. Juncker took to CNN on Wednesday to share his belief the nationalist politicians pose a distinct threat to European unity with their stance on migration.“'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries,'” he said, urging the EU to show 'solidarity' with migrants instead."U.S. legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, perceives the ominous portents existent in the pronouncements of the EU overseers; sees, in fact, the deviousness inherent in the entirety of the EU project, and Turley is not at all amused, as he makes clear in a post  on his website, jonathanturley.org, in May 2019: "We have previously discussed President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and his controversial statements. Juncker for many is the face of the detached and arrogant bureaucracy that dictates policies and practices in various nations. While the EU has long tried to assure people that it is not replacing their national identity or self-determination, Juncker has always been dismissive of such concerns, even with growing anti-EU movements. That dismissive attitude was evident this week when Juncker said on CNN 'These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries.'"The notion of people being stupid for being 'in love with their own countries' embodied the fears of critics that the EU was always an effort to erase national identity, as least in governance and policy. He added 'They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away. . . we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in. . . It’s always easier to mobilize negative forces than to mobilize positive forces.' Of course, Juncker has never mobilized any forces beyond the top European elite. His CNN interview embodies his leadership style of disdainful and cavalier comments. He previously blasted the very notion of national borders.It is remarkably stupid for Juncker to openly maintain such a position when the EU is fighting to dampen calls for exits from the organization."Obviously, arrogant jackasses, like Jean-Claude Juncker of the EU, and such “luminaries” like Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, and, other similar vultures in the U.S., don’t care what the commonalty of the Nations of Western Europe and of the U.S. think. They pretend to know better. These Radicals are so enamoured with themselves, so convinced that a  single and singular transnational system of governance will succeed, and should succeed, that they now let fly their true feelings toward the peoples of Europe and of the United States—all those who ascribe to the spirit of “Nationalism”—those who profess pride in their own Nation, culture, history, and language.Transnationalists—those pushing for an end to Western Nation States—tend to treat “Nationalists” as close-minded, reactionary elements, who would hold to their unique history and cultural heritage. And, THAT attitude is considered wrong, even outrageous? Apparently so. And so it is that the Radical elements both here and abroad, those seeking to establish, among Western Nations, a new transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal system of governance, are now ever more open to letting the people of Europe and of the U.S. know the true horrific extent of their aims for Western Civilization. They are convinced that Great Britain will never actually leave the EU; that the Nationalist wave in Europe will burn itself out; and that Donald Trump will never secure a Second Term in Office—perceiving both Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and Britain’s majority vote to leave the EU, and Nationalist fervor in Europe as no more than momentary anomalies, a temporary setback to their plans for Global domination.So, through the first of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the transnationalist Rothschild clan and its minions clamp down hard on Nationalist fervor in the EU and they denigrate and ridicule and rebuff efforts of the populations of the Europe to reassert their National Sovereignty and independence and they place obstacles in the path of the British people who voted to leave the EU.Contemporaneously, through the second of a two-prong attack on Western Civilization, the Rothschild clan and its minions, through their cohorts in the U.S. to denigrate President Trump. They attempt to derail the work of his Administration; to keep Trump preoccupied, fighting endlessly, aimlessly, all efforts to topple him. They seek to frustrate Trump at every turn. They operate in secret, machinating to undermine the U.S. Constitution; particularly, the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. They seek to undercut the U.S. Constitution, because that sacred document does not cohere with the Rothschild plan for a transnational global system of governance. Is it any coincidence, then, that we see heretical speech emanating from Leftist Radicals, and, thence, echoed in the mainstream media Press and in such propaganda media sources as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, and PBS, becoming ever more strident and bizarre?

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR COUNTRY SEEK TO REPLACE OUR FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL AND UNALIENABLE AND RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WITH OTHER MAN-CREATED “RIGHTS” OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING

Consider: only in very recent years have Progressive and Radical Left-wing politicians and their friends in the mainstream media dared openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms—audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of the right to own and to possess firearms as a fundamental, natural, individual right, notwithstanding the clear and categorical meaning of the right codified in the Second Amendment, and openly contemptuous of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, that set the high Court’s imprimatur on the transparently clear meaning of the Second Amendment, if anyone happened to harbor any misunderstanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment.Further, these Radical Leftists and Progressives in our midst have called for repeal of the Electoral College; have sought to pack the high Court with individuals who would demonstrate no reluctance in imposing their own Collectivist belief system on the Constitution, when deciding cases. And, it doesn’t stop there. They dare to create out of whole cloth an entirely new set of rights—rights that nowhere exist tacitly or expressly in the U.S. Constitution; In fact, these new “Rights” that the Radical Left and Progressives would impose on the American citizenry are  antithetical to very meaning and purpose of the Constitution that the framers of our Nation bequeathed to us. But, they don’t care. As it is their intention to destroy the Constitution, they have drummed up a “new” set of nonsensical “rights,”—as nonsensical as the “Seven Commandments” that Orwell dreamed up for inclusion in his satire, “Animal Farm.”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE  ELEMENTS HAVE CREATED A NEW SET OF PROTOCOLS FOR A NEW WEAKENED AMERICA TO REPLACE THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS THAT THE FRAMERS IN THEIR WISDOM SAW NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

The Protocols that the Radical Left and Progressive Elements envision might very well include the following, preposterous--indeed imbecilic--protocols, as predicated on their own pronouncements:

• Abrogation of the original Bill of Rights
• The right of a pregnant woman to kill her unborn child up to and including the very moment of birth.
• The right of non-citizens to insist the United States grant them asylum
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to obtain free, public-supported higher education
• The right of anyone residing in the United States to access unlimited, free health care
• The right of non-citizens to free housing, free health-care, and unlimited welfare, all at taxpayer expense
• The right of non-citizens and convicted felons to vote in Federal elections
• The right of those groups of people, deemed to be victims in times past, to obtain reparation payments
• The right to receive public assistance, sustenance, and remuneration even if a person doesn’t wish to work
• The right of Government to determine what rights inure to the people and who may enjoy them.
• The right of Government to add to, modify, suspend, or revoke and right as exigency demands.
• Adoption of the European Union's “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” *

What is difficult to believe is that the aforesaid protocols are not satire. They are in fact the feverish dream of Radical Left and Progressive politicians, and they are deadly serious about making them a reality. Imagine if these reprobates had their way and could actually substitute their “rights” for those codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights? If that were to happen, then slowly, inexorably, the U.S. would begin to look much like the EU, and the EU would begin to look increasingly like this new version of the U.S.; and who, then, would be able to tell the difference between us and them?“Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.” ~ George Orwell, Animal Farm (Chapter 10, last paragraph).How much easier it would be, then, for the U.S. to slip easily into the throes of the New Global World Order. Americans would hardly know it were even happening--until it were much too late to do anything about it!___________________________________________________*There are several important implications that beg to be addressed apropos of the “Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and which we must needs consider, as they may not be obvious, but are critical to an understanding of the inherent limitation on “rights” as perceived by the Governmental EU bureaucrats who created these rights at the behest of the silent true rulers: the Rothschild clan and their ilk.First, this set of rights, bespeaks an autonomy that is beyond the member States of the EU to question, once the respective State Governments ratify this Convention. Second, as a corollary to the first point,  these “rights” qua “protocols” take precedence over the laws of the individual member Nations of the EU. Thus, the European Commission and European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, have political, legal, and legislative authority and control over each of the member State Governments. Third, while several of these protocols may seem on their face, at first glance, to be eminently fair—as a few allude to our own fundamental rights as set forth in our Bill of Rights—still, there is a major difference between the EU protocols set forth in the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" and the Bill of Rights of the United States; for, every one of the European prootocols comes with conditions attached, as specifically set forth in the Articles, that reduces the protocols to a set of nonsensical rather than commonsensical "rights and freedoms. For, unlike our Nation's Bill of Rights, the protocols of the European Union operate with built-in constraints on the free exercise of such presumed "rights." And, it is through those conditions, which follow the recitation of the purported "rights" that it becomes manifestly clear that the engineers who constructed the "rights" intended them to be understood to be mere man-made creations--subject to modification, suspension, or outright abrogation at the whim and caprice of the overseers of the European Union. Thus, the "rights" (or protocols as they are often referred to) are understood not to be the creation of the Divine Creator, and, therefore, are understood not to be preordained in the people, unlike the rights that comprise our own Nation’s Bill of Rights, which renders them legally incapable of being modified, weakened, suspended, ignored, or altogether abrogated by Government.Unlike the natural, fundamental, primordial, immutable, unalienable rights of the American people, as codified lovingly by the framers of our Constitution into the Bill of Rights, the "rights" referred to in the EU's Convention" are all constructs of Government, subject to the EU Government’s built-in conditions that operate as constraints and as restraints on the exercise of any right or freedom. In that regard, it is incumbent on those who peruse the European Union's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to realize, fourth, that the protocols are worthless, even as they seem pertinent and demonstrative of tangible force and efficacy. For the Human Rights the EU speaks of clearly are not to be perceived as a check on or guard against Government encroachment on the lives, thoughts, and actions of the people of the EU, but, rather, as simple Rules of Etiquette as between one person and another. Also, pay close attention to Article 15 of the Protocol, titled, “Derogation in Time of Emergency.”  To wit: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”Essentially, Article 15 means that each of the “Rights” set forth in the preceding “Articles 1 through 14” of Section I of the Convention, may be suspended when the overseers of the EU deem suspension of rights to be necessary, namely, when the the EU's overseers then determine what state of affairs operates as a “public emergency.” There is no debate; no appeal by any person or by any member Nation. While, it may be noted that secret (with particular emphasis on the word, ‘secret’) Executive Orders may exist in our own Nation that might serve to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and other Rights and Liberties of our Bill of Rights when public exigency demands, such secret U.S. Presidential Executive Order—if such does exist (and there may be more than one such secret Order)—is prima facie Constitutionally unlawful, and therefore invalid. See, Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (Circuit Court, D. Maryland) (April 1861, Term).Government--any Government, including our own--may, through dint of power, prevail on subduing the populace, but power to act against the people does not equate with right. In any event, an armed citizenry--our armed citizenry--is the ultimate guard against ("failsafe")  against misuse of power by the Government against the citizenry—and 'misuse of power' here is meant to be used in reference to "misuse of power" by any of the Three Branches of our Government, as against the citizenry. This brings us to the Fifth  and final point pertaining to the EU's Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Not one of the 14 Articles of “Rights” says anything about a right of individual citizens within a Nation of the EU to possess firearms. Fancy that? Was this just an oversight? Obviously, not. For, only an armed citizen can enforce rights that Government would seek to constrain, ignore, or revoke. Article 15 provides for and reserves one very specific right for itself, that it bestows only on itself: the right, as pointed out supra, to suspend or abrogate any of the 14 other purported rights mentioned in the Convention. It would hardly do for the EU to provide for the citizens' right to keep and bear arms--even if only understood as a man-made construct--for an armed citizenry might have much to say about Government that would dare reserve for itself the overriding, ultimate right to suspend or abrogate all of the protocols--Article 1 through 14--of the EU Convention. That would prove exceedingly difficult were the populations of the EU armed. For the populations could then really and truly compel the EU Government, to honor and commit to the rights and freedoms that it so pompously and sanctimoniously presents to the populations of the EU, through the Convention for the Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That the EU Government fails, then, to provide for the right of the populations of the EU to keep and bear arms--even if such right as articulated specifically mentioned, as its stated purpose, the right of self-defense--that should tell the populations of the EU all it needs to know about the speciousness of Articles 1 through 14 of the Convention. For, clearly it isn't misuse of firearms by the occasional lunatic or criminal that frightens the EU overseers. It is, rather, the very real power existent in the populations of the EU that the overseers fear if the populations of the EU are armed. The EU, after all, belongs to the Rothschild clan and to the other architects of the EU. Only the police and military, who serve the EU, not the public, will be permitted to have access to firearms. And, the overseers, themselves, will equip themselves with firearms to protect themselves from the public if the public should at long last realize that the EU does not serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never intended to serve the interests of the public; that the EU overlords never did serve the interests of the public; that the EU was never  created to serve the public; and that the EU overlords will not, ever, serve the interests of the public. Rather the architects of the EU intended the populations of Europe to serve as mere subjects and serfs of the EU overlords, themselves. And with each passing day, that fact becomes ever clearer. The overlords of the EU operate with impunity. Their power increases. The Government of the EU becomes more entrenched; the lives of the public worsens. Their rights and freedoms--if such ever existed--is a thing of the past. If they truly expect to regain rights and freedoms, they will first have to reclaim their own Nation's sovereignty and independence from the EU puppet masters.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES SEEK TO DESTROY NATION'S BILL OF RIGHTS AND TO UNLEASH A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION

PART TWELVE

The Democratic Party is in a bind. This is the inference to be drawn after the first two recently aired Democratic Party Debates. And no less a source of Radical Left, Marxist hate-filled proselytizing and propaganda-filled garbage than The New York Times newspaper recognizes this indisputable fact; and, recognizing it, laments it, but for a very specific reason--one that may not be apparent to the casual reader.In two recent stories—one, an Op-Ed, appearing in the Saturday, June 29, 2019 edition of the newspaper, and the other, a news story appearing on the front page of the Sunday, June 30, 2019 edition of the newspaper—two NY Times reporters in a news story, and one NY Times columnist in an Op-Ed, express concern, even consternation over the style, tone and mood of the two recent Democratic Party debates. Several of the candidate hopefuls were falling all over themselves in their call for radical change for the Nation—calling for no less than a Marxist Revolution. Their exuberance was on clear display for all to see. The problem was that these Radical Left candidates for the Democratic Party nomination were much too exuberant; much too honest in setting forth their agenda for our Nation in the 21st Century. For, what they are calling for, what they are pushing for, what they seek to accomplish is the dissolution of our Country as an independent Sovereign Nation.President Trump has made clear, consistent with his policy objectives, that our Nation is not to be  beholding to or subordinated to any other Nation, Group of Nations, or any new social and political transnational Governmental world order. The Country had been in danger of losing its National Sovereignty and independence during the Administration of Barack Obama, through his duplicitous, seditious machinations.And work toward accomplishing that awful, horrific, nefarious objective would have continued under the Administration of Hillary Clinton. That is what the Radical Left wants, and the Democratic Party hopefuls were delivering that message to their base during the recent debates. They would attempt to accomplish immediately what Obama and Clinton had sought to accomplish slowly, incrementally. That's what the Radical Left wanted to hear, and hear that message, they did.Well, the message delivered at the Debates may be all well and good for the Radical Left base. It never tires of hearing how the United States Constitution ought to be shredded, commencing with the Bill of Rights; getting rid of the Second Amendment outright, and restraining and constraining the right of free speech of the First Amendment, on the other. And, the Radical Left never tires of hearing how our unique history, traditions, culture, and ethos are to be relegated unceremoniously to the dustbin.Yet, the message of the Radical Left means something patently horrific to everyone else—the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority in our Nation that happened to tune in on the debates. The silent majority does not ascribe to a new international world order, predicated on open borders, mass surveillance, loss of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who do not place their confidence in the firm and callous hand of Government, that seeks to control all action, thought and conduct of the American populace.The plans expressed by these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls may sound appealing to Progressives, to Marxists, and to Antifia anarchists and nihilists who seek to tear this Nation apart; who seek to create an entirely new system of Governance, one predicated on Socialist, Communist, and Marxist principles. And, the Democratic-Socialist agenda will, of course, certainly sound appealing to the millions of uneducated, or, at best, poorly educated, unskilled illegal aliens (who have no legal right to be in our Country in the first place). For, what it is that these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country has nothing to do with our natural, fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties; and it has nothing to do with the Governing principles and precepts upon which our Constitutional Republic rests and which they know little if anything about, and care not at all to know about.What these functionally illiterate illegal aliens find most appealing about our Country, what it is they are really looking for, and what it is that brought them here and which continues to bring, in droves, hundreds of thousands more of their ilk to our Nation, is the promise of U.S. Government and tax-payer assisted largess: free housing; free medical care; free education for their offspring, of which they have a multitude; and access to abundant welfare aid and programs and massive public assistance. These aliens and hundreds of thousands more of them—waves of them—illegally crossing our borders every month, have no concept of our fundamental rights and liberties and they have no desire of exercising such rights anyway because of the attendant personal responsibility attached. Yet, Americans are expected to obliterate their Constitution and dismantle a free Republic and to do so to cater to the riffraff of the world and to cater to the proponents and zealots of Marxist Collectivist ideology and Marxist social engineering who bemoan the very existence of sovereign, independent Nation States, and who seek not the preservation of, but the utter annihilation of our rich and unique national history and heritage* and ethos.The fact of the matter is that for millions of Americans who tuned in to hear the recent Democratic Party “Debates” and who listened to the Radical Dead Souls, calling for nothing less than a Marxist Revolution, were less than enthralled with the message delivered. In fact, the majority of Americans were positively alarmed at the tone, mood, and bravado of these individuals who would have the audacity to serve as U.S. President, seemingly on behalf of a Nation and its citizenry whom they really couldn’t care less about, as they seek to destroy the one and to reduce the other to servitude, penury, and misery, serving their lives out in a Socialist Collectivist nightmare of reality.Whether the Democratic Party candidates are cocksure that one of them—whoever it may be—will prevail over Donald Trump in the coming U.S. Presidential General Election, or they are are simply misguided in presuming that a Socialist or “Democratic-Socialist” will occupy the White House in 2020, they behaved, in the Debates, as if the success of their Political Party is assured and that a Marxist Collectivist Revolution is at hand and, that the implementation of their vision for a one-world Government is a foregone conclusion.They certainly didn’t restrain themselves in projecting the most outrageous social and political policy positions and in providing the American public with their prospects for our Country. In that, these Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidate hopefuls, were clear and categorical about the agenda they are hell-bent on setting for the Nation: a transitional path forward to ultimate subsumption of our Country, our Nation, into a transnational, trans-global political, financial, economic, social, cultural, and legal system of governance. That would indeed mark the end of our rights and liberties; the end of the supremacy of our laws; an end to our history; an end to the very idea of a United States existing as a distinct Nation State as it is subordinated to and subsumed into a new transnational Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural construct.A disaster in the making is, apparently, what these Radical Leftists of the new Democratic Party want, indeed, what they are banking on; what, in fact, they are calling for: reducing the Nation’s citizenry to abject poverty and servitude, to the point where the citizenry cannot ably resist the dismantling of their Nation’s Constitution and subsumption of the Nation into a new international system of governance, where our Nation’s laws are no longer the supreme Law of the Land; where the United States can no longer reasonably, rationally be considered an independent sovereign Nation; and where the people of the United States are no longer deemed citizens but, rather, subjects within a new and vast world order.But, unlike the Democratic Party candidates, who demonstrated remarkable, if bizarre, exuberance and giddiness at the thought of seeing their vision of a Collectivist Marxist World realized, The New York Times, no less a proponent for the Marxist overthrow of the natural order of things, exhibited a note of caution and wariness over the alacrity with which the Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President laid bare their plans for the Country if any one of them were able to defeat Trump and actually assume the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation.In the June 30 article, the NY Times reporters made this comment in the opening paragraph of their news account:“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing seeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of a political backlash. Vowing to eliminate private health insurance, decriminalize illegal immigration and provide government health care benefits to undocumented migrants, high profile contenders like Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are wagering that they can energize voters eager to dismantle President Trump’s hard line policies.”Donald Trump’s hard line policies? Since when has it become hard line for a U.S. President to seek to protect and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s geographical borders; to work toward preservation of our Capitalist, free market economy; to faithfully execute the laws of our Nation—and that means, all of our laws—including, then, our immigration laws; and how is a U.S. President to help “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” if that means squandering our Nations limited funds and resources on government health care benefits and welfare to millions of illegal aliens? The New York Times’ sentiments are clearly in line with the most radical of Democratic-Socialist goals, and always have been; but, obviously, the Times, unlike the Democratic Party Candidates vying for their Party's nomination in the run-up to the General Election, is not convinced the American public is itself behind the Democrats, ready to jump on their bandwagon. In fact, the vast majority of Americans, the silent majority, couldn’t agree less with the aims and wishes of this neo-Democratic-Socialist Party. For the Party’s agenda and policy goals are a recipe for National disaster.In a June 29, 2019 Op-Ed, the NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, seemingly grudgingly acknowledges that the Democratic Party agenda is well beyond the pale of anything acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, as he tellingly recounts the message of the Democratic Party candidates, as perceived by the vast majority of Americans. Stephens’ asserts, in pertinent part:“In this week’s Democratic debates, it wasn’t just individual candidates who presented themselves to the public. It was also the party itself. What conclusions should ordinary people draw about what Democrats stand for, other than a thunderous repudiation of Donald Trump, and how they see America, other than as a land of unscrupulous profiteers and hapless victims?Here’s what: a party that makes too many Americans feel like strangers in their own country. A party that puts more of its faith, and invests most of its efforts, in them instead of us.They speak Spanish. We don’t. They are not U.S. citizens or legal residents. We are. They broke the rules to get into this country. We didn’t. They pay few or no taxes. We already pay most of those taxes. They willingly got themselves into debt. We’re asked to write it off. They don’t pay the premiums for private health insurance. We’re supposed to give up ours in exchange for some V.A.-type nightmare. They didn’t start enterprises that create employment and drive innovation. We’re expected to join the candidates in demonizing the job-creators, breaking up their businesses and taxing them to the hilt.That was the broad gist of the Democratic message, in which the only honorable exceptions, like Maryland’s John Delaney and Colorado’s John Hickenlooper, came across as square dancers at a rave.On closer inspection, the message got even worse.Promising access to health insurance for north of 11 million undocumented immigrants at a time when there’s a migration crisis at the southern border? Every candidate at Thursday’s debate raised a hand for that one, in what was surely the evening’s best moment for the Trump campaign.Calling for the decriminalization of border crossings (while opposing a wall)? That was a major theme of Wednesday’s debate, underlining the Republican contention that Democrats are a party of open borders, limitless amnesty and, in time, the Third World-ization of America.Switching to Spanish? Memo to Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker: If you can’t speak the language without a heavy American accent, don’t bother. It just reminds those of us who can that the only thing worse than an obnoxious gringo is a pandering one.Eliminating private health insurance, an industry that employs more than 500,000 workers and insures 150 million? Elizabeth Warren, Bill de Blasio, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris support it (though the California senator later recanted the position). Since Democrats are already committed to destroying the coal industry and seem inclined to turn Silicon Valley into a regulated utility, it’s worth asking: Just how much of the private economy are they even willing to keep?”Keep in mind Brett Stephen’s account of what he perceives as the fears of “ordinary Americans” does hit the mark. It isn’t really hyperbole even if his intention was to be sarcastic. For, the fears of a Collectivist-Marxist Revolution in this Country are for us "ordinary Americans" very real, and we do in fact have good and justifiable reason to dread such a Revolution even if Brett Stephen and other New York Times contributors, reporters, editors, and the Times' publisher do not and are, in fact, active proponents of just such a Revolution, seeing it as a positive thing, as do the Progressive elements and the Radical Left in this society.So the sentiments expressed by the Democratic Party candidate hopefuls are those exulted by The New York Times and by other mainstream media organizations. Brett Stephens' concern and that of The New York Times staff is not that a true Collectivist-Marxist vision cannot be realized--for they fervently wish for it to happen--but that it will not transpire if the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential Candidates are too vocal about their plans for our Country, as they certainly were during the first two Debates. Far from alleviating the fears of the vast majority of Americans the candidates exacerbated those fears; and that would only ensure Trump's reelection to a Second Term in Office.Of course, the Democratic Party and The New York Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media have been articulating the goals and desires of the Democratic Party for a long time—in fact, ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office.What the NY Times finds objectionable, apparently, is that the Democratic Party U.S. Presidential candidates have, for the first time, in the Debates, articulated their message directly and forcefully to the American people--too forcefully; thereby threatening to lose, not gain or buttress a substantial portion of the Electorate to their cause, approving of a Collectivist-Marxist vision for the Nation.The Radical Left base certainly agrees with the creation of a Marxist regime, as do the millions of illegal aliens. The vast majority of the American citizenry, however, does not. The Radical Left base hopes for an end to the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation State, thereby finally realizing the Communist aim of a one-world Government. And the millions of illiterate, ignorant, and uneducated or poorly educated illegal aliens, for their part, are simply hoping that, with a Democratic-Socialist in Office, they can remain in the U.S.; even gain citizenship, and then be assured of a constant, consistent supply of handouts, subsidized by the American taxpayer. 

