FIRST AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK . . . IN CHICAGO WHERE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS TRAMPLED ON!

U.S. Under Attack: Chicago, Trump, Outrage . . . And the Trampling of Our Constitution

The American public must ask and a serious investigation to find answers must ensue: did the disruption in an auditorium in the City of Chicago, at a rally for the leading Republican candidate for President of the United States, that occurred Friday evening, March 12, 2016, just happen or did it happen because someone or some group intended for a riot to happen?In other words, was the disruption in Chicago that led to cancellation of a rally for the leading Republican candidate for U.S. President, on the eve of the most important Super Tuesday 2016 primary elections, a happenstance – a mere spontaneous outpouring of anger and rage expressed by certain unhappy segments of the population toward the leading Republican candidate, as the mainstream media is playing this, or was the disruption something more – a staged event in and of itself – carefully orchestrated and choreographed by certain powerful and ruthless interests that are willing to do and, apparently, are capable of doing whatever it takes to destroy the momentum of a popular political candidate for the highest Office in the Land?At the moment the public can only speculate as to the root cause for the disruption. One thing is certain, though. Our Bill of Rights is under attack and has been under incessant assault for many years. Our Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms” has, for many years, slowly and systematically suffered erosion through Congressional enactments and State action. If the leading Democratic Party contender for the Office of U.S. President gets the nod and ultimately secures the Oval Office, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will likely cease to exist except as a short footnote in the history texts. And, what shall become of other fundamental rights and liberties of the People?The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Since the early years of the twenty-first century, that fundamental right has been quietly and systematically eroded by federal Government intelligence and police apparatuses – all in the name of promoting “safety” for the collective, for the masses, generally. But, one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful reading of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undermine an individual citizen’s fundamental right to privacy – the sacred right to be left alone and the sacred right clearly setting forth that an individual’s personal effects are to remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as entailed by and codified under the Fourth Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety; and one would be hard-pressed to find, through a careful perusal of the U.S. Constitution, any clause, sentence, or passage that authorizes the federal Government to undercut the fundamental right of an American citizen to keep and bear arms – the inviolable right of the individual to take responsibility for one’s personal security, as entailed by and codified in the Second Amendment – ostensibly to promote and ensure public safety.Yet the federal Government – especially in recent years – incessantly, unashamedly, and unapologetically invades the sanctity of both these natural and fundamental rights – all under the mask, the guise, of ensuring public safety. But, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the United States Constitution, either explicitly or impliedly, that authorizes the federal Government, under any set of actual events or, as we are more likely to see, under any set of contrived circumstances, to denigrate the fundamental, natural rights and liberties of the people – the rights and liberties that are clearly, cogently, and unambiguously set down in the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.And, what of the First Amendment guarantee? The First Amendment as set forth in the Bill of Rights says, in meaningful part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. . . .”For many years the American people have been asleep. They have been fed pabulum by the mainstream media as the rug has been pulled out from under them. But, as law-abiding Americans, hard-working citizens, have seen their wages stagnating, their jobs shipped overseas or given over to foreigners here – whether those foreigners are in this Country legally, having secured temporary visas, or are in this Country illegally, having simply walked across unsecured borders – Americans have begun to wake up. The Americans are now placing their support behind candidates who have not been paid off by wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests to do the bidding of their sponsors.All bets are off now. Those powerful, ruthless interests that have been slowly, quietly, insidiously taking over our institutions, rewriting our history, forcing an alien morality and an alien culture down our throats are now aghast that the American public is no longer falling into lockstep behind the newly minted puppets or, in one case, a dusted off old puppet. The American public is no longer listening to the vapid, insipid, soothing, carefully rehearsed melodies that the song writers have composed for their ears, as sung to the public by their string pullers in