THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 3: THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

SUB-SUBPART 1: OBAMA SAYS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN STAY IN AMERICA BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING FOR AMERICA TO DO? BUT, IS IT?

Lost in the chorus of sloganeering over immigration is any discussion of the legality of Obama’s executive order, granting amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. Obama claims that a legal basis for his executive order exists. But what is it? Does Obama tell us? Curiously, when Obama talks, he glosses quickly over critical points he doesn’t want the public to focus on. And that’s true of his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.Obama happened to mention, in passing, that the Office of Legal Counsel told him he has the legal authority to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. And the mainstream media (MSM), quick to echo the President’s sentiments, is slow to question the accuracy of the President’s assertions and the sincerity of his motives. The MSM simply takes Obama at his word. In so doing, the MSM becomes merely a toady for the President, and, as such, utterly fails to serve the public interest. Neither Obama nor the mainstream media troubles to tell the American People what the Office of Legal Counsel actually said. Obama, an attorney himself and purported Constitutional law expert doesn’t want to talk about the law. Rather, Obama talks incessantly about morality. Obama says granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is the right thing to do. Some Americans might disagree with Obama’s notions of morality. But, whether you agree with Obama’s brand of morality or not is beside the point. What we are concerned with here is law, not one person’s notions of morality.So, let us consider what the Office of Legal Counsel actually says. Let us consider the purported legal authority of the Chief Executive to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.We begin with a simple truth: letting millions of people remain in this Country because it would be nice for us to do so – individuals, who had no business being in this Country in the first place – isn’t a tenable basis for letting them remain here.Keep in mind, at the outset of this discussion and analysis, three critical points.The first critical point is that the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is just that: an opinion. The opinion does not have the force of law because the opinion is not handed down by a court of law after an adversarial proceeding. Still, the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel has more import than dubious, simplistic, bombastic, moralistic pronouncements by Obama.  For, the opinion sets the stage for the Chief Executive’s arguments in Court in the event Republicans in Congress ever demonstrate the courage to throw down the gauntlet. At the moment Congressional Republicans are merely huffing and puffing smoke. And Obama suspects Congressional Republicans don’t have the backbone to challenge him on illegal immigration.The second critical point is that our Founders gave considerable thought  to the matter of naturalization and understood the singular importance of it by explicitly referring to it in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The Founders made clear that Congress, alone, has the power to create rules for naturalization. No other Branch of Government has such power. Yet Obama seeks to assume that power unto himself, as Chief Executive.The third critical point is this: the laws our Nation adopts for those who are to become citizens have a decisive impact on what this Nation is; what this Nation may become; how successful this Nation shall be. We ignore our own laws at our peril. And, we undermine the strength of our citizenry by admitting, ultimately, as new citizens of our Nation, the worst among people – those who would dare to cross our borders illegally. For how can such people claim to be law-abiding, honorable individuals, who break the first of our laws, crossing our borders illegally – and then daring to claim what they are not: responsible individuals, respectful of our Nation’s laws – those who come to this Nation under cloak of darkness -- their very presence here, a lie?  The opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is extraordinarily long and detailed. The person who drafted the report, Karl R. Thompson, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, talks about a lot of things, but one thing he doesn’t talk about is morality. There isn’t one word about it in the entire length and breadth of the report. And that makes sense. That is as it should be. For, the issue of amnesty raises a legal issue, not a moral one. So, Obama’s rhetorical utterances to the Public are irrelevant. What is relevant – the only thing that is relevant – is whether Obama has the legal authority to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Once again, the Constitution certainly doesn’t give him that power. That power resides only with Congress.Now, the Office of Legal Counsel doesn’t suggest that the authority to enact laws governing naturalization and citizenship reside in the Office of the Chief Executive. Clearly, it does not. Rather, what the Office of Legal Counsel seems to opine, at least according to Obama’s terse and tacit assertion about it, is that Obama’s executive action, granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, does not rise to the level of law-making. For, if it did, Obama’s action would definitely lie beyond his authority as Chief Executive. But, if Obama’s executive action is no more than an exercise of administrative discretion, then such action would fall within his legal purview. So, which is it? On scrutiny of the opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel actually equivocates on this very point. But Obama goes his merry way, claiming his power to act unilaterally on illegal immigration, in the bold unprecedented manner he wants and does, is clear and unequivocal. And there's the rub. Obama is dead wrong. And that, perhaps, explains why Obama says next to nothing about the law to the American public and all too much about morality.Obama is less a competent leader of a nation and more an able stage magician. He deliberately, cleverly, and perniciously, directs the public's attention away from what is important, namely the laws of immigration and a Chief Executive's duties under the U.S.  Constitution, and toward something totally irrelevant, an odd sermon on morality as he or his enablers define it. Thus, he completes his conjuring trick.Let’s take a look at the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel.Two specific questions are raised: (1) whether, given limited resources, it is legally permissible for the President to prioritize the illegal aliens the DHS first gets rid of; and (2) whether it is permissible for DHS to give temporary relief from removal to certain illegal aliens who are the parents of children who are present in the U.S.  Those are the two questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. Those are the only questions that Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel to answer. But what were Counsel’s  answers?In providing answers to the President, the Office of Legal Counsel first looked at the impetus for the questions.  The Office acknowledged that 11.3 million illegal aliens have taken up residence in this Country and that the DHS only has resources sufficient to remove 400,000 of them each year. So, in the absence of additional resources DHS has to prioritize what illegal aliens it rids the Country of. And the legal questions, especially, the first one, go to the issue of prioritization.The President asks the Office whether he can decide, irrespective of Congress, who among the illegal aliens can stay here, at least for a while, although, in fact, indefinitely, and who among them must be removed immediately. The crux of the first issue is: how far does Executive discretion extend? We will explore this question in depth in the next installment. In a subsequent post we will deal with the second of the two questions, pertaining to temporary relief for a specific class of illegal aliens.One further point to ponder:In dealing with immigration here, understand, no one is seriously contesting the propriety of immigration proper. After all, we are a Nation of immigrants. What we are looking at here is whether people who entered our Country illegally, with impunity, should be forgiven their transgression, and allowed to remain. In the context of the desire of millions of illegal immigrants to remain this Country, we must remember that many millions of individuals throughout the world desire to become American citizens. And the vast majority of those wishing to become American citizens do respect our laws. They wait their turn. They wait patiently to become citizens in accordance with the laws of naturalization Congress has enacted.To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is to denigrate those who respect and honor our laws. To give preference to those who disrespect our laws is, as well, to undercut the rule of law. It is to denigrate our parents and grandparents and great grandparents – individuals who came to this Country through legal channels; individuals who sought to learn the English language; individuals who sought to adopt American culture, and customs, and traditions, rather than to force America to adopt theirs. Those who come to our shores in the dark of night, rather than in the light of day, do not concern themselves about our laws, our culture, our customs, our traditions, our history, our language. Is that not all too obvious?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OF BOTTLECAPS AND TOY GUNS: CITY OF CLEVELAND “BUYBACK” PROGRAM OF “FAKE GUNS” TAKES "DANGEROUS TOYS" OFF STREET

TO BEGIN, A TRUE STORY:

The story you are about to read is a true one. The name of the perpetrator has been retained to castigate the guilty.Once when the author of this post was the ripe old age of 4 years old, he had a “run-in” with the police. This is what happened:My friend and I were waiting one day, outside our apartment on Superior Road, in Cleveland Heights, Ohio for the station wagon to pick us up and take us to nursery school, as it did every weekday. In those days, back in the 50s – which gives you some idea how old I am now – mothers did not wait with their children on a corner of the street for the school bus or school van. Sure, there were sexual predators back then as there are now but, apparently, they did not exist in the numbers we have today. And the mainstream news media did not drone on endlessly about such things, unlike  today, to secure readership through unapologetic sensationalism. Anyway, as my friend and I were waiting for the nursery school wagon to take us to school, I got the bright idea of going to the park, down the street, to have some fun. It would only be a few minutes. School could wait. My friend agreed, and we walked toward the park, about one-quarter of a mile away. A long, hard-packed dirt footpath sloped down to the park. Once at the park, we noticed “tons” of shiny bottle caps on the ground by the park benches. These were gems to us. We began to fill our pockets full of bottle caps. Soon mine were swollen with caps. The sky-blue and gold Anchor steam beer bottle caps particularly attracted me. As might be expected to happen with young boys, my friend and I lost all track of time.In retrospect, as I think about it, at least one-half hour must have passed while we were in the park. We can only surmise what had occurred on the street above us as the driver of the nursery school wagon saw no one at a corner where two very young boys were supposed to be. The driver must have notified the mothers that we were absent. And the mothers immediately notified the police. As I was walking up the path, from the park to the street above, I noticed a police station wagon pulling up into the park. My friend lagged behind me and he was still in the park when the car arrived. I often wonder what road the police had taken that enabled them to get into the park as I was only aware of one entrance into the park, namely, the footpath we took.A police officer emerged from the car and pulled my friend into the backseat. The officer saw me on the path and yelled, angrily, for me to come down. What should I do? I thought for a second, “it’s okay; I’m on my way home now. I’ll meet you guys there.” But, I knew better. When a man in uniform with a badge, and a gun, and authority tells you to do something, you don’t ignore him; you certainly don’t argue with him, or disparage him; you don’t wave a gun or a toy gun at him, or a knife, or a hammer, or a baseball bat; and you don’t throw bottle caps at him. You obey him quickly and to the letter. I did so. I too was pulled into the backseat of the car. I saw two officers in the front seat of the car. My friend and I said nothing either to the officers or to each other. We were a trifle frightened to be sure, but also a bit bewildered. What was the big deal? One of the officers made a call. I felt, “oh, boy; we are in for it now.” When the police car drove up to the apartment, both our mothers were on the curb, waiting for us, mildly hysterical. The nursery school wagon was at the curb too, the driver outside the vehicle.We didn’t go to nursery school that day. Upstairs in the apartment, I unloaded “my haul” onto the kitchen table. I was given a “talking to.” And that was that. Thereafter, I never strolled away alone to the park. I dutifully waited for the nursery school wagon to take me to school. I learned my lesson very well and that was a good thing.  For, never again did I find myself in the backseat of a police car.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

When a police officer orders you to do something, you do it; time enough to fight the legitimacy of the officer’s behavior in a court of law. Now, I was 4 years old when I had my “run-in” with the law and I had enough sense to recognize authority and to obey a police officer’s command. Tamir Rice –  who was 12 years old and who, arguably, looked much older at 5’7” and 195 pounds, according to news accounts  – was three times my age, and he disobeyed a command that should have been clear enough to understand and important enough to obey whether one is an adult, a teenager, a pre-teen, or a child. He didn’t. He died. A mother has lost her son. The son has lost his future. And a police officer may have lost his career and, certainly, forever after, his peace of mind.

ONE ANSWER: GET RID OF THE “FAKE GUNS!”

On the front page of the Sunday December 14, 2014 edition of the Plain Dealer, an article appears, titled “120 fake weapons are turned in.” The Plain Dealer has previously written about “real” gun buyback programs which may have political coin, but are a joke and an affront to the American public. Moreover, apropos of the City's novel "toy gun" buyback program, I wish to point out that, when I was a child, we played with “cap guns” that had the heft and appearance of real six-shooters. There were no calls for buybacks of these toy guns back then; there was no lunacy or hysteria on the part of the newspapers calling for gun control (and, now, toy gun control); and there was an absence of moronic behavior on the part of some members of the public when confronted by understandably nervous police officers.So, what has changed and, perhaps, more to the point, why? Is there something in the water we drink, in the food we eat, in the air we breathe?The writer of the December 14^th Plain Dealer front page article quotes Jan Thorpe, executive director of Inner Visions of Cleveland, one of the toy gun buyback sponsors as saying, “‘guns that were once a symbol of death will become a symbol of life because we will crush them and turn the pieces into some sort of mosaic.’” How smug.  Thorpe is talking about toys here, not guns, merely toys in the shape of guns. Boys play with toy guns. I played with toy guns in my youth. My neighborhood friends and I played soldier, and cops and robbers, and cowboys and Indians. This was normal, this was decent. This was our rite of passage as American boys who would one day be men. This is in the natural order of things.What has changed? I will tell you: lack of belief in and trust in the indomitability of the human spirit; the loss of personal accountability and responsibility; governmental, indeed, societal mistrust of the individual; and loss of faith in one’s own true self.Wake up America! The salient problem with our Country is not the presence of guns, or toy guns, or any other toy or implement. The problem is lack of faith and trust in one’s own abilities and in one’s own sanctity. Giving up this or that implement – and now toy – because a newspaper tells us that this is the sane thing to do shows, rather, how insanity in the guise of sanity has permeated our society and is slowly draining the lifeblood out of each and every one of us.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour).

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 2: PRESIDENT OBAMA GRANTS AMNESTY FOR MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TODAY; WILL HE GRANT THEM FULL CITIZENSHIP TOMORROW?

HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CALLED TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE

On Tuesday, December 2, 2014, Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of DHS, testified before the House Homeland Security Committee. What prompted the Congressional Hearing is well known. President Obama had unilaterally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He had threatened to do so, after the 2014 midterm elections. And immediately following the midterm elections, Obama did in fact order DHS to suspend deportation proceedings on 5 million illegal immigrants on U.S. soil. In so doing, he has acted contrary to the will of Congress. Congressional Republicans insist that Obama explain his actions.Over 11 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Potentially all of these illegal immigrants are subject to deportation, pursuant to present immigration law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with their removal. Yet, President Obama has called for an immediate halt to deportation of roughly half of them.At Tuesday’s Hearing, Representative Michael McCall, R-Texas, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, expressed outrage at the Obama Administration’s actions that effectively bypass Congress. Upon calling the Committee Meeting to Order McCall wasted no time asserting that the President’s actions “undermine our Constitution and threaten our Democracy.”Representative Bill Keating, D-Massachusetts, asked Secretary Johnson, pointedly, whether the President’s actions amount to granting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants? Johnson replied that the current situation does amount to amnesty.But, what does ‘amnesty’ mean? Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), defines ‘amnesty’ as “a pardon extended by the government to a group or class of persons, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but have not been convicted.” Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) also says that, “unlike an ordinary pardon, amnesty is usually addressed to crimes against State authority – that is, to political offenses with respect to which forgiveness is deemed more expedient for the public welfare than prosecution and punishment. Amnesty is usually general, addressed to classes or even communities.” The President, not Congress, has granted amnesty to literally millions of illegal immigrants. Congress can do so. The President cannot. See previous Article on immigration. The President does so anyway. The unstated basis for the President’s unilateral action is expediency and public welfare. But, illegally crossing U.S. borders in the first instance or re-entering the U.S.  illegally, once again, after deportation, are both criminal offenses under present U.S. immigration law.Moreover, we may rightly ask whether presumed “expediency” is a sound basis for the President’s actions when such actions disrupt the rule of law and undercut the U.S. Constitution. And we may well ask whose public welfare the President has in mind by granting amnesty. Is he not less concerned for the welfare of American citizens and more concerned for the welfare of millions of immigrants who crossed our Nation’s borders illegally in obvious defiance of our Nation’s immigration laws? It would seem so!

DOES THE PRESIDENT’S GRANT OF AMNESTY TO FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONFER CITIZENSHIP ON THOSE FIVE MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS?

This question is singularly important and has been given scant, if any, attention in the face of the President’s grant of amnesty. But, the American public should consider the ramifications of the President's grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. For, where amnesty is awarded to those so undeserving of it, will they not flex their muscles and, in the future, request – indeed, at some point demand – full citizenship, with all that the word, ‘citizenship’ entails?To be sure, granting amnesty does not ipso facto confer citizenship. But, might not the President’s actions operate as a step toward full citizenship for these five million illegal immigrants? Is that not the tacit assumption behind the President’s unilateral actions?

WHO IS A CITIZEN?

To understand who is a citizen we must first get a handle on what the word ‘citizen’ means? Once again, let us turn to the legal definition of ‘citizen.’ Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines the word ‘citizen’ as “a person who, by either birth or naturalization, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance to the political community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and protections.”The paramount question before us, aside from the obvious pertinent ones -- directed to the purported legal basis for the President's actions, granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, and the political rationale for granting amnesty to so many individuals who crossed our borders illegally, in contradistinction to the laws of naturalization enacted by Congress -- is whether the President’s unilateral actions create a defacto class of citizens. What we need to ask is: what legal rights will accrue to these five million illegal immigrants through the President’s unprecedented act of amnesty? And, having arrived here illegally, we may also wish to consider to whom these people owe their allegiance? Do they owe allegiance to the U.S. or to their native Countries? And, if they are not at present entitled to all the rights and protections of bona fide American citizens, what rights and protections, if any, are they entitled to? And, if they are in fact entitled to the same rights and protections as those enjoyed by American citizens, are they not, then, essentially American citizens?Even if the President denies he has created or intends to create a quasi-class of citizens through the grant of amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, might not these five million illegal immigrants sue for full rights and protections somewhere down the road if they do not in fact enjoy all rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution by virtue of the President’s grant of amnesty to them?Can we not imagine a slew of civil rights lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of, these five million illegal immigrants at some point in the future? Would these illegal immigrants not claim that their rights under the Constitution must be met? As incongruous as that may sound at the moment, we should reflect on the true implications of the President’s unsound actions in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

WHAT LIES IN STORE FOR AMERICANS?

Clearly, the President’s actions have opened a Pandora’s Box of troubles for Americans. Whatever complications exist over the mere presence of millions of illegal immigrants in this Country, such complications pale in comparison to what lies ahead for Americans as a result of Obama’s unlawful actions granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants in the first place.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: USURPATION OF THE POWERS OF CONGRESS; OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

PART 2: EXECUTIVE BRANCH OVERREACH/USURPATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION BY THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT IN CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE SET FORTH IN AND THE MAINSTAY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

SUBPART 1: OBAMA REWRITES IMMIGRATION LAW

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF CONGRESS?

Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth clearly, concisely and categorically: “all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Among those legislative Powers, Article 1, Section 8 says, “the Congress shall have Power to establish . . . a uniform rule of Naturalization.”  The term ‘naturalization’ means ‘immigration’ and the power to regulate immigration implies the power to vest citizenship in a person. This means that Congress has authority to enact federal legislation establishing the rules for naturalization and the rules for conferring citizenship. But, does this mean the President also has power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization?Unless specific language in the Constitution says otherwise, we must infer that Congress alone has control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship. And the Constitution does not confer control over immigration and the conferring of citizenship on any Branch of Government, other than the Legislative Branch: Congress. So, then,

WHAT ARE THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT?

Article 2, Section 1 says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article 2, Section 3 mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .” This means that the President has the singular duty to make sure the laws of Congress are adhered to. Nothing in Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution suggests the President shall share law making functions with Congress. Yet, President Obama says he can do this.We must assume that President Obama, a Harvard Law School graduate and Constitutional Law Professor, has a firm grasp of the Constitution of the United States. He must know that Congress, alone, and not the President, has power to establish a uniform law of Naturalization. Yet Obama in defiance of Congress has granted, through Executive fiat, amnesty for five million illegal aliens. By that act Obama has usurped a Power that resides solely in Congress. Does that usurpation of power constitute an impeachable offense? Article 2, Section 4 makes clear that, “the President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Executive Office usurpation of the Powers of Congress certainly falls into the domain of impeachable offenses.

THE COSTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Contrary to Obama’s remarks about the purported benefits illegal immigrants bring to this Country, the cost to Americans is astronomical. “By some estimates, illegal immigration costs the United States $45 billion a year. Not only does society bear the financial costs of illegal immigration, but it is also burdened with the loss of jobs and a decrease in the average household income. The labor market is more than willing to hire illegal immigrants under the table to avoid paying American workers a higher wage. Many illegal immigrants, in turn, accept payment below the federal minimum wage. Consequently, American workers are forced out of their jobs and are unable to locate jobs elsewhere because the only jobs they are qualified for are being taken by illegal immigrants.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation On Postsecondary Education Benefits For Illegal Immigrants," Rebecca Ness Rhymer,” 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).Moreover, most Americans oppose amnesty for undocumented workers. “Americans also feel the financial burden of illegal immigration in other areas, such as social security, criminal justice programs, housing, public education, and health care. With illegal immigration posing a threat to workers and their families, it is understandable that two-thirds of Americans oppose measures designed to make it easier for illegal immigrants to cross the borders in hopes of securing United States citizenship. In 1986, the federal government, intending to curb illegal immigration, implemented a program which granted amnesty to illegal immigrants already within United States borders and increased measures to block further illegal entry. The program sanctioned employers whose hiring of illegal immigrants spread the use of ‘forgery-proof’ residency documents. After 3.1 million illegal immigrants received amnesty, subsequent measures to enforce the program failed. The result did little to curb illegal immigration.” Id.Notwithstanding Americans’ opposition to amnesty programs for illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the lack of Congressional authorization to give amnesty to illegal immigrants, and notwithstanding the failure of past Congressional amnesty programs, Obama has, nonetheless, decided, unilaterally, and contrary to the authority of the Chief Executive to do so under our Constitution, to give amnesty to millions of these people anyway.

HOW OBAMA HAS REWRITTEN THE UNIFORM LAWS OF NATURALIZATION AND VESTING OF CITIZENSHIP

To understand how Obama has rewritten the uniform laws of naturalization and the vesting of citizenship we need to look at a couple of the Naturalization laws that Congress has enacted in prior years.The idea of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is nothing new, but Congress alone has authority to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants if it chooses to do so, not the President. While naturalization programs go back to the dawn of the Republic, Congress has most recently experimented with amnesty during the last quarter of the Twentieth Century. This was a time – continuing to the present moment – when millions of aliens have crossed and are continuing to cross the Nation’s borders illegally. Amnesty for illegal aliens took the form of providing temporary asylum for some illegal aliens. The program failed miserably as it simply encouraged rather than discouraged ever more illegal entry into the Country.  So, subsequent acts of Congress were directed to denying amnesty to undocumented aliens.Let’s take a look at the two most recent immigration programs.The first such fairly modern program was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). This Act did in fact grant temporary amnesty to certain qualifying illegal immigrants, did in fact grant permanent residency for certain qualifying agricultural workers, and did impose legal penalties on employers who hired undocumented workers. The program also funded border patrol in the hope of preventing more undocumented workers from venturing onto U.S. soil. See, generally, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012). IRCA failed because the INS was unable to satisfactorily enforce the Act. Id.See also, “NOTE: The Political Discourse of Amnesty in Immigration Policy,” Bryn Siegel, 41 Akron L.R. (2008). “IRCA is widely recognized as a failed attempt to regulate undocumented immigration. The failure of IRCA to control illegal immigration now stands as the central hurdle in any campaign for a legalization statute.  Known commonly as the ‘first amnesty,’ IRCA has a pervasive legacy. Following IRCA, illegal immigration continued to rise and many undocumented immigrants in the United States remained without legal status when the opportunity to apply expired.  The critical failure of IRCA in terms of inspiring sympathetic supporters was the relative ease of the legalization process.”So, Congress decided to end leniency toward illegal aliens.Congress enacted a new immigration program: the “Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996” (IIRIRA). Congress enacted the 1996 program, IIRIRA, to correct problems inherent in the Act of 1986, IRCA. The new program, IIRIRA, imposed stricter penalties on immigrants remaining in the U.S. after expiration of their authorized period of stay. And the 1996 Act restricted deportees from reentering the U.S. for several years after deportation. Id. The stricter penalties were designed to discourage unauthorized immigration. “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).The 1996 IIRIRA program, together with The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), “imposed a number of restrictions on illegal immigrants’ in the United States. Specifically, Congress created this legislation to reduce the increasing availability of public benefits to illegal immigrants, which serve as incentives for keeping their illegal status.  Not only did the PRWORA and the IIRIRA restrict illegal immigrants’ access to federal public benefits, such as social security and health care, but they also restricted access to state and local benefits, including the limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment for higher education purposes.” “NOTE: Taking Back the Power: Federal vs. State Regulation on Postsecondary Education Benefits for Illegal Immigrants,” Rebecca Ness Rhymer, 44 Washburn L.J. 603 (Spring, 2005).

UNDER PRESENT LAW HOW MAY A PERSON BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN?

“There are currently four ways to become a naturalized U.S. citizen: (1) permanent U.S. residency for five years, (2) permanent U.S. residency for three years and a spouse who is a U.S. citizen, (3) serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, or (4) being a child of a U.S. citizen. The majority of immigrants become a naturalized U.S. citizen through permanent residence by obtaining a "Green Card." A Green Card can be obtained through family, employment, asylee or refugee status, and other special programs that apply to a very small class of immigrants. In order to obtain a Green Card, you must first acquire a visa in order to enter the United States. In 2010, there were 482,052 immigrant visas issued.” See, “Comment: Economic Effects of Immigration: Avoiding Past Mistakes and Preparing for the Future,” 14 Scholar 869 Natalya Shatniy (2012).Under present immigration law, enacted by Congress, amnesty for illegal immigrants doesn't exist. A person who enters the U.S. in the hope of becoming a U.S. citizen must first obtain a visa. Id. That means a person must enter the U.S. legally. Visas are not issued to individuals who cross a U.S. border illegally.

WE HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE “DREAM ACT.” DOESN’T THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDE AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS?

The answer is, “no,” because it was never enacted. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM ACT) which is trumped up in the news – “a law that would have provided a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants living in the United States who succeed academically and/or through service in the United States military” – failed. See “The State of the Ordinary Family: A Symposium: Article: The Impact of Recessionary Politics on Latino-American and Immigrant Families: SCHIP Success and DREAM Act Failure," Mariela Oliveras, 55 How. L.J. 359 (Winter, 2012).The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors of 2010 (DREAM Act) might be considered a revamped Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) that had failed decades ago. Democrats in Congress pushed for it. Understandably, Congressional Republicans pushed back. As IRCA had failed abysmally, Congressional Republicans, justifiably, saw nothing to warrant resurrecting it in the form of the so-called "DREAM Act."

THE FAILURE OF CONGRESS TO ENACT THE “DREAM ACT” PROVIDED THE IMPETUS FOR OBAMA TO UNILATERALLY GRANT AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.

Frustrated that Congress wouldn’t enact the DREAM Act, Obama decided to take action without Congress -- threatening to do so only after the Midterm elections, hoping that Democrats would retain control of the U.S. Senate. That didn't happen. Realizing that the Dream Act -- or some form of it -- wouldn't be enacted anytime soon, if ever, Obama decided to act on his threat.Curiously, Obama previously admitted, correctly, that he cannot legislate where Congress fails to do so. He now argues, inconsistently, that Executive amnesty for millions of undocumented aliens falls within his purview as Chief Executive. Supporters of Obama’s action may call it “administrative expediency.” But Obama’s action amounts to an Executive Order of clemency for millions of undocumented aliens who should be deported. In effect the Order is an unlawful legislative act on the part of the Executive. It is not a legitimate administrative action. Rather, Obama's Order is designed to thwart immigration law.What Obama’s immigration Order says is that illegal immigrants won’t be deported if they don’t pose a threat to national security, public safety or border security. What Obama's immigration Order means is that immigration officials are prohibited from doing their job -- deporting illegal aliens. Obama believes that he has the legal authority to do this because immigration officials work for the Executive, not Congress, and because he believes that telling immigration officials not to do their job, deporting illegals, is somehow different than telling Congress straightforwardly that he won't faithfully execute immigration law -- that he won't, then, give any thought to the intent of Congress.

HOW DOES DEPORTATION OF ALIENS WORK AND IN WHAT MANNER DOES OBAMA BELIEVE HE CAN LEGALLY OVERRIDE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY?

Obama believes he can legally get around what, to his mind, is an uncooperative Congress. Obama argues he isn't willfully disobeying Congressional authority because his immigration order only goes to the matter of deportation, not amnesty. And deportation authority, unlike the matter of granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, is an Executive function. So Obama is trying to make the case that he isn’t really giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants at all. He is simply not enforcing deportation. Indeed, “the most common form of protection {for illegal immigrants} has been the non-enforcement of deportation rather than the grant of a specific temporary status.” See, "ARTICLE: Temporary Protection: Towards a New Regional and Domestic Framework," Susan Martin, Andy Schoenholtz, and Deborah Waller Meyers 12 Geo. Immigration L.J. 543 (Summer, 1998).This is just equivocation. Whether Obama, on his own, were actively to bestow amnesty on millions of illegal immigrants (in effect, wrongly invoking Executive clemency for illegal immigrants by implicitly rewriting present immigration law) or simply were to order his  immigration officials to refrain from enforcing deportation rules, Obama is telling illegal immigrants that they can stay in the United States. In fact Obama has ordered immigration officials to stop deporting millions of illegal immigrants whom Congress has dictated, through present immigration law, must be deported. Obama is thus telling millions of illegal immigrants that  they need not fear deportation because immigration officials will not deport them, as immigration officials have been ordered by Obama not to deport them. However one chooses to describe Obama's action here, Obama has clearly thwarted the will of Congress. That is obviously Obama's intention and that is certainly what he has done. That will certainly make millions of illegal immigrants happy. But whom does Obama, as President of the United States, represent: illegal immigrants or bona fide American citizens? And, whose welfare is Obama, as President of the United States, supposed to be concerned with: the welfare of illegal immigrants or the welfare of bona fide American citizens? It appears that Obama is concerned more for the welfare of  people who ought not remain in this Country, who should never have come to the Country in the manner they did -- in defiance of our laws, exhibiting contempt for our People -- and he seems concerned less for the welfare of bona fide American citizens. Illegal immigrants are not honest, law-abiding people. Their very presence here is a testament to their disrespect for our laws, our culture, our citizenry. Obama caters to that!Moreover, through his actions, Obama hasn't merely condoned illegal immigration, he has actively encouraged it. And he is inviting more of the same.Americans will see millions of illegal immigrants flooding across our borders in the future, many more from Mexico, from Countries of Central America, from Countries of South America, and from Countries around the world. This is just what Congress -- Congressional Republicans at least -- sought to prevent enactment of IIRIRA in 1996.Obama's action undermines America's immigration laws and constitutes a direct challenge to the authority and power of Congress, under the U.S. Constitution, to establish the rules of Naturalization and Citizenship for all Americans. And, what does Obama's action say to foreigners who have waited for years to become American citizens, through proper legal channels, through adherence to the rule of law? What does Obama's action say to the  millions of Americans whose grandparents and great grandparents came to this Country legally through Ellis Island? How much respect can a person have for a Country's rule of law when that person has already broken the Laws of the Land through illegal entry into this Country? Such a person doesn't care. And Obama doesn't care either.Obama says his policy will not prevent the deportation of  "criminals." That is an incongruous remark since all illegal immigrants are by definition criminals. The phrases, 'illegal entry' and 'illegal reentry,' denote 'crimes' under U.S. immigration law. For a historical perspective on this, see, generally, "Article, Re-thinking Illegal Entry and Reentry," Doug Keller, 44 Loyola U. Chi. 65 (Fall 2012)What Obama is doing, essentially, is pushing the DREAM Act through by Executive Action/Executive fiat since Democrats in Congress were unsuccessful in their efforts to enact the DREAM Act. Indeed, his action, tying the hands of immigration officials so they aren't permitted to do their job, deporting millions of illegal immigrants, extends the Dream Act well beyond what even the Dream Act was designed to do if Congress had enacted it.