THE BILL OF RIGHTS WOULD BE IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY IF A DEMOCRAT DOES DEFEAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN THE GENERAL ELECTION

The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their Bill of Rights constrained or abrogated. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their history rewritten; nor the founders slandered. The vast majority of Americans do not wish to see their legal system subordinated to foreign laws and tribunals, and their Nation subsumed into transnational system of governance. Brett Stephens and Andrew Cuomo, and Eric Swalwell are not those people.What people like Stephens, Cuomo, and Swalwell fear is an armed citizenry that through its very existence would fight to prevent and would be fully capable of preventing a Marxist-Collectivist takeover of the Country. Thus, they seek to disarm the public. Recall that Cuomo and his henchmen were the architects of the New York Safe Act that places a ban on the very firearms with which the American people can ward off the inception of tyranny. And Recall Swalwell's intention to confiscate all semiautomatic firearms in the hands of law-abiding, rational, average Americans.And, recall that NY Times Columnist Brett Stephens, on two occasions, has called for repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In an October 5, 2017 Times Op-Ed, published a few days after the psychotic killer, Stephen Paddock, went on a shooting rampage, Brett Stephens didn’t mince words as he went about viciously attacking guns and gun ownership  and possession, making clear what it is he wants. The very title of his Op-Ed made clear his fervent wish: “Repeal the Second Amendment.”  He said, in part:“I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. . . . the more closely one looks at what passes for ‘common sense’ gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn”** is the fate that soon awaits us.”And, if Americans didn’t get the message in Stephen’s first Times Op-Ed, he reiterated the message in a second Op-Ed, titled, “To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” that was published in The New York Times on February 16, 2018, after the Parkland High School tragedy.Stephen’s argument against gun ownership and possession is nothing new. Americans have heard the same tiresome message  countless times before, albeit delivered with more sense of urgency and ferocity, immediately after a tragedy involving firearms in the hands of psychotic or psychopathic killers: namely that society must get rid of guns, but that those Americans who wish to own and possess firearms need not fear, because it isn’t the intention of Stephens, and Cuomo, and Swalwell, and any of the other Radical Left elements in our Nation to take away all guns from citizens. They just want to take away some of them--and they want to add a little more scrutiny on those who really wish to possess them. And, eventually, these people want to confiscate most firearms from the American citizenry; and, eventually, they seek to confiscate all firearms, so that no one may own or possess a firearm lawfully without first obtaining a valid license, issued by the appropriate Government authority--rendering the Second Amendment de facto repealed, as gun ownership and possession would devolve into mere privilege; no longer a right. And those who possess them--the wealthy, powerful, "Elite" of society would--then, alone, have lawful access to firearms, rendering firearms' ownership a "status" symbol, like owning a Ferrari, but even rarer, as money alone would not be sufficient to own and possess firearms. Since a person would need to acquire a valid license, one would have to show that he has the appropriate Marxist political connections.So, we go back to the Radical Left's desire to effectively repeal the Second Amendment,  which Brett Stephens would like to do outright, as he expressly, blatantly calls for, and that Cuomo, Swalwell, and other antigun zealots at the moment themselves call for, but tacitly.In other words, no American citizen, according to people like Stephens, Cuomo and Swalwell, should own or possess firearms as a matter of right, but only as a matter of Government license and Government beneficience (granted to a very few) to the wealthy and powerful “elites” in society who have the correct attitude. Americans’ autonomy and self-determination comes to end once Government restrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is not conjecture. That is ice-cold fact._____________________________*It should come as little surprise, if at all, to anyone, that the Radical Left's push to remove the Statues and emblems of the Confederacy and their desecration of war memorials and symbols--all of which are a important component of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage, and deserving of our respect--would not stop at that point.Now, it has come to light, on the eve of our sacred July 4 Holiday, celebrating our Nation's Declaration of Independence from tyranny, that further symbols of our heritage are denounced and denigrated. The footwear Company, Nike, that had  sought to honor our Nation by manufacturing a tennis shoe with a historical American Flag, consisting of Thirteen Stars, representing the original Thirteen American colonies, has scrubbed that effort.Why? The Company has done so because Colin Kaepernick--yes, that Colin Kaepernick who took a knee while our National Anthem was played just before commencement of the Super Bowl in January 2012--told the Company to do so, and Kaepernick who is on the Company payroll, doing Advertisements for Nike, apparently has the clout to compel Nike to do his bidding. Kaepernick claims that the Thirteen Starred Flag represents racism. It does?One may find evil in the most innocuous of things if one has the mind to do so. According to a spokeswoman for Nike, as reported by The New York Times, in its Wednesday, July 3, 2019 newspaper:"Nike had made the decision to 'halt distribution' of the [commemorative Fourth of July] sneaker 'based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation's patriotic holiday.'"That is an incredibly odd and duplicitous remark. How can an emblem of our Nation's history possibly detract from the "nation's patriotic holiday." There is obviously much more at play here. The Marxists and Anarchists among us slowly but incessantly and inexorably chisel away at our Nation's sacred symbols, emblems, and memorabilia. And, they attack honorable men, not just General Robert E. Lee and others who happened to represent the South during the American Civil War, but also our Nation's founders, not least of which include the Nation's First U.S. President, George Washington, and the Nation's Third U.S. President, Thomas Jefferson.Ostensibly, the attack on people and symbols of our Nation's history is grounded on issues of morality. That may sound plausible to some, if at first and cursory glance, but, there is something much more sinister taking place here. For the Radical Left and the Anarchists have a sordid, devious, and diabolical game plan that rests at the heart of their actions and antics, well beyond the stated concern of forcing "political correctness" on the public merely for its own sake.By denigrating historical personages, symbols and emblems and successfully seeking their removal from public spaces and eradication from our history books, these reprobates seek to induce amnesia in the mind and psyche of the American public, erasing all memory of our Nation's rich cultural history and heritage. Thus, they mean to destroy our Nation and its Constitution. The U.S is to become, then, to be perceived, not as an independent and Sovereign Nation State, but as little more than a geographical region of space, subsumed into a vast transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, cultural, and legal sphere of governance and influence. That goal becomes easier to accomplish once a Nation loses its National identity and ancestral memory. The overseers of the EU are attempting to exert control of the populations of the quasi-independent member Nation States, deliberately, diabolically attempting to undermine National identity, along with a Nation's sense of culture and history, unique to itself; substituting National identity with an amorphous identity with the EU, notwithstanding differences in language and historicity, going back centuries. And Brussels is suffering a backlash as a result. The Radical Left is copying the EU's playbook, by attempting to scrub clean our ancestral memory, inducing collective amnesia on the Nation. One major problem for the Radical Left is the existence of our Nation's unique Bill of Rights. A Marxist Revolution cannot succeed unless the Bill of Rights is destroyed. Thus, the Radical Left attacks it, sometimes subtly, sometimes not.It is, for example, much easier to constrain free speech if one forgets that, once upon a time, people were able to speak their minds, freely, openly, without threat of physical attack and verbal condemnation. And, it is easier to disarm the public if the public is induced to forget that, once upon a time, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not and could not be infringed. The Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists, intend to reduce the sum total of our Nation's history and rich cultural heritage to mere legend. In time, that legend will become myth; eventually fairy tale, and ultimately completely erased from all memory. That is what they want. That is the real import and purport of their desire to destroy symbols, artifacts, emblems, and accounts of our Nation's great founders, leaders, and military officers. For, once erased, their vision of a New World Order can finally take shape and be realized. If a people cannot recall what they once were, they cannot fret over and dwell over what they have lost. And, they become more amenable to change, believing whatever it is that they are told to believe--and accepting their new world as right, and just, and proper. This becomes far, far easier to accomplish with children, as they need not be induced to forget a past they had never known. Their heads can be filled with the dry rot of Collectivist precepts at the get-go of their primary school education. **The original movie, titled, “Red Dawn,” released in 1984, and starring Patrick Swayse, Charlie Sheen, and Lea Thompson, concerns an invasion of the U.S. by Soviet forces, supported by unnamed Central and/or South American and possibly Mexican Communist military forces. The protagonists are high school students in some generic area of rural America, who, operating as a well-armed partisan, guerrilla force, attack the invaders. It is odd, though, that Brett Stephens would refer to the 1984 movie as some sort of fantasy wish. Why would any American in their right mind look forward to the invasion of our Nation simply so they have an opportunity to engage in warfare on the home front. That would hardly amount to play acting.Actually, the greater threat to this Nation, as the Arbalest Quarrel, has made patently clear, as a central theme in its articles, is not the threat of Russian, or even Chinese interference in our elections. The true threat derives from within the Nation, and through a seditious Press, and through political and Grassroots elements taking their cue from and monies from wealthy, powerful Globalists within the EU (our Allies?) who seek to weaken our Constitution and to destroy our National Sovereignty, in order to drive us into the throes of a Global Conglomerate, controlled, politically, economically, socially, culturally and legally by a hidden power elite. What we face is a new world order; what the writer Sheldon S. Wolin, in his in his sociological and political science work on  titled,“Democracy, Inc.,” refers to as “Inverted Totalitarianism” which, as he says, consists of a “blend of powers,” wielded by a small group of “elite” forces; at once impenetrable, secluded, unapproachable, faceless and omnipotent, answerable to no one but themselves; operating in accordance with their own personal trans-global, neoliberal economic interests and in support of their own inscrutable and pathological supranational political, social, cultural, and militaristic goals; altogether at odds with the precepts of our Constitutional Republic, and oblivious to the concerns and interests of the American citizenry.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS OF THE RADICAL LEFT INTEND TO OBLITERATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS, COMMENCING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

PART ELEVEN

Radical Left elements, with the connivance of the mainstream news media—the Dead Souls existing among us—slowly, methodically, systematically work toward completing their Marxist agenda, notwithstanding the failure to install their candidate, the duplicitous, innately evil Hillary Clinton, in the White House. But, to make their abominable policy objectives palatable to a wary, discerning American public, this Radical Left realizes the need to control the narrative and to foreclose debate on all Second Amendment related matters, and on any other matter that touches upon their policy goals. And, so, through mass, repetitious story-telling, the most ludicrous of proposed changes to our Nation and to its Constitution become commonplace and then accepted as normal and proper. They have their own tenets, their own set of principals, their own Commandments: right out of the Marxist Playbook.A compliant Press, sold on the idea of a Marxist style Amerika, willing to take—indeed, ecstatically taking— marching orders from the Marxist enterprise that the Democratic Party has slowly, inexorably, systematically, and inevitably devolved into and that, in turn, likely takes its orders design from the extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, and innately corrupt, ruthless, and decadent Rothschild clan, dispensing its orders and edicts through its apparatchiks ensconced in their plush offices in Brussels—has focused all of its attention on denouncing, ridiculing, debasing, vilifying, and destroying the duly elected U.S. President, Donald Trump.Disrupting Trump at every turn has been the raison d’être of the mainstream Press since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017. The mainstream media Press and Democratic Party leadership, along with most of the rank and file Party membership and the Deep State Federal Government Bureaucracy, and with the acquiescence of not a few Republicans, has sought to disrupt Donald Trump and his Administration at every turn, lest Trump continue to sully their plans: plans that go far beyond orchestration of a mere Center Left-wing agenda for the Country. For, the forces at work both within the U.S. and outside it, intend something much more ambitious and horrific.This ruthless lot intends to capture the United States, drawing it, kicking and screaming, if need be, into the orbit of the EU. These Radical Left reprobates intend to force the United States into the arms of EU’s planners: those orchestrating a New World Order; relegating the United States into one of many vassal States—like the Nations of Europe—a mere appendage of a transnational, trans-global political, social, economic, legal, and cultural system of governance—a post Nation State world; a mammoth, insatiable beast that gobbles up Nations whole, and reduces populations to abject poverty and servitude. For Americans this means the end of personal freedom and personal autonomy; the end of the right of the individual to be individual, to control one’s own destiny, to remain free from Government interference.These Godless, ruthless overseers of men, controllers of human thought and action, dare dismiss out-of-hand the very truth inherent in the concept of preexisting natural rights. These ruthless Dead Souls would dare to destroy exercise of the the fundamental rights of Americans—the foundation of one’s physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual Self and of one's aspirations: the core of the Bill of Rights. These include the right of free expression and association, the right of free exercise of religion, the right of the people to be free from unreasonable Government searches and seizures, and, most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, especially and singularly, sustains, nurtures, and ensures all the others, sanctifying one’s God-given right of self-defense and God-given right to defend one’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual Self against all State encroachment that, given its nature, would seek, must seek, to crush the individual into submission.The framers of the Constitution of the United States knew full well the danger of a powerful, overbearing centralized authority. Having thrown off the yoke of one such authority, they had no wish, if unintentionally, to create another. They were faced with a conundrum: how to establish a centralized Government strong enough to withstand attacks from outside the Nation but constrained from usurping its formidable power to subjugate the citizenry within the Nation?The Constitution the framers of our Nation hammered out is a testament to their diligence and ingenuity. The blueprint for a Constitutional Republic that the framers designed is unlike that existent in any other Nation on this Earth, existing either before or since the creation of the United States. The framers of our Constitution, the founders of our Constitutional Republic, created and implemented a Governmental structure for our Nation that, to the extent possible, responds to the dilemma they were faced with.This is made abundantly, categorically, and transparently clear in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the framers of our Constitution asserted that it is Government that exists to serve the American people and not the people that serve Government. The American people themselves are, then, the true and sole and ultimate authority; sovereign ruler; and final arbiter of the Nation:“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”It is “We the People” that do “form” the Nation. Does a Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth make this claim? And, if so, does the Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation on Earth establish the fact—in the language and in the context of that Nation's Constitution or other Government forming document, and not as mere platitude—that it is the people of the Nation themselves that create their Nation and who are therefore the ultimate authority, power, and arbiter of and for their Nation? Not likely.Combing the records for any Constitution or other Government forming document of any other Nation, confederation of Nations, or aggregation of regions will fail to yield anything remotely like our own U.S. Constitution, or one that has endured for so long as ours has.The framers of our Constitution created a centralized “federal” Government that would only be permitted to wield specific power. Thus, such power that the federal Government wields is limited. The primary roles of Government--Legislative, Executive, and Judicial--is exercised by three independent Branches, thus effectively checking the power of any other Branch, and preventing Government from growing ever more powerful. And the nature and extent of the power and authority of each Branch is established clearly and categorically.No Branch is permitted to usurp the power of any other Branch, nor override the power of any other Branch; nor is any Branch of the federal Government permitted to acquiesce to another Branch. Each Branch of the federal Government is constrained to exercise such powers and to wield such authority as precisely prescribed to it in the Constitution’s Articles; and to exercise no other power; nor wield more authority than the powers set for that Branch, as set forth in the Articles.And, to further check the power of the fledgling Nation’s Government, which, given the nature of the beast to accumulate more and more power for itself, if left unchecked, the framers incorporated into the Constitution a Bill of Rights. But, this Bill of Rights was nothing like that existing in any other Nation that happened to have one at all. For our Bill of Rights is not a collection of rights and liberties created by Government.Our Bill of Rights is a codification of preexisting rights intrinsic in each living soul. Our Bill of Rights is not mere platitude, niceties, inconsequential pleasantries, or whimsical touches, expressing, at best, a Nation's honorable intention but having no real effect other than what a Government wishes to give to it. No! the rights codified in our Nation's Bill of Rights is much, much more. Our Bill of Rights comprises affirmations of powers inherent in the American people themselves, preexistent, immutable, indestructible; unalienable;  existing before Government, and beyond the power of Government to lawfully tamper with. And, they are "real powers," not phantoms; They are powers that the framers of the Constitution expected the American people to exercise readily; and to do so in order to effectively corral the Beast--the federal Government. Yet, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and the other progressive and radical Leftist elements do not see the Bill of Rights in that way. They fail to realize and to appreciate the salient fact that the rights codified in the Bill of Rights were not created by the framers of the Constitution; they are simply assertions of rights intrinsic in the soul of each American, and, they need not have been incorporated into the Constitution, but were done so--at the behest of those among the framers who were most prescient, the Antifederalists--to serve as a constant reminder to those who wield power in Government that it is, not them, but the American people who ultimately are in charge. For, it is, after all, their Nation, and the Government belongs to them, to serve them.Those who wield power in Government must remember that it is they who are the servants of the American people; and not the American people who serve them.Yet, we see in the political pronouncements of Cuomo, Swalwell and others, constant efforts to deceive the public, as they beseech the public to relinquish their sacred rights and liberties under the guise of doing so to protect the public, as if the public needs their protection, an arrogant attitude of its own. In truth, they intend to weaken the public, in order to effectively control it, subjugate it. And, to accomplish that end, they must destroy the Bill of Rights. And, to do that, they must somehow convince the public that the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a collection of man-made rights--some good, some not so good, and some, like the right set forth in the Second Amendment, altogether, bad--and all requiring modification, reinterpretation, or outright abrogation. These radical Left elements have, in recent years, become very vocal in their antipathy toward our Nation's Bill of Rights, as they have become ever more frustrated with their inability to transform the Nation into a Marxist, Collectivist construct, to be subsumed eventually into the EU and, thence, into a one-world, unified system of Governance.Radical Left-wing politicians and media personnel dare openly to call for restraints on speech and on freedom of association among the polity; abridgment of the free exercise of religion; abrogation of the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; encroachment on the right to own and possess personal property; and outright eradication of the Second Amendment, audaciously refusing to accept the simple truth of an individual right of the American people to keep and bear arms: and contemptuous then of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald.Cuomo, Swalwell, and the rest of the sordid lot, engage in heresy and sedition and do so openly, bombastically, endlessly. They adamantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of fundamental, preexisting, immutable, unalienable rights; intrinsic to and preexistent in each American citizen and therefore beyond the power of Government to modify, ignore, or abrogate.These Dead Souls endorse the false notion that our Nation's Governmental structure is easily transformable. It isn't and should not be. And these Dead Souls argue that our rights and liberties are infinitely malleable. They aren't and cannot be. But, the false belief allows them to maintain our Nation’s Governmental structure can be manipulated to suit their ends and that our sacred rights and liberties can be modified or abrogated to conform to their vision of reality in a particular moment of time.People like Cuomo and Swalwell are the very manifestation of the real fear our founders rightfully felt could one day doom our Country: that arrogant, ruthless individuals from within our Nation would dare wrest control of the Nation from the American people. And so the framers incorporated the Bill of Rights into our Constitution, and made certain that the Nation's citizenry would be able, in accordance with their God-given right, to be well armed.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a constant reminder to Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of them, that a metamorphosis of our Nation into a Collectivist, Marxist nightmare they and other Radicals envision is not so easy to manifest in reality. Thus, they seek to destroy the sacred right that stands in their way—which the framers of our Constitution intended to stand in the way of all those who would dare usurp power for themselves.Cuomo and Swalwell and the rest of the Radical Left continue to debase, damn, and ridicule both the Second Amendment and those who support it. In doing so, they aptly illustrate their condemnation of, disgust with, contempt for, and outright abhorrence of a Governmental structure—a Constitutional Republic, predicated on and defended by an armed citizenry—that they cannot square with the tenets of their radical, Collectivist, Marxist belief system, and which they cannot and will not, then, ever abide by.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S HATRED OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT KNOWS NO BOUNDS