sweet-sounding three part harmony.There is, in this U.S. Presidential election cycle, one candidate from each major political Party who dares to speak his mind rather than parrot the views of paid sponsors. That fact bothers the ruthless interests that have slowly taken over this Country. It has made them uneasy. It is even making them frantic. These ruthless interests are devising ways – legal, quasi-legal, and even illegal – to silence those candidates they have not been able to buy and whom they can never control.The University administration officials in Chicago must certainly have known that elements would be attending the political rally on Friday who were not interested in hearing what one particular candidate from one particular political Party had to say. They were only interested in creating a disturbance, to silence a voice, and these University officials must take responsibility for the disturbance that did occur and that occurred quite spectacularly on their turf. And, they did, indeed, silence a voice, if but for a moment and only for a moment.In a City that has in place some of the most stringent gun control measures anywhere in the Country – in a City that requires its citizenry to place full stock in the police to protect it – University officials did not take sufficient advantage of police utilization to protect those individuals who sought simply to attend a political rally to hear what one candidate for high political Office has to say. University administration officials should have seen to it that the right of free speech and right of the people to peaceably assemble – rights guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – was assured. Instead those officials chose to send the First Amendment down the toilet just as the City of Chicago had, years ago, sent the Second Amendment down the toilet.Had there been an adequate police contingent at the auditorium on that Friday night, the police would certainly have been able to vet those individuals who sought attendance at the event, permitting entry only to those who honestly and sincerely wished to hear what one candidate for President of the United States had to say, and turning away those who sought to prevent the candidate from exercising his guaranteed freedom of speech and voicing his beliefs, his views, his policies and in his typical blunt, candid manner. And, in their desire to prevent an American citizen from exercising his right of free speech, those individuals who attended the political rally for the purpose of disrupting it showed their defiance of and contempt for the First Amendment, and, for some of those individuals, their obvious ignorance of the import and purport of the First Amendment.Make no mistake, the American people bore witness to a savage beating that took place the other night in Chicago, a beating abetted by both a complacent University administration and a treacherous news media. But, it wasn’t an individual who was harmed. It was the sanctity of the First Amendment itself that was savagely assaulted Friday night. Yet, that fact was hardly mentioned by the mainstream media either during the disturbance, nor at any time thereafter. Instead the mainstream media, at the behest of those interests that control it, have placed blame squarely and bizarrely on the candidate who was compelled to cancel the event and who was thereby silenced! The First Amendment freedom of speech died that night and without a whisper of its death.The mainstream media – the press – mentions the First Amendment in passing but never takes the First Amendment to heart. The press has lost its focus and direction, its purpose. It sensationalizes rather than enlightens. It seeks merely to sell a product, a commodity, rather than to inform and educate the American public.The mainstream media further denigrates the freedom of speech, guaranteed under the First Amendment, by demanding that the candidate apologize for the disturbance. Really? To whom and for what ought the candidate apologize?The First Amendment provides for and guarantees the right of every American to speak his or her mind, even if the ideas expressed are unpalatable, even repugnant to some individuals. Certainly, the public has a right to hear from a candidate, who seeks the highest Office in the Land, that candidate’s views on those topics and matters impacting all Americans. And each American may choose to hear, or not, what that candidate has to say. But no candidate should be silenced on the ground that some people do not like what the candidate has to say.There are mechanisms for peaceful protest. But, no person is permitted, in our Democracy, under our First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom to peaceably assemble, to shut out the voice of another person with whom one happens to take exception. To understand  Americans’ First Amendment guarantees is to appreciate the benefit it serves in a Democratic society and free Republic. For those few among us who do not appreciate the First Amendment, they should view it as the obligatory cost of living in a Democratic society and free Republic; and, if they are not content with that, such individuals ought to leave the Country.Of late we see our institution of higher education – an institution that should welcome diverse expression of thought – becoming decidedly intolerant, inhospitable to any view that is deemed inconsistent with a