OBAMA HAS NOT ACTED ALONE

To Argue Obama has acted alone in granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is not precisely true. Congressional Democrats encouraged the President to act and, in so doing, they, too, have acted irresponsibly. Moreover, these elected officials have undermined their own authority. They have undermined the authority and power of  Congress as an independent Branch of Government -- a Branch critical to the operations of and well-being of the Republic. Their action constitutes a betrayal to the American public they were elected to serve.Congressional Democrats complicity in the President's action is clearly in evidence. Consider: “In April 2011, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and twenty-one other Democratic senators published a letter they sent to President Barack Obama urging him to use executive discretion and authority to stop deportations and removals of undocumented young people-who grew up in the United States or have been residing in the United States for many years-who would have benefitted from the DREAM Act.” See, “Symposium: Noncitizen Participation In The American Polity: Dreams Deferred: Deferred Action, Prosecutorial Discretion, And The Vexing Cases(s) Of Dream Act Students, Michael A. Olivas, 21 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights J. 463 (December, 2012).“The Obama Administration has apparently determined that any forms of immigration reform will have to be modest, and in the nature of non-legislative, adjudicatory, administrative review and discretionary deferred action.” Id.Deportation of aliens is an Executive function to be sure. But, that does not mean the Chief Executive – the President – can take it upon himself unilaterally to suspend deportation of millions of illegal aliens. That is an abuse of Executive discretion because deportation is a tool that Congress uses to effectuate the laws it has enacted. It is not a device to be used by the Chief Executive to thwart the will of Congress.Still, Congressional Democrats persevered in their own irresponsible actions. Senator Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer wrote a personal letter to then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, attempting to pressure her to exclude millions of illegal aliens from deportation. But, Napolitano, a lawyer herself, responded with a letter of her own, barely containing her anger, “insisting that no category of Prosecutorial Discretion (PD) would be employed for groups of individuals: ‘I am not going to stand here and say that there are whole categories that we will, by executive fiat, exempt from the current immigration system, as sympathetic as we feel towards them.’” Id. Yet, three years later, we find Obama compelling Executive departments and Agencies to do just that: defying Congressional Mandate by excluding entire categories of individuals – literally millions of them – from deportation.

OBAMA HAS PREVIOUSLY EXPERIMENTED WITH AMNESTY

On June 15, 2012, Obama initiated a new policy, providing temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came here as children -- a policy known as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA). "Note, 'You may say I'm a Dreamer, but I'm not the Only One,' a1: Categorical Prosecutorial Discretion and Its Consequences for US Immigration Law," Maria A. Fufidio, 36 Fordham Int'l L.J., 976 (June, 2013).  Opposition to DACA came not only from Republicans in Congress but from State governments and even from agents within the Department of Homeland Security. Id.What does DACA do? DACA "defers removal action for two years and provides individuals with work authorization if they meet other eligibility criteria for eligibility." Id.We now see what DACA really was and where DACA was obviously headed: universal amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. The President's DACA policy was, then, merely a dress rehearsal for his latest initiative. For, where DACA granted temporary amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants, the President has now granted amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. It would not be a stretch to infer from the President's actions, that he intends, ultimately, to bestow amnesty to the 11 million plus illegal immigrants who currently reside on U.S. soil and to the thousands  -- perhaps millions  more -- who are crossing U.S. borders today and who, undoubtedly, will continue to cross U.S. borders and enter our ports, illegally, in the coming weeks, months, and years.

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

Not surprisingly, Senate and House Republicans are livid and the American public should sound off too.It may be academic why Obama waited almost three years to thwart the will of Congress. Likely, Obama hoped that Congress would enact the DREAM Act or something like it. Pressured by House and Senate Democrats, and by millions of undocumented aliens who shouldn’t have a voice at all, Obama decided to usurp the authority of Congress. Even now Obama says a Congressional enactment on immigration would override his Executive action. So saying, Obama is admitting he has usurped the authority of Congress. Moreover, immigration legislation already exists. That legislation does not provide for general amnesty. Obama doesn’t like it. Democrats in Congress don’t like it. And eleven million plus illegal aliens don’t like it. But most Americans -- bona fide citizens -- do like it. And it is the law.Obama likes to blurt out slogans. He says the present immigration system is broken. But, is it? What does he mean by the word, 'broken?' Does he mean the system is broken because it doesn't sanctify the presence of "border jumpers" in the U.S.? One might say, just as nonsensically, that our criminal justice system is broken because it preys on individuals who commit crimes.Apparently, illegal immigrants, some members of Congress, and the United States President believe they can, together, thrust their will on the American People, contrary to the import and purport of the United States Constitution and contrary to the authority of Congress, which alone, has power, under the Constitution, to establish the laws of naturalization and citizenship. Hopefully, some members of Congress will remember where their duty rests.

WHAT LIES AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

The American People must understand that usurpation of the U.S. Constitution – even by those who believe, possibly, they are acting with the best of intentions – undermines the Republic. The Obama Administration is testing the waters by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, contrary to dictates of the present immigration law. But, Obama is testing the waters in ways far beyond the issue of immigration. If Congress fails to take strong measures against the Obama Administration and fails to do so immediately, then precedent will exist for further encroachment upon the Powers of Congress.Would a President dare to argue, for example, the First Amendment, Second Amendment, or Fourth Amendment Rights might be legally curtailed on the ground of a President’s personal convictions? We see an inkling of this -- and in matters of Fourth Amendment privacy rights, more than an inkling -- even now. If a President believes his Office is unassailable and that he, personally, is invincible, then the Rule of Law ceases to exist; the Constitution weakens; the Republic falls.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: THE HISTORY OF POLICING IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 3: THE HISTORY OF POLICING IN AMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

The militarization and federalization of police forces is not a recent occurrence. It isn’t a singular event. And, it isn’t an anomaly. It’s a calculated strategy through which the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Defense (DOD) and Justice (DOJ) on behalf of powerful, secretive, sinister, ruthless forces both within the United States and outside it seek to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and bring an end to our Republic. Once the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights topples, the other Nine Amendments will fall of their own accord. In the absence of our sacred Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution will have lost a crucial leg upon which the very structure of our free Republic stands. Never, since its inception in the 18^th Century, has the Bill of Rights suffered a more ferocious assault upon its sacred principals than in the 21^st Century – hardly an Age of Enlightenment.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POWERFUL, SECRETIVE, RUTHLESS FORCES ANTITHETICAL TO OUR FREE REPUBLIC EXIST; THAT THEY HAVE CONSPIRED TO DESTROY OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, AND, ONCE HAVING ACCOMPLISHED THAT TASK, SEEK TO DISMANTLE OUR SOVEREIGN NATION STATE?

You may have heard of the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, among others. The mainstream media (MSM) won’t talk about these groups. The MSM won’t investigate the aims and goals of these groups.  The MSM won’t discuss how these groups work secretly to coordinate foreign and domestic policies; how these groups manipulate public perception; how these groups manufacture lies; how these groups infiltrate the institutions of this Country. The MSM won’t discuss these matters at all, won’t even mention them. The MSM won’t do this because the MSM is an instrument of these groups.Still, the public can obtain an inkling of the machinations of these groups: the strategies they employ to control society: the arsenal of destruction. One strategy is the militarization and federalization of the police forces in this Country.

WHAT PROOF EXISTS THAT POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY REALLY ARE MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED OR, AT LEAST, ARE RAPIDLY BECOMING MILITARIZED AND FEDERALIZED?

In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 9, 2014, the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee, held a public hearing on September 9, 2014. Representatives of DHS, DOD, and Department of Justice (DOJ) offered testimony. Police use of military equipment was the subject of the hearing. The topic of the hearing may seem banal. The import of it isn’t. Apart from “SWAT” teams – the creation and purpose of which raises some interesting issues of its own – why, generally, would rank and file police officers, operating in thousands of police forces across the Country, need military equipment: sniper rifles, night vision goggles, armored vehicles, fully automatic weaponry, military uniforms and military armor?Today, the subject of militarization and federalization of police in American society is viewed alongside discussions of police brutality, race relations, “broken windows” theory,  Fourth Amendment privacy rights, and Fourth Amendment privacy concerns – matters that reflect and encompass policing strategies, theories, philosophies, and topics of recent vintage, extending from the mid-twentieth century, through the first decade of the 21^st – up to this very moment.But, to understand how we got to this point we must grasp the historical role and function of police in American society. For, you shall see, the militarization and federalization of civilian police forces is not simply a matter of discerning changes in police equipment. It is more – much more.

HOW DID WE GET FROM THERE TO HERE?

It may seem a trifling matter, even quaint, to ask this question. After all, every community in America has a police department of some kind and, seemingly, always had a police department. The public accepts concepts such as ‘State police power,’ ‘police departments,’ ‘policing,’ and ‘police officers’ as “givens,” without need for definitive explication or even a cursory explanation.But, if you stop to think about it – really stop to think about it – you begin to realize the need to ask this question and a slew of other questions -- questions the MSM does not ask and does not investigate and, so, does not try to answer.Why do we have police officers and police departments at all? What is their purpose in society? How did they come to be? How did the concept of ‘police power’ come into being?  Does the ‘police power’ reside only in the individual States? Or, does the ‘police power’ also reside with the Federal Government? If that power only resides in the individual States, how did that power come to be transferred to the Federal Government? Was it through subterfuge? Did the individual States willingly sell their “soul” to the Federal Government in exchange for military hardware? To whom do the police agencies of the individual States really answer? What was the role of policing in colonial America? Did the public itself serve, at one time, as “the police?” If so, at what point did policing transform into an independent segment or organ of society and why? What was the original function of policing in American society? What was policing supposed to accomplish? Once policing became a unique profession, whom did the police serve? How did policing evolve? What is the function and role of the police today? Is the primary role of the police today one of protecting the public from transgressors? Or, is the primary role of police one of protecting certain wealthy, powerful segments of the society against the public, where the public is itself deemed, inherently, to be the transgressor or, at least, deemed to be a potential transgressor?

OUR HYPOTHESIS

Policing, ultimately, is about control: control of the masses. And control of the masses is the sine qua non of the “Police State.”But, is this hypothesis true? To test this hypothesis we must take a close look at the history of policing.We begin with a look at policing in Colonial America.

DID POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND POLICE OFFICERS EXIST IN COLONIAL AMERICA?

The answer is, “no.” There were no police departments in the colonies or early States. In fact, there were no professional law enforcement officers. The peace officer, most commonly a constable, was usually a low status ‘freeman’ pressed into a tour of duty for a year. He was not paid a salary; rather, he was a part-time officer who received small fees for performing various services, probably while attempting to maintain his usual occupation. Although constables in some cities might have been loosely organized under a ‘high constable,’ and might have been augmented by a nightwatch, peace officers were not numerous; the usual pattern was one constable for each parish, ward, or similar local jurisdiction. Thus, the constable often depended on the assistance of bystanders to execute an arrest – in fact, the constable’s authority to command the assistance of others may have been the most distinctive attribute of his office. Constables were expected to preserve order by keeping an eye on taverns, controlling drunks, apprehending vagrants, and responding to ‘affrays’ (fights) and other disturbances but they were not otherwise expected to investigate crime. Instead, the mobilization of criminal justice depended almost entirely on private initiation of criminal prosecutions. Except for homicides, which might be inquired into by a coroner’s inquest or grand jury, the initiation of arrests and searches commenced when a crime victim either raised the ‘hue and cry’ or made a sworn complaint. How and how often (if at all) the hue and cry was used in late eighteenth-century America is not well understood, but it appears to have been reserved primarily as a response to ‘fresh’ crimes, especially robbery and escapes.” “Recovering the Original Fourth Amendment,” Thomas Y. Davies, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 547, 621 (December, 1999)In the earliest days of the Republic the duty of policing resided in the public. The public took responsibility for law and order. “The evolution of American policing was a slow and selective process.” “Evolving Strategies: A Historical Examination of Changes in Principle, Authority and Function to Inform Policing,” Julia E. Scott, Police Journal 83 2 (June 2010). The process was slow and selective because the public feared centralized power and control. “The unification of the English colonies as an independent nation in the West brought a greater need for communal security, and heightened the necessity for a governing authority and laws with which to maintain order, than prior to America’s autonomy. Ratification of the United States Constitution offered a well-defined Federal influence, administered through three branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial, and provided the central authority necessary to administer justice. In the United States, the laws and ‘elaborate machinery’ needed to enforce them had not yet been tested; thus law enforcement was administered in the only manner with which citizens were familiar: the parish-constable system.” Id.The rise of the professional police officer and the rise of centralized police departments – the modern police system – replacing the informal parish-constable system – was a development, oddly enough, owing much to the philosophy of policing in English society. “American policing is generally ascribed to an Englishman, Sir Robert Peel.”“Appointed as the British Home Secretary, Peel introduced the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829. The Act was designed to reform the antiquated parish-constable system of policing that had failed to effectively repress the rising incidence of violent and property crime in England.” Peel is considered the father of modern policing. Peel’s philosophy of policing is codified in a set of 26 principles. They are:

1. Absence of crime best improves police efficiency
2. Principle objective is crime prevention
3. Organization must be stable, efficient, military-like
4. Police headquarters centralized
5. Establishment of rank with assigned duties
6. Separation of police management from judiciary
7. Modification of system to meet local needs
8. Creation of a divisional reserve
9. Police records are necessary (to allot divisional strength)
10. Recruits hired on a probationary basis
11. Police applicants to be judged on their merits
12. Police should be even-tempered; a quiet determined manner
13. Each officer will be assigned a number
14. Proper training is the root of police efficiency
15. Strict discipline of officers will ensure high behavioral standards
16. Deployment by shift and beat
17. A “beat card” will be issued to each officer
18. Promotions will be filled from lower-rank officers
19. Good appearance commands respect
20. Distribution of crime news is essential
21. Power of police depends on public approval
22. To maintain public respect police must secure public cooperation and obey laws
23. Public cooperation diminishes proportionately with police use of physical force
24. To preserve public favor, police must demonstrate impartial service for the law
25. To maintain a relation with the public that denotes the police are the public and the public are the police
26. Daily reporting of police activity

As you can see, Peel’s list includes several administrative mechanisms, normative values, and, perhaps most revealing, a military structure.What we have today – the militarization and federalization of police – is not, then, a creature that just happened suddenly and mysteriously. Its seeds were planted over 180 years ago. The fear that Americans have today over the increasing power of police forces in American society echo those of Americans and the English, too, almost two centuries ago.In the next installment we will continue our investigation into the roots of the modern policing and the rise of the Police State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BEYOND BIO HORROR MOVIES: EBOLA UNLEASHED IN THE UNITED STATES

WHEN EBOLA MISHAPS AND MISTAKES JUST DON’T CUT IT!

The Ebola virus has taken up residence in the United States. How has this happened? Why has this happened? You have heard the President telling the American public not to fret over it, that he has everything under control. And you have heard the mainstream media mouthpieces for the Government voice banal remarks about it. In this post and in the next few posts, the Arbalest Quarrel will take a close look at the Ebola pandemic from the standpoint of what the experts have to say about it, and we will consider those well-reasoned thoughts in light of recent horrifying events. We will also take a critical look at the propaganda the Federal Government spouts through its bullhorn, the mainstream media. Despite the endless platitudes, the American public has much to fear. Ebola is a fearsome disease. Most individuals who are infected by the Ebola virus will die from it. And death, virtually assured for 90% of those who contract it, does not come painlessly. Death by Ebola is horrific. Ebola’s manifestations are gruesome. The victim’s suffering is unimaginable: incessant internal and external bleeding, constant vomiting, and incessant diarrhea. The body’s organs liquefy. Such suffering ought not to be wished on one’s worst enemy.

WHAT MIGHT THE IMPACT OF A PANDEMIC BE ON THE NATION’S BILL OF RIGHTS?

Although epidemics and pandemics may appear unrelated to America’s Bill of Rights, the Ebola outbreak in this Country very clearly touches upon our Bill of Rights. At the stroke of a pen the President might institute martial law across the Country, suspending the Public’s sacred rights. The President may unleash the police and military on the American public. Confiscation of all civilian firearms in the Country in the face of an Ebola epidemic in this Country may be among the President’s first orders.Ebola isn’t fiction. Ebola is real. Ebola is here in the U.S. Might not the President impose martial law? Is he considering that option now? Would an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. suffice as the President’s singular excuse, his pretext for “universal arms confiscation?” Americans must be alert to the possibility of an Ebola pandemic. And, concomitant with the inevitable and horrific loss of life here in America, Americans must face, too, the attendant loss of their inalienable Rights.WE KNOW WELL ENOUGH WE CANNOT TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HONOR OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. WE KNOW, TOO, THAT WE CANNOT TRUST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SECURE OUR BORDERS FROM AN INFESTATION OF MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS. AND WE ARE NOW LEARNING WE CANNOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO SECURE OUR BORDERS FROM THOSE WHO CARRY THE EBOLA VIRUS.

THE REALITY OF GLOBAL PANDEMICS

The U.S. Government has had several years to prepare for a worst case pandemic scenario but, as Ebola is now “out in the wild,” and has reached our shores, Americans see that the Federal Government has done nothing concrete to prepare for it.“Experts say pandemics are inevitable and the modern world is overdue. In the last three hundred years there have been ten flu pandemics. There were three flu pandemics in the twentieth century, in 1918, 1957, and 1968, which killed approximately forty million, two million and one million people worldwide, respectively.” SYMPOSIUM: SHAPING A NEW DIRECTION FOR LAW AND MEDICINE: AN INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ON CULTURE, DISASTER, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH: ANTICIPATING PANDEMIC AVIAN INFLUENZA: WHY THE FEDERAL AND STATE PREPAREDNESS PLANS ARE FOR THE BIRDS,” 10 DePaul J. Health Care L. 213 (Symposium 2007).  The Federal Government has done precious little if anything to forestall another pandemic -- the first of the twenty-first century -- and what may very well develop as the worst yet since 1918.CONSIDER: in response to the 2005 Katrina debacle, “the federal government published a national pandemic plan in November 2005, but public health experts worry the plan is not comprehensive enough to prepare Americans for the inevitable.” Id. So, public health officials worried over the lack of a comprehensive plan to prepare Americans for the inevitable, in 2005. What steps has the Government taken 9 years since to prepare for a worst case scenario? Answer: nothing concrete.

EBOLA RANKS AMONG THE THREE MOST HORRIFIC PATHOGENS IN THE WORLD

The birds have now come home to roost. EBOLA IS ONE OF THE MOST LETHAL VIRUSES KNOWN TO MAN. Three others include Hanta, Marburg, and Lassa. How lethal are these viruses?CONSIDER: in planning for the H1N1 virus, “the U.S. government has projected a worst-case scenario in which thirty percent of the U.S. population will become ill, millions of people will require hospitalization, and nearly two million Americans will lose their lives. Assuming no interventions, the direct and indirect health costs of a moderately virulent flu pandemic are expected to approach $181 billion.” "SYMPOSIUM: SHAPING A NEW DIRECTION FOR LAW AND MEDICINE: AN INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ON CULTURE, DISASTER, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH: ANTICIPATING PANDEMIC AVIAN INFLUENZA: WHY THE FEDERAL AND STATE PREPAREDNESS PLANS ARE FOR THE BIRDS,” 10 DePaul J. Health Care L. 213 (Symposium 2007).WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THE COST IN DOLLARS AND AMERICAN LIVES WOULD BE IF A MAJOR EBOLA PANDEMIC TAKES OFF IN THE U.S.?The public is told not to fret. But, is the mainstream media – the voice box of Government – really giving the American Public ALL the critical facts? THAT IS UNLIKELY!

SO: WHAT IS EBOLA AND WHAT ARE ITS SYMPTOMS?

Ebola is “a form of hemorrhagic fever caused by the Ebola virus. Symptoms include fever, muscular pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. {It is} also called Ebola hemorrhagic fever, African hemorrhagic fever, and viral hemorrhagic fever.” Attorney’s Dictionary of Medicine, Copyright 2012, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.See also, The Merck Manual of Medical Information 1165 (Mark H. Beers ed., 2d Home ed. 2003). “Ebola is a virus that causes fever, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding from the nose and mouth, and loss of consciousness with up to 80-90% fatality rates. Strict isolation is required to avoid transmission to health care workers and there is no specific treatment.” Please note the Merck Manual of Medical Information requirement and warning about Ebola: “STRICT ISOLATION IS REQUIRED TO AVOID TRANSMISSION TO HEALTH CARE WORKERS AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TREATMENT.”AND THIS FROM A THIRD ACADEMIC SOURCE: “Viral hemorrhage fever is a diverse group of illnesses resulting from immunologic responses to various viral infections. The common clinical features include high fever, leukopenia (reduction of white blood cells), altered mental status, and a hemorrhagic diathesis (higher than average tendency to hemorrhage). Marked toxicity and death may occur.” The viral hemorrhagic fever usually starts abruptly with fever, aches, and prostration, followed a few days later by hypotension (low blood pressure) and bleeding. Although many of these viruses are classified into several different genera and families, their clinical manifestations are quite similar.” David Kaufman, M.D. and Laura Obiso, 7-35 Attorneys’ Textbook of Medicine (Third Edition), Chapter 35, Systemic Infection.” “No effective treatment is available. Transfusion of human convalescent-phase plasma has been tried but to date no clinical or experimental data support its efficacy. Supportive therapy is the only alternative presently available. No vaccine is available to protect against Marburg or Ebola virus infection (Rollin, et al., 2000).” Id.“Persons who present with symptoms compatible with those of hemorrhagic fever and who have traveled to endemic areas should be isolated for diagnosis and symptomatic treatment. Diagnosis is made by growing the virus from blood obtained early in the disease or by showing a significant rise in a significant antibody titer. Isolation is particularly important, because some of these illnesses are highly contagious and carry a mortality rate of 50 to 90 percent. For most of these entities, no specific treatment is available (Carlini and Shandera, 2001).” Id. Recall two critical assertions from the above citation. The first is: “PERSONS WHO PRESENT WITH SYMPTOMS OF HEMORRHAGIC FEVER AND WHO HAVE TRAVELED TO ENDEMIC AREAS SHOULD BE ISOLATED FOR DIAGNOSIS AND SYMPTOMATIC TREATMENT.” The second assertion is: “ISOLATION IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ILLNESSES ARE HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS AND CARRY A MORTALITY RATE OF 50 TO 90 PERCENT.” Yet, the President adamantly refuses to lockdown our borders, thereby isolating our Country from the cesspool of West Africa where the Ebola epidemic is spiraling out of control. His response: send thousands of American troops to West Africa. To do what? To set up tent hospitals? Why can't the Africans do that? And, what then? To bring the troops home, harboring Ebola? Is that not possible? Even likely? And, if so, why send our troops to Africa at all? Why not let Ebola burn itself out there? Why bring death here?YET ANOTHER EXPERT HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT EBOLA:“Ebola hemorrhagic fever is a viral disease transmitted to humans from infected animals and animal materials, though many aspects of this disease, including the ways of transmission, are not fully known. Within a week of infection with Ebola, rashes, often containing blood, appear all over the human body, causing the patient to bleed from the mouth and the rectum. Ebola infection will usually result in the death of the infected person, though, as with Marburg disease, patients usually die from shock rather than from blood loss. There is to date no known treatment or cure for the Ebola disease. Patients are usually isolated to reduce the risk of transmission. Secondary cases of Ebola infection may occur in persons who are exposed to bodily fluids of an infected person, such as nurses and health-care workers in facilities with poor hygiene and limited or no infection control. One expert, Alfred DeMaria, remarks that ‘[i]t is possible that a health care worker from the developed world working in such a facility could have unrecognized contact with Ebola and return to their home country before the onset of symptoms." Indeed, some countries have introduced measures to exclude persons from entry if they are suspected of carrying the Ebola disease.’ “FROM BLACK DEATH TO BIRD FLU: INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS IN ASIA”, ANDREAS SCHLOENHARDT, 12 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 263 (Spring, 2006).

FAILURE TO LOCKDOWN OUR BORDERS HAS LED TO THE RELEASE OF EBOLA IN THE U.S.

By failing to close our airports to all travelers from West Africa, the Federal Government allowed David Duncan, a citizen of Liberia, one of several West African Countries where Ebola is raging out of control, to enter this Country. That crucial failure of the Government to lockdown this Country has released Ebola in the United States. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PLAUSIBLY DENY THIS. IT IS FACT. And, as of the posting of this Article, the President has still refused to lockdown this Country.WOULD EBOLA HAVE MADE ITS WAY TO AMERICAN SOIL ANYWAY, AT SOME POINT IN TIME? PERHAPS; THE PRESIDENT’S COMMENTS SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT. BUT, EVEN ASSUMING THAT WERE TRUE, THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT HAVE MADE THE ARRIVAL OF EBOLA TO OUR SHORES EASY!Two nurses, ill-trained and ill-equipped to deal with Ebola, contracted the deadly illness through contact with Duncan.WHAT OTHER NURSES AND HEALTH CARE STAFF MAY HAVE CONTRACTED THE DISEASE? AND, WHAT OTHER AMERICANS WHO HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THESE NURSES ARE HARBORING THE EBOLA VIRUS?Are we simply witnessing honest mistake upon honest mistake? HARDLY! Are we witnessing gross negligence or even callous indifference to the plight of the American people? UNDOUBTEDLY! Will we see the exponential growth of Ebola in this Country? QUITE POSSIBLY!

THE GOVERNMENT HAS ORDERED AMERICAN SOLDIERS INTO A HOT ZONE. WHY?

CONSIDER: MIGHT NOT MANY, MANY AMERICAN SOLDIERS, WHOM THE PRESIDENT HAS SENT TO A HOT ZONE IN AFRICA, RETURN TO AMERICA WITH THE EBOLA VIRUS? IF THAT POSSIBILITY IS NOT SO REMOTE, WOULD OUR COUNTRY NOT BE BETTER SERVED IF EBOLA WERE PERMITTED TO BURN ITSELF OUT IN AFRICA RATHER THAN SHARING THAT SUFFERING HERE? THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS A DUTY FIRST AND FOREMOST TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. HOW MUCH TRAINING HAVE THESE SOLDIERS HAD? A FEW HOURS? WHAT PRECAUTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN TO PRECLUDE THESE SOLDIERS FROM CONTRACTING THE DISEASE WHILE IN THE HOT ZONE MAELSTROM?The Federal Government, through the mainstream news media, has sought to quell the growing fear of a full-blown Ebola outbreak in the United States, but has, to our knowledge, done precious little to prevent it. Indeed, the Government’s failure to lockdown the Country’s major airport hubs has permitted entry of Ebola into the Country.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISN’T GIVING THE PUBLIC ADEQUATE WARNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DESTRUCTIVENESS OF EBOLA.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DONE NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO WARRANT THE PUBLIC’S TRUST IN IT. AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN’T ALLAYED THE PUBLIC’S CONCERN OVER A FULL-BLOWN OUTBREAK OF EBOLA IN THE UNITED STATES?Forewarned is forearmed. Controlling panic is one thing. But creating a false sense of security is quite another. The public has a right to know the facts about Ebola. The public is already aware of the Government’s unpreparedness for it. No less so was the Government prepared for the disaster wrought by Katrina. An Ebola outbreak in this Country would be infinitely worse.EBOLA IS LETHAL! THERE IS NO KNOWN CURE FOR IT! THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE IT WILL DIE FROM IT! DEATH BY IT IS HORRIFIC! THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SAID THAT CONTRACTING THE DISEASE IS DIFFICULT! BUT, IS IT? GIVEN THE INCIDENCE OF THE DISEASE AMONG SEVERAL WELL-TRAINED AMERICAN HEALTH WORKERS WHO HAVE CONTRACTED IT WHILE WORKING WITH EBOLA IN WEST AFRICAN HOT-ZONES, THE PRESIDENT'S ASSURANCES RING HOLLOW.THE PRESIDENT AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA SAY EBOLA ISN'T AN AIRBORNE PATHOGEN? BUT, WHAT DOES THE PHRASE, 'AIRBORNE PATHOGEN' MEAN? CLEARLY, EBOLA CAN AND DOES EXIST OUTSIDE A "HOST" FOR A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD OF TIME. IF THE PATHOGEN ISN'T PROPERLY CONSIDERED AN "AIRBORNE PATHOGEN" IN A MEDICAL SENSE, THE EBOLA PATHOGEN NONETHELESS DOES EXIST FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME IN THE OPEN AIR, NOTWITHSTANDING,  IN A HOST'S COUGHS AND SNEEZES, AND THE PATHOGEN CERTAINLY EXISTS ON OBJECTS THAT WERE IN CONTACT WITH AN EBOLA HOST. THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T DENIED THAT!

PROTOCOLS FOR THE HANDLING OF DEADLY, CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS

PROTOCOLS FOR HANDLING EXTRAORDINARILY DEADLY, HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS, SUCH AS EBOLA, HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THE VERY EXISTENCE OF AND SPECIFIC NATURE OF THESE PROTOCOLS BELY ANY SUGGESTION THE EBOLA VIRUS ISN’T EASY TO TRANSMIT FROM ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER.SO, WHAT ARE THESE PROTOCOLS THE PRESIDENT ALLUDES TO BUT FAILS TO DELINEATE?TO UNDERSTAND THESE PROTOCOLS, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF “BIOSAFETY LEVELS."BIOSAFETY GUIDELINES DO EXIST AND HAVE EXISTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS.“Advisory guidelines published by CDC and the NIH, Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (“BMBL guidelines”) delineate biosafety and biosecurity protocols for laboratories depending on the threat posed to laboratory staff and scientists as well as surrounding communities. The BMBL guidelines delineate four biosafety levels ("BSL") in order of ascending levels of required containment. At each level, an appropriate containment procedure is prescribed with reference to specific facility safeguards, safety equipment, and microbiological practices. BSL-3 and BSL-4 protocols require heightened oversight of security procedure because of the dangerous nature of the agents and toxins examined in those facilities.