PART TEN

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo hates guns, all kinds of guns. He hates them with a passion. His vehement disdain for these inanimate objects rests on the ground that, as he perceives it, they serve no legitimate or useful purpose. Guns do kill, of course. That fact isn’t to be denied. But, there is a huge difference between guns in the hands of criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and guns in the hands of law-abiding, trained individuals, on the other—a world of difference that antigun zealots don’t seem to recognize or appreciate; or, if they do, then it is something they simply refuse to acknowledge.Criminals and lunatics use guns to threaten life and to destroy innocent life. Law-abiding rational citizens use guns to thwart threats by criminals and lunatics, in order to protect their life and other innocent life.  The mainstream media and antigun zealots invariably conflate the two or otherwise skirt this critical difference. Why do they do this? They do so because drawing attention to a clear and obvious difference between misuse of guns by criminals and lunatics, on the one hand, and the proper, lawful use of guns for self-defense by the law-abiding citizen, on the other hand, doesn’t fit the false and shameless narrative antigun zealots wish to convey: that no concrete difference exists between proper lawful use and improper illegal use of firearms.According to the antigun zealots’ running narrative, the very existence of guns threaten the well-being, cohesion, and order of society; so, for them, it doesn’t matter who has them. The idea expressed through the tale spun, and constantly, tediously regurgitated for public consumption, is patently false, even if it seems superficially sound.Firearms will invariably make their way into the hands of criminals and lunatics; and, even if that were not so, nonetheless the criminal element and lunatic fringe will always exist, threatening the life and well-being of everyone else through the use of one implement or another—be it knife, hammer, baseball bat, or anything else. It is, therefore, only with a firearm—the best means of self-defense at the disposal of the average, freedom-loving, law-abiding, American citizen—that real threats to life and safety will ever be effectively thwarted.Not infrequently off-duty police officers, in civilian garb, have protected their own life with a firearm when confronted by a would-be assailant, when that would-be assailant is unaware his targeted victim is an armed police officer. The tables are quickly turned on the assailant. But, even if they acknowledge that police officers have, often enough, defended their own life and well-being with a firearm, when off-duty, nonetheless, they refuse to recommend similar protection for the average law-abiding civilian citizen, notwithstanding that the life of an off-duty police officer, and the life of prominent politicians and of wealthy individuals who can afford armed guards, or who have armed guards assigned to them, are treated differently and better than the rest of us.Thus, Cuomo and other Radical Leftists refuse even so much as to acknowledge, even if grudgingly, the benefits a firearm affords the average law-abiding citizen. After all, they have a fairy tale to tell the public. And it is that the armed citizen is somehow less safe when confronted by an assailant and that society, too, is more threatened by an armed citizenry.Removing firearms from the hands of the average, honest, rational, law-abiding American citizen is their raison d'etre. So, Cuomo and the Radical Left elements that comprise antigun groups continue their call for ever more restrictive gun laws; weaving a fable--one consistent with both the tenets of Collectivism and with their own warped political, social, and ethical view of society and of the role and place of the citizen in that society. The Second Amendment is an anathema to them. Thus, they seek no less than the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment.It is the American citizenry, itself, that antigun zealots, like Cuomo, seek to disarm; it isn't the criminal element and the occasional lunatic they are really intent on disarming. If Cuomo's true aim and that of the Radical Left, pertaining to gun ownership and gun possession, remains hidden, then it is hidden in plain view.Denying criminals and lunatics access to guns is merely the pretext to placate the public—a make-believe tale concocted—to make the call for stringent arms control palatable to non-discerning members of the populace, even as the public is made less safe and even as that goal is wholly incompatible with the clear, import, purport, and categorical imperative of the Second Amendment—that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed.The plain fact of the matter is that Cuomo and other Progressives and Radical Leftists do not truly consider the Bill of Rights to be a salient component of the Constitution. Yet, the Ten Amendments, that comprise our Bill of Rights, must be taken together, as the framers intended, as one, unified whole, and an integral and critical component of the U.S. Constitution. Cuomo and those who agree with is political and social philosophy play with the Ten Amendments, pretending that these Ten Amendments—fundamental, primordial, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator—are, in their inception, nothing more than man-made constructions, not unlike any Congressional Statute, which they are not. But, this is the tacit assumption and fiction that informs all the policy decisions and aims of Cuomo, and of the other Radical Leftists, who hold to, and place their faith in, the tenets of Collectivism.These Collectivists assume, WRONGLY, that the original Ten Amendments, are capable of being lawfully modified, weakened, and, in some instances, as with the Second Amendment, even abrogated, erased, altogether obliterated, on the ground, as they believe, and as they argue, albeit erroneously, and even implausibly, to the perceptive American citizen, that the Second Amendment has no context in a modern society. Yet, in the same breath, these Radical Leftists and progressive elements in our midst, claim, ingenuously, to support the Constitution.How often have New York residents heard this third-term Governor, Cuomo, bombastically asserting that he took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, even as his actions invariably belie his words? Governor Cuomo, and others who express his sentiments, reject the Second Amendment out-of-hand—a critical component of and, in fact, one of the most important components of the Constitution, as a Free Republic would not, could not, long exist without it. Yet, Cuomo and others of his political and social persuasion couldn’t care less about the Constitution, even as they exclaim, disingenuously and hypocritically, that they do.

ANDREW CUOMO IS ABSOLUTELY APOPLECTIC ABOUT BOTH GUNS AND CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF GUNS

Americans must not forget that Cuomo’s obsession with guns, generally, and with civilian ownership and possession of guns, particularly, isn’t something he concocted out-of-the-blue, and it didn't happen yesterday. Having been able to use his State, New York, as a test-bed for his radical antigun policies to play out, Cuomo’s attack on the Second Amendment commenced many years ago, on January 1, 2011, during his first term in Office. Cuomo’s agenda then took shape over time, rapidly gathering steam, during the course of his first four-year term in Office, as New York’s Governor. Let Americans be ever mindful of that.As reported by the weblog Observer, in an article published on January 9, 2013, titled, 'Cuomo Vows to 'Enact the Toughest Assault Weapon Ban in the Nation, Period!'“One of the most hotly anticipated elements of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s annual State of the State address today [to the New York Legislature, delivered on Jan 9, 2013] was his plan to enact ‘sweeping’ gun control reforms in New York. In his speech, the governor outlined a seven-point gun control plan focused on “high-capacity assault rifles” that he promised would be one of the ‘toughest’ in the nation and lead similar laws to spread beyond New York.‘Gun violence has been on a rampage as we know firsthand and as we know painfully,’ said the governor. ‘We must stop the madness, my friends. In one word, it’s just ‘enough.’ It has been enough. We need a gun policy in this state that is reasonable, that is balanced, that is measured. . . .’ The governor outlined the items on his seven-point gun plan.‘Number one: Enact the toughest assault weapon ban in the nation, period!' he shouted, before ticking off his other new gun control proposals. 'Number two, close the private sale loophole by requiring federal background checks. Number three, ban high-capacity magazines. Number four, enact tougher penalties for illegal gun use, guns in school grounds and violent gangs. Number five, keep guns from people who are mentally ill. Number six, ban direct internet sales of ammunition in New York. Number seven, create a state [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check on all ammunition purchases.’ [To this 7 Point list, we can now add, Cuomo’s 8th Point: “On Monday, February 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Red Flag Bill into law at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He was joined by many of his colleagues in New York State government, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to celebrate this new legislation, the first in the nation of its kind. . . .” (Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Governor Andrew Cuomo predicting the rest of the country will follow New York’s lead and adopt stiffer gun laws].‘New York State led the way on guns once before. It was the Sullivan’s law of 1911, which was the first-in-the-nation gun control law. A model law’ he explained. [But, is the Sullivan law something to be proud about, really? See, New York Post article on this subject: “The Strange Birth of New York’s Gun law,” published January 16, 2012] ‘I know that the issue of gun control is hard. I know that it’s political. I know it’s controversial,’ the governor said, his voice rising with every word. ‘I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple: no one hunts with an assault rifle! No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer! Too many innocent people have died already! End this madness now!’By the end of the speech, the governor was shouting.” Cuomo never intended his antigun agenda to be confined to one State. His agenda was much more ambitious. On October 30, 2015, The New York Times exclaimed, in an article titled, "Cuomo Planning Role in National Gun Control Campaign," that Cuomo anticipated national attention.  “ ‘The political climate is right again for action,’ ” said Mr. Cuomo, who has endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president. He added, ‘The appetite is there, I think, in the presidential election, especially in the Democratic primary but also in the general election.’ ”  Well, that didn’t come to pass and Governor Cuomo obviously never forgave Donald Trump for having had the audacity to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereby dashing Cuomo’s hope of implementation of a National NY Safe Act—dashing Cuomo's hope of adding an important feather in “Chief Cuomo’s" own headdress. See article in the weblog, "Syracuse," posted on April 29, 2019, titled, "Cuomo to Trump on gun violence: You have done nothing but tweet."Don’t for a moment think that the incessant, vicious, virulent attack on the Second Amendment won't factor as a major issue in the upcoming 2020 U.S. Presidential election, as Democrats gear up for the debates, beginning this month. It most definitely will.Eric Swalwell and Kamala Harris, especially, have made “gun control” a salient component of their campaigns; and Cuomo will, no doubt, be cheering them on, all the way, hoping for National attention on the "gun issue," for himself, if he is able to insinuate himself into the National Democratic Party machinery, with the aim of seeing the New York Safe Act becoming the Law of the Land.Feeling that he has been cheated out of that goal, in 2016, with the defeat of Hillary Clinton, Cuomo is certainly looking for redemption in 2020. And, he may very well obtain it, if, God-forbid, a Democrat should defeat Trump in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT VISION FOR AMERICA MARKS NATION’S DEMISE, NOT ITS SALVATION

"The self-deceived person may even think he is able to console others who became victims of perfidious deception, but what insanity when someone who himself has lost the eternal wants to heal the person who is extremely sick unto death!" ~Søren Kierkegaard, from Works of Love (1847)

PART SEVEN

Radical Left politicians, along with a compliant Press, carry the message of the Collectivist vision—a vision that overrides concern for the health, safety, and well-being of the Nation and of the Nation’s citizenry.Like the crass hypocrites they are, radical Leftists love to go on about how they respect the rule of law, but ignore it when they find it convenient to do so to support their radical agenda. Lacking all visible restraint and common decency, they flagrantly, even exuberantly, attack our Constitution, our institutions, our history, our culture, our ethos, our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethical underpinnings and belief in the Divine Creator.These Dead Souls, these transgressors of the Creator’s sacred Commandments attack all our citizenry holds most dear and these extremists do so with increasing frequency and ferocity. Everything about them bespeaks ill-will, anger, hatred, resentment, intemperance, rage. They don’t seek to preserve our Nation; rather, they seek to destroy it. Both in their words and actions, they intend to rend everything, both tangible and intangible, that represents and constitutes the very soul-memory of our Nation and its people. These radical Leftists, these God-deniers, these Dead Souls, will suffer no one that dares disagree with them.These Dead Souls ignore, out-of-hand, fundamental rights etched in the Bill of Rights, but show no reluctance in creating out of whole cloth other “rights” that cohere with their Collectivist precepts. They claim as fundamental rights: the right to attend college; the right to abortion on demand; the right of non-citizens to reside here under a general prescription of seeking asylum; and the right to be free from so-called “hate speech” and hurtful speech in the public space.But such purported “rights” exist nowhere, tacitly or expressly, in the Bill of Rights or, for that matter, anywhere else in the Nation’s Constitution. Indeed, one presumed fundamental right catalogued by the Radical Left—the claim of a fundamental right to abortion on demand, abjectly unnatural, is transparently contradicted by Federal Statute and Supreme Court precedent, as is the right to be free from such vague notions as “hate speech” and hurtful speech.Yet, as these Dead Souls don’t profess a belief in the concept of natural rights preexistent in the citizenry, such new panoply of “rights,” that are permitted to exist at all, shall consist only of those that Government deigns to grant to the polity, whether to a few members of the polity or to several of its members; whether to most members of the polity or to all its members—but with the understanding that such set of rights and liberties may be amended, ignored, or abrogated as Government needs and goals change, or as Government simply wishes.And Government, as Government is conceived by these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, may at will, amend ignore or abrogate any and all such rights and liberties; doing so if for no other reason than to make the point that all lawful power, authority, and control emanates from and proceeds through Government to the Governed, the people, and not to Government through the consent of the Governed, the people. Thus, the Radical Left seeks to turn the very political framework of our Nation on its head.These Leftist extremists in the United States—these proponents of the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—will seek the “consent of the governed” one final time. By turns, they persuade, urge, and cajole the public to relinquish all power and authority to Government, claiming, all the while that this will all be for the best: for the good of society, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive, albeit not good, at all, for the individual, the American citizen.And, this fact explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with the Second Amendment in particular, and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes. And, for these Americans who are not so easily duped, who do not wish to acquiesce, the Radical Left is not reluctant to use threats. Recall the remarks of the “illustrious” Congressional Representative from the “Sanctuary” State of California, Eric Swalwell, who, in November 2018, brazenly, spouted that he would be ready “to nuke” gun owners who do not willingly surrender their “assault weapons.” Many Americans took offense at the remark and rightfully so. Yet, the liberal “fact-checker” website, Snopes, counters that Swalwell had never really meant what he said. Trying to cast a positive light on Swalwell’s remark, Snopes reports:What's True [about Swalwell’s remark]In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."What's False [about Swalwell’s remark]Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.But, who is the joke really on? Obviously, the remark was hyperbole. That much is true. But Swalwell’s sentiment wasn’t, and isn’t hyperbole. Swalwell is deadly serious. Eric Swalwell is one of a large bevy of Democratic Party candidates campaigning for his Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 election, and, while all of these Candidates are virulently antigun, Eric Swalwell, in particular, is running prominently on an antigun platform.Lauding the Australian Government’s gun confiscation policy, Swalwell is openly critical of our own Nation’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and he has made clear that he intends to confiscate all firearms Government defines as 'assault weapons.'What isn’t humorous about Swalwell’s remarks—not the least bit humorous—and isn’t meant to be a joke, is a point that Swalwell has stated and reiterated often, and it is a cornerstone of his antigun plank. Swalwell has made it abundantly clear and is deadly serious when he asserts his intention to confiscate all firearms that Government—his Administration—defines as ‘assault weapons.’ And, he has also made it crystal clear that any American citizen who fails to surrender those weapons will be arrested and prosecuted.Consistent with the pronouncements of Obama and Hillary Clinton, Swalwell waxes poetic about Australia’s extraordinarily restrictive gun measures. But, keep in mind that Australia’s heavy-handed antigun stance and actions that Swalwell and that Obama and Clinton applaud, isn’t a Constitutional Republic in the vein of our own Nation. Australia is a Commonwealth Nation, presided over by a Governor General, who answers to the Queen of England. Moreover, Australia, unlike our Nation, never did recognize a right of the people of Australia to own and possess firearms, independent of Government say-so. Hell, Australia doesn’t even have a Bill of Rights and its overseers have vigorously fought against inclusion of one. Not surprisingly, then, the Australian Government can by,  fiat, restrict gun ownership and possession, and Australians--less citizens than subjects of the realm--have no legal recourse. And, this is the Country that Swalwell, and Obama, and Clinton, and all of the other Leftist extremists emulate?To say these Leftist extremists hold a vision of America different from that of the founders’ vision, indeed a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders’, is a crass understatement. For the assertion fails to capture the sheer scale and scope of the Radical Left's horrific agenda--what it is the Radical Left wants to accomplish and what it intends to force upon Americans, all of us--in the event it gains control of all three Branches of Government.What these extremists, these Dead Souls, seek to accomplish is the creation of an entirely different kind of America; an America no longer conceived as a free Republic, no longer existing as an independent, Sovereign Nation State. What these Dead Souls have in mind for Americans and for the Nation is the Nation's dissolution and the subjugation of its citizens. They perceive the remains of what once existed as a free Republic and independent Sovereign Nation State subsumed into a new Governmental and societal construct entirely—indeed, completely consumed by a new international world order that, like a giant serpent, swallows Nation’s whole.Thus, these Radical Leftists, these Dead Souls, seek to demolish the very existence of our Country as a Sovereign Nation State and free Republic; and, in so doing, they seek to undercut the very notion of a Bill of Rights that embraces fundamental, natural rights, preexistent in the Nation’s citizenry—rights, then, that, in the founders' vision, precede and transcend Government and rest well beyond the lawful power of Government to constrain. The Radical Left’s objectives  for this Nation are ruthlessly, remorselessly and frightfully diabolical; its rhetoric, transparently duplicitous; its lack of concern for the Nation's citizenry, abjectly shameful; its methods, rapaciously mercenary. Americans would do well to keep all this uppermost in mind when they go to the polls in 2020.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RADICAL LEFT ATTACKS AND TRIES TO SILENCE AMERICANS WHO DEFEND BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST SOCIALIST AGENDA

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ~From the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

CUOMO, SWALWELL, AND OTHERS LEAD LEFTIST CHARGE AGAINST OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT AS THE RADICAL LEFT, THROUGH A COMPLIANT PRESS, CONTINUES TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE.

Convinced their goals are right and proper, Leftist extremists in Congress and in the Government Bureaucracy, in the Press, in the academia, in entertainment, and in our business sectors, relentlessly attack anyone who disagrees with them. They do not promote and encourage discourse and debate on policy issues. Quite the opposite. They intend to preempt and preclude discourse and debate on all issues. They are Dead Souls, heralds of death and destruction. They seek to tear down, demolish, and upend every aspect of our history, traditions, core values, and salient rights and liberties. They are intent on wiping the slate clean, not to secure the rights of the people but, rather, to strip the people of their God-Given rights: the antithesis of and a perversion of the Declaration of Independence.Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, and Eric Swalwell, Congressional Representative from California, typify these Dead Souls. Unfortunately, sufficient numbers of the populace, both ignorant and well-learned alike—most residing in predominately in urban areas of the Country, and many residing in liberal bastions like New York, California, Illinois, and others—acquiesce to the policy goals of these Dead Souls and willingly allow themselves to be led by the nose, to the ruination and destruction of our Country. With population movements and shifts of radical Leftists into hitherto predominately conservative States, such as Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and even in Montana (as reported in the New York Times in 2013), we find our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties growing more tenuous, situated on more precarious ground.

PRESUMPTUOUS OF HUMAN LIFE, GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO HYPOCRITICALLY AND SANCTIMONIOUSLY CONTENDS HE VALUES HUMAN LIFE.

Andrew Cuomo pompously declared, in 2014, as reported in The Washington Times: “Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”Oh really? So, Mr. Cuomo, who are these “extreme conservatives” whom you detest? We will tell you who they are. These people are Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights as written, conceived, and understood by the framers who drafted it. They are Americans who demonstrate an aversion to treating an unborn, or an about-to-be born innocent human life like so much garbage, to be unceremoniously discarded as biological waste simply because the mother would rather not be bothered with that unborn child. These “extreme conservatives,” as you call them, are Americans who believe that illegal aliens who defy our laws, do not, contrary to your opinion, have any right—moral, legal, or logical—to reside in our Country even if they insist that they do and even if they presume, further, although erroneously, that the American tax-payer must bear the burden to provide for them when that taxpayer finds it difficult enough to provide for him or herself. Cuomo doesn’t care whether the public agrees with him or not, and, apparently, he doesn't care what the public thinks of him. As he sees it, all power resides in him to do whatever he damn well pleases; all the worse, Governor Cuomo, thinks, for those naysayers in the New York State Government in Albany and among the public who happen to disagree with him. Cuomo is a driven man, on his own unholy crusade. The way Cuomo sees it: a person must either get onboard with the game plan; or get out of the way. That, apparently, is how Cuomo perceives the Democratic process.Recall, this is a man who pursued with single-minded obsession and passion further gun restrictions in his State, New York, that, before enactment of the New York Safe Act, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation. Cuomo knew that further draconian antigun policies would be highly unpopular. He therefore conspired to pass the New York Safe Act, quickly, in the dark of night, as an emergency measure, absent debate among New York Assemblymen and Senators; and out of earshot of the New York public. Once enacted in Albany, the radical Leftist, Andrew Cuomo, signed the Safe Act into law, in 2013, and he did so amid great fanfare. And, in doing so, he disingenuously proclaimed his desire to protect human life, albeit in some inarticulable general sense, as Cuomo’s true motive in thrusting the Safe Act on New York gun owners has little if anything to do with protecting human life and has everything to do with oppressing the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, and resident of New York. Cuomo dares not express his true motive.Law-abiding gun owners are not, after all, asking the Government to provide them protection from predators that abound in New York. They never did ask Government for such protection. In any event, Government is ill-equipped to do that; and, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Government has no obligation to ensure the life, safety, and well-being of any American, anyway, except in very narrow, and carefully circumscribed instances. Cuomo knows this, but cares not to admit it, as there is no upside in doing so.It stands to reason, then, that law-abiding gun owners simply do not wish to be deprived of the right to protect their own life with the best means available for doing so—a firearm. But Cuomo will have none of that. And, now, having been elected to a third term as Governor, he works tirelessly, obsessively, to further restrict exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The underlying goal of the New York Safe Act of 2013 is to is to strip Americans of their God-given right to keep and bear arms, even though the Constitution is clear about this, and notwithstanding that the U.S. Supreme Court, in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases placed its imprimatur. It should be obvious to anyone, be that person a legal scholar or the average man-on-the-street, that the the natural and fundamental right, as etched in the Second Amendment is clear, succinct, categorical and unambiguous. Yet some Courts, on both the State and Federal levels, regularly take issue with this. That fact isn’t lost on Justice Clarence Thomas who, in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, stated, in no uncertain terms, “[the United States Supreme] Court’s refusal to review a decision [of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit] that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. . . . There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right."Cuomo and other radical Leftists--most disturbingly, those rendering judgment on us, in their capacity as jurists--are seemingly oblivious to the categorical imperative of the Second Amendment, and are openly defiant of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Now, in his third term, Cuomo, has continually pushed for ever more draconian gun laws. In so doing, he has made clear that the the NY Safe Act isn’t a finished product and was never intended to be a finished product. It is, rather, simply, a work in progress. Governor Cuomo won’t be satisfied until the Second Amendment ceases to exist in New York and in the rest of the Nation, as well.Cuomo, along with other Left-wing radicals, in business, in Government, in academia, in the Press, and even in the Courts, is working ceaselessly, obsessively to chisel away at the notion--at the very idea--that Americans have a fundamental, natural, and unalienable right to keep and bear arms.Americans must take seriously the very real threat these powerful and ruthless elements pose to THIS, our most sacred and inviolate right.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT IN AMERICA: SOWERS OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION

The current generation now sees everything clearly, it marvels at the errors, it laughs at the folly of its ancestors, not seeing that this chronicle is all overscored by divine fire, that every letter of it cries out, that from everywhere the piercing finger is pointed at it, at this current generation; but the current generation laughs and presumptuously, proudly begins a series of new errors, at which their descendants will also laugh afterwards.” ~ Nikolai Gogol, (born March 31, 1809; died March 4, 1852); Russian Dramatist; quotation from Gogol’s seminal satire on imperial Russian venality, vulgarity, and pomp, “Dead Souls.”