particular bland norm. That intolerance, that pretentious, impertinent, pious regard for the irrefutability of one’s own set of beliefs and values is now spilling over and into the political arena. Certainly, the American public has the right under the First Amendment to hear, unfiltered and unmediated, the thoughts of those individuals who seek to secure the highest Office of the Land.No candidate for public Office should be ostracized and denigrated simply because some individuals think that person’s views extend beyond the pale. No candidate should ever be silenced. The American public has the right to hear all viewpoints, to hear all sides of a debate. The First Amendment dies when the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble, is shattered because some people don’t like the message recited and personally abhor the manner of recitation. Odd it is that the press – our press – that should be the first to recognize and defend the freedom of speech – becomes, instead, the voice of oppression that would gag free speech. Is the press – colloquially and affectionately referred to, in times past, as the “fourth estate” – not now, less an independent and necessary institution of a democratic society and free Republic, and more reminiscent of and, in fact, reduced merely to a tool of government – a tool of oppression that one witnesses in despotic nations?How is it, then, that we see our First Amendment guarantees crumbling before us? The public must understand: the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee does not guard against offending one. It was not designed to do so. It was never designed to do so. An adult should not be so easily offended anyway. And the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the freedom of speech clause has such parameters carefully woven around it, to protect the sensibilities of peculiarly sensitive souls. The American public ought to be made of sterner stuff.The mainstream media, instead of supporting a candidate’s right to speak freely, in accordance with the First Amendment guarantee, has the temerity to denigrate America’s fundamental First Amendment right of free speech. And, what does the mainstream media – the press – suggest a candidate for the highest Office in the land ought acquiesce to? Just this: timidity, banality, sophistry, careful modulation in thought and speech lest this or that sensitive or ignorant soul be offended. Nonsense!The American people are not supposed to think too deeply lest they begin to see what roils beneath the surface; lest they see through the vapidity of the puppet masters’ “talking heads;” lest they come to recognize the cupidity and ruthlessness of the creatures who seek to destroy the sanctity of the individual; lest they become aware that their Constitution is becoming no more than a curious relic of a by-gone age; lest they come to realize the loss of a free Republic, through the loss of the Bill of Rights; and lest they come face-to-face with the very real possibility of annihilation of a once great sovereign Nation State.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

JUSTICE THOMAS SPEAKS OUT IN THE VOISINE CASE

UNITED STATES vs. VOISINE

PART 1

This is the first of a three part series article.Anyone who keeps abreast of the U. S. Supreme Court knows that Justice Clarence Thomas broke a ten-year silence when he posed questions to counsel during oral argument on February 29, 2016 in the case United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015). The other seven Justices retained an austere demeanor. But they must surely have been surprised at Justice Thomas’ uncharacteristic lack of reticence. The Press, for its part, was noticeably, and understandably, thunderstruck.One may speculate why Justice Thomas chose to take part in the questioning of counsel in this case, at this time. Not improbably, Justice Thomas did so, in part, out of deep respect for the memory of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia would have had much to say in Voisine as the case touches on two landmark Second Amendment cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.” In the subsequent McDonald case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” Together, the two cases strengthen the Second Amendment more so than any previous holding of the high Court. The two cases constrain local, State and federal governments from whittling away at Americans’ fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in their individual capacity.Justice Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion in Heller, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the Opinion for the Majority in McDonald, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy. Not surprisingly, the liberal wing of the Court, comprising Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer dissented, and they did so strenuously.Now, contrary to common belief, the U.S. Supreme Court, does not have to accept and, indeed, does not accept every case that happens to come before it. No one can appeal an adverse decision to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right. Indeed, the Supreme Court grants A Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in only a few cases in any given term. And, in the Court’s information sheet, presented to those who seek to have their case heard, the Court says clearly, even bluntly, that “review on writ of