1. Biosafety Level 1 is suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in immunocompetent adult humans and those which present a minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment.
2. Biosafety Level 2 builds upon BSL-1 protocols. BSL-2 designation is suitable for labs whose work involves agents that pose moderate hazards to personnel and the environment.
3. Biosafety Level 3 is applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities where work is performed with indigenous or exotic agents that may cause serious or potentially lethal disease through inhalation route exposure. Examples of agents handled and stored in BSL-3 laboratories include Tuberculosis and St. Louis Encephalitis virus. In addition to the standard microbiological practices employed in BSL-1 and 2 laboratories, BSL-3 laboratories are encouraged to control access to the facility, to decontaminate all waste and laboratory clothing, to conduct all work with agents in a Class I or II Biological Safety Cabinets (BSC), and to regulate air flow in and out of the laboratory.
4. Biosafety Level 4 is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of life-threatening disease, that are contagious by aerosol transmission, or any related agents with unknown risks of transmission. Examples of these types of biological agents include: foot and mouth disease; the Ebola virus; and smallpox. All work with these agents must either be conducted in a "Suit Laboratory" or a "Cabinet Laboratory" to protect the employees and the surrounding community from exposure.” “GOVERNANCE AND BIOSECURITY: STRENGTHENING SECURITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE NATION'S BIOLOGICAL AGENT LABORATORIES,” Michael Greenberger, Talley Kovacs, and Marita Mike, 13 DePaul J. Health Care L. 77 (Summer, 2010). “In addition to the standard procedures required for BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3, the BMBL BSL-4 guidelines recommend that workers entering the laboratory should remove all of their personal clothing in an outer clothing change room and put on special laboratory clothing, including undergarments. Then, when exiting the laboratory, workers should remove their laboratory clothing in an inner changing room, shower, and dress in their personal clothes in an outer changing room. This is a time consuming process to go through just to enter and exit the laboratory.” "Biosafety Regulations: Who's Watching the Lab? Safety in High Risk Infectious Diseases Research," 25 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 213, Rebecca Emerson, (Fall, 2006).

These then are the ‘primary risk criteria’ used to define the four ascending levels of containment, referred to as biosafety levels 1 through 4.

CRITICAL FACT:

CLEARLY, THE CDC AND DOD ARE WELL AWARE OF THE PROTOCOLS FOR HANDLING EXOTIC AND EXTRAORDINARILY LETHAL PATHOGENS SUCH AS EBOLA IN A CLININCAL RESEARCH SETTING. WE KNOW CDC AND DOD SCRUPULOUSLY ADHERE TO GUIDELINES TO SECURE THE LETHAL PATHOGEN EBOLA, TO KEEP IT IN BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 CONTAINMENT LABORATORIES. WHY WOULD WE REQUIRE ANY LESS STRINGENT MEASURES WHERE NURSING STAFF IS ASKED OR ORDERED TO TREAT AN EBOLA (BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 PATHOGEN) PATIENT WHO IS ESSENTIALLY A HEAVY LOAD BIO BAG OF DEADLY CONTAGION?CONSIDER: “The proliferation of research on highly virulent pathogens in academic and commercial settings, without proper reporting and controls, poses a national public health threat. . . . Due to the dramatic increase in funds available for biodefense research, there is a mismatch between the demand for research and the availability of experienced researchers. As a result, scientists with too little training may be handling infectious agents that are too dangerous for their level of experience.” "Biosafety Regulations: Who's Watching the Lab? Safety in High Risk Infectious Diseases Research," 25 Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L. 213, Rebecca Emerson, (Fall, 2006).SO, PLACING NURSING STAFF, WHO HAVE HAD INADEQUATE TRAINING IF ANY TRAINING AT ALL HANDLING THE DEADLY BIOSAFETY LEVEL 4 PATHOGEN, EBOLA, AND HAVING DONNED CLOTHING THAT IS USELESS OR VIRTUALLY USELESS IN PROTECTING AGAINST SUCH A PATHOGEN, CONFRONTED WITH A PATIENT SPEWING EBOLA LADEN VOMIT, BLOOD, AND DIARRHEA ALL OVER THE PLACE DOESN’T AMOUNT TO RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO THE LIFE AND WELL-BEING OF THAT NURSING STAFF?

THE BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION:

IF SUCH SCRUPULOUSLY STRINGENT MEASURES ARE IN PLACE AND HAVE BEEN IN PLACE TO CONTAIN THE EBOLA VIRUS AND TO TRAIN AND TO PROTECT THOSE WHO WORK WITH IT, WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO CAVALIER ABOUT THE HORRIFIC UGLINESS OF AND LETHALITY OF THE EBOLA VIRUS NOW THAT IT IS ACTUALLY OUT IN THE OPEN – “IN THE WILD?” DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CARE?KEEP IN MIND: EBOLA IS UNCONTAINED AND UNCONSTRAINED NOW PRECISELY BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO BAN WEST AFRICANS ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY. THE GOVERNMENT’S REFUSAL TO BAN WEST AFRICANS’ ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY BEFORE THE FACT IS BAD ENOUGH. BUT WHAT IS REMARKABLE AND REPREHENSIBLE IS THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STILL REFUSES TO BAN WEST AFRICANS’ ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.According to the October 17, 2014 edition of The Wall Street Journal, President Obama “said he is open to a travel ban – presumably involving nations in West Africa where the Ebola outbreak is centered – if experts advise him one is needed. But so far they have not, he said, adding that he has no ‘philosophical objection’ to one.”WHAT THE HELL DOES “NO PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTION” TO A TRAVEL BAN MEAN?MOREOVER, WHO ARE THOSE EXPERTS WHO PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID ADVISED AGAINST A TRAVEL BAN? AND, WERE THERE NOT ADVISORS WHO ADVISED FOR A TRAVEL BAN, PERHAPS, WERE VOCIFEROUS IN ADVISING FOR A TRAVEL BAN?

SEVERAL SETS OF QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

If the Federal Government is in fact truly concerned about the immediacy of a full-scale Ebola pandemic in the U.S., then we have several questions we would like answered.FIRST:WHY WAS THOMAS DUNCAN, A PERSON FROM LIBERIA – A HOT ZONE FOR EBOLA – WHO LATER DIED FROM EBOLA, PERMITTED TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES? REMEMBER, EBOLA DID NOT BREAK OUT IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL DUNCAN BROUGHT EBOLA INTO THE COUNTRY. AND, HE HAS SINCE PASSED THAT HORRIFIC DISEASE ONTO TWO BEAUTIFUL, YOUNG AMERICAN NURSES – TWO, AT LEAST, WHOM WE KNOW ABOUT. HOW MANY OTHER AMERICANS ARE NOW HARBORING THE DEADLY EBOLA VIRUS FROM DALLAS, TEXAS TO CLEVELAND OHIO AND, PERHAPS, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ONLY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T DEEM IT NECESSARY TO PRECLUDE WEST AFRICANS FROM ENTERING THIS COUNTRY?SECOND:HAVING ENTERED THE UNITED STATES FROM LIBERIA, WITH EBOLA, WHY WASN’T DUNCAN IMMEDIATELY ASSESSED FOR EBOLA AT THE EMERGENCY ROOM OF THE DALLAS HOSPITAL WHERE HE PRESENTED HIMSELF? WHO IS AT FAULT? WHAT PROCEDURES WEREN’T ADHERED TO? WHO IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION? IS AN INVESTIGATION OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES BEING CONDUCTED? WILL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BE APPRISED OF THE OUTCOME OF AN INVESTIGATION?THIRD:ONCE THE CDC DETERMINED THAT DUNCAN HAD EBOLA, WHY WAS DUNCAN TREATED AT A GENERAL HOSPITAL NOT RATED AS A BSL-4 FACILITY, ENDANGERING THE LIVES OF BOTH HOSPITAL STAFF AND PATIENTS?FOURTH:WHY DIDN’T THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IMMEDIATELY ORDER THAT DUNCAN BE TAKEN TO A BSL-4 RATED FACILITY FOR TREATMENT OR SENT BACK TO LIBERIA FOR TREATMENT? AND, WHAT WAS THE CDC’S ROLL IN THIS? WHAT DIDN’T THE CDC DO? OR, WHAT DID THE CDC DO WRONG?FIFTH:WHY WAS DUNCAN TREATED BY HOSPITAL STAFF THAT HAD NO TRAINING IN DEALING WITH DEADLY BSL-4 LEVEL, HIGHLY CONTAGIOUS PATHOGENS?SIXTH:WHY WAS HOSPITAL STAFF THAT TREATED DUNCAN NOT PROVIDED WITH BSL-4 LEVEL PROTECTIVE SUITS BEFORE BEING ASKED TO ENTER OR ORDERED TO ENTER A ROOM WHERE THE EBOLA PATHOGEN WAS RUNNING AMOK IN UNCONTROLLED POOLS AND SPLASHES OF BLOOD, DIARRHETIC STOOL, AND VOMIT?SEVENTH:WHY HASN’T THE PRESIDENT AS YET ORDERED A LOCKDOWN OF OUR AIRPORTS AND WHY ISN’T HE SECURING OUR BORDERS?EIGHTH:HOSPITAL STAFF AND 911 DISPATCHERS ARE NOW CAUTIONED AGAINST USING THE “E” WORD. WHY? WILL THAT MAKE EBOLA GO AWAY?NINTH:WHY IS THE PRESIDENT STILL ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS FROM AFRICAN HOT ZONES ENTRY INTO THE U.S. AFTER ONE SUCH INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY BROUGHT EBOLA INTO THE U.S. AND INFECTED TWO YOUNG, BEAUTIFUL AMERICAN NURSES WITH A HORRIFIC, DEADLY DISEASE? ARE THE PRESIDENTS’ ADVISORS ALREADY TELLING THE PRESIDENT THAT IT IS TOO LATE? THAT THE PUBLIC IS DOOMED?TENTH:WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT’S OPERATING IN A REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE MODE? CLEARLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS FLAILING JUST AS IT DID DURING THE KATRINA DISASTER. A PANDEMIC, THOUGH, DOESN’T JUST AFFECT ONE STATE OR A FEW STATES. A PANDEMIC AFFECTS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. THE PRESIDENT’S FIRST CONCERN SHOULD BE THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, NOT THOSE OF WEST AFRICA. SO, WHY ISN’T THE PRESIDENT DOING MORE TO PROTECT PEOPLE HERE? WHY IS HE SENDING THOUSANDS OF YOUNG AMERICANS OVER THERE? THAT ONLY SERVES TO ENHANCE THE PROSPECT OF MORE EBOLA ARRIVING TO OUR SHORES WHEN THOSE THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS COME BACK HOME CARRYING SOMETHING NO ONE WANTS AND NO AMERICAN NEEDS.Consider: “T. Grace Emori, a noted researcher at the CDC, who stated in a telephone interview, ‘My greatest fear is that those who decide to use bioterror will discover the secret to the spread of the Ebola agent and use it against a civilian population.’ “In such a situation, the carrier of the Ebola strain would himself, be dying. The virus would have begun the process of liquefying his internal organs. He would be coughing frequently and with that cough, potentially spreading the virus that was killing him. Applying the epidemiological model, the first to become ill would likely be those hosts who are usually at high risk for illness such as the old, the young or those with an underlying illness that suppressed their immune system. However, in an environment such as a crowded city, others would soon become infected. Closely confined spaces such as elevators, subways, busses or even restaurants would hasten the spread of the disease. Soon those infected first would infect others before they, too, died.” “PROVING CAUSATION IN ACTS OF BIOTERRORISM, Kenny Mallow Williamson,” 33 Cumb. L. Rev. 709 (2002/2003).BOTTOM LINE: DO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT BIOTERRORISM WHEN INEPTITUDE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF AMERICANS IS EXHIBITED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? COULD AN “ISLAMIC BIOTERRORIST” DO ANY WORSE WERE THAT PERSON TO CONSCIOUSLY, INTENTIONALLY INTRODUCE A DEADLY PATHOGEN INTO THIS COUNTRY?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 2: CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

An inverse relationship exists between power wielded by Government and a Citizenry's freedom from Government's exercise of that power. As Government accumulates power, there is a concomitant loss of freedom and liberty in the Citizenry. This is axiomatically true. The Founders of the American Republic knew this. As power waxes unchecked in Government, the liberties and freedoms of Americans, written in stone in the Bill of Rights, wanes. There is irony in this. The Federal Government, created to serve the American People, turns on the People and requires the People to serve it. In so doing, the Government betrays the People, destroys personal autonomy, and undercuts the rule of law.The Founders sought, through creation of a three branch system of Government, to prevent autocracy from taking root. The powers of Government are specific and limited. The powers not specifically bestowed on Government reside in the States and the People. The Rights and Liberties set down in the first Ten Amendments, comprising the Bill of Rights, of the U.S. Constitution, coupled with the specific and limited powers of the three salient Branches of Government as set forth in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, if adhered to, ward against Government excess.The People see through abridgment or curtailment of rights and liberties held by them. The Executive has secured unfettered power for itself, unto itself. Congress, in whom the Founders bestowed certain powers to prevent Executive overreach, is either oblivious to or complicit in this. Deference shown to another Branch of Government is laudable; acquiescence is regrettable, if, at times, forgivable; abject subservience is not.Congress has abdicated its authority. Congress has allowed the Executive Branch to wage war without its approval. And Congress has enacted laws permitting the Executive Branch to run roughshod over the rights and liberties of the American People. In so doing, Congress is sealing its fate and the fate of the American people.In the first decade of the 21^st Century, Congress enacted a plethora of Statutes negatively impacting the Bill of Rights. Although aimed, ostensibly, at bolstering internal security, these Statutes clearly impinge on and infringe the rights and liberties of Americans. Two of the earliest include the 2001 “USA Patriot Act” and the “Homeland Security Act of 2002.” The latter Act authorized the creation of a vast bureaucratic structure, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). The stated purpose of the former is “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.” The two work in tandem. Both threaten personal autonomy and undermine individual liberty.

DHS: THE BIRTH OF A MONSTER

Richard Armey, a Republican Congressman, sponsored the Bill that became the “Homeland Security Act of 2002” (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135). A majority of Republicans in the House supported it. Most Democrats did not; nor did the President, George W. Bush, at least initially. He saw a new cabinet level office problematic and said so. See, “Crisis Bureaucracy: Homeland Security and the Political Design of Legal Mandates,” Dara Kay Cohen, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, and Barry R. Weingast, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 673 (December, 2006). Yet, a majority of House Republicans and every Senate Republican (save one who abstained) voted for enactment. So, President Bush reluctantly signed it into law on November 25, 2002. He has probably found it felicitous, and Obama certainly so. It has given the Executive Branch immense new powers. Republicans who generally and rightly bemoan the growth of Big Government were peculiarly pleased with their action here.What did the American Public receive? The Public received a vastly expanded Government bureaucracy, a lumbering monolithic structure, consolidating several government agencies, duplicating many police and intelligence functions, expending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer monies on programs that operate against Americans’ own interests, spreading its tentacles across the American landscape. DHS has flooded the States with money, taxpayer dollars, militarizing the States’ respective police forces, creating de facto agents of the Federal Government, driving a wedge between the States’ police agencies and their own residents.

“A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME. . . .”

Prior to the attack on the twin towers, no one inside the U.S. Government or outside it used the word, ‘homeland,’ to describe the United States. And, ‘homeland’ never appeared as an appellation for a Government office, bureau, agency, or cabinet level department; nor did the media refer to the United States by it. Now, though, it’s part of the Government lexicon. The mainstream news media uses it incessantly, drilling it into the public psyche. Much thought must have gone into its creation.How did the word arise as a political descriptor? Neither the news media nor the Government explains this. So, let’s hazard a guess. The word is curiously wholesome sounding, non-threatening, almost soothing, and deceptively vague – a marvel of propaganda. But, the word belies its innocuous tone. As applied to a vast, ponderous, monstrous bureaucratic structure, the word, ‘homeland,’ is neither quaint nor sweet. The word’s usage today alludes to an earlier era. Its progenitors invoke totalitarian regimes. Recall the application of similar words to other polities: ‘fatherland’ as an appellation for Germany under the Third Reich, and ‘motherland’ as an appellation for Stalinist Russia.The propagandists who came up with the word, ‘homeland,’ as a component of the “Department of Homeland Security,” (“DHS”) were clever. The word is a marvel of social conscious engineering. It subtly suggests a transformative process within the United States, overtly positive, but covertly negative: the devolution of a Nation State from its origins as a Democratic Republic to plutocratic or autocratic governance.Use of ‘homeland’ as a descriptor for the United States and for a new cabinet level department is not, then, accident or happenstance. Use of the word 'homeland' is deliberate. Use of the word, ‘homeland,’ subtly ushers in a new political order: the rise of the Police State.What does the “Department of Homeland Security” connote? If you know nothing about the structure of the Department, the name may suggest a vast network of internal, domestic control mechanisms. And, indeed, the Department is diffuse, a patchwork quilt, touching upon multiple facets of American life and conduct, expanding into all spheres of American life.The mission of DHS is set forth, thus: “to secure the nation from the many threats we face. . . . Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear – keeping America safe.” See www.dhs.gov/about-dhs. The mission statement seems straightforward and noble if also self-serving. But the phrases, "our duties are wide-ranging," and “keeping America safe,” have ominous overtones. In fact, DHS intends, condescendingly, to protect the American public from itself. That means, inter alia, arms control. Keeping America safe is a cloak for antiterrorism and national security measures which "are wide-ranging." Implementation of antiterrorism measures means impinging on and infringing America's sacred rights and liberties. Keeping America safe requires keeping tabs on the public, disarming the public, controlling the public. These are the policy objectives of DHS. CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRYA definite tension exists between DHS counterterrorism and national security mandates and America’s Bill of Rights. In a 2009 report, the DHS said the fear of gun regulations and bans is linked to a rise in right-wing extremist groups. See, “Quick on the Draw: Implicit Bias and the Second Amendment,” Adam, Benforado, 89 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2010), citing a DHS study. So, if DHS dubs a person "a right-wing extremist,"  ergo a "terrorist," that person may, potentially, be denied his right to keep and bear arms.But, who or what constitutes a right-wing extremist? If a person commits an act of violence against another because of one's race or religion, and is duly convicted of a felony in a court of competent jurisdiction, that person may reasonably expect to lose the right to keep and bear arms. State Statutes provide for that. But, if a person merely has a fascination with firearms, professes a dislike for illegal immigrants, associates with others of like kind, and proclaims distrust of the Federal Government, under what legal theory does DHS purport to dispossess him of his firearms? Under what legal theory does DHS purport to limit that person’s right to associate with others? Under what legal theory does DHS purport to invade that person’s privacy? DHS could assert that person to be a right-wing extremist and, potentially, a “terrorist.” And, that, apparently, is enough. But, for all that, what might give birth to seeming extremism in a Nation's citizenry? May not extremism, existent in or perceived in, a Nation's Citizenry be due to a corresponding extremism linked to Government's unreasonable, illegitimate, unconscionable intrusion on its Citizenry? May not such extremism in a Nation's Citizenry be directly linked to extremism in a Nation's Government? Might not the one be the cause of the other? Is not the very existence of DHS an absurdly extreme response to a decidedly weak external threat? Or, perhaps the relative strength or weakness of such external threat to a Nation is beside the point. Perhaps such postulation of this or that external threat is only a pretext upon which a Government -- this Government, the U.S. Government -- seeks to exert its control over its Citizenry -- that autocratic  or plutocratic, totalitarian rule may take shape, grow, express itself,  flourish, operate unimpeded -- that after 200+ years a Republic -- this Republic -- may be decidedly and decisively laid to rest.  So threats to a polity are exaggerated or simply manufactured. DHS is a vehicle through which Government fosters threats to hasten the end of -- not preserve -- our Democratic Republic. And, so fear of gun bans -- fear of dismantling of the Second Amendment -- is not an unreasonable fear in a Citizenry that realizes loss of its inalienable rights. The loss of such rights would not be taken lightly by the Citizenry; nor should it be. Extremism, an extreme response to the potential loss of a Citizenry's inalienable rights, would not be unexpected. And an extreme response would not be unwarranted. Extremism would, in fact, be the reasonable expression of a Citizenry's outrage toward its Government's betrayal. Government sees the extremism -- the extreme outrage exhibited toward it or enacted against it -- as a threat to it, and clamps down upon the populace. The threat to the polity, posed by the Citizenry against its Government, is no less the threat of the polity, exerted by the Government, against its Citizenry. The two go hand-in-hand.The Citizenry, the internal "other," not the external "other," is seen as the "real threat" to Government. The Citizenry, as a body, is viewed as the "Terrorist." At that moment the Security Police State is realized. The dream of the Security Police State for those who wish it is fulfilled. The Republic is undone. Citizens are merely subjects, "proles," individuals who have no rights -- individuals who have, at best, privileges, granted to them by the Government -- privileges that, as grants, can and would be revoked by the Government at any time.DHS tends to posit threats indiscriminately, under the guise of “keeping America safe.” It attempts to target ever more Americans as potential terror threats, and, in so doing, seeks to limit Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Americans’ First Amendment right of free speech and right of association, and Americans’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy. DHS mandates butt up against the Bill of Rights. See, generally, “National Security Interest Convergence,” Sudha Setty, 4 Harv. Nat'l Sec. J. 185 (2112). Sudha says unequivocally that “Americans will see their rights hemmed by antiterrorism measures.” That’s cause for consternation.Consider, in 2009, “the TSA {Transportation Security Administration, an agency transferred to and consolidated in DHS from the Department of Transportation} detained a man . . . who intended to fly from St. Louis to Washington D.C. carrying . . . cash he had generated selling bumper-stickers for ‘Campaign for Liberty,’ a Ron Paul-led organization. As the state of Missouri had warned the TSA that illegal militia members were likely supporters of third-party organizations and candidates, he was temporarily detained.” See, “Failing to Secure the Skies: Why America has Struggled to Protect Itself and How it Can Change,” Ian David Fiske, 15 Va. J.L. & Tech. 173 (Fall, 201).DHS is a destroyer of Americans’ sacred rights and liberties because its policy considerations are aimed at the twin, ill-defined and unusually broad mandates of counterterrorism and national security – mandates at odds with the Bill of Rights. Case in point: the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”). FEMA, like TSA, is now a component of DHS. You would think an agency whose purpose is disaster relief wouldn’t have anything to do with the regulation of civilian weapons. DHS changed that. In emergency situations – presumptively entailing insurrection – the first order of business of FEMA, as a component of DHS, is population suppression, not disaster relief. That became abundantly clear in the aftermath of Katrina. “Disaster Mythology and the Law,” Lisa Grow Sun, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 1131 (July 2011).Although President Bush required DHS to backpedal from its outrageous stance during Katrina, DHS still functions like the Department of Defense (“DOD”). No tenable distinction exists between “terrorist” acts and natural disasters. Its massive domain, though, is “internal security,” not external military operations. DHS has been tasked with creation of an Incident Command System (“ICS”) that mirrors the DOD framework. See “Law and Lawyers in the Incident Command System,” Clifford J. Villa, 36 Seattle Univ. L. R. 1855 (Summer, 2013).

WHAT SHOULD CONGRESS DO TO REIN IN DHS?

The impact on Americans’ rights and liberties in the era of DHS will continue to be severely tested. DHS will take draconian steps that upend the Bill of Rights. DHS will do this under the guise of “keeping America safe,” consistent with its broad counterterrorism and national security mandates. While DHS may, occasionally, have to backpedal, Congress should place constraints on DHS before the fact. Having created this multi-billion dollar monolithic nightmare, Congress owes the American people that much.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRY

PART 3: FATHERLAND, MOTHERLAND, HOMELAND: THE ORIGINS OF A POLICE STATE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES

SUBPART 1: CONTROL OF THE CITIZENRY

When historians consider the date the United States, a Free Republic, became a Police State, there will be disagreement aplenty. Many, if not all historians, will acknowledge, though, that transformation of the United States from a Free Republic, as envisioned by the Founders, to a Police State did not occur instantaneously. The change, historians likely will agree, occurred incrementally although with rapidity – indeed – with ferocity during the first decades of the 21^st century. Historians will likely emphasize the curtailment of Rights and Liberties expressly enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This is one indicium of the transformative process. The other indicium is the unprecedented usurpation of and accumulation of powers in one branch of the Federal Government, the Executive, and the simultaneous reduction of power – indeed – abdication of authority of another branch of the Federal Government, the Legislative. Historians will remark upon an important reversal: the institutions of Government that were created to serve the Public had turned on that Public, and the Public had become subservient to the institutions of Government.Control of the Public is key. The Public is perceived as a potential threat to the institutions of Government. To reduce that threat the Public must be controlled. The Bill of Rights must be dismembered: privacy – gone; freedom to speak one’s mind and to freely associate with one’s fellows – gone; and the right to keep and bear arms – gone.It is curious that, as the American citizen’s rights and liberties are slowly restricted and eventually erased, the powers of the Police State grow exponentially and those powers become paramount.The greatest concern to an authoritarian government is an armed citizenry. That must be dealt with first and foremost, and relentlessly by adherents of the Police State. An autocracy cannot function where the citizenry of the State is armed. Thus, an armed citizenry must be suppressed.The Government’s mechanism of repression is twofold: restrict the citizenry’s access to firearms and, contemporaneously, monitor and control the citizenry through the tripartite agencies of intelligence, police, and the military.In the past, in the Free Republic that once existed in the polity called the United States, the agencies of intelligence, police, and the military were clearly defined and demarcated. That is no longer the case. Police forces are now militarized. The military is taking on policing functions. And intelligence is ubiquitous – the distinction between internal security and foreign intelligence increasingly muddied. Every American citizen is now perceived as a potential threat to the “homeland” – no more or less so than a foreign national or stateless person. The Government doesn’t say that. But, it is so.The abdication of Congressional responsibility, together with the usurpation of power in the hands of the President, is painfully obvious. What powers the President doesn’t usurp overtly and wrongfully from Congress, Congress dutifully hands over to the President in a flood of Statutes – Statutes that clearly impinge and infringe upon the Bill of Rights. One of the most pernicious Statutes to date is “The Homeland Security Act of 2002,” 107 P.L. 209; 116 Stat. 2135. We will take a close look at that Statute and the manner in which the very existence of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) operates to destroy the individual integrity of police agencies, the integrity of the military, and the integrity of intelligence agencies. And we will take a close look at the manner in which the muddying of the integrity of those three discrete functions, as they operate today in America, jeopardizes the very sanctity of and continued existence of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Microstamping Of Firearms: A Synopsis

By Stephen L. D'Andrilli

As Presented at the 29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference on September 27, 2014, in Chicago, Illinois, 2014

MICROSTAMPING OF FIREARMS

As I discuss the topic of microstamping of firearms, keep in mind that California is the first State to implement the microstamping of semiautomatic handguns. It sought to implement microstamping on January 1, 2010. But, patent restrictions precluded putting the law into effect on that date. However, on May 17, 2013, the California Attorney General certified that the technology was not encumbered by patent restrictions. The law, Section 31910(b)(7) of California’s Penal Code took effect immediately. The law sets forth in principal part: all semiautomatic pistols must be “equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.” The lawfulness of that Section is presently being contested by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute.  Other States are likely to follow California’s lead.  We have to wait and see.What is microstamping? Todd Lizotte, the inventor of the technology, describes it as a method for inscribing information onto a component part of a semiautomatic handgun.  He filed two patents for it, and subsequently assigned all of his right, title and interest in it to a Pennsylvania company, Identification Dynamics, LLC., that, according to the patent registrations, is the current owner of it.Lizotte’s first patent abstract explains his microstamping technique for inscribing information onto a component part of a firearm. His second patent describes the method and apparatus needed to read the identifying information.So, why have it? The answer to this question gives us the rationale, good or bad, for using the technology.  Antigun groups say that it has made comprehensive ballistic identification a reality; it enables police to trace a gun without ever physically recovering it; and, a traced firearm is a valuable lead in a criminal investigation.The antigun crowd has latched onto microstamping with enthusiasm, invigorated by the notion that it will help police solve crimes. But, does it really work in practice? Not according to the experts!  Here are ten of the problems with it:First: Microstamping analysis has repeatedly failed tests that were conducted at the University of California, Davis Campus. And, the firearms examiner of Suffolk County, New York, who conducted tests in the police crime lab, found the vast majority of microstamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number could not be read on any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined.Second: Studies revealed the technology is easily defeated.  The codes on firing pins, for example, were easily removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated using simple household tools.Third:  Most gun crimes cannot be solved by microstamping, or simply do not require it to be solved; notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without sophisticated technology.Fourth: Microstamping does not allow for the quick and simple identification of spent shell casings, by forensic specialists, at the scene of a crime.  The testing process is laborious and requires specialized equipment that is very expensive.  Lizotte noted the need for such equipment in the second of his two patents.Fifth: According to the BATFE, almost 90% of gun crimes are acquired through the black market and it takes on average about 11 years for the police to recover those guns. Still, such guns are eventually traced back to the criminal. Microstamped guns, on the other hand, can only link a gun to the lawful owner of it. So, a criminal is likely to turn to a gun source that can never be traced to him: the law-abiding gun owner. Gun thefts are likely then to become more frequent in jurisdictions, such as California, where firearm microstamping laws have been enacted.Sixth, Similarly, one of the biggest dangers is the possibility that anyone could collect microstamped shell casings from firing ranges and plant them at the scene of a crime. This ultimately could lead to a false arrest or implicate an innocent person in criminal activity, and police can expend needless resources “on a wild goose chase.”Seventh: It’s unlikely that microstamping technology would be admissible in court.  In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ruled that scientific evidence produced at trial must not only be relevant, but reliable. Microstamping technology, to date, isn’t reliable because it has not gone through extensive peer review to warrant a finding of reliability.Eight: Credible estimates by gun manufacturers suggest that the cost of a gun incorporating this technology would increase by $100 to $200.  As we all know, a “good” semiautomatic pistol can run anywhere from $500 to $1,000, or more.  This additional expense would place the cost of owning a semiautomatic pistol well out of reach of many, if not, most Americans.Ninth: There is the so-called “remainder problem.”  There are millions of handguns presently on the market.  None of them make use of microstamping technology. California law doesn’t require retrofitting of those guns.  Could you imagine the backlash among residents of the State, if California did?  Also, many handguns are revolvers.  Revolvers do not eject spent shell casings.  Criminals need only use a revolver in the commission of a crime to defeat the technology.Tenth: Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger, will not sell semiautomatic handguns in California.  Microstamping adds too much cost to the manufacturing process and does nothing to promote gun safety.  In effect, then, California’s microstamping law acts as a restraint on trade.This brings us to the most important question, “does microstamping infringe on our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act” is a prelude to gun registration. It requires precisely what Lizotte warns against. It turns microstamping of firearms into a de facto registration scheme because California law requires etching more than a random series of alphanumeric characters on a firearm, but the make, model and serial number of the firearm itself, none of which, at the moment, at least, can be reliably read anyway.As the Federal Government and certain State Governments seek to keep track of all Americans, to learn ever more about us – our thoughts and habits, our hopes and fears, our beliefs and dreams, what we own or simply what we may wish to own – the microstamping of firearms is yet one more device through which Big Government controls our lives. Registered guns make confiscation of guns much easier. Confiscation of guns is a salient feature of a “Police State.” It isn’t a feature of a “Free Republic.”Thank you.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: HOW ANTIGUN GROUPS SEEK TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT

TWENTY-ONE MECHANISMS FOR DEFEATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

OUR RATIONALE FOR DOING THIS MULTI-PART SERIES: FURTHER POINTS

There are forces at work today that seek to destroy our Bill of Rights. They seek to destroy, in particular, Americans’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Globalist cabals, through their toadies, have, to date, designed, crafted and implemented close to two dozen major strategies to undermine Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We refer to these strategies as the Arsenal of Destruction. Although seemingly disconnected, the Arsenal of Destruction comprises a singular, cohesive program through which the globalist cabals, through the Government they control, seek to undermine and eventually sever the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution.Much is at stake for Americans. If the Second Amendment falls, the other Nine Amendments most certainly will fall. For, the Second Amendment secures the other Nine Amendments. It is the binding glue that holds our Bill of Rights together.Once the Bill of Right topples, the Republic is undone.Many Americans don’t recognize this. Indeed, some Americans express no concern over this. For them the Second Amendment is an embarrassment – an artifact of an earlier time in our Nation’s history – a time when the import of the declaration – the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – might have had significance but doesn’t any longer.  And, for a bizarre few Americans, the Second Amendment is more than an embarrassment – it’s a disgrace – an assertion of defiance to progress and to their notion of a civilized society. For still other Americans, the Second Amendment, and, for that matter, the remaining Nine, have no significance whatsoever. If they recall the Bill of Rights at all, the concept brings to mind an obscure question on tests once taken in grade school or high school, a lifetime ago.These disturbing reactions aren’t accidental. They are emblematic of the success of the globalists’ Arsenal of Destruction. The Arsenal of Destruction is an insidious and clever plot to sever our ties to our own unique heritage – a heritage purchased through the blood and toil and sacrifice of our Forefathers; a heritage our Forefathers sought to preserve through ratification of our sacred Bill of Rights. The Arsenal of Destruction, comprising close to two dozen strategies designed to undermine the Second Amendment has been meticulously designed, crafted and manufactured for especial use against Americans. These strategies are the latest in a line of attempts created at the behest of secretive forces both inside the U.S. and outside it to tear down the Second Amendment upon which the entirety of the Bill of Rights stands – upon which it obtains its true strength. By eroding the Bill of Rights, the bulwark of our Republic, the forces that seek a one World ruling body, hope to create homogeneity among all Western Nations. Once accomplished, the individual Nation States will vanish, and in time, the very notion of ‘Nation State’ will be consigned to memory and rendered nothing more than a historical oddity.More and more Americans live in a perpetual state of doubt and fear. Americans look to Big Government to protect them. And that Government foments and preys upon Americans’ weaknesses. The price for this false reliance on Government is the loss of Americans’ salient rights and liberties.The Arsenal of Destruction implemented to destroy the Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment in particular is cloaked under carefully cultivated terminology designed to induce irrational fear: “national security,” “gun violence,” “public order,” “terrorism.” These phrases and other similar phrases are mere inventions, artfully crafted, carefully utilized, and assiduously repeated by the mainstream news media like mantras to keep the American public off balance, afraid, confused. These memes seep into the public mind, infiltrate the public psyche, overwhelm the public consciousness.Americans hear more about what they are expected to fear and less about how, in accordance with their fundamental rights and liberties, they might expect to be treated. More often discussions over our sacred rights and liberties are glossed over by the mainstream news media, if mentioned at all.For the sake of feigned security from manufactured bugaboos, Americans forsake their right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, forbear from speaking their minds under the First Amendment, and forswear the right to be left alone under the Fourth Amendment. As we explore the Arsenal of Destruction in the next several articles, you would do well to consider our discussion in the context of our present Government – what it has become, who it serves, to whom it answers. Consider well the powers wielded by and usurped by that Government – such powers the Founders of our Republic sought to confine, the powers they sought to check, for the Republic they sought to preserve.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: ANTIGUN GROUPS -- TWENTY-ONE MECHANISMS USED FOR DEFEATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT (PART 2)

PART 2

PREFACE

In Part 1 of this Article series we laid out twenty-one salient strategies the Globalists have both concocted and implemented through their toadies to weaken the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In this post we provide our rationale for this series – to make abundantly clear why we are doing this, to explain what really is at stake here for the American public. In Part 3 and subsequent parts of this Article series we provide an analytical account of the strategies. You will see not only how each of these strategies works, but you will, hopefully, gain an understanding of how they mesh. And, you will appreciate the expansiveness of each of these strategies; their sinister nature; the obvious scorn the creators of these strategies have for the American People. You will come to realize, indeed, the noxious, utter audaciousness of their entire enterprise.