PART FIVE

The radical Left in this Country acts like petulant children. Ever disdainful of our Nation’s rich cultural and historical and ethical heritage, and contemptuous of the profundity of the sacred Document upon which our Nation has been structured and upon which the foundation of our Nation securely rests, this radical Left, ascribing to the tenets of Collectivism, peevishly, presumptuously presumes it knows better than the framers how a Nation ought to be structured, and how a Nation ought to be governed. This extremist left-wing Marxist element in our Nation exhibits no restraint as it dares to tamper with the U.S. Constitution that the framers, through their blood, through their selfless sacrifice, lovingly bequeathed to their descendants—this Nation’s proud citizenry.And what is THIS extremist alien Marxist element that would upend our Nation? It is a heterogeneous horde of unrepentant Dead Souls. These Dead Souls adhere to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism embraces a set of principles completely at odds with that set of principles inherent in our Constitution—principles predicated on the philosophical concept and tenets of Individualism that the radical Left contemptuously spurns. Convinced of the absolute infallibility of its beliefs—ever prey to delusions of grandeur—the radical Left exhibits rancor toward the founders of our Nation, as it goes about unceremoniously, indiscriminately, rapaciously destroying and ravaging the monuments to our forebears.These Dead Souls operate with rabid ferocious, feverish, and all too characteristic abandon, yet with clear, cold, callous, calculated purpose, as they are fixated on erasing, annihilating, obliterating our Nation’s rich cultural history and heritage—the totality of our Nation’s ancestral memory. Screaming like maniacal banshees, they denounce those who disagree with them; outrageously daring to cripple or abrogate outright the Articles of our Constitution that constrain Government; and, at one and the same time, they attempt to obliterate the fundamental rights and liberties that ensure our citizenry’s freedoms—all the while proclaiming that this is all for the best. But all for the best for whom, exactly: for illegal aliens, who have no comprehension of our system of laws and governance, or for the sanctity of, indeed, the very conception of natural, fundamental, and unalienable rights? for convicted felons, gangbangers, and other assorted maniacs, lunatics, sociopaths, and psychopaths, who pose a constant threat to the safety and well-being of the average, law-abiding, sane American citizen? for nihilistic Anarchists, Marxists, Communists, and Socialists, whose aim is the dissolution of our independent, Sovereign, Nation State, and, indeed, who desire to destroy all Western Nations? for a handful of billionaire neoliberals and Globalists who seek to institute a new world order, consisting of one political, social, economic, financial, and cultural system of governance that they alone rule and preside over? for obdurate, headstrong, boisterous, teenagers and rowdy college kids, and for the radical instructors and administrators of our educational institutions who urge them on, often joining them in their charges mindless ecstatic escapades, intent on destruction of the very soul of our Nation? for Hollywood moguls and actors, and for technology company CEOs, who use their wealth and influence heedlessly, arrogantly and self-righteously to attack the U.S. President, in support of the radical left agenda? for the bureaucrats and their minions in Government, and for those politicians who, having a voracious, insatiable lust for for power, would dare use it to destroy the institution of the U.S. Presidency and bring, as well, dishonor, disrepute to the Government and to the American people for whom, ostensibly, they work? for those publishers, editors, reporters, and commentators of the mainstream media who, hiding behind the First Amendment Freedom of the Press, spew invective and venom, and who hurl epithets incessantly, spitefully at the President? for all those people in America who would dare launch reckless ad hominem attacks against anyone, indeed, everyone, who happens to adhere to a different set of political and philosophical beliefs—political and philosophical beliefs that, unlike their own, entail a deep, abiding respect for our Nation’s rich and unique cultural heritage and history, and who revere our Nation’s Constitution, and who venerate our Nation’s founding fathers, and who appreciate our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic, and who would rather demonstrate to the world an abiding admiration for, rather than a loathing for, our system of law and jurisprudence, and for our Bill of Rights, and for our institutions, and for our free market economic system that has brought wealth and prosperity to millions of Americans and has made our Nation the envy of the world?In our Nation, unlike any other nation, it is the American citizenry itself in whom ultimate power and authority resides. This is made pointedly and categorically clear, through the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right that inures in and to the people themselves and not in Government. But, these Collectivists see the Second Amendment, not as a godsend, but as a blemish, an imperfection. Yet, in attacking the Second Amendment—and of late, attacking the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, as well—and by attacking the President, and by tearing down monuments, and by dishonoring our Nation’s Flag, these Collectivists, these Dead Souls, discredit themselves, as Americans. But, much worse, they bring dishonor to the Nation. And they bring dishonor to the men and women who have given their lives to defend and preserve our Nation and our way of life, since the very birth of our Nation.By assailing, berating, mocking, and discrediting our Nation, our President, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, our history, our traditions, our core values—all those things that make us Americans, a unique and free people—these Left-wing extremists make jackasses of themselves in the eyes of the world, and, in so doing, would dare draw down the enmity of the world upon our Nation and all of its people. These radical elements in our Nation, these Dead Souls, hypocritically proclaim a moral need to act against the very Nation that has given them sustenance, and that continues, remarkably, to sustain them even as they flail out, rabidly against it.But, then, these Collectivists, these ghoulish apparitions, who live among us, aren’t really Americans. They have forsaken any right to call themselves Americans, to think of themselves as Americans, as they unconscionably sow disharmony and discord in our Country.Is this Nation, then, to fall to those who cast aspersions on it, from within the bowels of it? The hideous ghouls who desire to rend the entire fabric of our Nation--a Nation that has stood strong, unconquered, unyielding against external foes, since its birth--ought deal harshly with these contemptible malcontents. They who hate our Nation and its people and its Constitution must be cast out from our Nation. Perhaps, the EU, whom these ghouls admire so, will take them in. It is evident they wish to see our Nation folded into a new trans-world system of governance, where orders and edicts emanate from Brussels.Yet, these Dead Souls will suffer no one to tell them they are wrong and have been wrong all along, dead wrong. Their agenda serves only to wreak havoc across our Nation. Were they to succeed, they would bring nothing but ruin, desolation, and horror to this Nation and to its people; but they don't care. In their blind rage, it is sadly evident that these Dead Souls want to accomplish just that: to destroy the Nation outright. The fruits of their design are plentiful. We see their grand design today in their attempt to erase our history; in their attempt to weaken our fundamental rights and liberties; in their desire to redistribute the Nation’s bounty in accordance with the tenets of Marxism; in their dishonor of our Nation’s flag and in their antipathy toward other National emblems and monuments. And we see their insidious design in their stated desire to rewrite the United States Constitution—the foundation and framework of our free Republic.These ghouls demonstrate, plainly, in their every word and deed, that they disdain the very notion of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation. Recall Obama, one of their smooth-talking stooges. Ever the apologist, ever emulating the EU, Obama used the Office of the Presidency to bind this Nation to the EU. President Trump, though, has worked ardently, stoically, on behalf of the American people, to reverse course; to reverse the Marxist agenda set by the previous President.Is it any wonder, then, why the Democratic “Socialists”—these Dead Souls—seek to regain the reins of all three Branches of Government. They wish to reset policy in accordance with the Obama/Clinton agenda?These Dead Souls continue, incessantly, obstinately, spinning their wheels attacking the President. They are apoplectic that Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.But, perhaps these constant, insatiable, virulent attacks on the President may have a silver lining. The Dead Souls in Congress won’t succeed. The Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, couldn’t take down the President, and they won’t succeed to do so either. But, their buffoonish, imbecilic attempt does keep them preoccupied. Just, imagine, for a moment, the damaging legislation they would produce if they directed attention to their salient Article 1 pursuit, instead?______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE RADICAL LEFT AGENDA’S FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: DISARM THE PUBLIC

PART FOUR

THE PURVEYORS OF COLLECTIVE GUILT: ANDREW CUOMO AND ERIC SWALWELL

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty. . . . and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.” ~ From the essay, “Of Crimes and Punishments,” by Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, Marquis of Gualdrasco and Villareggio (born March 15, 1738 – died November 28, 1794); Italian criminologist, jurist, philosopher, and politician; widely considered as the most talented jurist and one of the greatest thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. What the jurist, Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, pointed out most eloquently in the Eighteenth Century, concerning the disarming of the civilian population, is no less true today. Yet, radical Left politicians, in the Twenty-first Century are spouting the same inane remarks about firearms’ ownership that antigun politicians evidently spouted in the Eighteenth Century, which, then, would account for Beccaria’s essay, and, tacitly, for Beccaria’s scathing rebuke of them. And, what are those absurd remarks that antigun politicians, and antigun advocates, and zealots crow endlessly, mindlessly about? It all boils down to this:In order to enhance public safety, it is necessary to confiscate firearms. This is done for your [the public’s] own good. Gun violence will be curtailed, once confiscation of guns has been accomplished. Fewer guns means less crime. And, if you do not surrender your firearms, we will make an example of you—all for the public good, of course!Antigun politicians evidently recited  words to that effect in Eighteenth Century Europe, just as they do today—thus, Beccaria’s strong rebuke. But, whether any of the antigun politicians and antigun zealots of the Eighteenth Century, as with their counterparts today, truly believed in their own imbecilic remarks, that is debatable. But, what isn’t debatable, today at least, is that antigun politicians intend to harass law-abiding gun owners to the point that most of us—as these antigun politicians and zealots undoubtedly hope—will relent, and surrender, albeit reluctantly, our firearms to Government authorities.Of course the criminal element, ever disdainful of laws--then, in the Eighteenth Century, as Beccaria points out, and in any other period of history, up to the present time--will continue merrily along to obtain their firearms with relative ease. Law breakers such as criminals and lunatics and other assorted flotsam and jetsam in America, today, obtain all or virtually all the firearms they utilize to commit acts of violence, through unlawful means: namely, on the black market, or through theft, or through deceit. Should that come as a surprise to anyone? And there will, of course, be no concomitant decrease in gun violence in the U.S. through mass confiscation of firearms from the law-abiding citizenry. But, then, gun confiscation to reduce crime isn’t really the radical Left’s reason to confiscate firearms from the civilian population of this Country, anyway. It never was. That is mere pretext. It plays well in the Press. The goal of the radical Left here is, and always has been, population control, not gun control. it is the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners that is of paramount concern to the radical Left in this Country, and not the criminal element, the gang-banger, or the lunatic. A bloated overbearing, overarching power hungry Government and an armed, wary citizenry would make for strange bedfellows, indeed. Is it any wonder, then, that the radical Left's gun policies are directed predominately to the eradication of gun ownership and possession existent among the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, and that less attention is directed to and less time is devoted to the criminal element and lunatic that present laws dictate should never possess firearms? Why aren't the myriad number of Federal and State gun laws and the myriad municipal gun codes, regulations, and ordinances already on the books, not adequately enforced? Does the radical Left truly believe that denying the average, law-abiding citizen his fundamental right to keep and bear arms obviate misuse of firearms by those who are not permitted to have firearms in the first place? Not Likely. It is the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens whom the radical Left is determined to rein in, as the noose tightens over every other elemental natural right, as well; and, inversely, Governmental control over all thought and action grows and at an accelerated pace.A perfect case study of this point, and ongoing at this very moment, is the situation presently playing out in Venezuela, under the Madura Socialist Dictatorship. A reporter for the Washington Examiner, Claude Thompson, poignantly pointed out, on April 30, 2019:"Videos emerging from Venezuela Tuesday show anti-Nicolás Maduro protesters being reportedly shot at and run over by military members while civilians are unable to use conventional weapons to defend themselves following a private gun ownership ban in 2012.Videos circulating on social media show an unidentified helicopter reportedly shooting at protesters and armored military vehicles running over groups of citizens protesting the continuing reign of Maduro, who refuses to yield control of the country to Juan Guaidó, who multiple countries, including the United States, recognize as the legitimate president of the country."Are the scenes coming out of Venezuela, in recent days, a foreshadowing of what we can expect with the installation of a Socialist Dictatorship in our Country? That can very well happen if the Collectivists in our Nation come to power. They will begin the dismantling of our Free Republic by instituting a massive gun confiscation program. That will be the radical Left's first order of business.We know that the radical Left--these followers of  the tenets of Collectivism--disdain the very idea of fundamental rights, as natural rights, preexistent in the individual—rights bestowed on each American citizen by Divine Grace rather than by grace of Government.After all, the very existence of an armed citizenry galls the radical Left—the Collectivists—who are intent on creating an omnipotent, omnipresent central Government, a Government that isn’t answerable to its citizenry. The founders of our Nation would be appalled. But, then, the Collectivists don’t give a damn about what the founders thought, or would think, about the Collectivist agenda.The Collectivists envision a new world order, where sovereign, independent Western Nation States, including the United States, will cease to exist. The Collectivists envision  the erection of a new political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; one where edicts emanate from the European Union’s Executive arm, the European Commission, whose headquarters is in Brussels, the Capital region of Belgium.Recall the Globalist President Barack Obama’s address to the European Union, delivered in Hannover Germany, on April 25, 2018. In pertinent part Obama said,“And this is what I want to talk to you about today—the future that we are building together—not separately, but together. And that starts right here in Europe.” Was Obama’s remark mere pleasantry, or was it something more; a portentous foreshadowing of something sinister; something ominous in store for Americans: heralding the dismantling of our institutions, the destruction of our Free Republic, the loss of sovereignty; the subordination of the United States to a foreign power; the subjugation of a free people, the abrogation of our Constitution; the rescission of our Nation’s fundamental, unalienable, sacred and inviolate rights and liberties?But whether these Collectivists know it or not, their vision will lead to Armageddon. Our citizenry will not bow easily to subjugation. They did not do so in the 1700s, as the British Empire learned well. And they will not do so now. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision on Americans by force of arms, they will be met with force of arms. If the Collectivists seek to thrust their vision of America on the citizenry through subterfuge, they should know that Americans are not easily duped and the Collectivists' efforts will be severely repulsed.It is absolutely galling to hear people like Governor Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell, sanctimoniously bellowing, by turns both belligerent and flippant, for ever more restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. Indeed, Cuomo and Swalwell, like other radical Leftists in our midst, are no longer maintaining the pretense that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is worth securing at all.While some remarks still invoke the notion that fewer guns means less crime—regardless of the fact that it is not the number of guns in circulation but whom it is that has access to them that is the salient factor —antigun politicians, such as Cuomo and Swalwell, no longer really pretend that gun confiscation will translate into less crime. It is, rather, the tacit implication of their message—namely that guns signify something bad in and of themselves and, so, no one, aside from the police and military should have access to them—that is the real message blared out, behind the banter of gun violence, that they seek to convey to the public.So it is that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other radical Leftists—using the pretext of gun violence, perpetrated by the occasional maniac, lunatic, criminal, and gang-banger—denigrate tens of millions of average, rational, law-abiding American gun owners who do continue to cherish their sacred right to keep and bear arms and who do not take lightly nor kindly to the attack on both them and on their responsibly owned and possessed firearms.It has become patently clear that Cuomo and Swalwell place the law-abiding gun owner in the same camp as psychopathic criminals and the maniacs who happen to use firearms to commit violence. Cuomo and Swalwell dare impose collective guilt on all gun owners despite the fact that it is only a few—the lowest common denominator in society—that is responsible for gun violence. That becomes evident through both the words they utter and through the policies they endorse, which they seek to translate into law.Cuomo and Swalwell remain unperturbed at the outlandishness of their remarks and of their policy goals. They continue to castigate, taunt, and deride gun owners mercilessly—people like you and me who seek merely to exercise our God-given right—YES, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT—to keep and bear arms.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

LEFTISTS URGE AMERICANS TO BETRAY THEIR OWN GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART THREE

The Power of Emotional Rhetoric Shamelessly Exploited to Undermine the Second Amendment

People like New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA), know full well the power of rhetoric. And, as they are well versed in it, they know how to use it. They know the power of persuasion. They know how to woo some members of the public—those susceptible to their vitriolic, superficial, and specious polemics. They have mastered well the art of rhetoric and they know well the power of fallacious argumentation.Cuomo and Swalwell appeal unashamedly, unabashedly, and irresponsibly to raw emotion rather than to reason as they impose their personal abhorrence of guns onto an ill-informed public. And these sanctimonious fomenters of public guilt, don’t stop there. Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to foster a sense of collective guilt in gun owners as a class; simultaneously and deliberately rousing rage in the antigun mob against guns and gun owners. Cuomo and Swalwell strongly suggest that gun owners bear a measure of responsibility for every horrific act of gun violence that occurs. And that, too, is in vein with their vision for this Country--an enclave of Socialism. Socialism, as conceived today, embraces a broad  economic, social, political, and cultural belief system predicated on the tenets of Collectivism. The tenets of Collectivism do not cohere with the notion of a fundamental right of the American citizenry to keep and bear arms, independent of Government say-so. And, those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, such as Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell, do not accept the Lockean view that there exists a set of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights inherent in the people--rights that exist independent of and that therefore, in the purest sense, transcend all Governmental authority to prescribe, regulate, ignore, amend, or abrogate. One such fundamental, natural, unalienable, sacred right, intrinsic to and inviolate in each American citizen is the one codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Concomitant with their belief in the tenets of Collectivism, as a product of economic and political Socialism, Cuomo and Swalwell attempt to create, in the gun-owning public, a sense of collective guilt, for having—as Cuomo and Swalwell see it—the temerity to dare exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cuomo and Swalwell create myths surrounding guns and gun ownership. They audaciously argue that it is the gun, itself, an inanimate object, rather than the sentient miscreant--the lunatic or the criminal--who bears moral responsibility for gun violence. Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, including the Press, seek, by extension, to assign and cast moral and legal blame, too, for gun violence to those who revere the Second Amendment--namely NRA, its members, and anyone else who seeks to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Through their appeal to emotion, Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and others like them, attempt to foment societal rage against both guns and the gun-owning public. These new modern-day witch-hunting moralists, seek to burn both guns and gun owners at the stake for having dared to revere, even adore, the Bill of Rights that the framers lovingly bequeathed to the American people for the very purpose of securing, for the American people, freedom and liberty, against tyranny. But, it is tyranny that Cuomo and Swalwell want, and it is tyranny upon the American people that the American people will most certainly get, if Cuomo and Swalwell, and others like them, prove successful in foisting on the American people, a vision of the world at odds with the vision of the founders and one the founders sought to cement through the creation of a system of checks and balances in Government; and through incorporation into the Constitution--the blueprint for the new Nation they had conceived--a set of natural, fundamental, unalienable rights: codified in a document called the Bill of Rights. But, if the Collectivists' vision for this Nation takes root, Americans will see the realization of that vision decimate all that our founders created and that so many in our Nation had given their lives to preserve.  As a dense thicket of weeds overtakes and squeezes out a carefully planted and tended garden, we will see all that our founders held dear smothered and blotted out.The destroyers of our Nation--these callous, pretentious grand inquisitors, Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell--will not hesitate to impose harsh punishment on each gun owner who fails to surrender their firearms to Governmental authority. And Americans would see this if the machinery of mass confiscation of guns that Cuomo and Swalwell, and that others like them, seek, were implemented.And implementation of the Collectivists' design for a new America—a new Collectivist world order—will be set in motion if these Democratic Socialists (as they apparently prefer to call themselves) ever gain the reins of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government.