certiorari is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion.”Generally, the high Court will agree to hear a case where there is disagreement and conflict among the various federal Circuit Courts of Appeal. This often takes years to develop. Even so, many cases that the high Court does agree to hear often involve arcane legal issues, very narrow in scope, that are difficult for the non-lawyer to grasp, and, so, quite understandably, difficult for anyone but a lawyer to appreciate. The Voisine case may, at first glance, appear to be just such a case. It isn’t.To be sure there is a complex, arcane issue here, but there is also a straight-forward Second Amendment issue as well. The Second Amendment issue would have been given no consideration at all but for Justice Thomas’ interjection. Be thankful that Justice Thomas spoke up during oral argument in the Voisine case. This is not theatrics as presented by the mainstream media. Justice Thomas' questions and remarks were precise, well-honed, to the point and surely took the U.S. Government off guard.In the Opinion to be handed down in the coming months it is unlikely that the Court will not give the Second Amendment issue at least some consideration and will do so precisely because of, one, Justice Thomas’ questions to counsel for Respondent, U.S. Government, two, counsel's responses to the Court, and, three, Justice Thomas' comments. If no other Justice mentions the Second Amendment in the Majority's Opinion, or in a concurring or dissenting Opinion, Justice Thomas most certainly will.Now, a salient issue in Voisine does involve the meaning to be given a word phrase in one particular section of a lengthy federal Statute. Nonetheless, as we heretofore explained, the Voisine case is the first Supreme Court case to be heard by the high Court that does impact the Second Amendment. In fact, Petitioners did timely and properly raise a Second Amendment claim in their Briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. And that claim was preserved; and that issue was ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court when it granted Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. Moreover, while the Second Amendment issue was set forth with particularity as a salient issue in Petitioners’ Brief, the Second Amendment claim was not set forth as an issue in the Government’s own Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners. And the Government, in its Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners, addressed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim only perfunctorily, giving little thought to it, seemingly in deference to and happily therefor to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's treatment of it, for the First Circuit dismissed Petitioners' Second Amendment claim outright.In fact during oral argument before the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment was only mentioned twice and that occurred toward the end of oral argument when Justice Thomas brought the issue up. Justice Thomas did so, in part, as we said earlier, because Justice Scalia certainly would have done so had he lived. And, Justice Scalia would have done so for a very good reason, quite apart from and notwithstanding the otherwise cursory treatment of the Second Amendment issue by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court. For Voisine is the first case to come before the Supreme Court that implicates the Second Amendment, however obliquely or tangentially, or seemingly cursorily since the high Court decided the McDonald case in 2010, over one-half decade ago.Although the other Justices took great pains to avoid entertaining the Second Amendment issue in Voisine – preferring to address, alone, the meaning attached to a few words in one federal Statute – Justice Thomas would not let the matter rest, much to the satisfaction of Petitioners, who clearly sought to have their Second Amendment issue heard, and much to the chagrin of Respondent, the United States Government, that sought to keep the Second Amendment issue moot.Moreover, by querying Government’s counsel on Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim, Justice Thomas may have been initiating a not so subtle payback to other Justices for a snubbing that both he and Justice Scalia suffered at the hands of those other Justices. For, both Justices Scalia and Thomas were more than a trifle perturbed that the majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). The Seventh Circuit in Friedman clearly manifested its contempt for the high Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Justices Scalia and Thomas clearly wanted, and had expected, the high Court to grant certiorari in Friedman and, by failing to do so, Justices Scalia and Thomas expressed their righteous indignation by drafting a dissenting Opinion in Friedman.Very rarely do Justices explain their reason for refusing to grant a writ of certiorari in a case. Even more rarely will one find a dissenting opinion written by a Justice, expressing disfavor for the failure of the majority of Justices to grant the writ in a case.Surely, had the Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s writ of certiorari in Friedman, Justices Scalia and Thomas would have taken the Seventh Circuit to task for patently ignoring the Heller and McDonald holdings. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses the Friedman case at length in the article, titled, “A Court Of Law That Rejects U.S. Supreme Court Precedent Undermines The Rule Of Law And Undercuts The U.S. Constitution,” posted on December 14, 2015. For our discussion of Friedman and its importance to the Heller and McDonald cases, readers are encouraged to read our article.In spirit Justice Scalia was certainly in attendance during oral argument in Voisine. Since the Supreme Court would not entertain the Friedman case which was a direct and audacious attack by a United States Circuit Court of Appeals on the clear and cogent holdings in Heller and McDonald, Justice Thomas, on behalf of Justice Scalia, clearly intended to raise and, so, did raise Petitioner’s Second Amendment issue in Voisine – a case that the U.S. Supreme Court did decide to entertain.From the get-go it had been clear that no other Justice would weigh in on the Second Amendment implications of Voisine, and take the Government to task. Justice Thomas made certain that Justice Scalia’s disdain for a federal Government that cares not one whit for the sanctity of the Second Amendment would dare not go unchallenged.Americans who understand and can appreciate the importance of our Bill of Rights as the foundation of a free Republic and who can, in particular, understand and appreciate the importance of the Second Amendment as a critical check on the accumulation of power by the Federal Government, and by improvident State governments as well, will do well to ponder the Nation's incredible loss. Justice Scalia, together with Justice Thomas, made adamantly clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to a person’s participation in a militia. The Heller decision rankles several Justices on the Supreme Court and many Globalists, both in this Country and outside it, as well, who are working quietly but incessantly and inexorably in the shadows, intent on undercutting America’s Bill of Rights, generally, and undermining America’s Second Amendment, particularly.We know, without doubt, that President Obama – or her royal Majesty, Queen Hillary Rodham Clinton – seek to nominate to the highest Court of the Land, a person who would chomp at the bit to reverse Heller and McDonald on the ground that, for them, the cases are discordant. They are discordant to these judges and to powerful, ruthless individuals because they happen to strengthen rather than weaken America’s Bill of Rights.In Part 2 of this Article, we will deal in depth, with the legal issues in Voisine and you will come to understand, one, why the high Court, apart from Justice Thomas, does not wish to deal with the impact that a negative decision in Voisine would have on the Second Amendment and, two, how it is that a specific question posed by Justice Thomas to counsel for the U.S. Government elicited from counsel a most remarkable, illuminating, and, in fact, frightening comment. You will come to see why a negative holding in Voisine does have negative implications for our Second Amendment.So it is that the mainstream media would much rather keep the dire implications of Voisine in the shadows. We, on the other hand, intend to bring those implications out, for all to see, into the light of day. In so doing, we trust we will help keep the memory of Justice Scalia alive, and in keeping Justice Scalia’s memory alive, preserve, as well, the holdings in Heller and McDonald that bespeak Justice Scalia’s devotion to the import of the Second Amendment. Ever mindful, then, are we of those who are hell-bent in destroying it.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

FBI vs. APPLE: Surrender Privacy for Security?

The Fourth Amendment Deserves No Less Respect And Protection From Government Encroachment On A Sacred Right And Liberty Than Does The Second Amendment

The U.S. Constitution Constrains, And Was Meant To Constrain, Power Grabs By The Federal Government

A sovereign nation cannot long prevail among other sovereign nations without a central government. This is axiomatic. The founders of our Republic certainly knew this. But the founders of our Republic also knew that a nation’s central government is invariably at odds with individual liberty. A natural tension exists between government on the one hand and the rights and liberties of the citizenry, on the other. The Constitution the founders drafted for the American people is indicative of and serves, at once, as recognition of the conundrum our founders faced: that a strong central government is incompatible with individual liberty. A strong central government would eventually destroy individual liberty by amassing power unto itself at the expense of individual liberty unless a nation’s constitution places express curbs on such accumulation of power and unless the citizenry of a nation remains ever vigilant that those curbs are stringently adhered to.The founders of our Nation dealt with the conundrum by creating a Constitution that embraces three fail safe devices. The founders hoped and trusted that these three fail safe devices would operate as an effective counterforce against the destructive impulses of government to acquire ever more power for itself and, in so doing, reduce, or end altogether, the exercise of individual rights and liberties. The three fail safe devices are: one, a three branch system of government; two, clear delineation of and demarcation of the powers each branch is permitted, lawfully, to