INTRODUCTORY SYNOPSIS: PURPOSE OF ARTICLE

This Article is presented in multiple parts. Its purpose is two-fold: first to consolidate and provide you with a detailed compilation of the principle strategies the obscenely wealthy, powerful, ruthless globalist cabals, through their toadies, have devised and implemented to wreak havoc on America’s Second Amendment and, second, to place those strategies in the broader context of the ultimate goal, the endgame for these silent, extraordinarily secretive cabals: the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and, with its destruction, the dissolution of our Country as an Independent, Sovereign Nation State. On September 2nd we posted Part 1 of this Article. In that Article we gave you a detailed list of the principle strategies, designed to thwart the import and purport of the Second Amendment. With the posting of Part 1, we completed the first aspect of our two-fold purpose for doing this Article series. In this post, Part 2, as pointed out above, we provide you with our rationale for doing this series. We then move to the nitty-gritty – the second part of our two-fold purpose for doing this series.In our next post, Part 3, we begin the second task, proper: giving you a comprehensive, coherent, cohesive, compact look at the nature of the various strategies themselves: how they in fact work; what they are designed to do. We give you cogent, irrefutable, empirical evidence for each of them. Some of these strategies employed for destruction of the Second Amendment are well known; others less so, some, perhaps, not at all; and a few may not even be recognized for what they really are – destroyers of the Second Amendment in particular and of the rest of the Bill of Rights, generally. We look at all of them and describe the essence of each of them. Once we have completed that task, the second of our two-fold purpose for this Article series will be met.The strategies the globalists, through their toadies, employ for the destruction of the Second Amendment are in various stages of implementation. Most of them are designed to be ongoing – cumulative enterprises in their own right, involving refinement and tinkering in accordance with public reaction. If viewed as a whole, the strategies exhibit a curious mosaic, emblematic of something more and other than a mere mechanism directed to destruction of the Second Amendment alone. For, when viewed as a unified whole, these strategies -- this arsenal of destruction -- demonstrate the desire of and extent to which these powerful transnationalist, secretive, plutocratic cabals desire not only the destruction of the Second Amendment of the United States but the erasing of the Bill of Rights, and the replacing of the Bill of Rights with something other, something banal, something completely innocuous, something completely devoid of anything remotely like our Second Amendment. Then, too, these sinister globalist, plutocratic cabals are ambiguating the very notions of ‘citizen’ and ‘nation state.' Their intentions are sometimes plain; more often hidden; and clearly not benign. Indeed, one of the strategies we list is in fact the most damning of all. It is coextensive with their endgame: the disassembling of America – the destruction of America as a culturally significant, independent, Sovereign Nation State.We wish to impress upon you, to make you acutely aware of, to sensitize you to the insidious nature of, the sheer audacity of, the vast scope of the globalist cabals’ agenda, calling for a One World Government. To accomplish this enormous and ignoble feat, well underway with the creation of the European Union, the globalists understand the need to denigrate the U.S. Constitution, commencing with the fracturing of our Bill of Rights. And, in that regard, they realize the attendant need to dispose of the Second Amendment in particular. Thus, the idea thrust on a somnolent American public – that erosion of the Second Amendment is necessary to reduce gun violence – is a blind – an absolute fiction. The ludicrousness of this antigun position, broadcast loudly and ever more incessantly through the bullhorn of the mainstream news media, will become clear, will become dispositive beyond disproof – not through the tit-for-tat recitation of statistical data – but by waking you up to a new perspective – one where you can truly appreciate the dangers to our Republic that the antigun effort poses, given the vast scale of the antigun effort landscape and the extent of its reach. When seen from the vantage point of an eagle rather than from the narrow vantage point of an ostrich, the false idea that antigun measures are nothing more than an expression of the desire for reduction in gun violence will dissolve of its own accord. That false idea will be seen for the shallow absurdity that it is. The globalist cabals’ penultimate goal is substantially more ambitious. They seek nothing less than the undermining and dismantling of the United States Constitution, commencing with the undercutting of the Bill of Rights. Thus, the cabals give particular attention to the Second Amendment – the first step in that direction; and once the Second Amendment has been dismantled, the Bill of Rights ended, and the United States demoted to the ranks of a mere appendage to a One World Government -- and with the confining of, the strangling of Western Civilization's populations -- the globalist cabals' ultimate wish will have been realized, their final goal attained.As we delve into the arsenal of destruction, keep uppermost in mind, then: the effort to destroy our Second Amendment is not the endgame for these cabals. It is, rather, merely one goal in a larger pursuit: the destruction of the entirety of the Bill of Rights and of the rest of the U.S. Constitution. The endgame involves dismantling the United States so that the United States no longer exists as an independent, Sovereign Nation State. And, with its demise as an independent, Sovereign Nation, so too will end the very concept of ‘citizen of the United States.’  The globalist cabals' New World Order may then, at that point, as originally envisioned, have been realized.So, why do we concern ourselves here with the Second Amendment specifically and not with the Bill of Rights generally? We do so because the globalists are most concerned with the mere fact of the Second Amendment. It is important for you to understand, indeed, for all Americans to understand, that the Second Amendment is the cornerstone, the linchpin of our free Republic. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution – more so than any other aspect of our Constitution – is, to date, among all other constitutions of purported Western democracies, the most accurate expression of a free People – of what it truly means to be an American. It is the clear, unmistakable expression of what it means to be an American. So, the globalists must deal with it, must eradicate it, must destroy every vestige of it.Take a look at the constitutions of any other Western nation. It is highly unlikely you will come across anything remotely like the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.This Amendment, more so than any other, is the best defense – the only real guardian against tyranny. The tyranny that we face today, though, is unlike any tyranny our Founders might reasonably have imagined. It is a tyranny springing not merely from ruthless plutocratic powers within the Republic who seek to erode the basic rights and protections of the People as set forth in the first Eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights and who seek, too, to usurp the powers retained by the States and by the American People as guaranteed under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights. Rather, it is a tyranny of and by a secretive cabal of plutocratic powers both within the United States and outside it. What these ruthless powerful, cabals are engineering is not simply an independent Country that happens to be governed by a plutocratic dictatorship. The Grand Design is broader in scale and much more sinister. These cabals are orchestrating the demise of the United States as an independent Sovereign Nation State.As the creation of the European Union has served to undercut the economic independence of the individual Nation States of Western Europe and as the creators of the EU are, even now, working on undercutting the political framework of those Nation States as well – which will mark their demise – so, too, in this Country, we are seeing early signs of erosion of the notion of the United States as an independent political entity. First we shall see the creation of a North American Union (“NAU”). Such Union will require the disassembling of the Constitutions of the constituent Countries, Mexico and Canada, of the NAU. Disassembling of the United States Constitution will be the most difficult – a most monumental task, and such task is undoubtedly a top priority of the globalists. Why is this so? It isn’t simply because the Constitution embodies a Bill of Rights. Many Countries have a bill of rights. But ours is quite unique, given its clear, cogent, emphatic import and purport: it is backed in particular by the Second Amendment that has no parallel or antecedent in the Bill of Rights of any other nation we have come across; for the Second Amendment of the United States cannot lawfully be disengaged from the American People by the Federal Government. It is not subject to simple legal foreclosure. It can only be lawfully repealed under the strictures of Article V of the U.S. Constitution, and that is virtually impossible as repeal  of any Constitutional Amendment was made deliberately difficult by our Founders and for good reason: to prevent usurpation of the essential rights and liberties of the People. Lastly, the Second Amendment acts like a “Notice Provision” to would-be dictators, for the Second Amendment isn’t merely an expression of the personal autonomy of the individual American citizen, and the Second Amendment isn't merely an acknowledgement of the citizen’s right of self-defense, and the Second Amendment isn’t merely the Founders’ order to the federal government and to its standing army that the American citizen is not to be interfered with -- that he has the inalienable right to be left alone. Yes, the Second Amendment is a written expression of all these natural rights. But, it is also something more – much more – something that isn’t intimated, let alone explicitly expressed in the constitution of or in the bill of rights section of such constitution of any other Western Country. For, unlike any other provision of our Bill of Rights -- and certainly unlike any provision even remotely like our Second Amendment that might be written in the constitutions of the  few Western Nations were those Nations to have articulated  such a provision in their constitutions at all – the Second Amendment is the ultimate Guardian of the Republic; the absolute Fortress of the American People against Tyranny. No other Constitution, in any other Country that we are aware of, boldly informs its federal government that the government exists solely and exclusively at the pleasure of and for the benefit of its People and that the People – the People alone – reserve for themselves the right to effectively dismantle that government once that government turns toward autocracy and tyranny. And, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives the People the means to do so. This simple truth gives the plutocrats, the globalists -- those secretive entrenched interests -- deep concern. An armed public is not to be lightly dismissed. So, an armed public must be dealt with. The Arsenal of Destruction is the means to do so. When one looks at the sheer number of and complexity of and manner in which these various strategies are designed to insinuate themselves into the fabric of American society, the manner in which they may operate together as well as singly to attack each American's right to keep and bear arms, and the clear insistent, omnipresent manner in which they undermine the Second Amendment, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that this effort is not accidental. This effort to undercut the Second Amendment isn't simply and solely a response to "gun violence." Rather, the strategies to undercut the Second Amendment are part of a plan that has been carefully orchestrated. There is a concerted effort afoot by secretive moneyed interests to undercut the moral, cultural, and historical fabric of this Nation. And this is taking place clearly, and callously and cleverly: partly seen and partly shielded. Americans are losing their basic rights as citizens. Their power over their own Government is being quietly, purposefully derailed.In other Countries, if the people can keep and bear arms, that the people may do so at all, is only and solely at the pleasure of that Country’s government: the king, or other despot. It isn't an inalienable right. It isn't any kind of right. It isn't a right at all. It's merely a privilege. And it's a privilege that can be taken away as easily as given: one that the government creates and one the government can, in, and with, and at its imperial discretion, break. This means, of course, that governments of other purported Western Democracies – every one of them – have the seeds of “lawful” tyranny within them. Any Country that can lawfully deny its citizens’ right to keep and bear arms out-of-hand is potentially one that may rule autocratically. Such a Country is one in which the People serve at the pleasure of the State, not the other way around. Such a Country is one in which the People are merely subjects of the State, not citizens of the State. There is a critical difference. Such a Country where the People are essentially subjects, not citizens, is a Country that is not in the least beholden to its People. In such a Country, tyranny exists "up around the corner, just around the bend."Once an autocracy is established, the first thing it does is gather the weaponry of the citizens who might happen to have weapons. That is how an autocracy works: through the disarming of the public. It is how autocratic governments have always worked. It is an autocracy’s first order of business.  Can that happen in the U.S.? Not likely! Certainly, not easily! Clearly, not lawfully! The globalists’ toadies, though, use deception. They are very good at it. They have had a lot of practice at it.If a problem arises, the globalists are adept at designing workarounds – specially adapted to an intractable, intransigent, wary, and, from their perspective, incorrigible American Public. They know, well enough, the tenacity – indeed, temerity – of the American spirit. Such spirit will be very difficult to break. The globalists don’t care. They are very patient. They move ponderously, inexorably ahead. What they have planned for the U.S. – for Western Civilization generally – has been in operation for decades. They have many resources: not least of which are money, manpower, organization, control of all major business sectors, control of technology, and control of all news outlets. And they have a surplus of intangible resources, as well, that include cunning, amorality, ruthlessness, and absolute contempt for the sanctity of the individual. So, there is a contest of equal forces here: the indomitability of the American Spirit versus the rapacious internationalist, plutocratic, neoliberal, oligarchic Ego.And now you know: the transnational globalist cabals, through their toadies, must undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to realize their ultimate goal of a One World Government. Once the Second Amendment has been dismantled -- once that task has been accomplished – if that task can be accomplished – the Will of America withers and dies.So, as the globalists proceed on their merry way, we see their Arsenal of Destruction is thus directed to that end: To break America’s Will. But, to break America's Will, they know that they must first break America’s Back. And, to break America’s Back they must first destroy the Second Amendment.The sine qua non of America is its Second amendment. Once gone, the rest is easy for the globalists. A dire fate for America is not, however, a foregone conclusion. It need not be if Americans remain ever vigilant. And, it is our wish to assist you in maintaining that vigilance. Awareness of the globalist cabals' Arsenal of Destruction assists you in maintaining that vigilance.In our next post, Part 3 of this Article series, to be published forthwith, we will take a close look at the first strategy in the globalists' Arsenal of Destruction – an oblique end run around the Second Amendment:

MILITARIZATION/FEDERALIZATION OF CIVILIAN POLICE FORCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) AND DEFENSE (DOD)

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARSENAL OF DESTRUCTION: TWENTY-ONE STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY ANTIGUN GROUPS TO DEFEAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART 1

INTRODUCTION: COMPILATION OF ANTIGUN STRATEGIES TO DEFEAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Suppose someone wishes to destroy the Second Amendment. How does someone do that? Antigun groups and their allies in Congress, in local and State Governments around the Country and Globalist antigun cabals around the world have devised myriad ways to do this. Yet, when giving thought to the means the antigun establishment employs to undermine the Second Amendment, you may fail to realize how vast in scope this is. We have, in the past, provided our readers with an inkling of the methods the antigun establishment employs to undermine the Second Amendment. But we wish now to deal with this singular matter in depth.When thinking about the techniques the antigun groups use for undermining America’s Second Amendment, the public tends to compartmentalize, isolate and conflate antigun group efforts and this suggests that antigun efforts to dismember the Second Amendment embrace essentially one technique: the enactment of restrictive gun control laws. The idea is false; but it isn’t the public’s fault for thinking it true. Propagandists are busily at work on behalf of the antigun movement. And, as they work on behalf of the antigun movement, the aim of the propaganda industry is to keep the public off balance, blindly groping for meaning in all of the profusion and confusion of data.The propagandists work behind the scenes. They seek to instill in the public mind the idea that gun ownership and possession in America is simply wrong; that Americans who wish to own, acquire, and to possess guns exhibit inappropriate and, indeed, bizarre behavior; that the wish to own and possess a firearm in a civilized society, such as America, is an example of unsound reasoning; that such thought is antithetical to the well-being of a civilized society; that a person must be up to no good to want to own and possess guns and ammunition; and that the mere desire to own firearms is evidence of psychologically odd and even wholly bizarre, deviant behavior.Propagandists have devised substantial programs to redirect American Public thought away from a pro-gun mythos that is hardwired into Americans; a mythos that is the cornerstone of the American belief system; a mythos that is deeply etched in American law. But to eradicate the notion of the propriety of gun ownership and gun possession in America, the propagandists hit a wall: and it is that gun ownership in America is tied to the core ethos of what it means to be an American: the idea of personal autonomy. The idea of personal autonomy is deeply rooted in American culture and history. It is a curious fact, too that as efforts are underway to de-gun America and to degauss the very thought of owning and possessing a firearm, the U.S. Government makes ever more use of the military to extend its reach abroad, and it makes use of an increasingly militarized, federalized police force at home to quell “public disorder.”As we take a close look at the various strategies employed to destroy Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and as we look at the ways in which propagandists strive first to convey to and second to convince the American Public that the Second Amendment is not only unnecessary but that it is, in fact, outmoded – obsolete – it is important for you to keep in mind that gun dispossession efforts are not underway simply for their own sake. What is at stake is, in fact, our way of life – America as a free republic. For, it is our free republic that is being undermined. That is really what destruction of the Second Amendment means and why it is really under attack. This idea will become clear enough to you as we investigate the various ways in which the antigun groups undermine our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.Antigun groups embrace a substantial arsenal of techniques to undermine the Second Amendment. Each technique is actually carefully designed and assiduously implemented for maximum effect. Together, these mechanisms operate as an inexorable battering ram to chip away at the core principle of the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Arbalest Quarrel has previously pointed to a few of the techniques and mechanisms antigun groups employ in their insidious goal to undercut and ultimately to destroy America’s unique and sacred Second Amendment. This Article will point to and discuss in much more detail the multi-various methods employed by the antigun establishment to destroy our sacred Second Amendment.Below, we set out, and in subsequent articles we discuss, the nature of the various techniques antigun groups are currently employing to undercut the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By first articulating and then by explaining how these techniques are used by the antigun groups, you will get a better picture of just how expansive these techniques are and you will see, too, how ambitious and how creative the antigun groups are as they work toward undercutting, dismantling, and, ultimately, destroying the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Here is what we deem, at present, to be the salient methods the antigun groups use to undercut the Second Amendment. There are probably more; undoubtedly, the antigun groups are busy concocting others even as we publish this list:

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

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

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

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

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

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

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

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you can see, some of the antigun strategies are clear enough, but several others may not seem so. Yet, the strategies that are the least visible are all the more devious and effective in undermining the Second Amendment. This will become clear to you as we proceed in our investigation of the antigun establishment’s arsenal (strategies) of destruction. We will be dealing with each one of the twenty-one strategies of destruction of the Second Amendment in individual articles to be posted on a regular basis during the next two months. Be mindful that this discussion is not offered simply to pique academic interest, or to satisfy one’s idle curiosity, or, worst of all, merely for amusement.What we are discussing here are strategies that have been actually implemented in one form or another. What we are positing here is that antigun collaborators are utilizing what operates -- seemingly at the moment at least -- as a shotgun approach toward undermining and defeating the Second Amendment -- an approach that, one realizes, is actually a cohesive, unified set of interlocking strategies -- a master plan -- designed to significantly curtail civilian citizen gun ownership and gun possession in the United States. What we are suggesting here is that antigun think tanks are even now busily at work coming up with ever more novel, clever and -- to some -- enticing strategies aimed at defeating the Second Amendment. They are devising new twists on older strategies and applying old techniques to new strategies. And they are constantly coming up with novel methodologies through which their sponsors' endgame -- the dismembering of and destruction of the Second Amendment and, with it, the end of our free Republic -- will finally be realized. For, the existence of the Second Amendment is a concrete stumbling block, a frustrating constraint to the ultimate goal of these cabals: a New World Order for Western Civilization -- a World Order founded upon a corporate transnational, fully global, economic initiative -- one that tramples the Bill of Rights, that denies to the individual his inalienable right to be individual, that forbids him his right to be left alone, and that, at once, requires -- in fact, mandates -- the fracturing of, and eventual dissolution of, the very cherished concepts of 'citizen' and 'Nation State.'The antigun collaboration teams are brainstorming new ideas for defeating the Second Amendment in part to guarantee the success of their efforts: if one strategy doesn’t work, so it is reasoned, another one most assuredly will. And, several strategies together, it is also assumed, will surely serve to defeat the indomitability of the American spirit as encapsulated in the Second Amendment. The antigun collaboration teams are also mixing and matching and hatching ever more antigun ownership and possession schemes in their effort to undermine and to defeat the Second Amendment, in part, at least, simply to keep the American public off balance – to keep the public guessing, to keep the public confused as to what is on the horizon for the United States, as its very sovereignty is undermined at the behest of secretive and ruthless transnational globalist interests.We look forward to your feedback.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