The Power of Appealing to Emotion Over Reason

The ancient Greek philosophers—whom the founders of our free Republic clearly were certainly mindful of and clearly held in great esteem, and for whom our moral philosophy derives—referred to the fallacy of appealing to emotion as “argumentum ad misericordiam.” The Greeks knew that rhetoric devoid of reason is dangerous because of its very power to persuade the unwary. We see constant use of this fallacy by unscrupulous politicians today. With a deceptive air, along with a curt smile, or grimace, these politicians deliberately mislead the public. They do this to encourage the public to accept, as good, and virtuous, and well-meaning, policy that is, in fact, pernicious; policy that is detrimental to Americans’ well-being, and to the well-being of the Nation.Those Americans who are easily moved by emotion have shown themselves to be sensitive to and amenable to the efforts of Cuomo and Swalwell to rein in this presumed plague of guns in America. Unfortunately, there are plenty of them. If Andrew Cuomo and Eric Swalwell succeed—and with their comrades in the mainstream media to assist them in their endeavor--they may yet succeed, albeit not without an ensuing bloodbath. Of that Cuomo and Swalwell, and other antigun zealots, would do well to consider.Will the Collectivists win? Will the Second Amendment teeter and, ultimately, fall? Andrew Cuomo, Eric Swalwell, and other Collectivists like them, would be ecstatic when or if that happens; and they are doing everything in their power to see that it does happen. Those who hold the Bill of Rights most dear must see to it that it doesn’t.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKES CLEAR: AMERICANS ARE NOT SUBSERVIENT TO GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE  BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS UNIQUE; NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH TRUSTS ITS CITIZENRY; THUS, NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH, BUT THE UNITED STATES, WILL DARE PLACE TRUST IN AN ARMED CITIZENRY

No other Nation on Earth accepts the notion that its citizens—in many instances today, as in times past, more in the nature of “subjects of the realm” and less true citizens—have an inherent, independent right to keep and bear arms. But, the founders of our Nation conceived Americans as individuals who have their own personal needs and desires; their own individual hopes and dreams. The founders perceived each American to be a unique individual soul. They understood that each life is ordained and governed by the Divine Creator, not by the State. And they crafted a free Republic consistent with that belief. Government exists to serve the American citizen. The American citizen does not exist to serve Government.Americans, as individuals, are not an amorphous collective, to be shepherded and controlled with an iron fist. The founders recognized that a constitution for a new nation must be carefully crafted to uphold and respect the sanctity of the individual, lest the nation devolve into tyranny—the yoke of which the founders had fought hard to throw off, and which they certainly had no wish to impose anew on the fledgling Nation they sought to erect.The principle of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the societal collective was, for the founders of a Free Republic, self-evident, true. That salient principle is reflected in and manifested in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. No other Nation on this Earth has a Bill of Rights like ours--a Bill of Rights that makes clear that the Government of this Nation is subordinate to and subservient to the will of the American people; always and forever. In the event those who wield power in Government happen to think otherwise, or happen to forget this salient fact, the Second Amendment exists as an ever-present reminder to Government officials and legislators of that salient fact. This is the salient reason why the Radical Left is intent on destroying the Second Amendment, although failing to omit this important fact or otherwise dismissing it out-of-hand if anyone happens to bring the matter up; but that is the Radical Left's true fear; that is the Radical Left's ever-present concern: that an armed citizenry can bring their House of Cards down  and would do so if the Radical Left were ever to move this Country toward Dictatorial rule.So it is, that politicians such as New York's Governor Andrew Cuomo, and Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA)--and other politicians or Government bureaucrats like these two, as well as those who work for the mainstream media, or who are employed in our system of education, or those, unfortunately, who serve as judges in our State or Federal Courts--incessantly, ferociously attack the Second Amendment, acting as if seemingly oblivious to the true import and purport of the Second Amendment, but clearly all too aware of it. This explains the Radical left's single-minded obsession with it and the heavy-handed efforts to defeat it. The Radical Left uses the mantras of "public safety" and "gun violence" to make its goal of de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, deceptively, "disarmingly" plausible and palatable to the citizenry so that it acquiesces, blindly, willingly; surrendering its firearms; ceding its Birthright to the Radical Left. Thus, the total disarming of the American citizenry proceeds, without a whimper; or, so the Radical Left believes and hopes.These politicians, pundits, educators, and jurists intend, unabashedly, to upend the very integrity and structural foundation of our Nation. They do so by masking their policy objectives in the guise of promoting the public good. But, through that very argument—denigrating the Second Amendment to promote and protect the welfare of society—the deviousness and insidiousness of their objectives become readily apparent. They seek to reconfigure the Nation into a societal collective, a dictatorship of a kind; one that many on the Left euphemistically, slyly, and disingenuously, refer to as “Democratic Socialism” --an expression coined merely to mask a demonic vision that is the antithesis of anything the founders of this Nation had sought for the Nation but which the radical Left in this Country intends to thrust upon this Nation anyway. Is it any wonder, then, that this radical Left would seek to destroy our Nation's heritage and history, that it would demand the dismantling of our statues and monuments, and that it would dare reserve for itself the right to declare what constitutes acceptable speech and conduct and what does not, lest our descendants recognize the true extent of their loss, and thereupon rightfully begrudge those who had so unceremoniously stolen their birthright?In the new America the radical Left in this Country conceives, there is no place for an armed citizenry. There is no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. There is no room for individuals to speak their mind, freely and openly. Even the concept of personal property would rest on shaky ground as that concept is inconsistent with the precepts of socialism.These so-called Democratic Socialists are proponents of Collectivism, not Individualism. They argue that the needs and well-being of Society as a Whole, the Collective, is more important than the needs, the desires, the will of the individual American citizen. As they are aware that the goals and aims of the Collective are often at odds with the goals and aims of the Individual, these Collectivists--these so-called Democratic Socialists--show no reluctance in constraining and restraining the needs and desires of the Individual. The founders of our free Republic would vehemently disagree with the goals, beliefs, and predilections of these Collectivists. They would, in fact, be aghast.The Bill of Rights stands as a testament to the founders’ belief in the sanctity and inviolability of the individual over that of the Collective; over that of the herd. It should come as no surprise, then, as we see these Collectivists, the Radical Left in this Country, criticizing the Bill of Rights, attempting to second-guess the framers' reason for incorporating it into the Constitution, as a salient, critical part of it.The precepts and principles of Collectivism are inconsistent with the very existence of our Bill of Rights, as a clear and categorical codification of fundamental, natural, and unalienable rights. So, the Bill of Rights is slowly being criticized, and portions, like the Second Amendment, in particular, reviled. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution is sacred to the radical Left. Every part of the Constitution is subject to criticism, change, withering, even abrogation.The Collectivists are openly critical of the very idea that certain rights--indeed, that any right--is to be, or can rationally be deemed natural, fundamental, and unalienable. For them all rights are created by and therefore bestowed on the citizenry by Government. And, what Government bestows on a person is  solely within the prerogative of Government, according to the Collectivist belief system, to take away.Thus, Collectivists relentlessly attack the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They are adamant in their refusal to accept the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists-- or is even capable of existing--independent of Government authorization.But, there is reason why Collectivists refuse to countenance the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, and immutable, quite apart from their rejection of natural law. To the Collectivist, an armed citizenry is an inherent danger to Society. As the Collectivist theorizes, a safe and secure society is one under absolute Governmental control, one under constant supervision and surveillance. So Collectivists remonstrate not only against the existence of an armed citizenry but against the right of unconstrained freedom of speech and freedom of association. And, they attack the basic idea that the American citizen has an unalienable right to be secure in their person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. Collectivists place their sole faith and trust in Government, not in the citizenry. They presume that the citizen cannot be trusted. Contrariwise, the founders placed trust in and their faith in the individual, a sentient being endowed with an immortal soul, by a Divine, Loving Creator. For the founders, it is, then, Government that should not, and cannot be trusted. Thus, the founders designed and implemented a Constitution establishing a Government of limited power, authority, and reach; incorporating into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, setting forth an expansive set of fundamental, natural, and immutable rights and liberties to be retained solely by the people, in the people themselves, beyond the power of Government to diminish or abrogate.The Collectivists in this Country are, however, humbled and respectful not at all by the singular achievement of our Nation's founders. These Collectivists are actively pursuing an agenda aimed at undoing a Constitutional Republic, grounded in a Constitution that has served the American people well for over two hundred years, and they are absolutely committed to seeing their bizarre vision for this Country come to fruition. We must make sure they don't succeed.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN CONTROL IS A MYTH: THE SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS STRONG OR NOT AT ALL

IS LOSS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT A PRICE TOO HIGH? FOR DEMOCRATS IT ISN'T. JUST ASK THEM.

PART ONE

“I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it's political. I know it's controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It's simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!” ~ Quotation from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech, delivered on January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York Safe Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that the New York gun control Act will produce the "toughest assault weapons ban in the nation." “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.” ~Quotation from Op-Ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat-California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.” Never in the history of this Nation have we, Americans, seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21^st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free Republic. The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that Government serves at the behest of the American people; not at its own pleasure for its own benefit; for its own aims.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: THE CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN LIBERTY

The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose. One, it signals, and is meant to signal, to Government, that ultimate power and authority resides in the American people, not in Government; never in Government. Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in Government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the American people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And, three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen. What does this third salient point mean? Just this: it means each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the founders of a free Republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this Country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups comprising "victims" and "those who would enslave them." It does this to play one group off against the other. It is a game the radical Left invented. It is called, “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the radical Left’s efforts?Consider: There exist individuals in the world, today, who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power; and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in our institution of education and in the massive media sector. They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance. They see the United States, a Nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there is a catch. The U.S. Constitution does not permit subordination of the United States to any other Nation, group of Nations, or interest groups. That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason; and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.These secretive, powerful, ruthless overseers that seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans will not, cannot abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment. They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and to rule with an iron fist.The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly and vociferously to the public. The arguments are delivered through both a compliant Press and through accommodating politicians. That is how propaganda works; and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans. But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. The overseers of a new transnational system of governance have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers. And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC, 331 Conn. 53, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019), overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that Party Plaintiffs— comprising survivors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the estates of those murdered by the lunatic, Adam Lanza, can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs. That Plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the Bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment. The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails in it. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the import and purport of the Second Amendment since the  seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.Apart from use of the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, antigun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the State Legislatures, on the one hand, and in the State and Federal Courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new Chief Executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat holding the Oval Office in 2020, will most certainly continue that effort. No doubt about it.Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. In fact, at a recent CNN sponsored Town Hall event, as reported in Newsweek, Democratic Party candidate, Kamala Harris, stated, in no uncertain terms: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.”Misuse of the Office of the U.S. President by the Democratic (Socialist) Party would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment; worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020. This scourge of Democrats, and those who support them--those who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our Nation, against our Nation's unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution--must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANDREW CUOMO SEEKS TO IMPOSE NEW YORK'S RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS ON THE ENTIRE NATION

In November 2018 an elated New York Times reported that Andrew M. Cuomo had secured a third term in Office as Governor of New York. The newspaper asserted, with typical exuberance and fanfare, that:“In defeating Marcus J. Molinaro, the Dutchess County executive, Mr. Cuomo, 60, soaked up the vast majority of votes in New York City, mirroring his success in the September primary, in which he defeated Cynthia Nixon, the actress and education advocate. The race was called by The Associated Press shortly after polls had closed at 9 p.m.Addressing a crowd gathered at a Midtown hotel, Mr. Cuomo said that his victory symbolized the liberal ways of New York, which he called the ‘progressive capital’ of the nation and a fortress against the policies of Donald Trump, a New Yorker himself."Andrew Cuomo—never one to exercise humility and restraint either in words spoken or in actions taken—has shaped and molded New York into his own image, a bastion of Left-wing ideology, increasingly out-of-touch with the Nation at large, and a slap-in-the-face to the vision our founders had for the Nation. Yet, what he has wrought upon the people of New York, he would dare impose on the entire Nation.In the last few months since the election, Cuomo has become increasingly emboldened. And, why shouldn’t he be emboldened? After all, as the Democratic Party has lurched ever Leftward, openly extolling the tenets of Socialism and Communism, and exhorting the Nation to follow suit, Cuomo has made abundantly clear that his own star must continue to rise.Indeed, The New York Times suggested, in its Sunday March 10, 2019 edition, titled, “Centrist Democrats Squirm as Rivals Swerve left in Presidential Race,” that Andrew Cuomo may be one of two logical choices to wear “the moderate mantle” as Democratic Party Presidential hopeful, now that former mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has bowed out of the race, and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden presently remains undecided.Yet, if Andrew Cuomo can reasonably be considered a political moderate or centrist, it goes to show just how far off the deep end the Democratic Party has fallen. Or, perhaps, The New York Times simply seeks to create the impression that Cuomo is a stalwart, solid, and stolid political moderate or centrist, knowing that an outright Socialist such as Bernie Sanders would not likely pull-off a victory against Trump in 2020.The fact remains that Andrew Cuomo is no less a Left-wing radical than is Bernie Sanders or Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris, or Kristen Gillibrand. Andrew Cuomo is as radical in his politics and in his policy choices as they are. He is as radical as they come. Simply look at the New York policy measures that Cuomo campaigned for and that he signed into law. Consider: Cuomo was instrumental in signing into law, in February 2019, an abortion measure that literally sanctions murder. Even pro-choice Americans look askance at late term abortions, much less abortions at the moment of birth, but not Andrew Cuomo.Keep in mind that the very word, ‘abortion,’ has literally been written out of New York’s Penal Code. Given that fact, it follows from this action, both logically and legally, that abortion at any time, up to and including the moment of birth, is now in effect lawful, even if apologists for the law, insist that isn’t the case at all. It is. Since no penalty is exacted from the perpetrator of an abortion, effectively, then, no crime exists upon which the perpetrator of the act can be indicted. This New York law that Cuomo gloats over is hardly representative of a political moderate or political centrist.But if you were to ask him, Andrew Cuomo would likely tell you that he is a political moderate. He would tell you, consistent with his belief—or, if not, then, consistent, at least, with his claim, hoping you would believe him—that his political views and policy objectives are clearly within the mainstream of the Country even if they really aren’t. And, of course, they aren’t. New York’s abortion law is a prime example. Take another: Cuomo’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.In 2018, during his campaign for a third term as Governor of New York, Cuomo, made clear that the New York Safe Act—what he and others would claim as his true signature achievement—was not the endgame; not by a longshot. It is but a mere skirmish in Cuomo’s ongoing campaign to weaken the Second Amendment, and eventually to obliterate it. He would if he could do so in New York, and he would relish doing the same well beyond the borders of New York, namely, throughout the Nation.The weblog, Spectrum Local News reported that, during his campaign for a third term in Office, “Cuomo has not just defended his staunch support for gun control, he’s pledging to expand the existing law.” If anyone were to think this was an empty campaign pledge, think again. It wasn’t. Cuomo was deadly serious. In January of 2019, as reported by Hudson Valley 360, Cuomo, “announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,” and he further chortled, “‘New York already has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, and we are taking additional steps to make our laws even stronger and keep our communities, and our schools, safe. Together, we will pass this common sense legislation and send a clear message to Washington that gun violence has no place in our state or nation.’”To some, this may be viewed as a hopeful promise. But, to the vast majority of the Nation's citizenry this is a singular, dire threat that must be taken seriously and fought ferociously against.Now that Democrats control both the New York Assembly and the New York State Senate, Governor Cuomo is able to make good on that frightful promise. But, one may well ask: why would Cuomo do so; why would he think it necessary to do so? What would that really accomplish other than making it increasingly onerous, if not impossible, for the average law-abiding New York resident and citizen of the United States to exercise his or her fundamental right, under the Second Amendment? But, then, is not that really the point? Is not that really Cuomo’s ultimate objective: the dissolution of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? And, Is not that a primary goal of all radical Leftists?Of course no one can, with a straight face, argue that New York’s present gun laws are lenient, relaxed, or sensible. New York's gun laws--especially those in New York City, and in a couple of New York's Counties--are anything but lenient and relaxed; And those gun laws are anything but ‘sensible’—to use a common appellation of antigun zealots, in reference to their constant call for ever more “sensible gun control” measures. No! New York has long had the most restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws in the Nation. Antigun groups revel in that fact. Apparently, Cuomo and others of his ilk do not think that New York’s restrictive gun laws are oppressive and repressive enough. They look forward to building upon the NY Safe Act, devising ever further ways in which to confound, antagonize, and demoralize law-abiding citizens who wish merely to be left alone; free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed to the Nation's citizenry in the Nation's Bill of Rights.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS A TRAVESTY.

Recall that, in 2013, Cuomo machinated behind closed doors, to instigate enactment of the reprehensible New York Safe Act, which otherwise certainly would not have been enacted. For the NY Safe Act could not have been enacted—likely would not have been enacted—if it had seen the light of day. The Act should have been debated in open session by all Legislators, Republican and Democrat, and the public should have been able to review it and comment on it. After all, isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work? But, what we see in the New York Safe Act is reprehensible. It is inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment and inconsistent with the very idea of the sanctity and autonomy of the individual American citizen. Cuomo and those who detest the Second Amendment knew that the NY Safe Act could not, likely, survive legislative and public scrutiny. Subterfuge was necessary for NY Safe to be enacted.But, subterfuge is not the way to enact law. That is not how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to operate. But, that is how the Governor of New York operates and that is how his henchmen in Albany operate. And, to add insult to injury, the Governor and his henchmen in Albany rejoice in their ability to circumvent the law, to attain the aims they wish to attain, the public be damned. To this day the Governor and his comrades in Albany boast of their ability to operate within the periphery of the legislative process to get done those things they want to get done. And, the mainstream media, the echo chamber of these radical Leftist elements, gloats along with them.The New York Times gleefully writes: “The governor successfully corralled recalcitrant Senate Republicans into supporting the so-called Safe Act that expanded the state’s ban on assault weapons, tightened certification requirements, increased criminal penalties for illegal guns and closed private sale loopholes.”  And, so, the NY Safe Act, 2013 Bill Text NY S.B. 2230,was spawned; enacted in Albany, as an “emergency measure,” and signed into law by Cuomo, during his second term as New York Governor, on January 15, 2013.With passage of the New York Safe Act in 2013, New York’s already restrictive gun laws became more restrictive as more and more firearms were classified as illegal ‘assault weapons.’ The Safe Act also imposed new restrictions on ammunition magazine capacity. But that’s not all. The Safe Act did not limit its reach to restrictions to firearms and ammunition.The Act imposed ominous disclosure requirements on health care professionals, impinging uncomfortably on the privilege of confidentiality existent between medical doctor and patient. The Safe Act even imposed new obligations on the Courts, taking judicial discretion away from the Courts on matters involving revocation and suspension of firearms’ licenses and rifle and shotgun permits. And, new, stringent penalties were imposed on law-abiding gun owners who failed to comply with the convoluted new antigun laws, permeating through the Consolidated Laws of New York.Cuomo and the antigun crowd in Albany are fully enamored with themselves. And, with each success, in robbing Americans of their birthright, they consider yet other and more devious ways to divest the public of their sacred right to keep and bear arms, as they escalate their war on the Second Amendment. With Democrats now holding majorities in the New York Assembly and in the State Senate, the State’s antigun Legislators have unleashed a flurry of antigun measures in the first month of 2019:As reported by The Evening Sun newspaper, on January 29, 2019,“The Democrat-controlled New York Legislature is set Tuesday to pass several bills aimed at making the state’s already tough gun laws even stricter. At least eight measures are expected to pass the Assembly and Senate, including legislation to prohibit schools from allowing teachers and other school employees to carry guns in schools.” While Cuomo muscles through his antigun legislation in Albany, he suffers not any attempt by Republican Legislators to enact legislation that might throw a wrench into his policy objectives; he suffers not any attempt by those in Albany who seek to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2017 the liberal weblog, Politico, reported that State Representative Chris Collins, a Republican from Buffalo, New York, attempted to do just that. He introduced legislation to curtail Cuomo’s Safe Act in its entirety. Governor Cuomo was petulant, stating:“‘If they try to overrule the state of New York, we will sue, because the state has rights, too,’ Cuomo said. ‘And especially with this federal government, it’s very important that the states represent their rights and assert their rights. And I will assert my right to the fullest extent of the law, because I am diametrically opposed and the people of my state are diametrically opposed to much of what this federal government is trying to do.’” Undeterred, Representative Collins fired back,“‘The 10th Amendment respects state’s rights until they violate another amendment,’ Collins said at a press conference, flanked by several state legislators. ‘We’re not going to let them stomp on our right to the Second Amendment.’”State Representative Collins is right. He might also have reminded the Governor that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The U.S. Supreme Court made that point abundantly clear in the seminal Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And, in the subsequent McDonald case, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), the high Court held that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment, applies to the States too. That means the Second Amendment applies to New York. Cuomo apparently doesn’t think so, or would rather that it did not because, if Cuomo is aware of that the Second Amendment applies to New York, he couldn’t care less. He will not allow a fundamental right of the people get in the way of his policy objectives.

COULD A TENTH AMENDMENT LEGAL GAMBIT WORK TO SECURE THE NY SAFE ACT AGAINST A SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO REPEAL THE ACT LEGISLATIVELY?

Cuomo’s threat to kill an attempt to waylay the New York Safe Act via a Tenth Amendment challenge could not succeed were Representative Collins successful in repealing the New York Safe Act. Perhaps, Cuomo knows this. But, apart from Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment challenge, it was Collin’s remarks, alone, that Cuomo took particular exception to. Cuomo didn’t like what he heard. Cuomo could not stomach what he perceived to be Collins’ audacious assault on the Governor’s signature gun policy achievement. And, Cuomo didn’t like the tacit idea expressed in Representative Collins’ remarks, namely, that a cause supportive of the Second Amendment might be seen by the public as a noble effort.Cuomo finds most disconcerting that he cannot obliterate the Second Amendment at once, but must do so incrementally. Yet, Republican Legislators and Second Amendment groups are, as well, left, at best, to attempt to defeat an oppressive, unconstitutional Act through piecemeal efforts, tinkering around the Act’s edges to weaken a swollen monstrosity, even as Cuomo and fellow antigun zealots seek to add to an already bloated set of repressive anti-Second Amendment measures that, together, constitute, the New York Safe Act.To date, Republican actions have yielded little positive result, as the bulk of the NY Safe Act remains untouched, seemingly impervious to assault. And Cuomo, for his part, with Democratic Party majorities in both the Assembly and in the State Senate, are better situated to enact further oppressive and repressive antigun laws.But, contrary to Cuomo’s assertions, States cannot justifiably claim a general right under the Tenth Amendment to strip the fundamental right existent in each individual citizen, as codified in the Second Amendment. State Representative Collins correctly and unambiguously points out, a Tenth Amendment States’ rights claim does not trump the Second Amendment right existent in each American citizen. Collins is absolutely correct on that score.  Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not simply refer to States’ rights. It also refers to rights held by the people. The Tenth Amendment sets forth: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Like all too many politicians, Andrew Cuomo demonstrates a proclivity toward duplicity and incongruity, along with a barely concealed tendency to exact revenge, through the power of his Office, against those he perceives have offended him. And, so it is that Cuomo dares to threaten a lawsuit against State Legislators who would take action to repeal a State law that Cuomo happens to champion.In threatening a Tenth Amendment States’ rights challenge against State Representative Collins and anyone else who would dare repeal the New York Safe Act, Cuomo is also relying on, albeit tacitly, the doctrine of federalism that demarcates power between the Federal Government and the States. But does the doctrine of federalism apply here? No, it doesn’t. Federalism doesn’t apply because Representative Collins isn’t operating at the behest of the Federal Government in challenging the Constitutionality of the New York Safe Act. He is acting as a State Legislator, on behalf of those American citizens who happen to be New York residents, and he is representing the interests of the residents of the City of Buffalo, who elected him to represent their interests.So, in challenging the constitutionality of NY Safe, Representative Collins is operating within the confines of the State to protect citizens who reside in New York, in order to protect their Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Andrew Cuomo’s Tenth Amendment threat directed against New York Representative Collins is both wrong and wrongheaded.The States’ rights aspect of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply here since, one, the Tenth Amendment protects the right of the people too, not merely rights of the States, and, two, because States’ rights do not, in any event, supersede the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. And, the doctrine of federalism isn’t applicable here, either, because NY Safe does not apply to the Nation at large. It applies only to the residents of New York, and it as an unconstitutional Governmental action against the residents of New York, alone, whom the Act targets, and it is interests of New York residents that that Representative Collins’ has sought, then, to protect and vindicate.Governor Cuomo, for his part, though, doesn’t bother to consider all the negative ramifications of the Tenth Amendment that work against him and he doesn’t consider the negative ramifications of the doctrine of Federalism when it comes to expanding NY Safe to the entire Nation. Cuomo has been quite vocal and blunt on this. The State of Politics weblog, points to Cuomo’s position on this:“The rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the SAFE Act gun control measure approved in 2013 in New York.” “In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, New York did more than send our thoughts and prayers,” Cuomo said in a statement. “‘We stepped up to pass the strongest gun safety legislation in the nation. The SAFE Act didn’t affect sportsmen, hunters or legal gun owners—but it reduced the risk to our children, to our families and to our communities. It banned assault weapons like AR-15s and kept guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people. It’s far past time that the rest of the nation follows suit.’Cuomo has previously urged Democrats in Congress to take a more truculent stance on the issue of gun control.” So, even as Andrew Cuomo dares threaten a States’ rights Tenth Amendment challenge against Representative Chris Collins, Andrew Cuomo seems curiously blasé about a true States’ rights challenge that any other State could raise against Congress were Congress to attempt to impose the New York Safe Act on every other State, which is precisely what Congress and Cuomo would like to do. Cuomo is hardly the States’ right advocate he pretends to be when it is his intention to impose New York law, especially, the New York Safe Act, on everyone else.