hold and wield; and three, a Bill of Rights. The three branch system of government precludes outright concentration of legislative, executive, and judicial functions in any one person or group of people. Each branch serves to check the power of the other two branches. This is what is meant by the phrase “checks and balances.” The “Separation of Powers” doctrine is also a feature of our three branch system of Government. The “Separation of Powers” means that each branch of our central – federal – Government has its own distinct function with no overlap or, at worst, with very minimal overlap.The delineation of powers each branch wields prohibits both the amassing of additional powers by that branch of Government and the encroachment of one branch of Government on the purview of the other. Each branch of Government has, then, through the exercise of a specific function, a limited set of powers. If the Constitution does not prescribe a specific power for that branch of Government, such power cannot be lawfully exercised by that branch.Lastly, the Bill of Rights secures for the people not only specific enumerated rights and liberties but reserves to the people unenumerated rights as well. The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And, the Tenth Amendment provides that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The powers of our central – federal – Government are, then, limited, since the Constitution sets forth the powers each branch of Government may wield, consistent with the primary function of each branch. The powers residing in the States and in the people, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended. Moreover, the rights and liberties of the people are unbounded as they include both specific, especial enumerated rights and liberties and unenumerated rights and liberties. Importantly, the rights and liberties of the people, as codified in the Bill of Rights do not stem from the federal Government. They are neither a privilege bestowed by Government onto the people; nor are they a license issued by Government to the people. The rights and liberties are considered by the founders of our Republic to be preexistent in the people. The rights and liberties of the American people are neither created by government nor fashioned by the founders. The Bill of Rights simply codifies natural rights and liberties that are part of humanity that our federal Government – unlike the central governments of most other nations – are required, under our Constitution to respect.Our Bill of Rights is, in essence, a codification of and assertion of the fundamental rights and liberties preexistent in the people. That fact is clear from the context of the U.S. Constitution. Since the federal Government is not the source of those rights and liberties, the federal Government cannot lawfully circumvent those rights and liberties. If the Government were to do so, the Nation, as a free Republic, as our founders intended, would cease to exist. If anything at all remained of our Nation, it would be but ornamental coverings, trappings. The Nation – our Nation – would be merely a dried husk, an empty shell.

OUR FOREFATHERS' FEAR THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT  MIGHT ONE DAY ENCROACH UPON THE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS WELL-FOUNDED

The American people are aware, today, as the founders of our Republic had long ago feared that the Nation’s federal Government’s true and natural impulse – and that of many State Governments, as well, and often at the behest of the federal Government – is to encroach on the rights and liberties of the people. We see this as the federal Government slowly but insistently encroaches on and infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We are seeing State and local governments also encroaching on and infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The infringement of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, is, at once, noticed by the people. For, the American people either have access to firearms or they do not. They either exercise complete control over their firearms or they do not. The right to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, as with all rights and liberties, is intangible, but the expression of the right – possession and ownership of the firearm – is not. A firearm is a tangible, physical object. The loss of one’s firearms to government is immediately and emphatically felt by the gun owner.The loss of other rights, however, such as the loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be immediately and emphatically felt because both the right and, in many instances, the expression of that right are both intangible. Yes, the seizure of one’s papers, or smart phone, or personal computer amounts to the capture of physical items. But, the content is what the government is really after and content is intangible. If government can “lift” that content without even obtaining the physical hardware, unlawful invasion of the privacy right in that content is lost. Loss of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” may not be recognized but it does exist and it is no less critical to the safeguarding of a free Republic than is the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms.”All of our rights and liberties, as codified in our Bill of Rights, are critical to our survival as a free Republic!