GUNS, KNIVES, AND OCCAM’S DANGEROUS RAZOR

SCENARIO:  Two American citizens are standing in line, one morning, waiting to purchase a cup of coffee at their local coffee shop. One American is a life member of the NRA and believes strongly in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights: all ten of them. He knows that the Bill of Rights underscores the entire Constitution and that, if any one of the ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights falls, they all fall of their own accord. The other American is a member of and fervent supporter of the “Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence.” He, too, at the moment defends the Bill of Rights except for the Second Amendment. For him the Second Amendment is antiquated as is the Third Amendment, but, where the Second Amendment and the Third Amendment had meaning and purpose at the inception of the Republic, that meaning and purpose has all but faded with the passage of time. Indeed, he might accept the proposition that, for the Second Amendment, in particular, the need for the salient assertion –  that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – may have had, at one time, in our Nation’s past, some efficacy, as threats posed from outside of the new Nation remained. But, if the Second Amendment once had importance and, indeed, if it once had even been critical to establishing our young Nation, that need long since passed once the Nation gained an equal footing among other dominant Nations and once the Nation became, militarily, the strongest Nation in the World. Thus, for this antigun zealot, and others like him, the Second Amendment – together with the seemingly archaic Third Amendment – has long since lost whatever significance and utility it might have had. For this antigun zealot both Amendments are relics of an earlier time. But, where for him the Third Amendment has no impact on society, good or bad, apparently, this supporter of the “The Brady Campaign” sees the Second Amendment as a clear liability and danger to the social fabric of society and to the offices of Government. This antigun proponent and antigun zealot  would most assuredly like to see the Second Amendment repealed outright. But, he and his cohorts know that won’t happen – not in the present political climate. So, he and those like him are willing to bide their time. He as with like-minded fellows accept that Congress and the States won’t repeal the Second Amendment outright. So, he and they are willing to work toward defeating what they see as the troubling problem posed by the Second Amendment, incrementally. Thus, for this antigun proponent and antigun zealot and his cohorts the Second Amendment may, they believe, be reduced to a nullity through successive legal action and effective political pressure at both the Federal and State levels. That’s what they want. That’s what they work and strive for. That’s what they hope and pray for. That’s their endgame. And they will lie, cheat, steal – and play games – to accomplish that end. For the NRA member, though, the Second Amendment is not only useful to the well-being of the Nation it is essential to the continued existence of the Nation as a democratic Republic. Contrary to the views held by antigun groups such as the Brady Campaign, this NRA supporter believes that the import and purport of all ten Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights are as critical today as they were at the inception of the Republic. For him, the Nation cannot exist as a Democratic Republic but for the Bill of Rights. And, the linchpin of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. The NRA supporter knows the Second Amendment must be honored in fact, not merely in name if it is to have any meaning and efficacy, if it is to survive. This means that the U.S. Congress and the States should work together, indeed, must work together to make sure that all Federal and State Legislation conforms to the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if it is to survive intact in the 21st Century. In fact, the U.S. Congress and the States must always work toward strengthening the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment – as with the other nine Amendments – must never be weakened, or ignored, let alone repealed, lest the Nation, as a Sovereign Nation and  as a unique Democratic Republic among Democratic Republics topples into ruin, as surely as did the once great and mighty Roman Empire.The NRA member buys his coffee and looks for a table.  Only one is available.  He quickly walks over to it, sits down, takes a sip of coffee and opens the Sunday edition of the NY Times newspaper. On the front page of the paper he reads of another shooting incident. He sighs. He finds it most curious that the mainstream news media will report every misuse of a gun and every violent, criminal act committed with a gun, and will do so with disturbing regularity, and with detail, often giving such incidents front page coverage and, yet, will ever fail to mention -- will consistently fail to mention or otherwise simply and perfunctorily gloss over the fact -- that a law-abiding American citizen and gun owner had successfully protected himself or other innocent parties with a gun. He wonders that a newspaper should find a shooting by a lunatic or gang member to be anything more than the occasional tabloid fodder, but that a law-abiding American citizen's singular, courageous act of self-defense would warrant nary a footnote on page 10 or 12 of the newspaper, if that, were that person defending his or her life with a firearm.This NRA member muses over the mainstream news media's seemingly endless fixation on misuse of firearms by psychopathic criminals or lunatics but never on use of a firearm by the average law-abiding American citizen who had preserved an innocent life with it. This NRA member recognizes that the mainstream news media is not content to simply report news involving firearms, but, rather, invariably insinuates itself into the news report, constantly, insidiously sermonizing about the purported "evils" attendant to guns -- rendering judgment on that which it reports, not content to leave opinions to the op-ed section of the newspaper. He understands full well that the mainstream news media is clearly not impartial when reporting news about gun violence and uses every opportunity to sensationalize stories involving how a lunatic or psychopathic killer took a life with a gun, and, yet, will refrain from even mentioning how a law-abiding American citizen had, with gun drawn, preserved a life, or otherwise do so only to interject that the particular citizen should not have had a firearm on his or her person in the first place. He sees the most recent incident as consistent with that trend. And he is mildly amused at The New York Times’ editor’s insistence – as apparent through the very title of the news story – that the reader should be drawn to it – sensationalizing the news account with great fanfare and flourish: "Deadly Rampage in College Town After Video Rant." The NY Times, appearing less like a respectable news source, at this point, and  more like a cash register tabloid, uses the incident as "click bait," to exploit suffering, to moralize on the evil of guns -- blowing the incident up, out of all proportion to reality. He sighs, knowing that the antigun crowd will have a field day with this one. Meanwhile, our Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence fellow has just received his coffee and, he, too, is looking for a free table. He asks a few patrons if he can join them at their table and is politely refused. He then walks over to the table of our NRA member and asks if he might join him. The NRA member graciously accedes to the request and beckons the Brady Campaign fellow to sit down. A couple of awkward minutes pass. The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence supporter (hereinafter “BCE”) sees the Second Amendment supporter (hereinafter “SAS”) reading about the Santa Barbara incident. They strike up a conversation over their coffee. Neither one, of course, is, at the moment, aware of the other’s position on the Second Amendment or of the other’s position on the import of the Bill of Rights, generally.  But that is about to change as they begin to engage each other in a lively back and forth conversation and debate about guns, about gun ownership, and about the ethical position upon which the moral foundation of each of their respective positions rests.BCE: ‘I see you’re reading about the Santa Barbara shooting. It’s a real shame that something like this has happened and it’s even more a shame that tragedies like this will likely continue to happen. You know, don’t you, that it is the Republicans in Congress, and the gun manufacturers, and the NRA that are to blame for all of this?’SAS: ‘Actually, the New York Times Article says that a very lonely, mentally unbalanced young man is responsible for this incident. I haven’t read anything in the Times piece suggesting that a gun manufacturer, or a member of Congress or the NRA was responsible for the killings.’BCE: ‘You know what I mean. If that disturbed young man didn't have access to guns, then he wouldn’t have killed all those young people. So, it’s the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby and unfeeling members of Congress, that are really responsible for all those deaths and that’s what I mean when I say that it isn’t so much the disturbed young man who is responsible for those gun deaths; it is the guns, and those who "love" guns, and it is the politicians in Congress and the cowboys who support the Second Amendment, and it is the pro-gun individuals and businesses and organizations who really bear responsibility for those gun deaths. The problem of guns is the result of all those agents who refuse to get rid of guns in this Country, once and for all.SAS: ‘Well, actually, the very first paragraph of the New York Times piece says that some of the victims were stabbed to death. So, I suppose you’re saying that, if all guns and knives were banned, then this incident wouldn’t have happened.’BCE: ‘I’m not suggesting knives be banned, you know. After all, knives serve a useful purpose. Guns don’t serve any useful purpose except to soldiers in times of war or to the police whose job it is to maintain law and order in society.’SAS: ‘You mean knives aren't useful for killing, unlike guns.’BCE: ‘You’re trying to be funny. You know full well what I mean. Anyone who cooks, or eats a steak needs a knife. Knives serve a useful purpose. But, guns serve no useful purpose, except to the military and to the police.’SAS: ‘Well, we can get back to the issue whether or not guns serve a useful purpose or purposes other than to the military and to the police, and whether guns should be readily accessible to law-abiding American citizens, beyond those who serve in the military or who serve in various police agencies. However, while we’re on the subject of knives, I think that you and I can agree, at the moment at least, that, consistent with your premise about guns, we can say the same thing about knives. In other words, we can say, with equal plausibility, that some knives do in fact serve a useful purpose, and some knives do not.’BCE: ‘That’s true. Chef knives and camping knives are useful. But other knives, such as machetes, switchblade knives, and Bowie knives aren’t useful at all. So, who needs them?’SAS: ‘Well, machetes are certainly useful to a person who happens to be hiking in the Amazonian Jungle or on Safari in Africa. Switchblades and butterfly knives get bad press because criminal gang members use them and seem to have a preference for them. And a Bowie knife is a fine camping implement. And, as you would, certainly acknowledge, I think, there are knives that have military applications: namely, combat knives and bayonets. Those are definitely designed for killing. But, certainly any knife may serve a useful purpose for a given task. And a knife’s functional design will best reflect and accommodate the task the manufacturer created for it. Yet that said, virtually any knife, you would agree, can certainly be used  to kill a person. And, we know from the Times news account that the killer did use a knife on some of his victims. But, honestly, we don’t know what kind of knife was used in the Santa Barbara killings. I’ve read the news Article in the paper. The Times doesn’t say. Do you think, perhaps, that the New York Times deliberately failed to mention the kind of knife or knives the killer used on his victims precisely because the killer happened to use a nice, respectable tableware knife, or a kitchen knife or knives -- perhaps a paring knife, serrated utility knife, carving knife and/or boning knife, and refrained from using one of the disreputable knives, such as a machete, or switchblade knife, or butterfly knife, or bowie knife or combat knife? My guess is the newspaper didn’t want the reading public to think that the killer used a socially acceptable knife rather than an evil knife. Or, perhaps, the Times didn’t want to explore knifings at all because it wished to keep the reader’s attention focused on another form of killing tool. But, for all that, I think you and I can agree that the particular knife or knives that the killer used was certainly good enough for the purpose at hand, namely killing others, whatever kind of knife that particular knife happened to be.’ That’s what the killer wanted to do and that’s what he did in fact accomplish.’BCE: ‘Look, now. Knives aren’t the issue here. We both know that the weapon of choice for killers is a gun, not a knife.’ So, it stands to reason that The New York Times wouldn’t wish to, or, for that matter, need to place emphasis on the killer’s use of a knife for some of his killing.’ SAS: ‘Actually, I think a killer’s weapon of choice is anything that killer happens to have on hand: bats, balls, knives, slingshots, a hammer and chisel, an ice pick, rope, cellophane wrap, a billy club, or simply hands and feet for that matter, as well as guns. In the Santa Barbara case, the killer accomplished his purpose quite well enough using both a knife and a gun.’ And, let’s not forget, the killer was quite successful in mangling a bicyclist with his BMW too.’ So, it would appear that the killer was willing and able to use whatever implement happened to be at hand. In this case, he happened to have on hand a knife or knives, a gun, and an automobile. There is no hint in the New York Times that the killer showed any particular preference for one kind or another of implement when he went about his killing spree.BCE: ‘Still, you would agree, wouldn’t you, that a gun is the most efficient and effective means to kill a person?’SAS: ‘Well no. In this case, the knife was just as efficient and effective as a gun.’ And, automobiles barreling down a street are known to be a very effective means to kill or seriously injure another human being.'BCE: ‘I mean that, if you want to kill a lot of people at once, a gun is better than a knife, and an assault weapon is the best gun of all to use if the killer wants to go about killing a lot of people at once. So, an assault weapon is the weapon of choice for any killer if he had a choice of implements at his disposal.’SAS: ‘You seem to be hung up on this idea of weapon of choice. Anyway, I don’t recall that the Santa Barbara killer used a so-called "assault weapon." But, be that as it may, I have to ask you what an assault weapon is because, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you believe an assault weapon is the weapon of choice of killers, I have to ask you: what is an 'assault weapon?’BCE: ‘Come on now; you’re being deliberately cagy. You and I both know perfectly well – as does everyone else – what an assault weapon is.’SAS: ‘Please indulge me.’BCE: ‘All right, then. An assault weapon is a weapon something like a military weapon. In other words, an assault weapon, as everyone knows, is a military styled weapon.’SAS: ‘Well if you’re assuming that an assault weapon is like a military weapon, ergo, a military styled weapon, I still don’t have a clue what you’re talking about because many kinds of military weapons exist.  Now, setting aside such weapons as anti-tank guns, anti-aircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and guided missiles, to name a few, and looking at personnel weapons, there are still many kinds to consider. And, I don't suppose you are suggesting that assault weapons -- whatever they are -- are anything like anti-tank weapons, or anti-aircraft weapons, or recoilless rifles. And, if we are referring specifically to personnel weapons, there are several categories of those. Categories of military personnel weapons include: light machine guns, submachine guns, assault rifles and a variety of pistols. And military personnel weapons also include sniper rifles and shotguns, too, and, let’s not forget flame throwers. So, if, by assault weapon, you mean a machine gun, or submachine gun, or assault rifle, or sniper rifle or pistol or shotgun or flame thrower, I point out to you that an assault weapon can't be like any one of those weapons because none of those weapons are of the sort that are readily available or accessible to civilians, although it is not unheard of that well-financed criminal cartels can and do often obtain many of those weapons. What I mean to say is, if a law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian wishes to possess a true military weapon, the BATF must approve the sale of that weapon to the civilian and such a weapon is not easy to come by – that is to say – such a weapon isn’t easy to acquire through lawful channels and I emphasize the word phrase, 'lawful channels,' here. To begin with, true military weapons – and I am here talking about military weapons qua military weapons, not some ludicrous, ersatz idea of a pseudo military gun that antigun zealots, such as yourself, and allied politicians and the mainstream news media concoct – are prohibitively expensive for most Americans. Moreover,  an American citizen, who is a potential buyer of a military weapon must undergo an extraordinarily detailed, rigorous, comprehensive federal background check, and he must wait a solid year before taking possession of such a weapon – that is to say – before taking possession of a true military weapon.  Now, of course a solitary criminal gang member or well-financed criminal syndicate or cartel would almost certainly have little difficulty in obtaining a true military weapon. And that person or criminal syndicate or cartel would do so on the black market, but obviously criminals won’t be able to do so nor would they likely try to obtain such weapons through lawful channels as that would entail, once again, a very rigorous and complete and stringent and comprehensive BATF examination process and procedure, which we both know criminals couldn’t possibly pass. They would therefore obtain their weapons -- would have to obtain such weapons if they wished them -- on the black market. And, neither a State nor the Federal Government regulates that, albeit some Federal agencies within the massive federal bureaucracy may be more or less aware of those black markets -- probably more aware of them than less so, which may say something about those agencies, and our Government, and the ease to which criminal enterprises, in particular, obtain such weapons.BCE:  ‘Look, I am only referring to common weapons that the average person can now obtain through a gun dealer. And I am talking about common weapons that the average person should not be able to buy; and I am talking about weapons that no rational, sane person would ever want or really need. I’m talking about weapons that, first of all, look like military weapons.’SAS: ‘So, you’re saying that, if a weapon happens to look like a weapon the military might use, that’s what you mean by an 'assault weapon?' You’re talking about appearance alone, then?’BCE: ‘Well, yes and no.’SAS: ‘Would you care to elaborate?’BCE: ‘Sure. An assault weapon is generally black. It often has a long projection underneath the body of the gun.’SAS: ‘Do you mean the ammunition magazine?’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. And, it might have a cone on the end of the barrel.’SAS: ‘Are you referring to a flash suppressor?’BCE: ‘Yes, I guess that’s what that thingamajig is: the flash suppressor.’ And an assault weapon is a kind of weapon that often has an angry, hateful cover over the front end.’BCE:  ‘I take it you’re referring to the barrel shroud.’SAS: ‘That’s exactly what I mean. You know, the weapon just looks evil and, I daresay, acts evil.’SAS:  ‘Well, I’m not sure what you mean by a weapon acting evil. People may act evil. But, inanimate objects, lacking will and intention, cannot, realistically, act at all. But, as to your idea of an assault weapon appearance, I understand what you’re getting at. Still, apart from this apparent evil look of firearms that you call assault weapons, you’ve said nothing about the weapon’s mode of operation.’ BCE:  ‘I was getting to that. An assault weapon sprays a lot of bullets at one time.’ So, it’s not just the appearance I’m talking about, as I have indicated to you before. It’s the manner of operation.’SAS: ‘How many bullets is a lot, if I may ask?’BCE:  ‘You know, more than a little; probably more than 10.’SAS: So, let me get this straight.  An assault weapon is a gun that is black, has a flash suppressor, an extended magazine, and a barrel shroud. In a few words, an assault weapon is a weapon that just looks evil. And, oh yes. It’s a weapon that happens to shoot more than 10 rounds.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s the general idea.’ It’s like a machine gun.SAS: ‘Do you understand how a machine gun operates?’BCE: ‘Not really. But, I have a general idea. It’s a gun that can spray a lot of bullets all at once and really fast.’SAS: ‘Well, machine guns are weapons that fire rounds with a single pull of a trigger. Machine guns are not readily lawfully available to anyone on the civilian market.  Once again, a person has to go through a very rigorous background check handled by the BATF before the BATF will permit an individual to purchase a machine gun.  And machine guns are not like military styled weapons.  They are in fact military weapons. So, when you’re talking about a firearm’s operation you must be referring to another manner of operation. Are you perhaps referring to semiautomatic operation?’BCE:  ‘Yes. I think I’m referring to semiautomatic operation. What’s semiautomatic operation?’ And, in what way does that differ from what I presume is automatic operation of a military weapon?’SAS: '‘Semiautomatic operation,' in simplest terms, means that, for each successive pull of the trigger, a round is fired from the weapon. Now, that can easily refer to the operation of a wide range of weapons. But the expression semiautomatic is also limited to a certain kind of firearm. The term is used in reference to firearms that utilize the energy of the cartridge itself to load a second round in the chamber. That isn’t the case with revolver handguns, which may be double action or single action but which do not use the force of the cartridge to load another round in the firing chamber. Rather, as the term, 'revolver' suggests, another round is chambered via a revolving cylinder, either through a trigger pull, as in the case of double action (DA) revolvers, or by manually drawing back the gun’s hammer – that is to say, cocking the hammer – for single action (SA) revolvers. But, I assume, by use of the expression, assault weapon, you aren’t referring to a revolver handgun at all.’BCE: ‘Yes, that’s true. The expression 'assault weapon,' as understood by antigun proponents – and I am proud to say that I count myself as one such – refer to evil looking weapons that, as you’ve explained, are semiautomatic weapons. But, then, are you saying the term 'semiautomatic' doesn’t apply to military weapons at all?’SAS: ‘No. I’m not saying that. The military does in fact use many kinds of semiautomatic weapons. And many of those weapons are in fact handguns. But many weapons, assault rifles, for example – and please don’t confuse assault rifles with assault weapons – the latter of which are merely a fiction created by politicians, antigun groups, and the like and are talked about in your typical mainstream news sources, while the former are true military weapons – are full automatic or selective fire weapons. What I mean by 'selective fire' is that the operator of the weapon is able to change the mode of operation of the weapon from automatic to semiautomatic fire through a selector switch.''Now handguns are used by the military as well as by the police and by civilians. The military handgun is semiautomatic in operation as are those sold in the civilian market. The military does not typically use handguns in offensive roles; they are essentially defensive arms. On the other hand, police forces often do use handguns both in an offensive capacity and in a defensive capacity. But police operations are usually, if not invariably, distinct from military type operations, although this, unfortunately, appears to be evolving or, perhaps, I should say devolving as police departments are quietly, systematically, inexorably undergoing changes, becoming para-military forces. So, the landscape of the Nation is changing, as we see American Governments, at all levels, beginning to view the American populace -- average Americans -- with more suspicion, and less respect and, so. And this is becoming unmistakably and disturbingly clear, as we see the First, Second and Fourth Amendments of our sacred Bill of Rights, in particular, eroding.’BCE: ‘Well, I’m not sure I agree with your assessment there if you’re suggesting that the changes you’re seeing are necessarily a bad thing. After all, the world is a more dangerous place now and, as our political leaders have said, the entire world – including the geographical land mass of the United States -- is one large war zone or, potentially, at least, a war zone’ -- a war zone, then, without borders.SAS: ‘Well, now you are simply echoing the usual sound bites you hear in the news. You are internalizing propaganda, which is precisely what the transnationalists who truly govern this Country and the Western World want you to think.’BCE: ‘Oh come on! Who’s catastrophizing now – me or you? That’s simply conspiracy theory.’SAS: ‘. . . And the words, 'conspiracy theory,' too, that you recite, are wholly made up. When the Government wishes to avoid a debate, it is quick to charge the dissenter with the appellation conspiracy theorist. But, we are getting off topic. We were talking about this thing that the media and antigun types, such as yourself, call an 'assault weapon.’BCE: ‘Yes; and an assault weapon is a military styled weapon both in appearance and function.’SAS: ‘Well, once again, if you wish to argue aesthetics, there isn’t much to say.  But, you realize, of course, that I can take any weapon you happen to give me and make it look like a military weapon. Making cosmetic changes to a given weapon doesn’t change the nature of the weapon, though, as the nature of a weapon is more a function of the weapon’s operation and less so of its looks.’BCE:  '{Getting frustrated and falling back on his first remarks} Look, when I call a weapon an 'assault weapon,' I’m talking about a weapon that shoots a lot of bullets, really fast.’SAS:  ‘In that case, virtually any weapon is an assault weapon as the vast majority of weapons – regardless of their looks and regardless of their function – can shoot a lot of rounds very fast. You might as well say any firearm is an assault weapon or is potentially an 'assault weapon.'  And, in fact, that is what you and others who believe as you do really want the public to think.  That is your endgame. Place more and more weapons under the nomenclature of 'assault weapon' and then ban them all. That is what you really want. You wish to place a ban on all weapons. And you aim to do so by including more and more of them under the label 'assault weapon.' So, since all firearms are essentially, ultimately, and irrevocably, in your mind, assault weapons, all firearms will be, or ought to be, banned. And, that, eventually, is what you want to see.’BCE: ‘Well, that’s certainly true. I’m not going to deny that. Personally, I think we would all be better off if all guns were banned.’ Only special groups of civilians  should have access to them.SAS: The so-called "elites?" ‘But, getting back to the Santa Barbara incident, you’re telling me that guns are to blame for that? And, did the shooter have a firearm that you refer to as assault weapon?’BCE: ‘You have the newspaper. What does it say?’SAS: ‘Well, I have seen no reference to an assault weapon. So, I guess the killer didn’t use an assault weapon. The Times Article says merely that the police recovered a semiautomatic handgun from the deceased killer’s car. And the Times left the matter at that. But, a semiautomatic handgun isn’t an assault weapon. Or, perhaps, you are saying it is. Because, once again, I have to say, I really don't have any idea what you mean by the use of those words. They are bandied about so often and subject to so many differing definitions and interpretations and circumlocutions -- most all of which emanate from politicians and media who have very little if any concrete knowledge of firearms -- that it is impossible to understand what firearms fall under or are meant to fall under the appellation, 'assault weapon,' at any one moment of time or at any particular place in time.'BCE: ‘You seem to know quite a bit about guns, but you don’t really understand much about assault weapons do you? The meaning of the expression is very clear even if, granted, I, myself, don't know much about guns and, quite frankly, I don't want to know anything about them, other than that they shouldn't be around. Now, I have heard of the term, 'semiautomatic.' And, some semiautomatic handguns are assault weapons and some aren’t. Let me tell you, the people who wrote the NY Safe Act, for example, are experts on assault weapons! Granted, you may know more about military weapons, but the people who wrote the NY Safe Act know more about the kinds of guns that lunatics and criminals use and the kind of which many otherwise law-abiding Americans, unfortunately, really want, but certainly don't need. The favorite weapon of lunatics and criminals and "gun nuts" -- the weapon of choice -- is, far and away, the assault weapon. The Legislators who drafted the SAFE Act explained clearly which semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns are assault weapons, and which aren’t. If the Santa Barbara shooter’s semiautomatic handgun was an assault weapon the Times reporter would’ve told us so. That’s an important fact, don’t you think?’SAS: ‘If you say so. Still, for all that, I believe you’re putting too much emphasis on the gun and not enough on the person responsible for the mayhem.  Look, the reporter for the Times wrote considerably about the killer’s delusion. And, the killer certainly wasn’t selective about the items he used when he went on his rampage. The Killer used a gun, yes. So, his gun of choice obviously wasn't an assault weapon. But he also killed several people with a knife, and he ran two people over with his car. So his weapons of choice weren't limited to firearms either. So, you can certainly see that virtually anything can be used as a weapon. And, if the semiautomatic weapon that the shooter used wasn’t an assault weapon, it still was an effective weapon, and I grant you that. But, then, as you must agree, so was the knife and the automobile he used to kill or maim others. And, yes, I understand, as you say, that knives have utility. And, I know you’d agree that automobiles do too. But, contrary to what you’ve said to me earlier, I would argue that guns have utility too. They are used in hunting and for target shooting. And, I would also point out that guns are the most effective self-defense option for many law-abiding American citizens who happen to be just average folk, like you and me, not police officers, or federal agents, or secret service agents. And, perhaps, most importantly, firearms are the best expression of an American citizen’s personal autonomy – a point rarely, if ever, made! So, let me make it here.'BCE: ‘Perhaps. But, many people who keep guns at home end up killing themselves, either accidentally or purposefully. Or, a child gets a hold of the gun and a horrible accident occurs. So, even if a gun has proved effective in saving a life once in a while, more tragic deaths of innocents have occurred because of guns than have been saved by them.'SAS: 'Are you so sure about that?' I would beg to differ with you on that.BCE: Well, that's beside the point I wish to make anyway. Certainly, you can’t discount the anguish caused by guns. Here, let me see that newspaper. {SAS gives the newspaper to BCE}. If you are willing to listen, I want to read something to you that I caught on the radio this morning. And, if you already read about this -- if it is in the New York Times newspaper, then let me read this to you again. This is very, very important. And, Yes, the New York Times does mention it – the father whose son was killed by the shooter. The newspaper makes very clear that the reason his son was killed was because of guns and because of gun manufacturers and because of an irresponsible Congress and because of the NRA: ‘The father of Christopher Martinez, one of the men killed in the shootings, emerged to offer a brief and emotionally wrenching denunciation of gun advocates and policies that he said lead to the death of his child. ‘This death has left our family lost and broken. . . . Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven irresponsible politicians and the N.R.A. They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’s right to live. When will this insanity stop?’ There. What can be more poignant than the grief a father feels for a child who died and who did not need to die and who wouldn’t have died but for guns?’ There's no better argument against gun possession and gun ownership than that! I defy you to deny that!SAS: ‘Hold on a moment. I understand well enough that you are against civilian possession of and ownership of guns. I certainly get that. But you’re now telling me that the best argument against guns you can muster simply boils down to the words of a man who’s in extremity, having just lost a son needlessly? You would agree, would you not, that this man might just as readily have lost his son to a knife, as others in this incident had lost their lives. The man was grief stricken not over guns, but over the loss of his son. Let’s not lose sight of that fact. The man lashed out. If his son had died by knife, wouldn’t the man have argued for a ban on knives? And, if not, then why not? Would the man simply have kept his mouth shut? Would the man be less upset were his son to have been killed by the killer’s knife or if his son had died having been run over by the killer’s automobile? The man’s son wouldn’t be any less dead if he were killed by knife or if he were run over by an automobile! Let’s be clear about this. The man wasn’t talking rationally. The man was upset because he lost his son. The implement utilized is unimportant. If the man felt his son wouldn’t have died but for the gun, the man might well have been sorely mistaken. And keep this in mind: no one has suggested – certainly The New York Times hasn’t suggested – that the Santa Barbara killer showed a marked preference for one implement over another as he went on his killing rampage. So, let me reiterate that point. Clearly, the Times newspaper found it useful to take a stab at the NRA and at Congress and at America's gun manufacturers, and used the artifice of one man's grief over the death of his son to editorialize its own position about gun ownership and possession in a news story when such editorializing belongs solely in the op-ed section of a newspaper. It is in the op-ed section of a newspaper that opinions are supposed to be expressed -- not in a news report. So, if you want to argue ethics and morality, let’s have at it, because, as I see it, the real issue here isn’t really about guns at all, or about knives, or about automobiles. It’s about ethics and morality, isn’t it? The issue of guns is really a makeweight to support a philosophical position on the manner in which a society should be ordered. So, if its ethics and morality you want to talk about, I am perfectly happy to talk about ethics and morality with you.’ BCE: ‘By all means.’ Look. I'm not an idiot. Of course, a killer could use many different items to kill. And, I'm sure Mr. Martinez wouldn't be any less upset if the killer had murdered his son with a knife or if the killer had deliberately run his son over with the killer's automobile and had killed the man's son that way. But, if guns were unavailable, that would be one less item that a killer might draw upon to kill. The way I see it, gun possession and gun ownership is just plain wrong -- morally wrong. The average law-abiding American citizen who is a civilian doesn't really need a gun today and, therefore, shouldn't have access to one. The only Americans who needs guns are police officers and soldiers. And soldiers don't need guns unless they are overseas fighting. Soldiers, too, don't need guns when they're on a military base at home or on a military base overseas. We know many of them have emotional problems or are likely to develop a mental illness, so it's the better practice that they don't have access to guns either once they come back to the United States.SAS: So,  America's soldiers shouldn't have access to firearms either except when its convenient for the Federal Government to send them overseas and they happen to find themselves in a free fire zone? No emotional problems overseas, just potential problems at home, then, right?' But, we can talk about this Country's obscene disservice to its own servicemen and women another day. ‘Okay, then. If I can, let’s clarify the moral issues and assumptions here from the standpoint of guns and gun ownership and possession since that's what you're so sensitive about. I know that you aren’t interested in hearing about the right of an American citizen, as an individual, to keep and bear arms as set forth clearly and succinctly in the Second Amendment to our Constitution and as made abundantly clear by the United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case. So, I won't lay out the myriad legal arguments in support of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country.  You've heard many of those arguments many times before anyway, I'm sure, and, as you and your friends and allies in the antigun movement both inside this Country and outside it aren't swayed by those legal arguments in support of gun ownership and possession in the United States, regardless of the merits of those arguments, there's certainly no point in my rehashing those arguments to you now. So let’s talk, then, about gun ownership and possession from the standpoint of ethics and morality alone. Your argument against gun ownership and possession – from the standpoint of pure ethics – boils down, I believe, to this: (1) Innocent people and not so innocent people die from gun violence; (2) Even though some innocent people, who wish to possess guns, have saved themselves or their loved ones with their guns, still, more people, innocent and not so innocent, have died through gun violence than have been saved by and through guns; (3) now, if it is true that more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been lost through misuse of guns than innocent lives have been saved because of guns, society is better served if law-abiding citizens are denied access to guns even if some innocent lives are lost in the process, having been denied access to guns. Is that a fair assessment of your position in support of a gun ban – a total or general ban on gun possession and ownership by law-abiding civilian American citizens?’BCE:  ‘I suppose so.’SAS: ‘That’s a thesis for utilitarianism and, more generally, it is a thesis of consequentialism of which utilitarianism is a component part. For the utilitarian consequentialist, the nature of the good is a function not of an agent’s intentions or motives but only of the consequences of an agent's actions upon others and, more precisely, of consequences to society at large. So, what operates to benefit the maximum number of people is deemed to be a morally good consequence. Antigun proponents, such as yourself, look only to consequences of actions, and give no thought to the agent’s intention or reason for doing a particular act. Indeed, antigun proponents do not consider whether the agent’s intention for acting is moral or not or whether an agent’s act serves to benefit the agent or not. They do not look at or try to assess an agent's motivations for acting at all. Antigun proponents look solely to the outcome or outcomes of the agent's action in respect to the larger polity or to society as a whole in the determination of the moral worth of a particular action by an agent. BCE: 'And, I must assume you do not hold to utilitarianism. And, you are essentially correct. Where gun violence is concerned, I would argue that any talk of good or bad motive is irrelevant to morality. Motives and intentions are internal to the agent. They are superfluous to any discussion of morality here. Ultimately, it is the outcome of an agent's action that is really important. For, it is the physical outcome of an action that can be assessed and measured. One's inner motivations and intentions cannot be seen. It is the effects -- the actualization of an agent's motivations and intentions that, alone, are important. For, it is in the effects that motivations and intentions have their dire impact. So, while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s intention is good or bad – that is to say good or evil – and while it may be of academic interest to discuss whether one’s action serves to benefit the agent himself, what is really of importance here -- what is really important to society -- is whether the agent's action serves to benefit society as a whole or not. So, then, a morally good action or outcome is one that benefits society; and a morally bad action or outcome is one that does not benefit society and the morally best action or outcome is one that maximizes the benefits to society. Only consequences of actions to society, then, matter. One’s motive in doing x is irrelevant.  And, benefit to one’s self is irrelevant. So, I do agree with your assessment of the ethical theory I hold to. As I look only to consequences of actions, I am a consequentialist, and, as I believe that the best action, the most moral action, is the one that maximizes the benefit to society at large – that is to say – that serves to maximize utility. So, yes, I am a utilitarian or, to be more accurate, a utilitarian consequentialist.  As you know, I am strongly opposed to gun ownership and gun possession except by select groups. And many people both inside this Country and outside it, would agree with me. And, we antigun proponents are well aware that millions of guns are present in this Country and that millions of law-abiding American citizens own guns and, too, that most law-abiding American citizens are responsible gun owners, although, for the life of me, I don’t know why anyone would want a gun. It’s quite unlikely, to my mind, that a person would need a gun for protection. That’s why communities have police departments. After all, I think you would agree that a tragic accident would be more likely to happen because of a gun’s presence in a household than from its absence due to an outsider breaking into a house and attacking the home’s residents.’SAS: 'Well, the police have no duty to guarantee the safety of any individual. The role of the police – at least the traditional role of the police – is to provide for the common welfare of a community, and that does not extend to securing the life and safety of each individual member of the community. The public isn’t generally aware of that fact, and apparently you aren't aware of that fact either. Yet, be that as it may, we aren’t concerned here with what the police can or can’t do or what a police department ought or ought not to do on behalf of a given community or on behalf of a person within a given community. We are talking now about the import of particular ethical theories and the manner of their application. So, we begin this discussion on the implication of your assumption that more good individuals as well as bad have been harmed by guns than have benefitted from them. For, I take it, that it is on the truth of that assertion that you, and those who seek to ban guns, ground your moral argument for gun bans. And that goal, banning guns, to lessen the harm caused by guns for the maximum number of people, the innocent as well as the bad, namely, the not so innocent, conforms to your utilitarian precepts. Now, while I, myself, have no sympathy for "the bad" among us who have come to harm whether by means of a firearm or no, you, apparently draw no such distinction between the innocent among us and those who are morally reprehensible who have come to harm by means of a firearm. You look only at the lives that have been lost to firearms, not the nature of those lives, and, so, you lump the innocent lives that have been lost to firearms' violence with the bad among us who have lost their lives to firearms' violence. I would argue that more innocent American citizens have been saved through access to firearms than would be otherwise true if such individuals did not have access to firearms and it is the innocent lives that alone, it seems to me that ought to be considered the relevant factor from the perspective of utilitarian consequentialism. And further to that point, I would like to drill down to the salient issues here. For the critical note of contention between us, in terms of competing ethical theories, rests on the import of raw numbers, because, for you, it is raw numbers that are important and, indeed, critical, to any discussion of morality and any discussion of the merits of this or that ethical theory. For me, on the other hand, much more is at stake when discussing morality generally and, further, in considering the merits of a particular ethical theory, as you shall see. Shall I continue?'BCE: 'By all means, continue.'SAS: 'People such as yourself who look to what they believe serves to bring about the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people in society – the total well-being of society – fail to consider the importance of the individual. For, what benefits the individual may not – granted – maximize utility, but a moral theory that fails to account for the actions of the agent and fails, as well, to account for what serves or does not serve to benefit the agent’s own best interests is, to my mind, a vacuous theory and, in fact, trivializes what it means to be a human being and, particularly, trivializes what it means to be an American citizen, living in a democratic Republic. For, under the doctrine of ethical utilitarian consequentialism, one person’s happiness must be sacrificed for the benefit of others. That means that justice, fairness, the sanctity of the individual – all go out the door. They must all be sacrificed at the altar of utility. Thus, you and other ethical utilitarian theorists are indifferent to – indeed, must be indifferent to – how the good is distributed in society since you look only to what benefits society -- what best serves the greater hive – what best serves society as a whole. This idea comports with and percolates throughout ethical utilitarian consequentialism and it is the only thing that utilitarian consequentialism considers as it accounts for fundamental fairness and decency and seeming concern for one's fellows. However, I would say that utilitarianism, far from professing a concern for humanity, and, less so, professing concern for what best serves American citizens, has nothing to say about and therefore cares little about notions of fundamental fairness, decency and concern for people. You proponents of gun bans are actually cold and calculating and in fact ruthless. For, to care first and foremost about maximizing utility for society as a whole, and, indeed, really caring only about maximizing utility for society as a whole, you must care less about the needs of the individual -- of maximizing utility of and for the individual, which is not the purport of utility maximization anyway. In fact, maximizing utility means maximizing benefits to and for the greatest number of individuals, collectively. So, utility maximization has nothing to do with individual American citizens as individuals. What ethical utilitarian consequentialism is about is maximization of utility for the masses -- maximizing benefits for the masses. and, the benefit to the individual reduced to a nullity. Indeed, maximization of utility for the masses entails minimization of utility for the individual. For the ethical utilitarian consequentialist, such as yourself, numbers alone are what is important -- maximizing benefits for an undefined and altogether amorphous mass. Where is the compassion and concern for a person in all of that?  Moreover, if the well-being of the individual ceases to have any real importance to you, why profess concern for faceless numbers, anyway? There is something peculiar, even altogether bizarre, in holding to the sanctity of humanity in terms of raw numbers because you then lose sight of and you cease to focus on what is really essential, and that is the sanctity of the individual. For, happiness or suffering is what the individual feels. A nameless, faceless, indistinguishable blob going under the general appellation, humanity, does not feel pleasure or pain. Only a person, the individual, feels pleasure or pain.’ Utilitarian consequentialists altogether lose sight of the importance of the individual in running their cold calculations of utility maximization. Individuals become processed, diced, chopped up and compressed into a raw number  that serves as a surrogate for the individual. And that surrogate is the collective -- the hive.BCE: ‘Now see here! I take exception to your categorization of me and others like me as uncaring of individuals, much less that you see us as ruthless. When we seek to ban guns, this is clearly for the benefit of society as a whole. And I and my fellow supporters of gun bans care very strongly for the well-being of individuals too. All lives are precious to us. I am only saying that, if a life is to be lost to gun violence, it is better two lives be spared and one lost than one life is spared due to an act of gun violence and two lost. What I am saying  is that, from a utilitarian perspective, two innocent lives have more utility than one. You, however, clearly place greater emphasis and importance on one innocent life over the lives of the many. Where is the logic in that? Furthermore, –’SAS:  ‘Let me cut you off there. You misunderstand what I’m saying. And that misunderstanding causes you to oversimplify another's ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding binds you to one narrow ethical viewpoint. And that misunderstanding blinds you to the possibility of ever attempting to understand another’s ethical viewpoint. And that viewpoint cuts across your entire perceptual apparatus. You and other antigun proponents and fanatics -- and I do not believe I am engaging in hyperbole by using the word 'fanatic' here -- inevitably and invariably look at ethical conduct solely from the standpoint of consequences, and you refrain from giving moral credence to anything other than the consequences of an act. For you to even consider looking at the constituent parts of a moral act in any other way is superfluous to and even repugnant to your sensibilities. You take as axiomatic – that is to say – inherently true without the need for proof –  that the lives of two individuals, are more worthy than the life of one individual. And that ends the matter. Do you realize that by holding to such a narrow ethical framework, your assumptions entail an absurd conclusion? In fact, for you to hold that the lives of two individuals are worth more than one – that two lives have more utility than one, without looking at -- taking a serious look at the nature of those lives – you must also hold  -- as this follows from the premises of your ethical philosophy -- that the lives of two bad individuals are more worthy than the life of one good individual -- simply because, for you two lives are worthier than one life. Two bad lives are worthier than one innocent life because your utility maximization principle only factors in raw numbers. Qualitative differences among people are irrelevant to you. But, if you were to agree with me that the life of an innocent individual -- the life of one innocent individual -- is worth more than any number of lives of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual counts for more, much more than do the lives of hundreds, even thousands of reprehensible individuals -- that the life of one innocent individual is in fact infinitely more valuable than the lives of any number of terrible, evil, reprehensible individuals, then you have to concede my point, which is that numbers in themselves are less important than the kind of individual life we are talking about. But, if you maintain your point, that it is numbers, after all, that are most important to you, which is what the utilitarian consequentialist looks at when computing utility maximization, then I  can see -- indeed anyone can see, and with crystal clarity -- what is really behind the push for a universal gun ban in this Country -- a gun ban which will obviously impact the majority of American citizens -- the majority of whom are law-abiding American citizens. What those who adhere to utilitarian consequentialism, such as yourself, truly seek, is control over the masses, grounded on the idea that the American citizenry is simply an incorrigible mass of random bits of energy. By removing from that mass the means to defend itself from harm, you also remove any possibility -- however remote -- that the mass can inflict harm to itself or to others. Maximization of utility is not a matter, then, of reducing gun violence in this Country; nor for that matter is it a matter really of reducing violence by any other means. It is really a matter of population control exerted by a select few against the perceived random impulses of the many. That any one individual suffers under the weight of utility maximization is, then, utterly beside the point. And, so we are at an impasse.' 'You and your antigun cohorts are so bound to the plausibility and inviolability and reasonableness of utilitarian consequentialism, you may actually believe -- indeed, may actually see no problem in believing -- that the lives of two bad individuals are, ipso facto, more worthy than the life of one good individual by the simple virtue of numbers and for the presumed need to exert control over everyone in order to maximally benefit the collective hive. And, if that is in fact the case for you -- if in fact you fail to realize the absurdity of the implication of your ethical position -- then our discussion is at an end. But, I wish for us to be clear about this, so that, as between us, there is no mistake -- no error -- in what I have posited here -- in my understanding of the utilitarian position of antigun politicians, antigun media pundits, and of other antigun proponents, such as you. So, as I see it,  for you and those like you, what it is that constitutes a morally good act is simply one that increases the total number of lives saved rather than lost, regardless of circumstances and regardless of the individual person's nature, and you do this by exerting control over the masses by means of taking the means of personal control from them. This is why antigun proponents such as you express less concern over the evil associated with the wrongful taking of a life by a criminal or lunatic, and why it is that you choose to emphasize the mechanism of harm – the consequences of the harm – i.e., the gun, the inanimate object. And this is why you minimize, deemphasize, reduce to a nullity, the inviolability of the individual. I, on the other hand, believe that a proper ethical theory must take into account (1) both the intention of the agent and the consequences of the act to the agent's self and (2), the consequences of the agent's act to others, if we are to properly assess the merits of a given action, that is to say, if we are to assess whether a given act is good or bad. But you – you avoid looking at the intentions of the actor at all, and emphasize the consequences of a given act on the multitude, instead, in order to ascertain the merits – good or bad – of a given act. And, the way to maximize benefit to the collective -- to society as a whole -- is to exert maximum control over it. The individual counts for naught. And, so, you and others like you – proponents of antigun bans and of various other antigun measures – give no thought to the intentions of the agent; nor do you give thought to the effect of an act on the agent himself; nor, for that matter, do you truly give real thought to the impact of the agent’s act on another person. Rather, you – and your antigun proponent kin – look only to the consequences of the agent’s act in relation to a nebulous larger group – the hive – on a multitude, on the amorphous collective – on society as a whole. And through the perceived consequences of the act alone on the hive – on the multitude – on society as a whole – do you and others like you ascertain whether the act is considered morally good or bad.’ This goal requires implementation of maximum control over the individual -- maximum compliance -- in order to maintain State security. And, one critical step toward that goal is implementation of a total, universal gun ban to the extent that such a goal is possible.BCE: ‘I don’t disagree with your analysis of my ethical theory. But, apart from postulating a few considerations for another ethical theory, you still haven’t actually clearly proposed one to counter that of utilitarian consequentialism. So if you have one in mind, I challenge you to propound it and we shall see if your ethical theory is in fact superior to that of utilitarian consequentialism that I and other antigun activists and proponents adhere to.’SAS:  ‘I will be happy to oblige you. And, to do so, let me use an example.’BCE:  ‘By all means, proceed.’SAS: ‘So let’s say you and your antigun friends in Congress win. You get what you want. A total gun ban is in effect in the United States. Now, you realize, of course, this doesn’t mean a psychopathic or sociopathic gang member, or lunatic, or other criminal deviant, can’t or won’t be able to acquire a gun. What it does mean is that millions of law-abiding citizens won’t be able to lawfully acquire guns or continue to keep the guns they had previously lawfully acquired, so that all guns lawfully acquired prior to the gun ban, must be turned over to the police. And, for you, for the time being that is enough as the Security States slowly exerts ever more control over the citizenry. Now, let us say the law-abiding American citizen – being a law-abiding citizen – will only attempt to obtain a gun through lawful channels. So, if those channels are foreclosed, he or she will be denied access to a gun. However, for the psychopathic, sociopathic deviants, and psychotics that won’t present a major problem. That certainly won't present an insurmountable hurdle. For, if such an individual wants a gun, that person will gain possession of a gun by whatever means are available to him. I think we can both agree that criminals of all stripes won’t be burdened -- certainly won't be overly burdened -- unlike the average law-abiding citizen. So, if a psychopathic gang member wants a gun, he will find a way to get one, as he always has, as he always will, so long as he is able to operate fairly freely, and he will do so with or without a total gun ban in effect. Do you agree and are you with me so far?’BCE: ‘Yes.’ Please continue.SAS: ‘Now, then. I’m your average law-abiding American citizen. And, let’s say I have, through time, gained proficiency in the use of a gun for self-defense and I safeguard the storage of it. But, I can’t keep it anymore. As I have said, the antigun proponents have won out and a Federal law is in effect, banning gun possession. The police know I have a gun. Why? Simple. Because the NSA knows everything about everyone and notifies the Department of Homeland Security that, in turn, notifies other Federal, State and local police throughout the Country as to whom has a gun or guns, what kind, and how many. And, as I am not immune from such oversight, I am paid a visit by Federal police or State police or by local police. I obligingly turn the gun over to the police along with all my ammunition. Now, let’s say that one week later there is a rash of break-ins of homes across the Country. And I unfortunately am caught up in that. A gang of toughs comes into my house. I had a gun to defend myself and my family, but no longer. The gang proceeds to rape my wife and daughter and kills all of us. Is society better off? Let’s say government statisticians and criminologists compile the data and run the numbers. They determine that, although law-abiding citizens, including many past law-abiding gun owners, have been killed in record numbers in their own homes -- and that the number of innocent American lives lost to  gun violence has increased over the number of innocent American lives that have been lost prior to implementation of the total gun ban -- still gun-related deaths overall -- when one tabulates the number of violent criminals whose lives have been lost since the total gun ban went into effect -- have dropped, perhaps significantly, perhaps not. The criminologists and government statisticians conclude, then, that, on balance, with a total gun ban in effect, more lives, innocent and not so innocent, have been spared gun violence than have been lost to gun violence, although, regrettably, unhappily, many innocent lives have been lost that otherwise would have been saved, due to the inability of millions of previous law-abiding gun owners to exercise their prerogative of self-defense with a gun. Now, a utilitarian consequentialist would say the act of banning guns is morally right because fewer gun related deaths result overall, notwithstanding that many law-abiding citizens – previous gun owners – have lost their lives because of the gun ban -- that is to say -- many previous gun owners have lost their lives after the gun ban went into effect, when otherwise they would not have lost their lives, precisely because they didn't have access to their guns. Your position – the position of the utilitarian consequentialist – is that some innocent lives lost – although regrettable – is acceptable, not morally objectionable.  To use the language of utilitarian consequentialism, the consequence of a total gun ban has maximum utility because, in terms of pure numbers, more lives are saved than lost through the gun ban, notwithstanding and irrespective of the fact that more innocent lives are lost because those individuals did not have a gun to defend themselves. Utilitarian consequentialism simply has nothing to say, or is otherwise neutral, on that little matter: American citizens have in fact lost their lives simply because they were denied the right -- to exercise their prerogative as American citizens -- to protect their own lives with a gun. To the proponent of gun bans – the utilitarian consequentialist – the loss of some lives suffices – serves, through their sacrifice, the greater good as more lives are saved than lost through a total gun ban. And that is good enough. Maximum utility accrues. The benefit to society with a total gun ban in place outweighs the cost -- loss of innocent life. You would agree with the truth of that conclusion and the morality of the outcome?’BCE: ‘Yes; of course. You, however, obviously do not. But, I’m still waiting for you to articulate your own ethical theory. So, if you have an alternative and a superior alternative ethical theory to  utilitarian consequentialism and if you’re ready, I’d like to hear it now. Do you subscribe to a modification of the utilitarian theory? If so, I don’t know of any.’SAS:  ‘No. I subscribe to a completely different kind of ethical theory. It’s one clearly superior to consequentialism,  generally, and to utilitarian consequentialism, in particular, for it looks to the behavior of the agent and to the distribution of well-being to self as well as to others, not merely to the notion of maximizing utility for the collective, for society, for the hive, that is to say, maximizing the benefit to the collective, to the hive, to society as a whole. There are, to be sure, several versions of it but they all fall under the rubric, deontological ethics. So, a morally good action is a function of the intentions, effects, and distribution of well-being to individuals qua individuals. And, here we are talking about the distribution of well-being to a human being qua an average law-abiding American citizen, in determining the moral worth of an action. In part, I believe it is important to consider the morality of an agent’s actions in terms of his own self-interest and if the act does, in fact, serve his self-interest, and, at one and the same time, I determine that the agent's action does not have deleterious consequences for others. If both conditions are met, the agent’s action can then be said to be morally good.’ BCE: ‘But –’SAS: ‘Now, I think I know what you’re going to say. So, hear me out. If you caught the last clause of my assertion, then you know I’m not at all suggesting a person might do an altogether reprehensible act and that I’m bound to hold that the act is, in the last analysis, a morally good act if the actor believes such act to be in the agent's personal best interest even if it harms another. For a person can hold a false belief. A murderer’s action is never meritorious even for himself because the murderer ought, readily and rightfully, to expect to receive a decidedly undesirable accounting for his action if caught. Such accounting – as, for example, suffering the death penalty – would hardly be in the murderer’s own self-interest. Hence, the murderer’s act is not morally good under a deontological ethical theory, as, for example, under ethical egoism. Let’s use the Santa Barbara incident as an example. Under the theory of ethical egoism, the killer’s actions are not morally good. Odds are that the killer didn’t even consider the ethical merits of his action. He only knew that he hurt inside and he intended to make others hurt, as he did. Several women had, apparently, rebuffed his advances. The killer wrongly concluded that, because some women were uninterested in him, all women would be uninterested in him. He also wrongly inferred, as a result of his delusion, that everyone was happy except for him. He wrongly inferred that it was the natural state for everyone to be happy but for him. In his delusional state he felt that he should make others suffer because he suffered. If the killer had thought at all about the consequences of his actions, he would have realized that his murderous actions would end very badly for him. He may, in fact, have realized this. Indeed, he may have welcomed a bad outcome; anticipated it. And, of course, he was either killed by the police or took his own life. The Times news Article is unclear on that point. In any event, under ethical egoism, as under any deontological ethical approach, murder is always immoral. And, you will note I did not appeal to a normative theological argument here although, personally, I believe that morality – what constitutes a good or evil act – emanates from a supreme being. And the appeal to a supreme being as the source of morality is an independent argument against the doing of an evil act. But, it is enough, right now as you can see, that my ethical stance, as propounded, is at odds with yours and I don't have to appeal to a higher power as the source of and for moral conduct. That said, it is nonetheless true that a deontological ethical approach to an assessment of the moral worth of one’s actions is certainly consistent with theological considerations although such theological considerations are antithetical to consequentialism for the simple reason that no appeal to intention under consequentialism is made. For, under the ethical utilitarian consequentialism that you espouse, the ethical merits of the Santa Barbara killer’s actions are not to be and cannot properly be ascribed to the killer at all. Such a consideration is simply and irrefutably irrelevant to utilitarian consequentialism. Rather, under utilitarian consequentialism the gun -- the inanimate object -- alone is critical to an assessment of all ethical considerations, not the intentions of, motives behind, or the actions of a sentient agent. The utilitarian consequentialist looks only to the consequences of the act, namely the fact that a life was unlawfully taken and that the life was taken violently. And, for all that, the antigun proponent, activist, fanatic -- as utilitarian consequentialist -- looks to one particular inanimate object, the gun, in assessing the moral consequences of the act. This is why I pointed out to you earlier that you and others who support your cause – proponents of gun bans and other antigun measures -- are, in fact, cold, calculating, even ruthless, notwithstanding that you and others, who share your beliefs concerning guns, outwardly express concern for the victims of gun violence. That concern is feigned. That expressed concern -- public recitations, histrionics and media theatrics -- for the victims of gun violence isn't really a concern for individual victims at all. That concern is, ostensibly, for a warped sense of the well-being of society as a whole. And that concern for the well-being of society as a whole -- a nebulous concept at best -- has really nothing to do with the well-being of the individual -- indeed, that concern for the well-being of society is clearly and demonstrably contrary to the well-being of the individual. You antigun zealots, proponents, activists, fanatics simply seek to maximize utility for society – for the collective – for the hive and you seek to do that through control of the individual. Gun violence, for you and for others like you who profess to support gun bans, is particularly messy -- not so much for the loss of innocent lives but, rather, because it disturbs societal order. So you and others like you – antigun proponents, activists, fanatics, zealots – argue for the elimination of the gun and not for the elimination of the actor – the psychopathic, sociopathic killer or lunatic -- who is responsible for the violence -- who alone is responsible for the violence. So, for you, the inanimate object is the real immoral actor, rather than the sentient person -- a very strange notion. For you, the ethical consequences of a given act are construed only from an odd consideration of the mere fact of killing -- altogether removed from any consideration of intentions and motives, and removed, too, from any consideration of the agent’s actions on other individuals, and irrespective of the distribution of well-being among individuals. The point I am getting at here is not to denigrate consequences of actions, per se, but, rather, to place the notion of consequences in the context of the actor and in the context of those whom the consequences of an act actually and immediately affect. In other words, my moral scheme emphasizes acts and the motives of individuals and emphasizes the impact of acts on individuals as individuals, not as members of an amorphous hive or collective.  My ethical theory does not, contrary to the utilitarian model, stand aloof from a consideration of motives, intentions and acts by and against individuals. The utilitarian model, on the other hand, merely considers ethical conduct as a function of maximizing utility for some nebulous broad-based societal construct. Under your theory, utilitarian consequentialism, predicated merely and, indeed, solely, on the notion of maximizing utility for society – you seek  to make the point that, if killers don’t have guns, fewer people will die – at least through the mechanism of guns and that's that. But, as people don’t live in bubbles, and, as substantial numbers of evil people walk about in society, it is reasonable to assume that violent homicidal acts will continue to occur whether guns are available to killers or not. So, if guns aren’t readily available, killers will simply kill through such other means as made available to them -- a point made poignantly clear in the Santa Barbara incident. And, as the law-abiding citizen has no access to a firearm, that citizen's life becomes that much more vulnerable because the best means to secure that citizen's life, safety  and well-being is no longer available to the citizen. And, that is the real point  a reader should take from the Time's news story -- not the rage of a parent who lost a child needlessly and who, frustrated, lashed out incoherently at gun manufacturers, at supporters of the Second Amendment, and at the NRA.''As the majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding citizens, and as few gun deaths arise from the acts of law-abiding citizens, gun deaths will continue unabated, even under the weight of a total gun ban which you antigun zealots  envision for this Country. Violent acts against innocent individuals, whether through use of firearms or through other means, by deviants, including gang members, homicidal maniacs and other criminal and delusional  sorts and will probably rise, as innocent individuals will no longer have the best means available to them to prevent violence against them. But then, you antigun proponents, activists, fanatics and zealots aren’t concerned about any of that because for you -- adherents of utilitarian consequentialism – morality is neither a function of the killer’s motivations for killing nor of the impact of the killing on the killer or on others. Rather what is moral or not for you is predicated solely on the consequences of killing and, for all that, through the particular tools or mechanisms or implements used. Antigun proponents thus ascribe morality to implements of violence, particularly the gun. So, from your ethical frame of reference, if the gun didn’t exist, it is reasoned, fewer deaths, overall, will occur, even if violent deaths to one segment of the population -- those accruing to innocent American citizens -- actually increases; control over the masses will be improved; and utility for society will be maximized. And that’s what matters to you. And that's all there is to it. But, that view of morality as held by you antigun proponents and zealots is singularly bizarre because notions of right and wrong are properly ascribed to actors not to objects. By removing the moral act from the actor and thrusting it onto the object, one loses perspective. Through it all, one emphasizes objects to the exclusion of actors. So, when all is said and done, whose ethical theory is really superior here?’BCE: ‘Are you done?’SAS: ‘Not quite. Let’s now consider how we might apply the deontological approach to another case. So, consider an act of self-defense. A criminal breaks into a house one evening. He lunges at the homeowner with an axe. The homeowner has a gun and shoots the criminal, killing him. The homeowner’s act is considered morally good under a deontological theory, such as ethical egoism. His intention, protecting his life, certainly serves his self-interest, regardless of the means by which he did it. He certainly doesn’t have to suffer retribution from society for having the wherewithal to protect his own life -- or certainly shouldn't have to. And his well-being is maximized because the consequences of his act, killing a would-be killer to save his own life, does in fact serve his own best interests. Still, antigun proponents might take the homeowner to task just the same, raising absurd questions such as: Did the homeowner really have to kill the criminal? If so, did he have to do so using a gun? Couldn’t the homeowner have retreated safely to another room in the house? Couldn’t the homeowner have tried reasoning with the criminal? Didn’t the homeowner have a duty to try to deal rationally with the criminal? In fact under utilitarian consequentialism, we may reach the clearly absurd result that the consequence of the act, the killing of a house breaker who sought to harm an innocent person, was a decidedly immoral act insofar as, or, indeed, precisely because the utilitarian consequentialist perceives the homeowner’s use of a gun to protect his life as having a deleterious ethical consequence – harming the well-being of society as a whole, because harming another with a gun, regardless of the reason and motivation and distribution of well-being to  one's self undermines a benefit to society as a whole, undermines societal utility, undermines the ability of society to exert control over the individual. The presence of guns in society, for the antigun proponent, harms society, so the action of protecting one’s life with a gun, when weighed against costs and benefits to society, comes up short.''So, while utilitarian consequentialism doesn’t view a person’s conduct, as morally good or bad, it does look to the moral merit of using a gun at all. Since the consequences of using a gun to harm another – regardless of the reason for using the gun – is what’s important to the antigun proponent and activist and zealot who holds to the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism and, as society is harmed on balance through use of a gun to harm another at all, then, regardless of the reason for such use, the mere use of a gun, even for the rational purpose of self-defense, is considered a morally bad act -- a morally bad consequence for society as a whole. The antigun folk might argue that the criminal’s life also has worth and may even be worthier than the homeowner who kills him, albeit the homeowner acted rationally in self-defense. The antigun proponent looks to the costs of gun use in society, as a whole, and to the numbers of people – both good and bad – who are killed by guns and to society's  ability to control -- to restrain -- or to be unable to control and restrain the individual conduct. The intentions of the individual are zeroed out of the equation and that means the sanctity and inviolability and the singular importance of the individual as an individual is as well zeroed out of the equation.' 'Occam’s razor cuts through this hogwash. Utilitarianism raises issues that need not be raised and should not be raised in the context of ethical considerations. And, for all the considerations the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism raises and for all that utilitarian consequentialism concerns itself with, the most important ethical concern – certainly the most important consideration under an ethical deontological approach, namely, the well-being of an innocent individual – is left on the sidelines, to mourn for itself in solitude. This, to me, is the fundamental concern I have with the antigun proponent’s ethical theory -- utilitarian consequentialism -- and the fundamental flaw I see with that ethical theory; and this is the salient concern I have with antigun proponents. On the surface it would appear that you and those like you profess a concern for human life.  But, that really isn’t the case at all. You and other antigun proponents posit the consequence of gun use – even in one’s own self-defense – as morally reprehensible or, at least, morally dubious. However, if loss of life – especially loss of innocent life – were your real concern, then you would be or should be equally concerned about anything that a killer may happen to use to take a human life with. But, as with the Santa Barbara incident, little is said about violence with knife or automobile, even though some people were killed by a knife and a second was mangled by the killer’s BMW automobile. So, something else is at work here. And, it may even be that antigun proponents are dupes. You believe the salient problem is guns. But, there’s something going on below the surface. And, what is going on – what is really going on below the surface – is an attempt to control individuals. If a person – even a law-abiding person – has a gun, he or she is potentially difficult for a government to control. A person who has access to a knife, on the other hand, is a little easier for a government to control. Thus we see at the moment, at least, for people, such as you, a call for bans on guns and not, at the moment, a call for bans on knives. I find it curious and strange that utilitarian consequentialism simply shrugs off any concern for personal autonomy. Utilitarian theorists look only to the well-being of the collective – consider only what may or may not be in the best interest of or seeming best interest of the collective -- of society -- of the hive. To my mind such view is antithetical to and, in fact, repugnant to the principles reflected in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. We sacrifice those principles at our peril.’BCE: ‘Well, I’ve heard you out and I disagree with you on a number of points. But, I do not wish further to contend with you. However, I do have to ask you something. I'm curious. Suppose, I and my antigun colleagues do win and we are able to pass legislation at the Federal Level that operates as a total gun ban as applied to the average, law-abiding civilian American citizen. Would you and others like you – strong supporters of the Second Amendment – acquiesce to a total gun ban? I wonder because, given your ethical predilections, I really don't know what to think about that.SAS: ‘Well, let me respond forthrightly to your question and in the context of deontological ethics and more specifically from the standpoint of ethical egoism and, too, from the standpoint of the Bill of Rights and Natural law.  I believe that a morally good act is one that serves one’s self-interest without harming the interest of others. Guns are the best means available by which and through which a person may best protect himself and preserve his self-autonomy. If it were to come to pass that Federal Statutory law imposed a total gun ban on the civilian citizenry of this Country, I believe that an American citizen would have both the obligation, consistent with his rights under both the Second Amendment and Natural law and in the context of a moral imperative to do what is necessary to maximize that person's personal life, health, safety, and well-being, to retain a firearm. I understand that this would conflict with Federal Statute – although one might well argue that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps Federal Statute and that, if such a total gun ban is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, then such statute amounts to an illegal law, if enacted, and may properly, be lawfully ignored. Secondly, a morally right act under ethical egoism or, more generally, under broader deontological ethical theory, is one that serves the citizen's best interests without harming others. Since keeping a gun for self-defense and, as well, to enhance one's personal autonomy, satisfies the moral imperative, it follows that retaining a firearm is morally right. Such act maximizes one's personal well-being. So I do not see any legal barrier or moral prohibition to an American citizen acting contrary to such federal gun ban and such act would be consistent with any  deontological ethical  theory. Yes, I understand that such action could result in legal sanctions if the Government should become aware of a citizen’s flaunting of federal law. But, if millions of individuals were to do what was necessary to acquire or keep their firearms, the Government would face insurrection on a massive scale if it sought to take action against those millions of Americans. Would the Government try to clamp down on the population? Perhaps. If so, Americans would realize without doubt that their Country is no longer a free, Democratic Republic but, in fact, a Totalitarian State. Civil War would likely break out. The public would realize that its leaders have no claim to legitimacy and they would be overthrown. A new Government would be created – one respecting the Bill of Rights, as the Founders of our Republic intended.’BCE: ‘So, we are indeed at an impasse. While the U.S. Constitution is important, I, for my part, am quite ready to give up many of the stated principles of the Constitution if it serves to bring our Nation into a new Age, consistent with the 21^st Century and consistent with the aims of the European community. You are aware and can appreciate, I think, that the world is a global community now, governed by economics encapsulated under the principles of neoliberalism. Guns have no place in the new world order. The United States may also have to give up some of its sovereignty for the benefit of the whole -- of the greater international society and that will undoubtedly require a substantial modification of the United States Constitution and, particularly, modification of a critical part of it, the Bill of Rights. You do understand this is for the best, don’t you?’ The very concept of a Nation State is rather old. It is well that we do away with it. We are already moving toward a North American Union,  predicated on neo-Socialist principles, similar to the EU.’ SAS: ‘Well, the truth comes out of an antigun proponent. I do, in fact, understand you. And, I understand what is taking place in the world, in the Northern Hemisphere, and in our Country in particular. But, you, I’m afraid, don’t really understand me. There is a battle underway for the hearts and minds of Americans. You have bought into the propaganda that floods the airwaves and is omnipresent in the mainstream news media. We shall see how this plays out. By the way, you may keep the newspaper. I’ve done with The New York Times!’ {With that the two men get up from the table, shake hands amicably and go their very separate ways}.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and All Rights Reserved.   