ANDREW CUOMO "PROJECTS" HIS PERSONAL FAILINGS ONTO OTHERS.

The psychological defense mechanism of projection comes into play when one looks to the Governor Cuomo’s chicanery and antics. Cuomo constantly projects his own moral deficiencies onto those whom he happens to disagree with.The weblog, “The Rant” reports that,“Cuomo has used the gun control issue to knock Republicans.‘They have a different world view of America. They are systemically trying to impose their world view on this country,’ said Cuomo.”

WHO IS IMPOSING WHAT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Cuomo is wrong about Republicans. Republicans aren’t trying to impose a world view of America at all. Republicans—many of them at least—simply seek to adhere to the vision of America as conceived by the founders of our Republic, as set down in the blueprint of our Nation, our Constitution. It is Cuomo and other extremists in the Democratic Party, both in Congress, and in States such as New York, who are hellbent on imposing their world view on the rest of us, in contradistinction to the dictates of the United States Constitution. What they seek is a world view at loggerheads with the will of the majority of the Nation’s citizenry and one singularly at odds with the traditions of our forebears.The recent antigun legislation coming out of the Democratic Party controlled House is a prime example of the Democrats’ rancor toward our Nation’s history, our Nation’s traditions, and our Nation’s core values. Consider the outrageous: For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1. A perusal of the Act, aptly illustrates just how out-of-touch the Democratic Party is with the American citizenry. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, stated that the For the People Act of 2019, 116 H.R. 1, is dead on arrival in the Senate, as is the House antigun, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, H.R. 8.But the Democratic Party controlled House isn’t done. The public can expect to see a plethora of unconstitutional laws oozing out of Congress in the months ahead, along with unconstitutional laws emanating from Democratic Party controlled State Governments, such as New York. The U.S. Senate will likely kill all or most Congressional bills coming out of the House. And, those that do make it out of Congress will surely see a Trump veto. But, for State Legislatures that hold Democratic Party majorities, and where the Governor of the State is also a Democrat—as is the case in New York—the people of those States will continue to suffer the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

WILL THE BILL OF RIGHTS TRULY CONTINUE TO EXIST, AND WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TRULY TO EXIST AS THE NATION’S FOUNDERS ENVISIONED IT, AS A FREE REPUBLIC, OR WILL THE NATION EXIST MERELY WITH THE TRAPPINGS OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND WITH MERELY THE TRAPPINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXISTENT IN THE PEOPLE?

As the Late Eighteenth-Early Nineteenth Century French Philosopher and Diplomat, Joseph de Maistre, said, “Every Nation Gets the Government, It deserves.”  This means the people of a Nation ultimately decide on the form of their Government, and must accept the result of a bad choice.The founders of our Nation carefully considered various models for Government. They created a Constitutional Republic. They realized that Government is best that serves the people, and not the other way around. They fought to overthrow an oppressor,George III of Great Britain.They were successful. But, in creating a new Nation, they did not wish to substitute one oppressor for yet another. So, they established a federal Government with limited, circumscribed powers; and they incorporated into the Constitution, a Bill of Rights, codifying fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties upon which Government cannot, must not tread. The Bill of Rights makes clear that ultimate authority rests with the people, not Government. Thus, was the framework for a new Nation established.But, there are ruthless, inordinately wealthy, very well-organized, and extremely powerful forces at work today, both here and abroad, that look on our Nation and its people with jealous eyes. They seek to destroy the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ that the President, Donald Trump was elected, by the people, to preserve, and which he has worked tirelessly to preserve even as there are those hell-bent to destroy both him and his Administration.What we see occurring in the EU can unfold here in the U.S. There are powerful ruthless forces at work that seek to insert the U.S. eventually into a unified trans-world government. They realize that the United States, with the most powerful military apparatus in the world and with its mighty economic clout, must submit to this new trans-world government, if they are to succeed in their effort to consolidate power in a one world Government. They cannot succeed unless they bring the U.S. into its fold. These ruthless forces have control over our Press that actively misleads the people, distorting the news, creating false narratives, and they have their flunkies in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy.The American people are becoming indoctrinated; are becoming predisposed to elect the kinds of people in both Congress and in State Government, who seek nothing less than the dismantling of our Constitutional Republic; who see our Constitution, with its predominant Bill of Rights, as a relic of a bygone age; and they seek to radically alter our Constitution, and, in so doing, radically alter the foundation of a free Republic.We see this through blatant efforts to rewrite the Constitution; attempts to weaken the unalienable right of free Speech as codified in the First Amendment; attempts to obliterate the unalienable right of the people to keep in bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment; attempts to weaken the unalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as codified in the Fourth Amendment; and attempts to defeat the very concept of ‘private property,’ as embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.We see attempts by these new representatives in Congress, and in the States, as echoed by a compliant Press, to admit into the ranks of the citizenry, millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of a Constitutional Republic, who cannot assimilate, and who are not meant to assimilate. They are people who mystifyingly claim a right to reside in our Nation in defiance of our laws. These are people who seek Government largess in return for their vote and the radical Left that has infiltrated the Democratic Party is ever willing to give them tokens in return for their unswerving loyalty.We see attempts to do away with the electoral college as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. And, we see attempts to rewrite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, of the Constitution, with an aim to increase the number of representatives in left leaning States. Were these efforts to come to fruition, the Constitutional Republic as conceived by the founders of our Nation, would cease to exist. Yet, the public is led to believe that all this is for their own benefit; that it is all for their own good; that it is for the well-being of society as a whole; that it is for the welfare of the collective, even as it comes to the detriment of the individual.But, a Government created to serve the people would mushroom into the overseer of the people. And this would be explained to the people as a good thing. The world is complex, they say. The people need guidance. Government must not be constrained. The Government can provide the best care for the people. People must simply be willing to give up a few of their rights and liberties—no big thing!Is there a price high enough that a person would willingly sell their soul? Some would do so. More and more members of the public are becoming hoodwinked.Until the electorate in our Nation comes to its senses, expect to see individuals like Andrew Cuomo and many others contorting this Nation into their vision of a proper world; proper for Cuomo and other radical Leftists, perhaps, but a living Hell for most everyone else: a Hell world as conceived in the radical Left’s own tortured, warped souls, and in their own feverish minds; a world they would force everyone else to live in.It is too late for Andrew Cuomo, and for people like him: people like Eric Swalwell and Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders; and for people like Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden. And it is much too late for such arrogant, hateful, spiteful, surly creatures like Senator Krysten Sinema, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and for radical Muslim hatemongers such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.It is, not, however, too late for the rest of us, but it soon will be as we are rapidly approaching the Eleventh Hour. If we do not act to vote these aforesaid individuals, and many like them, out of Office, and if we fail to support U.S. President Trump, we will indeed acquire the Government we deserve—tyranny and servitude.  ______________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

U.S SUPREME COURT TO HEAR NEW YORK GUN CASE; MAINSTREAM MEDIA VISIBLY WORRIED

“FREE” PRESS FLAILS WILDLY AS HIGH COURT TAKES UP RESTRICTIVE GUN MEASURE.

Much to the consternation of antigun proponents the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a Second Amendment case. On Tuesday the high Court granted the petition in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280). This marks the first time the high Court has granted a petition in a straightforward Second Amendment case since handing down its rulings in the seminal cases, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The central issue, as presented on The Supreme Court’s weblog, is “whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.” The City’s restriction is not only inconsistent with the high Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, it is patently ludicrous. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should have struck down the measure. Instead, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower U.S. District Court’s decision, finding for the City, ignoring the Heller and McDonald case rulings and legal standards for review of Second Amendment cases. In finding for the City, against Plaintiffs, the Second Circuit, as with several other Circuit, fell back on the age-old disturbingly familiar and empty shibboleth: “public safety concerns” in ruling for the City against Petitioners. This "interest balancing" approach is precisely what the Court's Majority in Heller and McDonald, frowned upon and cautioned against. Clearly, several members of the U.S. Supreme Court were not impressed with the Second Circuit ruling, and granted Petitioners' writ of certiorari to review the Second Circuit decision. At long last, the high Court has accepted the challenge of those lower Federal Circuit Courts that have openly defied United States Supreme Court precedent.In requesting the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the writ for certiorari, Petitioners made a compelling case, stating in pertinent part:“New York City flatly prohibits its residents from removing their lawfully purchased and duly registered handguns from the city limits, even to transport them (unloaded, and locked up) to second homes at which they are constitutionally entitled to possess them, or to out-of-city shooting ranges or competitions at which they are constitutionally entitled to hone their safe and effective use. That prohibition does not even make sense on its own terms. It has the perverse consequences of forcing New Yorkers to leave their handguns behind in their vacant residences whenever they leave the city for an extended period of time. And far from achieving the City’s professed interest in decreasing the amount of time that its residents spend transporting their locked and unloaded firearms to and from shooting ranges (an activity that the City made no serious effort to demonstrate poses any meaningful safety risk), the ban actually forces New Yorkers to spend more time traveling to the paucity of inconvenient in-city shooting ranges. Indeed, the only plausible theory under which the City’s novel transport ban could be understood to further its professed public safety interest in decreasing the transport of unloaded, locked-up firearms is if the ban discourages people from transporting their handguns to shooting ranges at all. But it would be utterly irrational for the City to enact a restriction for the express purpose of making it harder for individuals to gain proficiency in the use of the handguns that the Constitution entitles them to possess. More to the point, a restriction that is expressly designed to make it harder to exercise core Second Amendment rights cannot  plausibly withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny. Courts would not countenance for one moment a prohibition on leaving city limits to get an abortion—and certainly not if there were only seven locations in a city of 8.5 million people at which to obtain one. A prohibition on leaving city limits to exercise core Second Amendment rights should fare no better.”Respondent, New York City, was furious the high Court would dare second guess the Constitutionality of the City’s firearms’ measures. The Supreme Court never did so before, and the City didn’t want the Court to do so now. It didn’t take long for antigun proponents’ echo chamber, the mainstream media, to offer its own concerns; issue its rebuke of the high Court; and present, to the public, its dire prognostications.The New York Times, quoting one antigun activist, Michael Waldman, reported:“This is the first case but not the last case where at least four justices open the way to a major ruling that could limit gun safety laws.”And, in that same NY Times article, the New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio chimed in, as well, essentially chastising the high Court's for its seeming presumptuousness in daring even to consider that perhaps--just maybe--the New York City's gun regulations do not meet Constitutional muster.“Mayor Bill de Blasio, responding to a reporter’s question about the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, said at a news conference on Tuesday that the city would vigorously defend its law.“We, every single day, are working to make this the safest big city in America,” he said. “We need the laws that we have that protect against guns being on our streets and we will fight to protect ourselves, that’s the bottom line.”Bill de Blasio offers mere claptrap. The New York City regulation bars the average, law-abiding and rational U.S. citizen from transporting their firearms--in a case, ammunition separated from firearm--to a firing range in another locality. Bill de Blasio has the audacity to characterize this with misuse of guns by that of the common criminal. And, who is it that Bill de Blasio thinks he is protecting residents of New York from? When considered beyond the ludicrous rhetoric, Bill de Blasio is describing nothing more than a bizarre belief that the New York City gun transport regulations protect average, law-abiding New York City residents and citizens of the United States from other average law-abiding, rational New York City residents and American citizens--those citizens who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms, as etched in stone in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The absurdity of the Mayor's remarks and, hence, the absurdity of New York City's gun transport regulations, is plain, painfully so.In that article, The New York Times also cites a Constitutional law professor, Adam Winkler who, as with Mayor Bill de Blasio, clearly shows his animus to and strong aversion against, the Second Amendment. The NY times closed the article with Winkler’s sarcastic comment: “The Second Amendment is alive and well in the Roberts court.”Reading comments from antigun zealots, one might think a negative ruling by the high Court would cause mass gun play on the streets of the City. Antigun zealots avoid drawing a bright line distinction between criminal access to and misuse of firearms, on the one hand, and the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by law-abiding citizens, on the other. This is borne out by the proliferation of antigun laws in this Country and the speciousness of the arguments made in support of them.USA Today, quoting from Respondent City’s Brief, notes:“Unlike golf clubs and musical instruments, firearms present public safety risks that the city has a legitimate interest in protecting against. . . . ‘Limiting their possession and use in public minimizes the risk of gun violence.’”Now really! Bringing up “golf clubs” and “musical instruments”? What does a driving iron or a saxophone or bassoon have to do with the best recognized means of self-defense, a firearm? The incongruity of the comparison is glaring. Further, the descriptor, ‘public safety,’ through overuse, is mere cliché. It has lost all import. The phrase continues more as rhetorical flourish, than as part and parcel of considerate, well-thought through articulate political opinion and journalistic commentary as presented to the public; and it exists as unsound argument, when appearing in legal Briefs presented to the Courts. Over reliance on the phrase, 'public safety,' in public statements, political commentary, and in legal argument defends the most flagrant abuse of Governmental authority, and does a disservice to the citizenry of this Country who honor our sacred Second Amendment. Those who rely essentially or solely on “public safety concerns” to make the case for restrictive gun measures demonstrate intellectual laziness. It is mere makeweight, in the absence of explication and rigorous argument. Reliance on it to support draconian gun measures is intended to appeal less to one's reason and more to one's passions. The goal of most restrictive gun legislation is to separate law-abiding citizens from their firearms. Restrictive gun measures, targeting millions of law-abiding gun owners, do not enhance public safety. These gun measures make the public decidedly less safe—defenseless in the face of ever more crime.Such reprehensible, irresponsible Governmental action is directed to destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But now the City and antigun proponents around the Country are worried, as they contemplate U.S. Supreme Court review of the New York City firearms’ transport measure. They know this draconian measure cannot survive high Court scrutiny. So, the media sounds the alarm with inaccurate, exaggerated reports of danger if the City's firearms' transport measure is struck down.Even the conservative, staid, Wall Street Journal report is misleading. The reporter, Jess Bravin, taking his cue from The New York Times, suggests the case will radically expand Heller and McDonald. It won’t. But, that doesn't stop the reporter from claiming that it does. Jess Bravin says:“The case, a review of New York City regulations that curtail the transportation of guns, offers the court’s newly bolstered conservative majority an opportunity to expand the constitutional right to bear arms beyond a pair of decisions that, beginning in 2008, found the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.”  These remarks are false. A reversal of the Second Circuit decision would mean only that the City's firearms’ transportation rules contradict high Court precedent, on core Second Amendment matters, and, for that reason, must be struck down. The Wall Street Journal does not, though, see it that way. To bolster the point, the Wall Street Journal, like The New York Times, quotes the same source, Adam Winkler. In that WSJ article, Winkler says, “At issue is ‘the right to have a gun in public. It’s the biggest open question in Second Amendment law today.’” These remarks, cited in the Wall Street Journal, article are false; flagrantly so; and, not so subtly, inflammatory. For, Striking down an unconstitutional firearms’ measure isn’t equivalent to expanding a Constitutional right. Rather, an unconstitutional restriction on an enumerated right, unduly impairs the fair exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. The striking down of an unconstitutional firearm's measure would do no more than operate as an expression of what the plain language of the Second Amendment says; no more and no less. Transporting a firearm, in public, in a locked case, ammunition separated from firearm, is hardly the same as carrying a firearm at the ready, anyway. So, Winkler is wrong. At issue, here, is not the right to have a gun in public. Transporting a firearm in a locked container is not what is meant by having a firearm in public, namely, at the ready. Winkler erroneously conflates the two notions.But, transporting a firearm in a case, in public, does present a peculiar danger of its own: one of theft of a firearm. Such a requirement is also strange and unsettling as the City of New York would permit a licensee the use of a firearm for self-defense at home, but preclude the holder of a restricted “premises” license access to the best means available for self-defense when outside the home. Why should a law-abiding American citizen be limited to location where a firearm may be available for self-defense?  Why must our Nation's citizenry suffer the presence of "Second [and First] Amendment free zones?" Would the framers of our Bill of Rights tolerate this? Indeed, it is often in public, especially in urban areas, where a person is more exposed to danger. It is in an urban environment where a person’s life and safety is more, and conceivably, most at risk. It will be interesting to see whether the high Court broaches these matters in its opinion in this critical Second Amendment case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 883 F.3d 45 (2nd Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 734 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2019) (No. 18-280).The Arbalest Quarrel will stay abreast of the New York City case and offer detailed analyses of the arguments presented in forthcoming articles. And, we will also stay attuned to media accounts. We expect the Governor of New York, the architect of the awful New York Safe Act, the smugly self-assured and virulent opponent of the Second Amendment, Andrew Cuomo--a person never at a loss for words, especially when seeking to appear well-meaning and pious before the public--will, himself, sound off at some point on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Especially on matters of firearms ownership and possession, the Governor of New York is ever before the cameras!As New York has always led the assault on the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is only fitting for the U.S. Supreme Court to take New York to task. For far too long, people like Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, Bill DeBlasio, and others--in New York's Government Offices,  in Congress, and in Governments around the Country--have held sway over the American citizen’s most sacred right; a right intrinsic to one’s being; a right endowed in man the by the Creator. These politicians dare to relegate a sacred right to mere privilege—a privilege Government may grant at its discretion and revoke at will--as if they themselves have created the right.Government officials have not created the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but continue the pretense that they have. These Government officials continue to infringe a sacrosanct and inviolate right, contrary to and an affront to the Creator's dictate that they should not and must not do so.New York’s myriad, loathsome firearms’ laws, codes, rules, regulations, and procedures must, then, all be scrutinized by the high Court. That is something neither the City of New York, nor the State wants. Neither the City nor the State wishes its draconian firearms laws--ever more onerous with time--to be viewed under magnifying glass of legal scrutiny. But it is happening, nonetheless. It must happen. New York City, a bastion of the new Left ideology has turned away from the principles reflected in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and must be called to account.The Times Ledger reports—and it is mystifying to consider in light of the Leftist leaning of the City today—that New York City was, for five years, from 1785 through 1790, the seat of the Nation’s Capital. It was here in 1789 that the Nation’s first President, George Washington, swore an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and to safeguard the fundamental, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people, embodied in that sacred document.But, a new, alien, radical, virulent Socialist belief system and agenda has taken over the City, insinuating itself inexorably and insidiously in the lives of the City’s inhabitants. Socialist ideas and precepts--grounded on inherent distrust of the American citizenry--are painfully evident in the City’s myriad, convoluted, restrictive, unconstitutional firearms’ codes, rules, regulations, and procedures, and in the State’s draconian firearms’ laws. Leftist propaganda is proselytized to the residents of New York, daily. But, a day of reckoning is at hand, both for New York City and for jurisdictions like it, around the Country. It’s about time!________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS UNDER FIRE

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

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

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

PRESIDENT TRUMP OVERSTEPPED HIS AUTHORITY IN BANNING BUMP STOCKS.

PART ONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember what Trump said about national concealed handgun carry?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________________________

PART TWO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[signed] Donald Trump

____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________

PART FOUR

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

Let’s take a moment to reassess.

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

A LITTLE HISTORY ON BUMP STOCKS—

Who Invented the “Bump Stock?”

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

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

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

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

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

HOW DOES A BUMP STOCK OPERATE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Your bump fire grip device consists of the following:

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________________________________

PART FIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________________

PART SIX

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________

PART SEVEN

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

1-202-456-1414; (Switchboard)

1-202-456-1111; (Comments)

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

________________________________________________________

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

THE SENATE HAS ONE WEEK REMAINING TO APPROVE HOUSE BILL ON CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AND SEND IT TO THE PRESIDENT.

IF THE BILL DIES, WHO IS TO BLAME?