GOVERNMENT ATTACK ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is under attack by the federal Government – most noticeably and ominously since enactment of the Patriot Act. Recently, the FBI demanded that Apple Computer, Inc., -- maker of the iPhone -- unlock the encrypted data held in the iPhone of one, Syed Rizwam Farook.You may recall that Farook, an American citizen and Islamic jihadist, together with his wife, a foreign born, non-American Islamic jihadist, went on a murderous rampage, murdering 14 American citizens and injuring another 22 in San Bernardino, California. This occurred late last year. The Government has finally acknowledged that this incident amounts to an Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.The FBI has obtained Farook’s iPhone but, the content is encrypted. The FBI has said that, despite several attempts, it has been unable to unlock the phone to obtain access to the content. The FBI has therefore enlisted the aid of Apple to assist the FBI in its efforts but complains that Apple has been uncooperative. In a lawsuit filed against Apple the Government contends, as reported in mainstream newspapers, that Apple refuses to assist the FBI in unlocking the content of the iPhone. The implication is that, through its failure to comply with the FBI’s order, Apple Computer is deliberately preventing the federal Government from performing a basic function on behalf of the American people, as expressed in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . provide for the common defence . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Is this simply an instance of a major computer company inappropriately and inexplicably refusing to assist the federal Government in the Government’s efforts to provide for the common defence of the Nation as the mainstream media, on behalf of the FBI, asserts, or is there more to this?The federal Government, through its docile and compliant servant, the mainstream media, has certainly sought to create the impression that Apple Computer’s actions are unlawful and even unpatriotic because Apple is thwarting the Government’s legitimate attempt to fight terrorism on behalf of the American people. But Apple Computer takes strong exception to the charge. In an open letter posted on the internet, Tim Cook, Chief Executive Officer of Apple, sought to exemplify and clarify the issues, saying in principal part:“For many years, we have used encryption to protect our customers’ personal data because we believe it’s the only way to keep their information safe. We have even put that data out of our own reach, because we believe the contents of your iPhone are none of our business.We were shocked and outraged by the deadly act of terrorism in San Bernardino last December. We mourn the loss of life and want justice for all those whose lives were affected. The FBI asked us for help in the days following the attack, and we have worked hard to support the government’s efforts to solve this horrible crime. We have no sympathy for terrorists.When the FBI has requested data that’s in our possession, we have provided it. Apple complies with valid subpoenas and search warrants, as we have in the San Bernardino case. We have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI, and we’ve offered our best ideas on a number of investigative options at their disposal.We have great respect for the professionals at the FBI, and we believe their intentions are good. Up to this point, we have done everything that is both within our power and within the law to help them. But now the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone.Specifically, the FBI wants us to make a new version of the iPhone operating system, circumventing several important security features, and install it on an iPhone recovered during the investigation. In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.Some would argue that building a backdoor for just one iPhone is a simple, clean-cut solution. But it ignores both the basics of digital security and the significance of what the government is demanding in this case.In today’s digital world, the “key” to an encrypted system is a piece of information that unlocks the data, and it is only as secure as the protections around it. Once the information is known, or a way to bypass the code is revealed, the encryption can be defeated by anyone with that knowledge.The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack. For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data. Criminals and bad actors will still encrypt, using tools that are readily available to them.Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.We are challenging the FBI’s demands with the deepest respect for American democracy and a love of our country. We believe it would be in the best interest of everyone to step back and consider the implications.While we believe the FBI’s intentions are good, it would be wrong for the government to force us to build a backdoor into our products. And ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.”Tim Cook, on behalf of the Company, claims that the Company has cooperated with the FBI in the past and desires to continue to do so. But, according to Tim Cook, the FBI is demanding of Apple something much more ambitious than the FBI would wish for the American public to know – and something clearly dangerous to preservation of individual rights and liberty. According to Tim Cook, the FBI is ordering Apple not merely to assist it in unlocking the contents of one iPhone – that of the dead Islamic terrorist – but to develop a new operating system that, once designed and installed in all iPhones would allow the FBI to gain access to encrypted data from every iPhone the Company produces. If Tim Cook’s account of