NY SAFE: ON DETACHABLE MAGAZINES

RECAP

The ‘assault weapon’ is the cornerstone of NY SAFE. It’s a "new take" on an old strategy antigun zealots used two decades ago.  Former President Bill Clinton signed the "Assault Weapon Ban" into law in 1994. The "AWB" was a federal law.  So it affected the Nation. Fortunately, it had a sunset provision.  It expired in 2004. Exploiting the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy that occurred in December, 2012,  the antigun zealots resurrected the "AWB" in New York. The New York SAFE Act is a derivative of the "AWB."  The SAFE Act was the first of a new wave of extraordinarily restrictive set of gun laws to be enacted in any jurisdiction following the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. The mainstay of these new antigun laws is the "assault weapon." The antigun zealots created the notion of  'assault weapon' to undermine the Second Amendment. They realize the "assault weapon" is the most effective means available to dismantle the Second Amendment. And, so they are using it anew in a flurry of new legislation across the Country as they wage a constant war against the Second Amendment.What is the "assault weapon?" The "assault weapon" is a legal fiction. Antigun groups created it for one purpose: to confiscate guns. Simply call a firearm an assault weapon and ban it. The SAFE Act is the new model for restrictive firearms sweeping the Country on both the State and Federal level. It employs the notion of 'assault weapon' extensively. So far, the SAFE Act limits assault weapons to semiautomatic guns but for one exception.  Revolving cylinder shotguns aren’t semiautomatics, but they are assault weapons by definition. Apart from revolving cylinder shotguns, all assault weapons are semiautomatics. But, for the moment at least, not all semiautomatics are assault weapons. Said another way, no weapon is an assault weapon if it isn’t also a semiautomatic, except for revolving cylinder shotguns. But, some semiautomatics aren’t assault weapons. So, except for the revolving cylinder shotgun, if your firearm isn’t a semiautomatic, it isn’t an assault weapon. Do not examine it further. But if it’s a semiautomatic, you must examine it further. We discuss extensively the assault weapons’ testing procedure under NY SAFE in the Arbalest Quarrel March 16, 2014 post.Apart from revolving cylinder shotguns, semiautomatic pistols and rifles typically have detachable magazines. Keep in mind: no semiautomatic pistol or rifle is an assault weapon unless it’s “capable of accepting a detachable magazine.”For a pistol or rifle to be considered an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, the ability of the pistol or rifle to accept a detachable magazine is necessary. This means that no pistol or rifle is an assault weapon unless it's semiautomatic in operation and it has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.So, in order for a pistol or rifle to be an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, semiautomatic operation and the ability of the weapon to accept a detachable magazine are required.  They are necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions.  That means a pistol or rifle can't be an assault weapon unless it's a semiautomatic and it's capable of accepting a detachable magazine. But, the ability of a semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic rifle to accept a detachable magazine are not sufficient to turn the firearm into an assault weapon. The weapon must have at least one additional "assault weapon" feature. For a shotgun, the "assault weapon" tests are different. A shotgun must either operate by revolving cylinder or it must be a semiautomatic before the SAFE Act considers the weapon an "assault weapon."  If the shotgun operates through a revolving cylinder, then it is an assault weapon, period.  The revolving cylinder feature is enough to satisfy the assault weapons test. If the shotgun is a semiautomatic, though, it must have one additional "assault weapon" feature before it's considered an assault weapon under the SAFE Act. The ability of a semiautomatic shotgun to accept a detachable magazine is sufficient to turn it into an assault weapon under the SAFE Act.  The ability of the semiautomatic shotgun to accept a detachable magazine, then, isn't merely a necessary condition. The ability of the semiautomatic shotgun to accept a detachable magazine is sufficient to turn it into an assault weapon.  This means that a semiautomatic shotgun is an assault weapon if it has a folding or telescoping stock, or a thumbhole stock, or a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand, or a fixed capacity in excess of seven rounds or an ability to accept a detachable magazine. So, for a semiautomatic pistol or rifle to be an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, the ability of the semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic rifle to accept a detachable magazine is a necessary condition. And, for a semiautomatic shotgun to be an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, the ability of the semiautomatic shotgun to accept a detachable magazine is a sufficient condition. That is to say, the ability of the semiautomatic shotgun to accept a detachable magazine is sufficient, in and of itself, to turn it into an assault weapon.