We were never so close to realizing the right of the American people to defend their lives and well-being with a firearm as we were with the passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by the Republican controlled House in December 2017. Upon passage of 115 H.R. 38 in the House, the bill was immediately sent to the Senate. With the Senate’s vote of approval and with President Trump’s signature, nationwide concealed handgun reciprocity would have become a reality. As of yet, that hasn't happened. The Senate has had over one year to act on this, and we have, to date, seen—nothing. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity was in our grasp. And it is slipping away.We can speculate all we want as to why the Senate has not acted on this, but there is no time for that. The point is that the Senate must act. We cannot take, “no,” for an answer. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity can yet become a reality if enough Americans—millions of us—make clear to the Senate that this is what Americans, need; this is what Americans want; and we want this now, not later. We want no excuses. We want to see action. With a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, the lack of action on the House bill is absolutely unacceptable.If we don’t get the Senate to act, we have only ourselves to blame for the shortfall. And, any chance of seeing another national concealed carry reciprocity bill in the next two years will be next to impossible as the Democrats will hold a majority in the House of Representatives and the Party leadership’s agenda does not call for strengthening the Second Amendment. The agenda calls for weakening the Second Amendment and weakening it quickly and drastically.It is therefore absolutely imperative that the American people—millions of gun owners, not simply a few dozen of us—inform their representatives in the Senate that they, who were sent to the United States Capitol, to work on our behalf, have no greater obligation to this Nation than the safeguarding of the fundamental, unalienable, natural and immutable rights and liberties of the American people. That would fully accord with the intention of the framers of our Constitution.Of those fundamental rights and liberties, none is more important than the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. That singular right, more than any other, makes clear the basic precept that the life and safety and well-being of each American citizen is sacred and inviolate and that no American should be denied the right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm. Further, the right of self-defense does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home. That basic right extends throughout the Nation and the Nation’s territories. Further, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the ultimate defense against tyranny—ever present—a thing the founders of our Republic knew full well and, given that great concern, became the impetus for codification of the right in the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.It therefore falls on the American people themselves, as ever it must, as ever it did, to take action, when necessary, as now, and make their voices heard over the cacophony produced by the media lords and ladies. How long must we endure this? How long must we, true Americans left remaining--those of us who believe in the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, who believe in a Nation as conceived by our founders--tolerate the beseeching, syrupy proselytizing of the purveyors of lies; the destroyers of our Republic; those who besmirch our sacred rights and liberties; these perverse, sanctimonious zealots of collectivism who call for ever more gun laws, and ever fewer guns, and ever fewer people “entitled” to own and possess guns, and ever more restrictions placed on the use of guns by those few of us remaining, among the common folk who are entitled to keep firearms at all, but only so long as they are locked up and tucked away—all of course for our own good, for "the collective good" of the people.Some of you believe that the right to keep and bear arms will always prevail in some States of the Union, even if it is denied in others. But, that is a dangerous, false belief. And we should recognize it. Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Montana—States that have traditionally revered the Bill of Rights and extolled as a virtue the notion of the independent, self-reliant, individual—are slowly falling to prey to those who sing a  different tune: one that has less regard for our sacred rights and liberties and for the autonomy of the individual, and for our history, our traditions, our Judeo-Christian ethic.Consider: what sort of Americans would send to Congress people such as the newly elected Left-wing Arizona Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, and the 20-year old self-described Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, representing New York’s 14^th District? These are people who obviously loathe our Nation’s history, who question our traditions and our core values. Do these people respect the Nation’s Bill of Rights? Do these people revere the First Amendment’s right of free speech, and the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms? Hardly. After all, how would the exercise of these fundamental rights, and others, fit into their Leftist Globalist, Collectivist agenda?If we are going to strengthen the Second Amendment, it must be done now, and quickly. Don’t think that there will be time enough for passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation when the new Congress takes over on January 3, 2019. We need this legislation now, because any firearms’ bills coming out of the House of Representatives, with its Democratic Party majority, will be nothing remotely like the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. You can be assured of that._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IT IS TIME FOR THE U.S. SENATE TO VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been at the forefront in the call for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Posting our first article on the subject in 2015, in our “Roadtrip with a Handgun” series, we have  remained a strong proponent of national concealed handgun carry, and have since published two dozen articles on the subject; our latest posted on November 30, 2018.We were very pleased when the Republican controlled House at long last passed their version of national handgun carry. But that was almost one year ago. The House bill is titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,” 115 H.R. 38. The House immediately sent the bill to the Senate for consideration. But, there has been no action on it to date. It has been sitting idle in the Senate Judiciary Committee ever since. That is unacceptable. More, this inaction is unconscionable. Millions of American gun owners want it, need it, and have the right to have it.We cannot wait because once the Democratic Party majority takes over control of the House on January 3, 2019, we will likely never again see it. The measure would have to be brought up once again, in the new Congress. It would then have to be voted on, and passed by the full House, and that won’t happen—not with a substantial Democratic Party House majority.The Democratic Party leadership that will define the measures to be taken up and voted upon by the full House has no desire to strengthen the Second Amendment. That is not part of the leadership’s agenda. Indeed, the goal of the Party leadership, for decades, has been, on that score—unlike its policy position on illegal aliens and border protection, where it flip-flopped—remarkably consistent. The aim of the Party leadership is to weaken the Second Amendment to the point that the fundamental right set forth in the Amendment ceases to have practical effect.It is therefore imperative for the Senate to bring the House version of the bill it has been sitting on for close to a year, to the Floor of the Senate for a vote by a full complement of Senators. The Senate will hopefully then pass the bill, and get the bill onto the desk of the U.S. President Trump, for his signature, before it adjourns. There is still time. But, the Senate must act now, without further delay.

National Handgun Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Be a Good Thing; a Rational, Positive Step Forward.

A few readers of our articles have argued against passage of national handgun carry reciprocity, asserting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—as one of our fundamental, unalienable, and natural rights—rests beyond the lawful control of Government to regulate. If so, this would mean that present federal, State, and local Government regulation of the exercise of the right is facially invalid, and unlawful.The concern expressed is understandable. The Arbalest Quarrel has not been unmindful of the issue whether Government can legitimately regulate our fundamental, natural, enumerated rights at all, and if it can, then the extent to which Government can regulate these rights.The tension between Governmental power on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the people, on the other, was, in fact, a focus of attention for the founders of the Republic, and a dilemma. They came to an understanding, if guardedly and grudgingly by some, that, for the fledgling Republic to exist and persist through time, it would be necessary to establish a strong national government. But, having thrown off the yoke of oppression created by one autocratic rule—that of King George III—the founders, who met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, had no desire to draft conditions, albeit unintentionally, that would allow for imposition of yet another such rule—and this one of their own making.The answer, for the framers of the Constitution, referred to as antifederalists, was to place an express Bill of Rights into the Constitution, to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The antifederalists saw inclusion of a Bill of Rights as necessary to curb a tendency of a national Government to exercise and accumulate ever more power at the expense of the people to whom that Government was, after all, designed and expected to serve.The federalists were opposed to this idea, but not because they were against securing fundamental rights and liberties for the people. Rather, they felt that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and redundant, as the power and authority of a central Government would be express and limited. Everything else—rights, liberties, powers—would reside in the respective States and in the people. Further, the federalists felt that, by placing emphasis on a formal Bill of Rights, this would obscure the need for creating an effective and efficient Government that could provide both national security and strength, and, at once, promote liberty. But, we have seen how this has played out, 200+ years later. And, it isn’t good. Thankfully, the antifederalists’ demand for inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevailed over the federalists’ objections against such inclusion.The federal Government has indeed, through time, become very effective and efficient in amassing unbridled power, along with securing, for itself, extraordinary levels and layers of secrecy, even as the American citizenry, conversely, has lost its own fundamental right to be free from unlawful Governmental searches and seizures. Indeed, there likely now exists a Government within a Government, an ominous, parallel Shadow Government, separate and apart from the apparent, ostensibly “open” Government the public sees.This Shadow Government likely siphons off billions of taxpayer dollars annually, using that money to advance its own illegitimate goals; money that serves its own interests, not those of the American people; hence, the concern of many citizens against any Government regulation of fundamental, enumerated, unalienable, and natural rights, including the right of the people to keep and bear arms, else Government inevitably, inexorably, and insidiously encroach upon and systematically and oppressively control the lives and actions of its own people.But, is there any statement in the Constitution prohibiting Government regulation of fundamental rights, as some readers assert? Let’s look at a few clauses.

The “Necessary and Proper Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution states in part that Government is “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .”  This clause would appear to be an express limitation on Government regulation, certainly of the enumerated rights, as set forth in the first eight Amendments, apart from the unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth  and Tenth. If so, the “necessary and proper clause” does restrain federal Government regulation of the Second Amendment and of other fundamental, enumerated rights of the people.

The “Supremacy Clause”

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states in part, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . . .”  The “supremacy clause” is essentially an assertion of federal preemption. The idea alluded to is that the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties are the Law of the Land and are subordinated to no other laws. But, contrary to some views expressed, the supremacy clause is not an assertion of the sanctity of the Bill of Rights, beyond the power of Congress to regulate. In fact, at least some antifederalists were much concerned about it, fearing the clause would give the federal Government too much power over the States. Yet, it may also be argued, that the supremacy clause implies that the enumerated rights set forth in the Bill of Rights are—since an express part of the Constitution, along with the Articles—well beyond the power of the federal Government to lawfully regulate. In that respect, the supremacy clause serves to contain and restrain Government regulation of the citizenry’s fundamental, enumerated rights.

The “Commerce Clause”

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution sets forth the power of Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  National concealed handgun carry reciprocity does implicate interstate commerce, but whether Congressional power to regulate the carrying of a firearm across State lines amounts to an over-extension of the commerce power, at the expense of the States, will require further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Will Happen When National Concealed Handgun Carry is Passed by the Senate and Signed into Law by the President?

Were the Senate to pass national concealed handgun carry reciprocity and the President sign it into law, it would be an odd thing, indeed, yet possible to see antigun groups and some pro-Second Amendment groups both opposing the law. Yet, both sides could do so, albeit each for its own reasons, both claiming Congress had gone beyond its authority to regulate firearms’ possession.Be that as it may, however this might play out, the Arbalest Quarrel feels that, given the myriad antigun laws already enacted, there would be far more to gain from having this one, at this moment in time, than not. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity would at least serve as a significantly pro-Second Amendment federal law to counter the plethora of State and Federal laws that aren’t. Still, we understand and respect such misgivings some pro-Second Amendment people may have on the matter._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

AS DEADLINE DRAWS NEAR, SUPPORTERS OF SECOND AMENDMENT DEMAND U.S. SENATE VOTE ON NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

THE U.S. SENATE MUST ACT NOW!

We have two weeks left before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas Holiday.If the Senate fails to act on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity within the next two weeks, any chance that this measure will be taken up anew and that it will become a reality when the House of Representatives seats a Democratic Party majority in 2019 will be virtually nil.The Senate Judiciary Committee has been sitting on the bill that was sent to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, last December 2017, when it passed the Republican controlled House. The version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity that passed the House is designated, 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Once Senator McConnell received it, he sent it immediately to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, for action. Clearly, no work was done on it; and a year has gone by since the Judiciary Committee had received it.It is imperative we get the House version of the bill onto the Floor of the Senate for immediate roll-call vote.

THIS MATTER REQUIRES THE CONCERTED EFFORT OF EACH OF US.

The Arbalest Quarrel has been on the forefront of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. We have written numerous articles on this subject. Interested readers are encouraged to read our articles by visiting our website.Our articles have also been published by Ammoland Shooting Sports News  See our article, “National ‘Right To Carry’ For Self-Defense Needs Your Help – Take Action.” And, we have recently posted our article on the website, The Truth About Guns. As a regular guest on “LockNLoadRadio,” hosted by Bill Frady, we have discussed the issue of national right to carry, at length.We have been getting positive responses to our articles. Many pro-Second Amendment groups, organizations, radio, respected news sources and social media, have joined us to mount a grassroots effort to strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right.We know that, as you have gotten the message, you are doing your part to get the Senate to move on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Once the Senate passes the bill, it will be sent directly and immediately to the President for his signature. And, have no doubt about this, President Trump will sign it. He has made very clear both during his campaign for the Republican Party nomination and during his successful run against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, that he avidly supports the natural, fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.It is time to urge Congress to act to strengthen our natural rights and liberties, not weaken them. We must have national concealed handgun carry reciprocity enacted into law now.For those of you who have not added your voice to this critical effort, there is still time.

IMPORTANT CONTACT INFORMATION:

Senator McConnell may be reached at 202/ 224-2541, but he does not provide a personal response and he will not take messages at this time. However, there is a referral to Senator McConnell's on-line email.Senator Grassley can be reached at: 202/ 224-3744. The Senator provides a personal response to your message and your message will be relayed directly to the Senator.Your Senate Delegation can be reached at: 202/ 224-3121. The switchboard will provide you the phone numbers for the Senators of your State.You can reach the White House at:  202/ 456-1414. At the prompt, you can leave a message for President Trump.The NRA can be reached at: 800/ 392-8683. You can leave a message, but be aware there may be a lengthy wait. You can also leave a message for the nra-ila.With your active assistance, we can turn the tide and see national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality. Please join us in this important, timely cause. Time is of the essence. We must get the Senate to act immediately on this._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ATTENTION ALL LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS: NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS IN JEOPARDY.

Concealed handgun carry reciprocity is about to die. It is about to die through deliberate inaction or callous indifference of the U.S. Senate. But we have a small window of opportunity: 21 days left to achieve the goal that has eluded us for years. It seemed assured of being accomplished by the Republican controlled 115^th Congress but, it wasn’t.Congress still has time to act before the end of the year, but that does nothing to explain why Congress failed to get this done. It certainly had ample opportunity to do so.

WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DID A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS FAIL TO FULFILL PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN PROMISE?

The House of Representatives and the Senate did introduce several national handgun carry reciprocity bills in the last two years. One such bill was 115 H.R. 38, titled, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The bill's synopsis reads: “AN ACT 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.” The measure was voted on by the full House, and the Republican controlled House passed the bill, on December 6, 2017, by recorded roll call vote: 231 to 198. The vast majority of House Democrats voted against passage of the bill. Only 6 of 184 Democrats voted for passage of the bill. Contrariwise, the vast majority of House Republicans, 225, voted for passage of the bill; and 14 voted against passage.One day later, on December 7, 2017, the bill was sent to and received by the Senate, where it was read twice, in accordance with Senate protocol, and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for action. And, then we heard—Nothing! Dead Silence!The bill apparently fell into a deep, dark abyss.Senator Mitch McConnell, who, as Senate Majority Leader, has ultimate authority for determining what bills are voted on by the full Senate, said and did nothing to get the Judiciary Committee to act so that the bill could be voted on by the full Senate.Why didn’t the Judiciary Committee act on this? They certainly could have, but didn’t. And, why didn’t Senator Mitch McConnell urge the Judiciary Committee to action, so the full Senate would have had the opportunity to vote for passage of national concealed handgun carry legislation? We don’t know. He could have seen to this, but didn’t. Senate Republicans who can answer these questions, aren’t saying.Much about this, we don’t know. It is deeply perplexing.

BUT, THIS MUCH WE DO KNOW—

Senator Mitch McConnell can get things done when he wants to. Senator Mitch McConnell was able to get Judge Brett Kavanaugh confirmed as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. This wasn’t easy, given the strenuous pushback by Senate Democrats. And the Senator should be commended for his zealous, unflagging effort in that regard. He should be just as zealous in getting national concealed handgun legislation through the full Senate. He certainly could have done so. For some reason, he chose not to. Yet, he still has time to get this done before the 116^th Congress begins its first term, on January 3, 2019, because, at that point, it would be futile. The House will seat a Democratic Party majority; and the Democratic Party leadership's agenda will include the drafting of bills to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not to strengthen that basic, fundamental, natural, and unalienable rightThe 2016 general election earned us President Donald Trump along with Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. National Right-to-Carry was in our grasp. The timing couldn’t have been better. This is what law-abiding gun owners wanted, and NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment organizations campaigned vigorously for it. Our once-in-a-lifetime real hope for National Right-to-Carry is now slipping through our fingers.The Senate had over a year to act on the bill, from late 2017, when it first received the bill from the House. But the Senate failed to act.

CAN’T THE SENATE SIMPLY PASS THE BILL NEXT YEAR AND SEND IT ON TO PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR HIS SIGNATURE IN 2019?

NO! IT CANNOT! All pending bills die.“At the end of a two-year session, Congress adjourns 'sine die' or 'without day' and not reconvene until a new Congress starts some time the next January.After that, the slate is wiped clean; there is no business pending. All of the ‘H.R.’ and ‘S.’ numbered titles that have been discussed and debated for the past two years will be archived. When Congress reconvenes, the process starts all over again.” When Congress reconvenes in 2019, House Republicans can reintroduce concealed handgun carry reciprocity but with a Democratic Party House of Representatives majority, the bill would never pass. So, whatever the Senate does in 2019, won’t matter because both Houses of Congress must pass a bill before a bill is sent to the President for his signature, at which point, a bill then becomes the Law of the Land, in accordance with Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

TIME TO PASS CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS OF THE ESSENCE!

There is no time to waste. The Senate is scheduled to adjourn on December 14, 2018. If the Senate fails to pass the bill by emergency roll call vote, we will have lost the only real opportunity to see concealed handgun carry reciprocity through to fruition.And, keep in mind: the Senate’s failure to act on national handgun carry places extreme pressure on President Trump who made this issue one of the signature issues of his campaign for U.S. President. Failure to accomplish this goal can well lead to Trump’s defeat in the general U.S. Presidential election of 2020. We must place the Senate’s feet to the fire.” This is where you can help!

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

IMMEDIATELY CALL:U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee): (202) 224-3744U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell: (202) 224-2541Your Senate Delegation: (202) 224-3121TELL THEM THIS:“The Senate must vote on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 bill immediately. The bill passed the House on December 6, 2017, almost one year ago, and has since been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. That is unacceptable! We have only a few precious weeks to get this matter completed. The Senate must pass this bill and send it immediately to the President for his signature. President Trump will sign the bill into law, fulfilling an important campaign promise. My continued support for you will depend on your vote to approve this bill.”You should also contact NRA and President Trump, reminding them of their commitment to support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The contact numbers are as follows:The White House: (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414National Rifle Association (NRA): (800) 672-3888We must put pressure on those who can get this matter accomplished.Making a few important phone calls will only take a few minutes of your time. It is quick and easy, and critically important to safeguard and strengthen our right to keep and bear arms.What you do can make a difference and you will be proud to have taken an active part in protecting our natural, fundamental, unalienable, and sacred right to safeguard our lives and the lives of those closest to us, with the best means available: a firearm.If you chose to do nothing, you will only have yourself to blame.THIS IS OUR LAST REAL SHOT AT PASSAGE OF SIGNIFICANT PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATION!DON’T HESITATE TO TAKE THE SHOT. YOU WILL REGRET IT BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST!__________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRETT KAVANAUGH SENATE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION HEARING: DEMOCRATS GRILL TRUMP NOMINEE ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS.”

DO NOT FOR ONE INSTANCE BE TAKEN IN BY FALSE CLAIMS OF DEMOCRATS THAT "OF COURSE" THEY DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THAT THEY ONLY SEEK TO ENACT SO-CALLED SENSIBLE, COMMON-SENSE GUN LAWS. THAT IS PURE, NAKED DECEPTION. THE KEY GOAL OF CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS IS AND, FOR DECADES, HAS BEEN THE REINING IN OF THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. AND THEY WILL NOT STOP THERE. CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS ALONG WITH OTHER LEFT-WING ELEMENTS IN SOCIETY, INCLUDING THEIR ECHO CHAMBER, THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, SEEK NOTHING LESS THAN THE UTTER, TOTAL DISSOLUTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENT EMPLOYED BY THOSE WHO SEEK DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE NOTION THAT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS REFERS TO A COLLECTIVE RIGHT, ASCRIBED ONLY TO ONE'S CONNECTION WITH OR ASSOCIATION WITH A MILITIA. WERE THIS TRUE, THE SACRED, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, NATURAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WOULD BE TRIVIALIZED AS WOULD THE CITIZENS THEMSELVES BE TRIVIALIZED. IF SUCH WERE IN FACT THE CASE, AMERICANS WOULD WITNESS THE FALL OF A ONCE GREAT NATION AND FREE REPUBLIC.

BUT THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT HOLD TO A FALSE  NOTION OF THE IMPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. FOR, THEIR NOTION THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' THAT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY IN A "COLLECTIVE" CAPACITY OR SENSE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED. IT IS NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE WORD, 'PEOPLE,' AS IT APPEARS IN THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, REFERS TO THE CITIZENRY OF THIS NATION IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR SENSE. AND THE RIGHT THEREFORE RESIDES, INTRINSICALLY IN THE INDIVIDUAL, AND NOT IN AN AMORPHOUS COLLECTIVE MILITIA.  AS SUCH, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS FUNDAMENTAL, AND MUST BE RESPECTED. THE RIGHT REFERRED TO IS NOT INCIDENTAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE RIGHT IS NOT TO BE PERFUNCTORILY DENIED, AS THOSE WHO DETEST THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE YOU, FALSELY, TO BELIEVE.

“The first salient feature of the operative clause [in the Second Amendment] is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.Three provisions of the Constitution refer to ‘the people’ in a context other than ‘rights’—the famous preamble (‘We the people’), § 2 of Article I (providing that ‘the people’ will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with ‘the States’ or ‘the people’). Those provisions arguably refer to ‘the people’ acting collectively—but  they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights.  Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . .This contrasts markedly with the phrase ‘the militia’ in the prefatory clause.  As we will describe below, the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.  Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’We start therefore  with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. We move now from the holder of the right—‘the people’—to the substance of the right: ‘to keep and bear Arms.’”~ (A portion of the Opinion of the Majority, penned by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia), in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 578-581 passim (2008) Well before the Brett Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation Hearings, the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out that Congressional Democrats’ assault on and goal of elimination of the right of the natural, sacred, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as succinctly codified in the Second Amendment, was and always has been a central plank of the antigun Democratic Party agenda. See "the United States Safe Act in the Making: Penned and Penciled by Andrew Cuomo."This was so even though in the weeks and months leading up to the Hearing. Democrats and their liberal media echo chamber talked incessantly about Democrats’ Party’s other goals. These goals included: one, open borders; two, expansion of personal federal income taxes; three, the complete elimination of ICE, and the hamstringing of other law enforcement agencies across the Country; four, the clamping down of all investigations into subversive activities of high ranking Governmental Bureaucrats of the Deep State; and five, the removal of Donald Trump from Office.

DEMOCRATS CONSISTENTLY REMONSTRATE AGAINST THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. THEY DO THIS BECAUSE THEY SEE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS OUTMODED, DRAFTED AND RATIFIED TO REFLECT THE NEEDS OF AN ANCIENT TIME AND, SO, IN NEED OF DRASTIC REVISION. THUS, THEY SEEK TO REWRITE THE DOCUMENT TO REFLECT A MODERN WORLD. THIS, UNFORTUNATELY, A NOTION  NOTION HELD NOT JUST BY POLITICIANS AND LAY PERSONS, BUT  BY JURISTS AS WELL. IN FACT, RETIRED LIBERAL-WING JUSTICE, JOHN PAUL STEVENS WISHES TO REWRITE THE BILL OF RIGHTS. HE SAYS SO IN A BOOK HE HAS PUBLISHED. AND, IN THE WORDS OF THE LIBERAL-WING U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, OUR CONSTITUTION IS, AFTER ALL, “A RATHER OLD CONSTITUTION” MEANING THAT GINSBURG, TOO, APPARENTLY THINKS OUR CONSTITUTION IS IN NEED OF RADICAL REVISION.