CONFUSING TREATMENT OF “DETACHABLE MAGAZINE”

The SAFE Act’s treatment of detachable magazines is confusing. Not surprisingly, The Act’s treatment of detachable magazines has drawn criticism, not unwarranted. It has caused anger, resentment and even outrage. Consider a typical scenario. A person goes to a gun store to buy a semiautomatic pistol. The pistol comes with a detachable magazine, often two. The detachable magazine isn’t an item separate from the firearm. The “detachable magazine” is an integral part of the entire weapons package. The complete weapons package consists of receiver, barrel, trigger assembly and many other parts. NY SAFE treats the weapon and the detachable magazine as distinct items. The detachable magazine is potentially an illegal device. What does this mean? Under NY SAFE a semiautomatic weapon might be legal and the weapon’s magazine might be illegal. That’s odd. But under NY SAFE, that possibility exists. Are a semiautomatic and magazine two distinct devices or, properly considered, a unified weapons system? That’s a technical question. The answer is obvious. Can New York treat a semiautomatic pistol and its magazine as two distinct devices? That’s a legal question. In the recent case N.Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n versus Cuomo, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182307, the District Court for the Western District of New York said, in dicta, citing an academic study, if the firearm implicates the Second Amendment so too must the right to load that weapon with ammunition implicate the Second Amendment. So, treating a weapon and the ammunition magazine as two separate devices is ridiculous. But, that's what the SAFE Act does.

AN EXAMPLE

Consider. A stock “Glock 17 9x19” comes with a standard 17 round capacity magazine. Is it an assault weapon? Perhaps. We ask first: is the weapon a semiautomatic? If the answer is, “no,” we stop. The firearm isn’t an assault weapon. If, “yes,” we continue. The “Glock 17 9x19” is a semiautomatic. Is “Glock 17 9x19” an assault weapon? We don’t yet know. Perhaps. So, we continue with our test. We go to step 2. We ask, “does the weapon accept a detachable magazine? If not, we stop. The weapon isn’t an assault weapon.” But, if so, we continue. Now, the “Glock 17” “is capable of accepting a detachable magazine.” Is it an assault weapon? We still don’t know. Perhaps. So, we must continue. We go to step 3. If the “Glock 17 9x9” is an assault weapon, it must have at least one feature listed in Section 37 of the SAFE Act for pistols that are also assault weapons. “Does it have a folding or telescoping or thumbhole stock? Does it have a second hand grip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand? Does it have the capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip? Does it have a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer? Does it have a shroud that is either attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned? Does the weapon have a manufactured weight of 50 pounds or more when the weapon is unloaded? Or, is the pistol a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle shotgun or firearm?” Apart from the last feature which is vague, we know a stock “Glock 17 9x19” has none of the “assault weapon” features. So, a stock “Glock 17 9x19” likely isn’t an assault weapon. But, it does have a detachable magazine. And the “Glock 17 9x19” has a magazine capacity of 17 rounds. So, we aren’t done with scrutiny of the weapon. We can't stop with our testing of it. We have to go to Section 38 of the SAFE Act. This Section defines “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” It says in critical part: “ ‘Large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that . . . has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or . . . contains more than seven rounds of ammunition, or . . . is obtained after the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision and has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition. . . .” A “Glock 17 9x19” magazine holds 17 rounds. That’s standard. So, the weapon’s magazine is a large capacity ammunition feeding under the SAFE Act. Does that affect you? If so, how? Let’s see. Let’s look at Section 41-b of the NY SAFE. “For purposes of this subdivision, a large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an ammunition feeding device lawfully possessed by such person before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which amended this subdivision, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than seven but less than eleven rounds of ammunition, or that was manufactured before September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition. . . .” If the “Glock 17 9x19” magazine has a manufacturing date before September 13, 1994, then this Section 41-b of the SAFE Act says you can keep it. So, even though such a device is a large capacity ammunition feeding device, it is treated as if it weren't. So, it is, but it isn't. Are you confused? But, suppose you don’t know the manufacturing date. Or suppose despite, Section 41-b, another Section of the Act conflicts with Section 41-b. This presents a riddle. And, in fact we are presented with a real problem. See Section 46-a of the Act.“It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured before September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and if such person lawfully possessed such large capacity feeding device before the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition. An individual who has a reasonable belief that such device is of such a character that it may lawfully be possessed and who surrenders or lawfully disposes of such device within thirty days of being notified by law enforcement or county licensing officials that such possession is unlawful shall not be guilty of this offense. it shall be a rebuttable presumption that such person knows that such large capacity ammunition feeding device may not be lawfully possessed if he or she has been contacted by law enforcement or county licensing officials and informed that such device may not be lawfully possessed. Unlawful possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device is a class a misdemeanor.”

AN INCONSISTENCY

Section 41-b of the SAFE Act says you can keep a large capacity ammunition feeding device made before September 13, 1994 you had lawfully owned. But Section 46-a says such possession is unlawful regardless. So, an exception exists under Section 41-b; but no exception exists under Section 46-a. Absent a Court challenge, the safest course of action is to surrender the device, transfer it outside New York, or make it inoperable for more than 10 rounds. This, of course is what the proponents of the SAFE Act want. The SAFE Act is designed to keep the firearms' owner off guard. The Act is onerous. Governor Cuomo claims the SAFE Act does not target most weapons.  Yet, many gun owners have semiautomatic weapons. These are the weapons the SAFE Act mostly targets. Suppose you have a "Glock 17." The SAFE Act allows you to keep it.  It's not an assault weapon.  That's true.  But, it's also true you can't keep the 17 round magazine. Yet, the ammunition magazine is an integral part of the weapon.  What, then, becomes of the weapon?  It becomes an expensive paperweight.  You can, of course, use the weapon as a club. But, one thing you can't use the weapon for. You can't use it as a firearm.

AN ABSURDITY

Apart from the inconsistency in the two Sections, 41-b and 46-a of NY SAFE, the absurdity of treating a single weapon as two devices should be at once plain. For, with the “Glock 17” a law-abiding gun owner has simultaneously and oddly a legal weapon and illegal ammunition feeding device. If you fail immediately to grasp the lunacy of this, let’s analogize a semiautomatic to a revolver handgun.Consider a hypothetical. Suppose some revolvers are assault weapons under NY SAFE. Note: NY SAFE may extend the domain of assault weapons to include some or all revolvers. Now suppose NY SAFE says 45 caliber revolvers and larger calibers are assault weapons. Let’s say you have a .357 caliber revolver. That’s not an assault weapon. But, suppose NY SAFE says a revolver cylinder that can chamber over five rounds is illegal. So, let's assume, as is usually if not invariably the case, that your .357 caliber revolver chambers 6 rounds. Now, what does that mean? Just this: you can keep the revolver, but you must surrender the cylinder. Do you see the problem? And that’s merely a hypothetical example. The “Glock 17 9x19” example isn’t. The problem is real. And the problem extends to more than Glock semiautomatics.

WRAP-UP

If the New York gun owning public must live with NY SAFE, at least the Act ought to be internally consistent. It isn’t. And the Act’s drafters ought at least have a passing acquaintance of gun operation. They don’t.To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GUN OWNERS TAKE NOTE: THIS IS THE FINAL DAY TO REGISTER YOUR “ASSAULT WEAPONS” UNDER NY SAFE

What The Law-Abiding New York Firearms’ Owner Must Know About Governor Andrew Cuomo's NYSAFE Act

Today is the final day to register “assault weapons” under NY SAFE. Some New York gun owners have decided not to register their “assault weapons.” We strongly advise against this course of action. Why? Our interest is to keep your guns in your hands. Failure to register “assault weapons” does not serve that end. NY SAFE says: “if you knowingly fail to timely register such weapon or surrender it, you shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.” What does that mean? NY SAFE suggests you’ll likely lose your “assault weapons.” But, is that all you’ll lose? In our March 19, 2014 post we said you can lose much more for failure to timely register. You’ll likely lose your pistol license and long arm permit. That means you’ll lose all your firearms if you knowingly fail to register your assault weapons.  We had warned you then and we are alerting you now to the dangers you face if you decide not to register your "assault weapons."Ignoring the requirements of NY SAFE is not the way to combat it. We believe the best way to deal with NY SAFE is to remove the politicians who fought for and who support it. Once they’re removed from Office, the politicians who represent your interests and who actively fight to preserve our sacred “Bill of Rights” will repeal NY SAFE.Understand: by refusing to register your “assault weapon” you give Governor Cuomo and the other antigun zealots a reason to revoke your pistol license and long arm permit and to confiscate your guns – all of them. Failure to register your “assault weapon” is precisely what they want. They want a reason to go after your weapons. Don’t give them what they want![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

NY SAFE: "ASSAULT WEAPON" DEFINITIONS

“What The Law-Abiding New York Firearms’ OwnerMust Know About Governor Andrew Cuomo’s NYSAFE Act”

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In this post I give you the definitions of ‘assault weapon’ under NYSAFE. These definitions are tests. I lay out the definitions for you. I explain what they mean. I show you how they work. After reading this post, you will grasp how to examine your own firearms.

GETTING A HANDLE ON "ASSAULT WEAPON" IN NYSAFE.

Governor Cuomo’s NYSAFE website mentions three types of “assault weapons,” matching three basic “gun types.” Those gun types are: rifles, pistols and shotguns. That’s reasonable. Most firearms made today are rifles, pistols or shotguns. And a firearm can’t be an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE if it isn’t a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. The problem is: NYSAFE isn’t so tidy. Governor Cuomo’s NYSAFE site oversimplifies the Act’s treatment of “assault weapons. The Governor’s treatment of assault weapons isn’t consistent with the NYSAFE Act’s treatment of those weapons. If the Governor were correct, you might expect a one-to-one correspondence between rifles that are assault weapons, pistols that are assault weapons and shotguns that are assault weapons. Unfortunately, this isn’t so. To understand this, let’s look at the notion of ‘category.’

CATEGORIES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

In the NYSAFE Act we find one definition of ‘assault weapon’ for rifles. And we find one definition of ‘assault weapon’ for pistols. But, we find two definitions of ‘assault weapon’ for shotguns. And we find two more quasi-definitions of ‘assault weapon’ in NYSAFE. So, think of “assault weapons” as “categories,” not gun-types: four clear-cut categories of “assault weapons and two others, totaling six categories in NYSAFE. At the moment we look at the definitions of ‘assault weapon’ for the first four categories.

THE DEFINITIONS OF 'ASSAULT WEAPON' IN NYSAFE

Section 37 of NYSAFE lays out the definitions of ‘assault weapon.’ Section 37 of NYSAFE is codified in subdivision 22 of Section 265 of the Penal Code of New York. The definitions of  'assault weapon' are:

SECTION 37(A) (CATEGORY ONE): RIFLES THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; (3) a thumbhole stock; (4) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (5) a bayonet mount; (6) a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or muzzle compensator; or (7) a grenade launcher.”

SECTION 37(B) (CATEGORY TWO): SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a thumbhole stock; (3) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (4) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 7 rounds; or (5) the ability of the shotgun to accept a detachable magazine.”

SECTION 37(C) (CATEGORY THREE): PISTOLS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock;(2) a thumbhole Stock;(3) a second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (4) the capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;(5) a threaded barrel that is capable of accepting a barrel extender or a flash suppressor or a forward handgrip or a silencer;(6) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel of the weapon and that permits the shooter to hold the weapon with the shooter’s non-trigger hand so that the non-trigger hand is not burned;(7) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the weapon is unloaded;(8) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle or a shotgun or a firearm.”

SECTION 37(D) (CATEGORY FOUR) SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a revolving cylinder shotgun.”

LET'S LOOK CLOSELY AT THE DEFINITIONS OF 'ASSAULT WEAPON' IN NYSAFE.

Except for the revolving cylinder shotgun, all assault weapons are semiautomatics. Take a look at your firearms. Inventory them. Divide them into three categories: rifle, shotgun and pistol. Suppose you have a black powder musket. Muskets are smoothbore long arm firearms. By definition, they are not rifles because the barrel of a musket isn't rifled. So muskets aren't long arm rifles. And muskets aren't pistols.  And muskets aren't shotguns. So, muskets aren't “assault weapons.” Muskets can't be "assault weapons" under NYSAFE. Why? Answer: no definition. Now, NYSAFE might have provided a definition.  NYSAFE might have said: 'assault weapon' means smoothbore long arm firearms. If so, then muskets would be assault weapons under NYSAFE. A firearm becomes an "assault weapon" if the law defines it as an 'assault weapon.' Otherwise it isn't. That's the danger of laws like NYSAFE. Any firearm is potentially an "assault weapon." At the moment, though, only firearms that are rifles, pistols or shotguns may also be "assault weapons." So set aside firearms that aren't rifles, pistols or shotguns.Like muskets, other firearms, too, do not fall into the category of rifle, shotgun or pistol. Most do. Set aside firearms that aren't rifles, pistols or shotguns. Now, take a look at the remaining firearms in your collection. We will isolate the semiautomatic firearms first. But, we must decide what the expression ‘semiautomatic’ means. You might know what ‘semiautomatic’ means. But, does New York law define the word, ‘semiautomatic?’ If “no,” we look to trade use of the word. If, “yes,” we go with New York law use. Be aware: use of the word ‘semiautomatic’ in New York law trumps use of the word in the firearms’ industry. If New York law defines a word, then the word is a “legal term of art.” The meaning of ‘semiautomatic’ may mirror trade use. If an inconsistency exists, go with the New York law definition for the word.Now, NYSAFE does not define ‘semiautomatic, but other New York law does define it. See New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00(21). The word ‘semiautomatic’ “means any repeating rifle, shotgun or pistol, regardless of barrel or overall length, which utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge or shell to extract the fired cartridge case or spent shell and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge or shell.”Now, look at your firearms again. Look at your pistols. If they are single action or double action revolver handguns, they are not “assault weapons.” So, you needn’t worry. Look at your rifles. If they are bolt action or lever action rifles, they are not “assault weapons.” Again, you needn’t worry. Look at your shotguns. If they are pump action, they are not assault weapons. You needn’t worry. Look again at your shotguns. Do you have a revolving cylinder shotgun? If so, do worry. It is an “assault weapon.” If the shotgun works through a revolving cylinder, the firearm is an assault weapon.  Under NYSAFE The revolving cylinder shotgun is the only  non-semiautomatic that is also an "assault weapon." Set it aside.Now, let’s look at the remaining rifles, shotguns and pistols. Do you have a “machine gun?” NYSAFE does not define a ‘machine gun,’ but other New York law does.  See New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00(1). The word ‘machine gun’ “means a weapon of any description, irrespective of size, by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded, from which a number of shots or bullets may be rapidly or automatically discharged from a magazine with one continuous pull of the trigger and includes a sub-machine gun.” If you have lawful possession of a machine-gun, don't worry. A machine gun isn't an “assault weapon.” And machine guns are not a subset of “assault weapon.” A machine gun does not fall under the scope of NYSAFE. If you lawfully have a machine gun, licensing for it falls under Federal law and under other Sections of New York State law. Possession of machine guns does not fall within the scope of NYSAFE.

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

The remaining weapons in your collection are semiautomatics. They may be "assault weapon." But semiautomatics are not necessarily “assault weapons.” Keep in mind: all “Category One” through “Category Three” assault weapons are semiautomatics under the NYSAFE Act, but not all semiautomatics are assault weapons. Look at the definitions closely. Think of the definitions of “assault weapons” under NYSAFE as tests. Apart from the special case of revolving cylinder shotguns (“Category Four” assault weapons), you first decide if the weapon is a semiautomatic. If the weapon isn’t a semiautomatic, then stop. The firearm isn’t an “assault weapon.” If, however, the weapon is a semiautomatic, then go to the second test. Ask: can the weapon accept a detachable magazine? If the weapon cannot accept a detachable magazine, stop. The firearm isn’t an assault weapon. But, what is a “detachable magazine?” NYSAFE doesn’t say. Curiously, NY SB 1422 did have a definition for ‘detachable magazine,’ but NY SB 1422, introduced on January 9, 2013, failed. NY SB 1422 would have amended New York Penal Law Code Section 265.00, adding Section 265.00(24). That Section defines ‘detachable magazine.’ “Detachable magazine’ means any ammunition feeding device, the function of which is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.” But that definition for ‘detachable magazine’ doesn’t exist in New York law. That definition doesn’t exist because the New York Legislature didn’t pass NY SB 1422. Why doesn’t New York law define ‘detachable magazine?’ Why didn’t NY SB 2230 – that became NYSAFE – provide a definition for ‘detachable magazine?’ It's curious. The expression is important. A definition for it should exist. The expression appears prominently in NYSAFE. New York law doesn’t provide a definition. We don't have a definition for it. This means we must look outside New York law for a workable definition. We look to trade use of the term. The firearms’ industry has one.The NRA-ILA provides a glossary of common firearms’ terminology. And, fortunately, the NRA-ILA does provide a definition for ‘magazine.’ The word ‘magazine’ means, “a spring-loaded container for cartridges that may be an integral part of the gun`s mechanism or may be detachable. Detachable magazines for the same gun may be offered by the gun`s manufacturer or other manufacturers with various capacities. A gun with a five-shot detachable magazine, for instance, may be fitted with a magazine holding 10, 20, or 50 or more rounds. Box magazines are most commonly located under the receiver with the cartridges stacked vertically. Tube or tubular magazines run through the stock or under the barrel with the cartridges lying horizontally. Drum magazines hold their cartridges in a circular mode. A magazine can also mean a secure storage place for ammunition or explosives.” Treat this definition as a de facto New York law definition. Treat it as a “legal term of art.” So, if your rifle, shotgun or pistol is a "semiautomatic" and can accept a “detachable magazine,” we continue our analysis. “Semiautomatic” and “the ability to accept a detachable magazine” are “necessary conditions” but not “sufficient conditions.” If the rifle, pistol or shotgun is a semiautomatic and can accept a detachable magazine, then, and only then, do we continue with our analysis. Take a look at your remaining rifles, pistols and shotguns. If any are both a semiautomatic and can accept a detachable magazine, we must continue with our analysis. So, separate those firearms out. Now, look at the  list of characteristics for rifle, pistol and shotgun in the respective definition. If the firearm has at least one of the listed characteristics, the firearm is an “assault weapon.” If not, the firearm isn't an “assault weapon.” That's how the NYSAFE "assault weapon" test works. Apply it to your firearms.

IF SOME OF MY FIREARMS ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS, WHAT MUST I DO?

In my next post I will explain your duties under NYSAFE if you have one or more assault weapons.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

NY SAFE: LOOKING AT THE "ASSAULT WEAPON"

What The Law-Abiding New York Firearms’ Owner Must Know About Governor Andrew Cuomo's NYSAFE Act

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In this post I continue discussion about "assault weapons." This is important. The notion of 'assault weapon' is central to NYSAFE. I then set up a model for examining firearms under NYSAFE, consisting of six steps. This model will aid you when examining your firearms. I wish to give you the means to assess your firearms: to distinguish "assault weapons" from non-assault weapons.

WHAT DOES THE NYSAFE SAY ABOUT THE EXPRESSION, ‘ASSAULT WEAPON?’

NYSAFE has much to say about the words ‘assault weapon.’ You might have heard this: assault weapons are rifles or pistols or shotguns that have certain especial features. NYSAFE calls them, ‘assault weapons.’ That’s the general description. It’s essentially correct. But it’s simplistic. Conversely, a weapon isn’t “assault weapon” if it isn’t a rifle, pistol or shotgun. We know, then, a black powder musket isn’t an assault weapon because it isn’t a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. But how many firearms owners have black powder muskets as their sole firearm? Not many, I am sure. But, suppose a weapon is a rifle, pistol or shotgun. We need guidance to decide if it is also an assault weapon.

DOES THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” EXIST?

No. The “assault weapon” does not exist. It’s a fiction. But, the NYSAFE Act talks about assault weapons. The “assault weapon” is a fiction created for firearms confiscation. The NYSAFE calls many firearms “assault weapons” that were not “assault weapons” under previous New York antigun laws. Did such weapons suddenly evolve into “assault weapons?” No! Were they “assault weapons” all along? Of course not! But the Act says New York residents can no longer lawfully buy such weapons. The law bans them. New York residents who lawfully had firearms NYSAFE now face new laws if they wish to keep or transfer those weapons. So, the expression ‘assault weapon’ is synonymous with ‘banned firearm.’ The expression ‘assault weapon’ means ‘banned firearm.’ Nothing more.

BUT, ISN’T AN “ASSAULT WEAPON” A FIREARM THAT HAS MILITARY WEAPON FEATURES?

No. In New York a firearm is an “assault weapon” only if NYSAFE says so. If military features alone make a firearm an "assault weapon," then all military weapons are "assault weapons." Military weapons are not typically available to civilians. If the NYSAFE Act says a feature of a weapon is an “assault weapon feature,” then accept it. The NYSAFE Act might have said a handgun with a revolving cylinder is an “assault weapon” feature. The nature of the firearm doesn’t change. But its relation to you, because you are a resident of New York, does change.Again, a firearm is an “assault weapon” only if NYSAFE says so. That doesn’t mean “assault weapons” exist. It only means that NYSAFE treats firearms in different ways. The NYSAFE Act says that many weapons are "assault weapons." Any weapon is an "assault weapon" if NYSAFE says so. The NYSAFE Act may say all handguns are assault weapons. Would that mean all handguns are real “assault weapons?” No! Would that mean all handguns are "assault weapons" in New York? Yes! They are "assault weapons" if NYSAFE treats them as "assault weapons." Does this mean all handguns are, by nature, “assault weapons?” No! That's ridiculous.Calling a firearm an “assault weapon” says nothing about the firearm’s technical features. But calling a weapon an "assault weapon" does have meaning. An "assault weapon" is a "banned weapon." An “assault weapon” equals a “banned weapon.” The task of gun confiscation is, then, easy. Call a firearm an "assault weapon." Once named an 'assault weapon,' ban it.

Is a fully automatic weapon or selective fire weapon an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE?

You might think a fully automatic or selective fire weapon is an “assault weapon,” under NYSAFE. You would be wrong. The NYSAFE Act says nothing about fully automatic fire weapons or selective fire weapons. Federal law governs ownership responsibilities of full auto only firearms or selective fire weapons. The NYSAFE Act says nothing about them. The NYSAFE Act only talks about “assault weapons” as defined in NYSAFE. NYSAFE says nothing about military assault rifles and military submachine guns. Military assault rifles and military submachine guns are not “assault weapons” under the NYSAFE. You have no duty to register them as “assault weapons.” So, do not treat the “military assault rifle” or the “military submachine gun” as if it is an “assault weapon.” It isn't. “Military assault rifles” and “military submachine guns” have nothing to do with “assault weapons” as defined in the NYSAFE Act. Fully automatic and selective fire military weapons do not fall under the scope of the NYSAFE Act.

A SOLID TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OF FIREARMS WILL NOT HELP IN UNDERSTANDING NYSAFE.

If you have a firm technical grasp of firearms, the NYSAFE Act can trip you up and throw you off. Avoid thinking about “military assault rifles” or “military submachine guns” from the get-go. Think only about “assault weapons” as mentioned in NYSAFE. I have harped on this often will continue to do so as I discuss the notion of ‘assault weapon’ in NYSAFE.

EXAMINING YOUR FIREARMS: SIX STEPS

I have set down six steps to help you when deciding which firearms, if any, are “assault weapons” under NYSAFE. The first step: inventory your firearms. The second step: learn the categories of 'assault weapon.' The third step: learn the definition of ‘assault weapon’ for each category of weapon. The fourth step: decide what category each firearm falls under. The fifth step: apply the correct definition to each firearm. The sixth step: isolate the “assault weapons” from the “ordinary” weapons. Beware and be aware: Assault weapon features vary by category of weapon. Shared features might not exist across categories.

GOING FORWARD

NYSAFE decides how we should examine firearms in New York. Governor Cuomo's simplistic NYSAFE website has limited usefulness. Keep that in mind.Do not assume anything about NYSAFE. NYSAFE is not easy to understand. Either by design or clumsiness, the language of NYSAFE isn’t straightforward. And do not look for simple explanations. You'll fall into traps if you do. NYSAFE has plenty of them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

NYSAFE: Cuomo's Website Misleads Public

What the Law-Abiding New York Firearms' Owner Must Know about Governor Andrew Cuomo's NYSAFE Act

Summary

This post continues my discussion of NYSAFE. Several more will follow. We will look at Governor Cuomo’s NYSAFE website. That site too talks about NYSAFE. The Governor hails his NYSAFE site as a “one-stop resource” for information about NYSAFE. But is it? The Governor claims NYSAFE preserves the Second Amendment. But does it? The Governor says NYSAFE promotes “a safer New York.” But can it? We will examine the Governor’s assertions. We shall see if those assertions hold up to scrutiny. In forthcoming posts, we will take a close look at the words, ‘assault weapon.’ We will explore the origins of the words. I will show the notion is an invention. The notion of ‘assault weapon’ does not describe any firearm. Rather, antigun groups and their allied politicians in Congress and in State Legislatures across the Country created the idea to ban firearms. I will also explore the origin of the words ‘assault rifle.’ The expression ‘assault weapon’ is often, wrongly, tied to the words ‘assault rifle.’ The words aren’t synonymous. They do not refer to the same weapons. They do not refer to the same kinds of weapons. And I will provide you with some “tips.” These tips will help you to understand NYSAFE as we bore into it. My goal is to build a model for examining firearms. Once completed, you can test any firearm. You can determine, with reasonable accuracy if the firearm is an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE. We will look closely at the definitions of ‘assault weapon’ and ‘detachable magazine.’ We will go over several Sections of NYSAFE you must know. Let’s begin.

A Look At Governor Cuomo’s NYSAFE Website.

In a previous post I gave you some background on the NYSAFE Act and I gave you the web address to Governor Cuomo’s site. If you missed it CLICK HERE!I certainly don’t cite the Governor’s NYSAFE website to praise it. And, I don’t cite it to amuse you. After all the goal of NYSAFE is to separate you from your firearms. That’s neither praiseworthy nor amusing. I cite it for two reasons. The first should be immediately obvious. The second will become obvious through this and subsequent posts. As for the former, I point out the hypocrisy of the Governor’s position. NYSAFE is inconsistent with the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Governor Cuomo claims otherwise. As for the latter, NYSAFE isn’t easy to understand. The Governor suggests it is. His treatment of NYSAFE suggests there’s nothing to it. We shall see.

NYSAFE Weakens the Second Amendment.

NYSAFE is antithetical to the import of the Second Amendment. NYSAFE does not strengthen the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. And NYSAFE does nothing to preserve it. Nor is NYSAFE neutral on it. NYSAFE weakens the Second Amendment. And NYSAFE does so in a major way. That’s its purpose. That’s what it does. That’s what the drafters of it wanted.  That's what is was designed to do. Make no mistake about it.Both the Governor and the drafters of NYSAFE detest firearms. And, subject to very narrow exceptions, they do not wish New York residents to possess them.So, is the Governor’s NYSAFE site a grand deception? I am not saying it is. I don’t know. But it may very well be. Let me explain.The Governor’s NYSAFE website oversimplifies the NYSAFE Act. And the site conveys dangerously misleading or incomplete information.Why do I say this? I’ll give you an example. Consider the “revolving cylinder shotgun.” Is this an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE? The answer is, “yes.” And, the Governor’s NYSAFE website doesn’t tell you it isn’t. But, the Governor’s website tells you a “revolving cylinder shotgun” is an “assault weapon” for the wrong reason. The analysis is poor and misstates NYSAFE!I’ll demonstrate. Go to the site. Once there, click on “Gun Owners.” Then click on the link that reads: “I am not sure if the gun I own is an assault weapon. How do I find out?” A dropdown menu will appear. Click on “shotguns.” Then click on “Banned Features.” A PDF document will load. Once the document loads, you will see this: “a shotgun requires registration when it is semiautomatic and has one of the following characteristics: . . .” Scroll down until you see a graphic of the Armsel Striker 12-guage shotgun. The Governor’s site says this gun has a banned feature, namely, a “second handgrip.” Is the Armsel Striker an assault weapon under NYSAFE? Yes. But the Governor’s site says the Armsel Striker shotgun is an assault weapon for the wrong reason. The Governor’s site says the “Armsel Striker 12-guage shotgun is an assault weapon under NYSAFE because it’s semiautomatic and has a banned feature. That isn’t true. First, the Armsel Striker shotgun isn’t a semiautomatic. It operates through a revolving cylinder. Second, the Armsel Striker shotgun does have a "banned feature" but, since the Armsel Striker isn’t a semiautomatic, it cannot be an assault weapon under the definition the Governor’s NYSAFE website gives. The "banned feature" criterion only applies to a shotgun that is a semiautomatic in operation. So,  if a shotgun isn't a semiautomatic, then the "banned feature" criterion is irrelevant.  The shotgun cannot be an "assault weapon." So, under the definition of shotguns that are 'assault weapons,' the Armsel Striker 12-guage fails the test.  In fact, the Armsel Striker shotgun might have several "assault weapon characteristics," but, since the shotgun isn’t a semiautomatic, it isn’t an assault weapon under that definition.  Why is the definition important? Because the definition is codified in New York Law. NYSAFE lays out several definitions for 'assault weapon.' A firearm isn't an "assault weapon" unless it meets the definition as written.Now, NYSAFE does specifically say revolving cylinder shotguns are assault weapons. Section 37(D) of NYSAFE classifies revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons. So, since the Armsel Striker revolving cylinder shotgun is an "assault weapon" under NYSAFE, am I creating unnecessary ‘fuss?’” The answer is, “no.”Consider: if Section 37(D) of NYSAFE didn’t exist, the Armsel Striker and all other revolving cylinder shotguns wouldn’t be assault weapons under NYSAFE. Still, the Governor's NYSAFE website would tell you they are assault weapons. The content of the Governor’s NYSAFE website is haphazardly written. The site dangerously oversimplifies the definitional scheme of NYSAFE. In so doing, the Governor’s NYSAFE site gives the visitor bad advice. That doesn’t seem to concern the Governor. But it should concern you. You should know what NYSAFE actually says, not what the Governor’s site simply wants you to believe. The Governor’s site also suggests NYSAFE is simple to understand. It isn’t. The Governor's NYSAFE website gives the visitor simplistic advice. Simplistic advice is bad advice. Errors in judgment occur. Your error in judgment doesn't pose a problem for Governor Cuomo or for the drafters of NYSAFE. But it does pose a problem for you, the gun owner. If you rely on bad advice, you may suffer irreparable harm. You may lose your pistol license and long arm permit. If you lose those, you lose your firearms. And you may face misdemeanor or even felony charges. If convicted, you won’t be able to possess a firearm lawfully in New York. And, quite likely, you won’t be able to possess a firearm lawfully in any other State. Would the Governor and the drafters of NYSAFE lose sleep if tens of thousands of New York residents lost their firearms for failure to appreciate the complexity of NYSAFE by relying on bad advice?  Not likely.

The Governor and New York State Legislature are Constrained by the Second Amendment.

The Governor and the New York State Legislature cannot ban firearms outright. They are constrained by the Second Amendment from doing so.  They are also constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment in the 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller.  NYSAFE conflicts with both the Second Amendment and Heller. That doesn't bother Governor Cuomo and the drafters of NYSAFE. We can therefore understand, if not respect, the Governor’s reluctance to clarify ambiguities and vagueness inherent in NYSAFE. The evident reluctance of the Governor to deal effectively with the complexities inherent in the NYSAFE Act, on his site, serves to benefit those who wish to disarm New York residents. Contrariwise, the evident reluctance of the Governor to deal effectively with the complexities inherent in NYSAFE does not benefit those who wish to keep their firearms – you. These observations are consistent with the purpose of NYSAFE. Otherwise, it wouldn’t exist. And it shouldn’t exist. After all, prior to enactment of NYSAFE, New York already had among the strictest firearms laws in the Country. So, why do New York residents need more of them? And we know the Governor has a personal distaste for firearms. Given this distaste, he’s reluctant to understand the thing he has a bias against. So, too, the failure of New York Legislators to draft coherent firearms laws is due, in part, to a failure to understand their subject matter. The drafters of NYSAFE do not understand the function of and limitations inherent in any particular firearm. And, of course, each firearm does embrace and exhibit particular strengths and weaknesses.

What is Missing from NYSAFE?

My question does not carry the implication NYSAFE should exist. For clearly, NYSAFE should not exist. But, for any legislation, the public has a right to know its meaning. The drafters of the NYSAFE Act failed to draft a clear, concise, cogent, coherent, cohesive, and consistent piece of legislation -- the “6 c’s” of good legislative draftsmanship. These are missing from NYSAFE. But this does not concern the drafters of it. There may be a subtle motive behind the drafters’ failure to draft clear, concise, cogent, coherent, cohesive, and consistent firearms legislation. This may be due, in part, to the failure of the drafters of NYSAFE to comprehend the technical attributes of particular firearms. That doesn't bother the drafters of NYSAFE, though. Their passion isn't firearms. They don't have a desire to understand them. They simply want to ban them.  In the alternative they want to regulate them. Eventually, they wish to regulate them out of existence.  So, they reason: if NYSAFE is ambiguous and vague and overly complex, so much the better. After all, what better motive exists to draft ambiguous and vague firearms laws than the motive to confound the firearms' wielding public. If confused, those who possess firearms will lose them. That's the endgame. That's what the drafters of NYSAFE want.  That's apparently what Governor Cuomo wants too.I intend to explore the nuances of the NYSAFE Act. The Governor obviously does not. Through comparison and contrast between the words conveyed on the Arbalest Quarrel website and the words conveyed on the Governor’s NYSAFE website, you will see NYSAFE is not as easy to follow as the Governor's NYSAFE site suggests. But, any attempt to make a difficult job seemingly easy – when it clearly is not – does not serve the New York resident’s best interests. Such serves only to shortchange the New York resident. The resident's concerns remain unanswered and unresolved. The NYSAFE Act is a tangled mess of laws. NYSAFE is codified in the Consolidated Laws of New York. The Governor refers to his NYSAFE website as a “one-stop resource.” The assertion borders on conceit. And inconsistencies abound.The Governor’s NYSAFE website is eye-catching. But glitz is empty. Extravagant display does not replace accurate and detailed information. And engaging graphics do not replace incisive and decisive and comprehensive analysis. Fanfare can attract but also ensnare and trap. NYSAFE is not straightforward and simple to understand but the Governor suggests it is.On the home page of his NYSAFE website the Governor also boasts: “The SAFE Act “. . . imposes the toughest ASSAULT WEAPONS’ ban in the Country.” Yet in the very next line, the Governor proclaims oddly and inconsistently: “. . . this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep, or use your guns.” And, on a subordinate web page on the same website, the Governor reiterates, “the SAFE Act protects law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms and does not restrict New Yorkers’ ability to buy, sell, keep or use their guns.” How does taking away a citizen’s firearms protect the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms? We will explore this question as we look at the NYSAFE Act in depth. NYSAFE is the key to understanding current antigun strategy. And we will continue to look at the content of the Governor’s NYSAFE website as the Arbalest Quarrel's analysis of the NYSAFE Act continues.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

Bill Of Rights/2A under Siege: Americans Prepare for Battle

The American Public has begun a steady, unstoppable pushback against recent antigun measures. The NYSAFE Act of 2013 was the first of these recent antigun measures. Others soon followed. Antigun zealots in Congress, the White House and in State Governments across the Country gave these abusive measures absurd and laughable titles, among them: “commonsense gun laws we need now;” “commonsense gun laws we can live with;” and “commonsense legislation to end gun violence.” But there is nothing “common” nor “sensical” about them. The slogans do not create enthusiasm for restrictive gun laws. They incense the Public, and rightly so. The Public has made clear it would squash the antigun zealots before it would quash the Second Amendment.The Obama Administration and the allied antigun coalitions are powerless to stop the juggernaut. They wish to do so but cannot. They cannot do so because they fail to understand it. Are they naïve? Perhaps there exists a more sinister and secretive force behind these antigun measures. Are these restrictive antigun laws a scheme of internationalists? We believe so. Is the United States to lose its unique heritage? Must this Nation join the New World Order?These internationalist schemers cannot or choose not to understand the American citizenry’s adoration for their Bill of Rights. They misunderstand the strength and resilience and steadfastness of the American psyche and soul. Nonetheless, they intend to break the American will. They use deception and tricks.These internationalist schemers befriend public leaders who share their goal for a one-world government and corrupt those who don’t. They are dismissive of the American Public. They tire of our resolve. The internationalist puppet masters control both the Obama Administration and antigun coalitions around the Country. These un-American forces are dealing with Public “obstruction” in several ways – through executive orders; through international pacts and treaties; through Statutes like restrictive gun measures that slowly whittle away our liberties.These anti-American forces seek to bypass the American Public, to bypass public accountability, to bypass the U.S. Constitution. They are keenly aware of and clearly fear the threat an armed citizenry poses to their ruthless and illegal takeover of power.Curiously, two U.S. Supreme Court Justices – one active, the other retired – attack the sanctity of our Constitution.A little over two years ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave advice to the Egyptian Election Commission. The Commission was drafting a new constitution for Egypt. “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be,” she said, “because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world. . . . You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa.”Yes, Justice Ginsburg, our Constitution is old. Redrafting our Constitution destroys it. Once destroyed, our Republic dies. The founders knew this. They weren’t fools. They knew external change is unavoidable. But the Rights set forth in our Bill of Rights are Rights indestructible. These Rights exist for all time, not simply for the eighteenth century, or the nineteenth century, or the twentieth century or the twenty-first century. Our Rights are unalienable Rights. They don’t expire.Would Justice Ginsburg like to rewrite our Constitution? Would she use South Africa’s Constitution as a guide? There are dozens of sections in South Africa’s “Bill of Rights” – none of them remotely suggestive of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Would Justice Ginsburg omit the clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” in her new draft of a U.S. Constitution?Recently, as reported on AmmoLand, retired Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a book, titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” It’s due out in late April 2014. Among the “changes,” Stevens proposes elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Did someone urge or even cajole Stevens at this late stage in his life into writing a recipe book, directed to undermining our sacred Bill of Rights? We believe so.The forces that crush are at work. They are feverishly at work. They are at work hatching plans to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights, beginning with the Second Amendment.These forces have in the past conducted oblique assaults. The American citizenry is of late facing direct frontal attacks. Antigun forces have grown anxious and frustrated. They have are weary of incremental steps to gain their objective. They now make no pretense of their aim: Get rid of the Second Amendment. The Public is repulsing the attack, and repulsing it hard.But can these forces lawfully deny through legislative or executive action? No! The Right doesn’t exist because the Founders wrote it down. It exists under “Natural Law.” The Second Amendment is simply a codification of the Right. The Right existed before the “Bill of Rights.” The Right is eternal.Why, then, did the Founders write down – codify – the Second Amendment? Why did the Founders view a codification of a natural Right necessary? The written text serves as a reminder. The Founders of our Nation etched the Second Amendment in stone to remind those vested with enormous power t own it. The real power is vested in the People.The Right to Keep and Bear Arms means the People have a natural right of self-defense at home and in public and against an overreaching Federal Government and its standing army. Privacy is also a natural Right. The Government must leave the People alone. These natural rights go together. Since the State does not and cannot grant them, the State cannot lawfully remove them. No one can. But the Government through the internationalist puppet masters still tries. “The king can do no wrong” is a maxim of English Common Law. It’s an anathema. The “king can do no wrong” – meaning the King can do whatever he wants and answers to no one – has no corollary in American common law or statute. The American Revolution was a direct facial attack on the maxim. “The king can do no wrong,” has no place in a free Republic. Our unalienable right to keep and bear arms is a threat to those who tacitly embrace the maxim, “The king can do no wrong” to subdue the masses.The American Public is rejecting en mass the sops fed it, to tame it – to crush it into submission. At the Arbalest Quarrel we point to anti-American forces at work who seek to destroy our Constitution. We discuss the strategies employed and we explain how they work. Take a look at all our posts.________________________________

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NYSAFE Advocate and Gun Hypocrite Ferguson: Is the Story Over? Not by a Long Shot!

The Basic Facts in the Ferguson Case

We all know what happened. Officials at Harvey Austin Elementary School, located in Buffalo, New York, received an anonymous tip. A person had entered the school with a gun. The police were alerted; a SWAT team responded, and the school was “locked down.” Scouring the school, the police eventually traced the weapon to a dubious source: Dewayne Ferguson. Ferguson, 52 years old, father of three, operator of a printing press, who worked as a security guard for community events, was caught. He had carried a gun into a school building. At no time, during the police sweep of the building, did Ferguson inform the police he had a gun on him. What was Ferguson doing in the school? He isn’t a teacher. Still, Ferguson had a legitimate purpose for being at the School, but that purpose did not extend to his having a gun on him.The Buffalo News said that “Ferguson is not employed by the Buffalo School District but was working in the 21st Century Community Learning Program, an after-school academic enrichment initiative that tutors disadvantaged students.” The police arrested Ferguson and he was charged under the same law he fought to pass – the NYSAFE Act. According to WGRZ-TV, a Buffalo news station, Ferguson pleaded not guilty to two weapons charges. WGRZ-TV also reported that prosecutors asked the Court to set bail at $10,000.00, but “City Court Judge Jeanette Ogden released the activist on his own recognizance, citing his community involvement and the fact that Ferguson has no prior run-ins with the law.”Ferguson, a proponent of NYSAFE, is a friend of “antigun” zealots who promoted it. As reported by The Buffalo News, “he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony.” Ironically, Ferguson was charged under the same law he advocated for.The facts as presented here are not in dispute but disturbing questions remain.

Many Questions Loom

Beyond the salient facts, many questions about Ferguson loom. The mainstream media and local news sources are not asking them. So the Arbalest Quarrel will. They are important. Who alerted the school and why? Was the tip truly anonymous? Why did the tipster fail to mention Ferguson by name? If the tipster knew a person had brought a gun into a school, presumably the tipster would also know who that person was. Why wasn’t Ferguson immediately forthcoming to the police about the gun he had on him? When finally confronted by the police, why was Ferguson noncommittal about the gun he had on him?Ferguson claimed he did not know he had carried a gun into the school building. Is that assertion credible? If so, does Ferguson suffer from memory lapses? According to The Buffalo News, Ferguson’s friend, Rev. James E. Giles, says the incident is an “unfortunate mistake.” But what is the unfortunate mistake here: Ferguson bringing a gun into a school at all or the police finding a gun on him? Did this unfortunate mistake happen once or has it happened before? Did Ferguson carry a gun into Harvey Austin Elementary School on previous occasions? If so, perhaps this unfortunate mistake has happened many times.Does Ferguson always carry a gun into Schools? Did Ferguson carry a gun into Harvey Austin Elementary School on every occasion? Does Ferguson carry a gun whenever he is out in public. Was Ferguson carrying his gun during the time he was among local activists who stood with Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes last year lobbying for a law that would make possessing a gun on school property a felony?  Should we forgive Ferguson his unfortunate mistake? Should we forgive Ferguson all his unfortunate mistakes? And, if so, should we not forgive similar unfortunate mistakes of others? Once again: does Ferguson carry a gun whenever he ventures out in public?Ferguson has a valid New York State license to carry a gun. But how did Ferguson qualify for his license? They are difficult to obtain as any New York resident whoever tried to acquire one knows.Did Ferguson meet the “need” requirement for a “carry” license? What are the licensing procedures in Erie County, New York? What kind of gun did Ferguson carry into the school? Is the gun Ferguson carried into the school an “assault weapon” as defined by the NYSAFE Act? How many rounds did the gun have? How many guns does Ferguson possess? Ferguson apparently “patrols” shopping malls and streets. Did Ferguson carry a gun while patrolling shopping malls and City streets? If so, is Ferguson also a licensed security guard?Carrying a Weapon into a School Building is IllegalKnowingly carrying a gun into a school is a felony. Ferguson must be aware of that. After all, he is a vocal supporter for NYSAFE. And, as we have seen, Ferguson particularly supported laws criminalizing carrying a gun into schools. Section 41 of the NYSAFE Act is titled, “Criminal Possession of a Weapon on School Grounds.” Section 41 of NYSAFE is codified in Section 265.01-A of the New York Penal Code. Section 265.01-A of the Penal Code reads in pertinent part: “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes. . . . Criminal possession of a firearm is a Class E felony.” Ferguson had a loaded gun on him when the police arrested him in an elementary school. That is a fact. That fact is not in dispute. But Ferguson claims he did not “know” he had a weapon on him. That issue goes to Ferguson’s state of mind. That is a critical legal issue. Since the Ferguson story has now become the Ferguson case, the Arbalest Quarrel will monitor the case against Ferguson, closely.How will the case against Ferguson proceed? Will the case settle out of Court? If so, what will the nature of that settlement be? If the case proceeds to trial, what new facts will come out at trial? What will the defining legal issues be? And, if Ferguson is found guilty, what will his punishment be? The Public should know. The Public has a right to know. These are critical questions to ponder as the Public sees how NYSAFE applies to individuals and to circumstances. Will some people feel the full brunt of NYSAFE while others get a free pass? The Ferguson case is an important test case. The Arbalest Quarrel will keep you apprised of developments in the case.

Why Isn’t the Ferguson Story Pursued by News Sources?

The mainstream media never reported the Ferguson story. To the MSM the story does not exist. The story never existed. Local news sources did report the story but dropped it. The story simply died. Why is that? The news media’s lack of interest in this story raises its own issues. Surely the MSM had heard of the Ferguson incident as first reported by local news sources. Why didn’t the MSM carry it? And the local news outlets that broke the story know a criminal case is pending against Ferguson. Why aren’t these local news sources pursuing it?We know the MSM reports with machinelike precision all unlawful shootings and unlawful possession of guns. So, the failure of the MSM to report the Ferguson gun incident is suspect. This is an instance of selective reporting. The MSM reports what it wishes to report about guns to create an illusion. The MSM seeks to create the illusion that shootings are prevalent. Yet, in relation to the millions of guns in circulation in the United States, the prevalence of shootings is insignificant. And the vast majority of those shootings are traceable to gang related activities and other criminal conduct. Law-abiding citizens, apart from the police, do defend themselves with guns, but those happenstances are underreported if they are reported at all. The MSM does not want the Public to know that, often enough, a shooting can be and is prevented not by the absence of firearms but through their singular presence.  And, if a lawful shooting does occur and if an individual is killed, the MSM prefers not to acknowledge that the innocent life saved through the shooting of a pathological criminal was the better life preserved than the one by necessity taken. The MSM can have none of that. Governor Cuomo and the drafters of NYSAFE will have none of that because the ludicrousness of the rationale behind NYSAFE would then be plain for all to see.The MSM seeks to sway Public Opinion in one direction: toward gun confiscation and away from gun possession. Weighted news accounts of unlawful use of firearms when not offset by news accounts of lawful use of firearms amount to carefully  postulated and promulgated propaganda. So, the failure of the MSM to report news can be as suspect as the news that is reported. The Ferguson story draws unwanted attention to NYSAFE. The MSM supports NYSAFE. The MSM is a major proponent of NYSAFE. Individuals who support NYSAFE should not be carrying guns – and they certainly should not be caught carrying guns in school buildings. Antigun zealots who possess guns are, then, not sending the correct message to the Public.  Antigun zealots, like Ferguson, who possess and carry guns convey a mode of thought and action that may confuse the Public.  Such antigun zealots who possess and carry guns convey an attitude about guns and promote conduct toward guns inconsistent with and antithetical to the goals, aspirations and strategy of the antigun movement.  The MSM does not wish to confuse and must not confuse the Public on matters pertaining to guns.  The MSM wants its messaging about guns to be clear and categorical and unambiguous. Duplicity cannot be admitted. So the MSM does not report the Ferguson story. The story does not receive national attention. The story does not exist. News stories that reflect badly on NYSAFE and that cast understandable doubt on the character of those who support it and create confusion in the mind of the Public cannot be reported. Those stories must not be reported.  So the Ferguson story must not be reported. The Public must not know NYSAFE has flaws. And the Public must not know that some – perhaps many – supporters of NYSAFE are flawed individuals because they want to possess guns and because, knowingly or not, they happen to break the very laws they so fervently support.NYSAFE cannot be presented to the Public in a bad light. A myth is created. Nothing about NYSAFE can be reported that reflects badly on it and nothing about NYSAFE can be reported that reflects badly upon the lawmakers who drafted it and upon those who support it, like Governor Cuomo. The Governor apparently has aspirations for higher public office.  Were he to succeed to the National Stage, he would likely bring NYSAFE along with him to that Stage. Were that to happen, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be effectively repealed among the several States, not simply in New York.With all this in mind, local news sources that broke the Ferguson story are told to kill it. And the local affiliates always obey their masters. But the Arbalest Quarrel will not ignore the Ferguson story even as the MSM and local news sources and news outlets do ignore it. We will not let it lie dormant or dead. We intend to resurrect it.

Hypocrisy in Politics

The Ferguson story must remain on the radar because it exposes hypocrisy.  It reveals hypocrisy in politics. And it reveals hypocrisy in politics on a vast scale and in high Public Office. The Ferguson story, in particular, raises a question about the application of NYSAFE. Does NYSAFE apply to some persons and not to others? Are some individuals de facto exempted from the rigid requirements and penalties of NYSAFE?The MSM isn’t interested in answering these questions. The MSM does not wish to investigate these questions or to resolve them. This is not surprising. The MSM supports NYSAFE. It wants embarrassing questions to go unresolved, unanswered. But the Ferguson story cannot be laid to rest. The Ferguson story is a test bed for application of NYSAFE. How will the provisions of NYSAFE be applied? Does due process and equal protection under our Nation’s laws apply to some and not to others? The Arbalest Quarrel will follow the Ferguson case to conclusion.

Is The Arbalest Quarrel Being Vindictive?

Some persons may argue the Arbalest Quarrel is vindictive toward Dewayne Ferguson. That is not true. Yes, we detest Ferguson, but we do not detest him because he happened to bring a firearm into a school building. The Arbalest Quarrel detests Ferguson because he is a hypocrite. The stance of the Arbalest Quarrel on hypocrisy is clear and unambiguous. We detest hypocrisy and those who practice it. Why do we detest hypocrisy? We detest hypocrisy because we detest the practice of lying. Hypocrisy is the practice of lying. We detest liars. We have taken as our motto a statement from the philosopher, Saint Thomas Aquinas: “As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest the truth.” As a matter of honor, one American citizen owes it to another to manifest the truth.” Do you believe America’s political leaders and spokespersons for America’s political leaders manifest the truth toward the American Public? We don’t believe they do. And, if not, they do not honor the Public.A person who lies does not honor his fellows. No one should lie as a matter of practice. But those who know their words affect the lives of millions of others should be especially mindful of the impact of their words. Those who impact the lives of millions of people through lies are particularly heinous individuals. They do not honor their fellow man. And by failing to honor their fellow man they themselves are not honorable and are not worthy of honor.When a person lies, he or she fails to honor the recipient of the lie. Worse, when a person lies, he or she shows contempt for the recipient of the lie. Dewayne Ferguson does not honor his fellow Americans because he actively supports laws averse to the Second Amendment but apparently exalts the Second Amendment for a few people only – among those few, himself. The Second Amendment applies to all American Citizens, not to a few special folk. Dewayne Ferguson does not honor his fellow Americans because he actively supports gun confiscation but carries a gun. Ferguson is in a position of power and influence. His words and conduct have weight. He portrays himself as a pacifist. That position is antithetical to carrying a firearm. He calls for more restrictive firearms measures – this, in a State that, prior to NYSAFE, had among the most restrictive gun laws in the Country.

NYSAFE is Gun Confiscation.

NYSAFE is gun confiscation policy. How do we know this? The answer is plain. Read the text of the Act. An entire category of firearms is outlawed. NYSAFE defines many firearms as “assault weapons.” If a gun is defined as an “assault weapon,” it is a banned firearm. If a New York resident purchased an “assault weapon” lawfully, prior to enactment of NYSAFE, he can keep it but only if he adheres to stringent new requirements that NYSAFE requires. The New York gun owner’s ability to transfer an “assault weapon” to another is also constrained. In fact, a firearm defined as an “assault weapon” cannot be transferred to a family member. Do not be deceived. Lawmakers will define ever more firearms as “assault weapons” under NYSAFE unless this unconstitutional restrictive firearms Act is either struck down in its entirety by the Courts or repealed outright. If NYSAFE is not struck down or repealed, eventually all firearms will be banned as illegal “assault weapons.”Do not be misled. NYSAFE is not legislation to curb crime. How do we know this? Simple. No scientific test was conducted prior to enactment of NYSAFE to establish whether implementation of it would help curb crime. NYSAFE was not enacted through an intention to combat crime. That wasn't the reason it was enacted. It was enacted to restrict and constrain possession of firearms, period. That's how  NYSAFE operates. Its provisions are directed to that end. Yet, NYSAFE, like all restrictive gun measures, is heralded as something it is not: a means to curb crime. Crime prevention is always presented as a salient purpose of these laws. Restrictive gun laws are never presented as laws designed to infringe upon the Second Amendment although that is their unstated intent.  These laws are presented in a false and innocuous light: to prevent crime; to protect society, to curb violence. They are directed toward a seeming general utilitarian good.  What is right and good and proper for the individual isn't a factor in that equation.  And the Public is told to take all this on faith. We are supposed to accept the truth of the pronouncements absent supporting evidence. We are expected to accept and many individuals do accept the  pronouncements as certain and as immutable as the laws of nature. The true purpose is thereby successfully cloaked: gun confiscation and gun elimination and quiet disassembling of the Second Amendment.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Animal Farm, an allegory, by George Orwell

Dewayne Ferguson promotes gun confiscation because he is a fervent supporter of NYSAFE. He spoke for it. Now, Ferguson happened to have a New York State pistol license that permitted him to carry his weapon concealed. You and I would never have known about that if Ferguson had not blundered. Ferguson carried his firearm into an elementary school. That is not something Ferguson wanted the public to know. But, we found out anyway. Should this be dismissed as an unfortunate mistake as a friend and apologist for Ferguson argues? Or is this behavior so brash it cries out for justice? Is Ferguson confident he is above the law? How many other Fergusons, proponents of NYSAFE who argue against possession of firearms, walk the streets (and, perhaps, the schools) wielding guns? Are they just as confident? Just as haughty? We are all equal under the law. But, are some people more equal than others? Still, Ferguson was caught. Now he has a little explaining to do. He has to explain to the City Court why he brought a gun into a school in contravention to and in seeming defiance of the Act he fervently supports. Ferguson did so anyway. As an advocate for NYSAFE, Ferguson should explain to the Public why firearms confiscation is good for us but not for him. Ferguson should also explain why his life is worthy of preservation and ours, apparently, less so.Ferguson lobbied for NYSAFE. He, along with Governor Cuomo and State Legislators who support NYSAFE, says NYSAFE reduces gun violence and crime. That is a dodge. That is a lame rationale for the real purpose of NYSAFE: elimination of firearms. NYSAFE is a tactical move toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. NYSAFE is an incremental step toward total firearms confiscation. But some individuals will obtain dispensation – special individuals such as Ferguson. After all, Ferguson is more trustworthy than you and me. And his life is worth more than yours or mine.

The Public is Tired of Lies.

A movement is afoot across America. The American Public demands responsive and responsible representation from its Country’s leaders. The Public yearns for and deserves the truth. The Public is tired of being lied to. Lies are concomitant with politics today. Hypocrisy is widespread. There are many practitioners of it – too many. They consider hypocrisy acceptable practice in public discourse. Some even consider hypocrisy commendable practice. Politicians and the mainstream media certainly do. The “Arbalest Quarrel,” though, does not. Hypocrisy must stop.The Public demands the truth in all matters impacting upon them. The Public has a right to the truth in all matters impacting upon them. The Public demands the truth from its elected leaders. The Public’s political leaders and spokespersons are not forthcoming with the Public. They are never forthcoming with the American Public. They operate deviously and underhandedly. This must stop.The Arbalest Quarrel has much to say about truth and hypocrisy. See our recent Article on the subject, posted on February 18, 2014: “Truth and Hypocrisy: ‘Bill of Rights’ Betrayal” on this Blog.

Unwelcome Attention and Embarrassment!

The Ferguson story has drawn unwelcome, embarrassing attention to the lies surrounding NYSAFE and to the deceitfulness of those who promote it at all levels of the political spectrum. Local and National news sources are banking on the Public’s short attention span. So, the story has died a quiet death. From the perspective of the MSM that chose never to report the story, the story doesn't exist and never did exist. But the story does exist. And for those who have thought the story died, the Arbalest Quarrel has resurrected it.

Lies and Betrayal

The importance of the Dewayne Ferguson matter goes beyond Ferguson. We are dealing here with lies and betrayal on an order of magnitude never before seen. Consider Federal and State Statutes, International Pacts and Treaties, Executive Orders and “Signing Statements.” Most are prepared in secret and all in the absence of Public debate. This is true of NYSAFE. These Federal and States laws, pacts and treaties, executive orders and signing statements are thrust on the American Public in absolute contradistinction to and in defiance of the Bill Of Rights. The Public is told these restrictive Federal and State laws, international pacts and treaties, executive orders and signing statements are needed to “curb violence,” to “fight terrorism,” to “preserve the financial system,” to “create jobs,” to “restore confidence.” Clichés are thrown at us. We are presented with politically orchestrated drama. The Public is spoon fed this Pablum – this moronic nonsense on a daily basis.The Federal and State Governments operate in secret. The Public suffers a constant campaign of disinformation, non-information and misinformation. The expression ‘national security’ is bandied about ad nauseum.  Do you know what ‘national security’ means? The expression is never defined. It is spoken so often, it has no meaning. But, we accept it as a moral imperative. The expression has become the excuse for ever more secrecy in Government policy. The founders of the Republic abhorred secrecy.Our Government is an open Government, at least as originally contemplated by and designed by our Founding Fathers. No event, no circumstance can be so dire the Public should not be told. But these proponents of secrecy are rewriting our history. Our Bill Of Rights shall be a thing of the past – a quaint curiosity of a bygone time. Why? The Bill Of Rights demands openness. Openness in Government is integrally tied to our Liberties. Those concepts are inconsistent with present Government plans for repression of ideas. And an armed Public is a danger to those who seek further curbs on freedom of expression.

What the Arbalest Quarrel Wants.

The Arbalest Quarrel wants sanctimonious hypocrites like Governor Cuomo and those lawmakers who drafted NYSAFE removed from Public Office. They do not belong in Public Office; nor should they serve in any Governmental capacity. They do not represent the best interests of the Public. They do not support and defend our Bill Of Rights, Their statements do not match their deeds. Governor Cuomo forces an odd ideology down our throats. And he presumes to know what is in our best interests. He does not speak for the majority of New York’s residents. And he certainly cares not for the sanctity of and preservation of the Second Amendment. The majority of New York residents want NYSAFE repealed. Governor Cuomo, who signed NYSAFE into law, does not. His NYSAFE site sets forth, “this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.” The assertion is blatantly false, but the Governor asserts it anyway.NYSAFE severely restricts the guns a New York resident may own and possess and places extraordinary constraints on buying, keeping, using and transferring guns. So, who is the Governor fooling? He is fooling no one except the ignorant.  And whom does the Governor purport to speak for? He speaks for a small minority of New Yorkers who are fearful of their own shadows. He speaks for those who want and expect the Government to protect them from themselves. And he speaks for those inside the Country and outside it who want to make our sacred “Bill Of Rights” compatible with the Constitutions of foreign Countries. He speaks for those who believe our Constitution is too old and not in conformity with modern judicial and jurisprudential thought. He speaks for those who want to bring our Nation's laws into the fold of those other Western Nations, discounting, then, over 200 years of our unique history. He speaks for those who would like foreign laws to override those of the U.S. Constitution. And he speaks for those who would like to extinguish those rights and protections set forth in and mandated by our sacred Bill of Rights.We want and expect honesty and forthrightness from those in Office who serve in our name. These are not qualities most in public Office possess. Truth is not something they choose to give us. Truth is not something they would willingly give us. Truth in Public Office is a commodity in short supply these days.So, we want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they are untruthful to the Public. We want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they fail to uphold the Bill Of Rights. We want the Nation’s political leaders to know we can and will remove them from Office when they place their interests above those of the American People.

Your Help is Sorely Needed

Have you had enough of Government intrusiveness and Government lies and Government secrecy? We have.Together, we can defeat the Anti-American elements both within our Society and outside it that are working quietly but inexorably to dismantle our “Bill Of Rights.” We can begin to fight back through repeal of the Anti-American NYSAFE Act.Will you be a part of our Grassroots effort in New York? In the weeks ahead, the Arbalest Quarrel will provide you the steps you can take as we, together, work toward repeal of NYSAFE. New York may then proudly stand with Colorado as we take back our Country from the destroyers of our sacred “Bill Of Rights.” Keep abreast of the facts about gun laws. Check out our website often!________________________________

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.