The Senate Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on the President’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, that took place for several days, laid bare the Democrats contempt for our Constitution and, especially, their misconception of the Bill of Rights as framed by the founders of our Republic. Spending a good part of three days of the Senate Confirmation Hearing process, by turns pontificating, chastising, and even excoriating Judge Kavanaugh, it became clear to all Americans that those Democrats, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, have succumbed to the will and wishes of Americans on the far left of the political spectrum, or otherwise always held to extreme left-wing views concerning the Constitution. Americans who believe that the Constitution, and especially that part of it--the Bill of Rights--that sets forth the fundamental rights and liberties of the American citizen, proclaim that the Bill of Rights can mean essentially whatever it is they choose it, or wish for it, to mean. They do not look at the plain meaning of the text, but read into the sacred Document what they wish for the words of the Document to mean; not what the framers of it meant, as clearly articulated in it.But, application of such an erroneous belief concerning the Constitution, destroys the very efficacy of it. Revisionists take the U.S. Constitution to be infinitely malleable, flexible, bendable. This is what they mean by the Constitution as a "living document"--that it can be changed to reflect changes in society, changes they seek to impose on the Nation. Thus, they would twist the Constitution and contort it to a degree that essentially destroys its import and purport, as conceived by the framers of it. These leftist revisionists don’t care, and they do not care for a jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, who does not share their view of a Constitution they perceive to be easily malleable, like a lump of clay that one might knead into any convenient shape.Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential approach to Constitutional case analysis is in line with that of Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. These eminent jurists do not read into the Constitution what they may happen to wish to see. They take the Constitution for its literal word. That doesn’t sit well with Americans who hold to a Socialist philosophy; who have drafted a new plan, a new design for our Nation; who have a Socialist Agenda and who seek to implement radical Socialist policies for our Country--policies destructive to a free Republic and destructive of a free market Capitalist economic society; policies inconsistent with the Constitution of this Nation as ratified by the founders of our Nation. Hence, progressive forces in our Nation do not want Judge Kavanaugh—brilliant and thoughtful a jurist though he be—to sit as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

SENATE JUDICIARY DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THEIR IDEAS AND GOALS PATENTLY CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee made no attempt to hide their distaste of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, known. Even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly set down in stone in the Bill of Rights, these Congressional Democrats would like to see the Second Amendment weakened, disassembled, abandoned, and eventually, even obliterated from historical records and memory.Yet, curiously, wrongly, and even weirdly, Congressional Democrats believe it to be perfectly permissible to expand the domain of what they presume to be fundamental rights, worthy of protection, such as a right to abortion on demand, and equal protection rights expanded to include individuals exhibiting gender dysphoria—an expansion of purported rights, nowhere explicitly mentioned or even alluded to in the Bill of Rights. All the while, Congressional Democrats seem to be under no similar compunction to retain those fundamental rights that are expressly codified in the Bill of Rights.For example, Democrats see no legal or moral compunction against constraining Americans’ free exercise of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech—to proscribe what they, alone, perceive as permitting ideas anathema to their own—and they see no legal or moral issue with doing away with the Second Amendment altogether. That is their goal, clearly inferred through three days of Senate Hearing on Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, and as further evidenced in antigun legislation Congressional Democrats have proposed in the last twenty plus years.Democrats argue, as they made pointedly clear during the Confirmation Hearing that, in matters pertaining to the citizen ownership and possession of firearms, State orchestrated cries for “public safety,” as the ground for curtailing the exercise of a fundamental and natural right should, and, indeed, must, invariably outweigh the personal right of self-defense. Moreover, Congressional Democrats consistently and continuously convey at best a blasé attitude toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a natural and fundamental right that the framers of the Constitution saw need enough to codify in the Bill of Rights, and did so to preserve a free Republic and to protect the sanctity and autonomy of the American citizen.From the questions posed by Senate Democrats to Judge Kavanaugh, and by the comments they made, these Democrats do not perceive the Second Amendment to be worth protecting and strengthening, or, otherwise they simply don’t care that, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution well knew, it is only through an armed citizenry that tyranny in Government can be ultimately, successfully, forestalled. The need for the free exercise of that right has not diminished with the passing years, decades, and centuries. Rather, contrary to the pronouncements of those who seek to constrain the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the need to preserve and to strengthen this sacred right has actually, increased, many-fold, as the power of the Nation's Federal Government with the assistance of technology has itself increased exponentially in the centuries since both the formation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic, and since the ratification of our Constitution.

DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ALWAYS FIRST AND FOREMOST IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS’ CROSSHAIRS.

While expressing concern for the survival of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973)* which was certainly a central point of discussion manifested through three days of Confirmation Hearings, Democrats made abundantly clear, on the flipside, their disgust for the salient holding in Heller vs. District of Columbia, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Indeed, at times, Democrats’ expression of their disdain for Heller eclipsed their concern for the preservation of Roe vs. Wade. In fact, as Senator Diane Feinstein began her questioning of Judge Kavanaugh, during the first day of the Confirmation Hearing, the first set of questions that she directed to Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee did not involve the issue of female reproductive rights, but were aimed squarely at the Second Amendment—namely and most notably at so-called “assault weapons”—which, as one of a plethora of antigun measures that antigun zealots would love to impose on the Nation as a whole, this one, in particular, has been, for decades, the especial target of Congressional Democrats. Wallowing in the abyss of fallacious reasoning and seeming self-pity, they plead with Judge Kavanaugh to forsake centuries of case law and jurisprudential history, ostensibly to ensure the safety of children, but oblivious to the fact that it is not the firearm, an inanimate object--their singular target for annihilation--that is the cause of violence, but, rather, a weakness of heart and will that prevents them from actively and avidly enforcing the hundreds of laws that Congress has enacted to forestall aggressive acts of those who would wreak violence on innocent lives: the lives of innocent adults as well as children.

WOULD DEMOCRATS BE SUCCESSFUL IN IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN 2019 IF THEY WERE TO CEMENT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS?

To be sure, it is by no means certain that Democrats will take control of the House in November, after the midterm elections. Less likely, but of greater concern, is the prospect of Democratic Party control of the U.S. Senate. If Democrats do take control of both Houses of Congress, what is certain is that they intend to muscle through Congress a new “assault weapons” ban, modeled on the New York Safe Act of 2013.Democrats would get substantial assistance from progressive State Governors, led by the virulently anti-Second Amendment Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo—assuming, which is likely, albeit depressing to contemplate, that Cuomo does prevail in the coming New York Gubernatorial election, in November, to secure a third term in Office.

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN’S RAISON D’ETRE IS TO PROHIBIT CIVILIAN OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ANY FIREARM THAT SHE PROCLAIMS TO BE AN “ASSAULT WEAPON.”

If you recall, Feinstein attempted to ram through an “assault weapons” bill in 2013. That bill was even more draconian than the original restrictive U.S. Senate Legislation, “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994.” In Subtitle A of Title XI of the 1994 Act, Senator Feinstein laid out a comprehensive nation-wide ban on an “assault weapons.”  Subtitle A of Title XI severely restricted the “manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain semiautomatic assault weapons.” The “assault weapons” provision included a sunset provision and, in 2004, the “assault weapons” provision of the 1994 Act did expire. It was not reauthorized by Congress.Feinstein wasn’t done. On the heels of enactment of, and in lockstep with, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s New York Safe Act, signed into law by Cuomo, on January 15, 2013, U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, sought to generate public interest in a new and incredibly ambitious federal “assault weapons” ban, modeled in substantial part on the “assault weapons” provisions of the NY Safe Act. The Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy provided the pretext for this.Feinstein’s bill, used much of the language of Cuomo’s NY Safe Act, but to emphasize her personal distaste for firearms, the federal bill included over 110 specifically named firearms and categories of firearms. This categorization of specifically named firearms was unnecessary as the list was redundant. No matter, Subtitle A of Title XI “The Violent Crime and Control Protection Act of 1994” included the list anyway. Feinstein’s “assault weapon”, bill, if successful, would have caused the entire Nation to suffer the constraints on a weapon in common use by the American citizenry that Cuomo’s New York assault weapons ban has imposed on residents of New York.Fortunately for American citizens, Feinstein’s federal bill, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, went nowhere because the Senate Democratic Party Majority Leader at the time--Harry Reid--stripped Feinstein’s assault weapon ban out of a broader gun control bill that Democrats sought to pass. Senator Reid evidently believed that doing so would make the restrictive gun control measures more palatable to reluctant members of the Senate. Feinstein was furious, but Reid remained undeterred. The bill, sans Feinstein's “assault weapons” ban provision, was still soundly defeated on Roll Call vote of the Senate held on April 17, 2013.

IF BRETT  KAVANAUGH IS CONFIRMED TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, A FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BILL THAT BECOMES LAW IS LIKELY TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee know full well that, even if they were to secure majorities in both Houses of Congress, any “assault weapons” bill they happen, in 2019, to enact into law would be immediately challenged on the ground that a ban on an entire category of weapons in common use is contrary to the core of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller decision and as reiterated by the high Court in the 2010 McDonald decision (561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)). Unlike the unhappy present situation with core Second Amendment cases that wend there way to the high Court, that are invariably not taken up for high Court review, this is likely to change with Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court as a petition for a Writ of Certiorari would likely be granted. Brett Kavanaugh would provide the crucial fourth vote necessary for a Second Amendment case (subsequent to the seminal Heller and McDonald cases) implicating the core of the Second Amendment, to finally be heard.** Once granted, and the case heard, a Conservative-wing majority, properly employing sound judicial and logical and jurisprudential reasoning, would likely determine that an outright ban on civilian ownership and possession of a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms—including handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as non-semiautomatic weapons, such as  revolving cylinder shotguns, along with so-called large capacity magazines, that are all in common use in this Nation—would be and must be struck down as inconsistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the high Court’s Majority in the U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald cases. And this explains why Senate Democrats are particularly worried over the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court—enough so that they devoted substantial time to questioning Judge Kavanaugh over his methodology for resolving cases involving the Second Amendment. And this explains why the American people must suffer through a delay on a confirmation vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee, due to the 11th hour political stunt pulled by Senator Dianne Feinstein, herself. Feinstein has raised an issue concerning a naked, uncorroborated allegation against Judge Kavanaugh, of a purported event allegedly occurring decades ago, that the Senator learned about through a letter she received in July of this year, and which she had sat on all this time, obviously to bring up at an inopportune time as it serves purely as a convenient political delaying tactic. Chairman Grassley and Senate Democrats, sitting on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, should not allow Democrats to turn the Confirmation process into a circus act. Unfortunately, Democrats are not acting alone. Senate Republican, Jeff Flake, who also sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he wishes to hear from Judge Kavanaugh's accuser before he will vote to allow the Confirmation process to proceed. It is no secret, though, that Senator Flake, who will be stepping down from the Senate, anyway, has no love for President Trump, and apparently takes delight in constantly admonishing him to the Press. It therefore stands to reason why Senator Jeff Flake would jump ship and play with Democrats in opposing the President's nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court even though a brilliant jurist, such as Judge Kavanaugh, sitting on the highest Court in the Land would help preserve our free Republic and strengthen our Bill of Rights. Does Jeff Flake think so little of the President that he would be willing to sacrifice the well-being of both the Nation and the American citizenry by placing obstacles in the President's path. Apparently this is so. For our part, we believe that Jeff Flake cannot leave Congress soon enough. That is the best thing he can do for this Nation and its people.

IN OUR UPCOMING ARTICLE:

The methodology which Judge Kavanaugh utilizes to analyze and resolve Second Amendment cases, which Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Panel, scarcely touched upon, but denigrated nonetheless, will be discussed in detail in our next article on the Kavanaugh U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing. We look specifically at Judge Kavanaugh's critical important dissenting opinion in the case popularly styled, Heller II (Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 ; 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20130).___________________________________________*Associate Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist dissented from the Majority Opinion, penned by then Chief Justice Warren Burger. Note: Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been appointed to the high Court at the time Roe was decided. Justice Scalia was confirmed to the high Court in 1986, the same year that then U.S. President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Rehnquist to serve as the new Chief Justice to replace retiring Chief Justice Burger, and whom the Senate subsequently confirmed as the new Chief Justice.Six years later, in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992), the high Court essentially reaffirmed the holdings in Roe, namely that a Constitutional right to elective abortion exists, but only until viability as the State “has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting . . . the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 846. The majority in Casey held that an elective abortion is a fundamental right but the Casey Majority loosened the standard for determination of whether a State regulation unduly burdens a woman’s right to elective abortion. The Court replaced the stringent strict scrutiny approach, that favors a State’s interest in protecting an unborn child, to a lesser standard that would operate in favor of a woman’s decision for an elective abortion. Note: Justice Scalia who dissented from the Majority made clear that nothing in the Constitution elevates a woman’s decision to have an abortion to the that of a fundamental right. His dissenting opinion is critical to the methodology of textualism and originalism. Justice Scalia opined: “The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 978. Further, Justice Scalia opined:“That is, quite simply, the issue in these cases: not whether the power of a woman to abort her unborn child is a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense; or even whether it is a liberty of great importance to many women. . . . A State’s choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a ‘liberty’ in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example—with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree—intrude upon men and women’s liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially ‘protected’ by the Constitution.The [majority on the high] Court destroys the proposition, evidently meant to represent my position [which they in fact misrepresent, namely] that ‘liberty’ includes ‘only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847 (citing Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127, n.6, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989). That is not, however, what Michael H. says; it merely observes that, in defining ‘liberty,’ we may not disregard a specific, ‘relevant tradition protecting, or denying protection to, the asserted right,’ ibid. But the Court does not wish to be fettered by any such limitations on its preferences. The Court’s statement that it is ‘tempting’ to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to ‘curb the discretion of federal judges,’ ante, 505 U.S. at 847, is of course rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is ‘tempted’ to place restraints upon his own freedom of action. . . . The Court’s temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction—towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs.” Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. at 979-981. Justice Scalia’s remarks are directed against a jurist’s wrong, albeit, natural tendency, as is the case with anyone who wields power, but particularly jurists, who--specifically invoking the force of law in their decisions--operate without restraint, when they ought to be circumspect. As a result, such jurists tend to create an ever expansive array of dubious substantive rights. Not surprisingly, we see these same jurists irreverently curtailing fundamental rights and liberties that do exist and have existed since ratification of the Bill of Rights, namely and particularly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which they happen to be personally philosophically opposed to.AQ’s Note: The liberal wing of the Supreme Court—and the liberal wing of U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well—sees fit to play with standards of review whenever it suits the result it wants. Thus, liberal wing judges and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court tend to revert to “interest-balancing” approaches to judicial review as that approach invariably serves to support the results they want, that is to say, tends to support predetermined decisions. Thus, in Second Amendment cases, liberal-wing Judges of the lower Courts and liberal-wing Justices of the high Court employ “interest-balancing” to support restrictive, draconian firearms’ regulations even where Government enactments clearly and blatantly impinge upon and infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right succinctly codified in the Bill of Rights. These same jurists also resort to “interest-balancing” in abortion cases, but, in those cases, rather than using “interest balancing” to support legitimate actions of Government that seeks to preserve the life of the unborn child, these jurists conclude that “balancing” the interests of Government, on the one-hand, and the interests of the individual on the other hand—the interests of the individual seeking abortion ought prevail over that of Government that seeks to protect the unborn child. With little wonder, then, Justice Scalia was leery of invoking a traditional, "interest-balancing" standard of review in Heller that might, after the fact, ostensibly, give judicial cover to a liberal-wing Judge who happens to detest the very existence of the Second Amendment.It is clear enough that some regulations, such as the District of Columbia law banning, altogether, citizen ownership and possession of handguns within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, are clearly, categorically unlawful. Thus, the majority in Heller saw no need to revert to an "interest-balancing" standard of review, when it rendered its opinion that the D.C. handgun ban is de jure unconstitutional; for, application of any traditional standard of review would amount to mere legal pretense—an empty, redundant exercise, devoid of import. Although Justice Scalia was circumspect in penning the Majority’s Opinion, one finds, clearly enough, when perusing the opinion, that the Majority in Heller knew full well that the D.C. handgun ban was audacious in its conception and abjectly ludicrous--a bald-faced "slap-in-the-face" at the fundamental right codified in the Second Amendment. The D.C. handgun ban therefore deserved no serious judicial consideration.If the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were to have any meaning and purpose at all, the D.C. restriction had, properly speaking, to be struck down, and struck down unceremoniously; and so it was. The Heller majority, though, used the case to exemplify once and for all, beyond any further need for clarification, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to one’s service in a militia. With that point now clearly articulated, it was the fervent hope of the Heller Court’s majority, that Government action that fails to give proper deference to the right as codified in the Second Amendment would at once be struck down; and that it would be unnecessary for courts to go through tortuous gyrations to strike down firearms’ laws and regulations that are facially unlawful.Unfortunately, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the tenacity of governments and courts that abhor the Second Amendment, to find lawful governmental action that is facially and categorically unlawful. The philosophical disposition of jurists who personally abhor the Second Amendment, as we have seen, leads them to patently ignore the principal holdings of, and of the Majority's reasoning in Heller and McDonald, even as they perfunctorily mention those cases in their opinions to which they give no more than lip-service. Unfortunately, too, the late Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito may not have realized the reluctance of moderates on the high Court--now the lone Chief Justice, John Roberts, now that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has retired--to take up cases that blatantly ignore Heller and McDonald. This means of course that this Nation requires the swift confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the high Court. Judge Kavanaugh would hold the crucial fourth vote, that would allow cases that infringe the core of the Second Amendment to receive high Court review that they deserve.The 11^th Hour attempt by Senator Dianne Feinstein to throw a wrench into confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh must not be allowed to gain traction. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake, and Lindsey Graham, who sit on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and who, according to news reports, indicated they may refrain from allowing the vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh by the full Senate to proceed, then that would send a clear message to the American citizenry, that elected Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, that elements exist, both among Republicans and Democrats, who do not wish for the U.S. President to fulfill his promises to the American people. President Trump has promised to nominate people to the U.S. Supreme Court who believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights as ratified. A confirmation vote of the full Senate, on President Trump's nomination of John Kavanaugh to sit on the high Court, must proceed forthwith**See, Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, 136 S. Ct. 447, 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681, a Second Amendment case implicating the very core of the Second Amendment that failed to receive a critical fourth Supreme Court Justice vote, necessary for review. This case, as with others decided by liberal judges of the U.S. District Courts and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal, who take a very dim view of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deals directly with the issue as to whether so-called "assault weapons" fall within the core of the Second Amendment.Jurists deciding these cases use methodologies at odds with the reasoning of the majority in Heller and McDonald. Not surprisingly, these Courts invariably find for the government and against the American citizen in holding that firearms defined as "assault weapons" in l0cal regulations or State law, are not protected by the Second Amendment.  That was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Friedman case. These are the pertinent facts of the case: The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans the manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic  firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons,” which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a. The City’s ordinances were challenged by an American citizen and resident of Illinois. The federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the City. The Petitioner appealed. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that routinely upholds such bans, affirmed the decision of the District Court. The Petitioner appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari was denied as the case did not receive a fourth critical vote from the Justices, necessary for the case to be heard. When cases are not decided for high Court review, the reasons for refusing to take up a case are not generally stated. The high Court simply asserts that a Petitioner's Writ is denied, and the Court leaves the matter at that. The nature of the votes cast by each Justice is never given, either. In the Friedman case, it is clear that the Seventh Circuit blatantly ignored the reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. The Writ for Certiorari should have been granted. It wasn't. It is clear enough that the liberal-wing of the Court and two members of the conservative wing, likely the so-called swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recently retired, along with Chief Justice Roberts, did not want the case to be heard, and they did not want the case heard for a specific reason. They obviously feared that application of the holdings of Heller and McDonald, together with the reasoning of the majority in those cases, would dictate the overturning of the Seventh Circuit Court's decision in Friedman, and that, in turn, would result in a cascading effect, across the Country, where assault weapon bans would be overturned in every jurisdiction that presently ban or severely restrict the ownership and possession of a large category of semiautomatic weapons, including firearms that are not semiautomatic in operation, namely, revolving cylinder shotguns. Understandably, Justices Thomas and Scalia were livid that Heller and McDonald could and would dare be blithely ignored by jurists for ideological reasons, predicated on personal biases, mandating results that are contrary to law. Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissenting comment in response to the high Court's failure to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Friedman. The late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller decision for the Majority, joined Justice Thomas in the Associate Justice’s dissenting comment. We can reasonably infer that Justice Alito, who penned the majority opinion in McDonald, also voted in favor of reviewing the Friedman case, even though he did not join with Justice Scalia in Justice Thomas' dissenting comment. Even so, that meant that, at best, only three votes--one short, of the required minimum, four--were cast for high Court review of the Friedman case.Justice Thomas wrote in salient part:“[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Second Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 903; id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3058, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 938 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below — have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410-412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case. . . . Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald.The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), “in name only”); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an “understandable” double jeopardy holding that nonetheless “r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.” Had Judge Kavanaugh been sitting on the high Court, instead of Justice Kennedy, at the time the Court was considering Petitioner’s Writ in Friedman, it is highly likely that Judge Kavanaugh would have provided the critical fourth vote necessary for the Friedman case to be heard, along with one vote each cast in favor of review from Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. Were the Friedman case heard, then consistent with the Heller and McDonald holdings—and this is a point that bears repeating—it is also highly likely the majority on the high Court would hold that so-called “assault weapons,” which include many popular semiautomatic weapons, and other kinds of weapons, including shotguns that operate through revolving cylinders, do in fact fall within the core of the Second Amendment. That would put to effective rest all the media fanfare and ridiculous uproar over this matter. Thus, any legislation that bans the civilian citizenry of our Nation from owning and possessing such weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional. This, then, easily explains, in great part, the apoplectic reaction by progressives, and by other left-wing radical elements in our society, toward Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to sit as the next Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. These left-wing elements know that unlawful legislation, which includes much of what it is they want, and what they would have obtained had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Presidential election--and had she appointed non-originalists to the U.S. Supreme Court, which she would certainly have done--will not withstand judicial scrutiny at the level of the Supreme Court, with Judge Kavanaugh on the Bench. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to sit on the high Court, that will put a damper on the efficacy of a Socialist agenda, ever coming to fruition, long after Donald Trump’s Presidency has ended. Thus, Donald Trump's legacy and, indeed, the jurisprudential legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, will be preserved. Thus, the blood spilled by those who sought to create a free Republic, and the blood spilled by Americans, since--in all the wars and conflicts fought to maintain our free Republic--will not have been in vain._________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.