the matter is true, then the Government is demanding that Apple create – in common parlance – a backdoor key. This key would enable the federal Government to peruse, at will, the content of every iPhone that Apple manufactures. Encryption, then, can be easily defeated. If encryption can be easily defeated, then the very import of encryption ceases to exist and no iPhone is secure.Millions of people, both in this Country and worldwide, use iPhones for work and business. Apple’s customers rely on Apple to provide them with security that is impenetrable to anyone other than the owner of the phone. Apparently, Apple has been very successful on that score. But, if the FBI is requiring Apple Computer to compromise the security of every iPhone it makes – although superficially claiming interest in obtaining data from only one iPhone – then the FBI’s ambitions are far-reaching and truly ominous. The FBI is treading uncomfortably on the Fourth Amendment.To say the FBI can be trusted to use a backdoor key sparingly, wisely and consistent with our system of laws and with the U.S. Constitution, strains credulity and is naïve in the extreme, especially in light of the FBI’s past mistakes. Moreover, as Apple has pointed out, and as computer engineers from other firms concur, the creation of an iOS that bypasses security invites hacking by criminal gangs and foreign governments.It is difficult enough today for the average person and businessperson to protect his or her computer devices from the myriad viruses, worms, spybots, ransomware, and other assorted malware that daily infect computers. This has become a disturbing fact of life. Customers who spend hard-earned money on a particular smart phone, tablet, PC, and on other computer devices depend on the reputation and integrity of the manufacturer to provide the customer with a reliable device and a secure device. That the FBI would require – as Apple Computer contends – a computer device maker to compromise the integrity of all of its iPhones, not only encroaches on the Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy interest but is also harmful to Apple’s business.The FBI has, apparently, nothing to say, about protection of the public’s Fourth Amendment privacy right, but has much to say about the idea that Apple Computer’s real interest in this matter extends merely to business concerns and maintaining its Market share. The mainstream media, on behalf of the Government, has pressed the FBI’s accusation, in lengthy news reports and commentary, pointedly attacking Apple, arguing that Apple’s reluctance to give the FBI what it wants – a backdoor key – is predicated on shallow business concerns. Even so, protection of free market capitalism is not to be construed as an improper, if unstated, motive of Apple; for our economic system, predicated on free market capitalism, is a bulwark of our free Republic. Moreover, even if – as the FBI asserts, and, as the mainstream media echoes on its behalf, and, as the public may reasonably infer and concede – Apple Computer is more interested in preserving its market share, that it fails to assert, than in protecting, as it overtly states, the iPhone user’s privacy and security – consistent with “the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” – the fact that the Fourth Amendment is implicated at all is enough to warrant the American public’s grave concern in what the FBI demands of Apple. Thus, Apple’s underlying business motive in the case at bar is at most a tangential issue here, designed to divert the public’s attention away from the federal Government’s penultimate goal of creating “the surveillance society” as a conjunct of America’s “Police State.” If, in fact, as Tim Cook says, the FBI is demanding a backdoor key to unlock encrypted content on every apple iPhone, then the federal Government is in the process of undertaking a frontal assault on Americans’ Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures,” because the sanctity of and security of sensitive personal and business data would be placed in jeopardy if Apple Computer is ultimately compelled to create a backdoor key for the FBI. Apple’s iPhones would be open to continuous unlawful federal government surveillance and to breaches by foreign governments and criminal organizations as well. Of that, there can be no doubt. One’s ability to confidently and securely protect his or her private communications and sensitive data from prying government eyes and from the nefarious actions of criminal organizations would inevitably be severely weakened.Of course, the federal Government has been attempting for some time now to compel all computer companies to provide the government with backdoor keys to enable Government to unlock, as it wishes, encrypted content held in every American’s computer devices.So, we must ask: is the federal Government, disingenuously, insidiously, even arrogantly, using the Farook episode to garner public support for further unlawful Government intrusion into the private lives of Americans, under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation, but contrary to the precept of the Fourth Amendment? If so, this is not something new. The public has seen this before. For the same technique has been used by antigun groups as well when seeking to garner public support for legislation to weaken the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Then, as now, the mainstream media willingly trumpets the call of those forces that seek to upend the Bill of Rights. The antigun groups jump on one horrific incident of gun violence, perpetrated by one or a few lunatics, or criminals, or Islamic jihadists and, through that one, particular incident, coax the public to support measures that further weaken and eventually curtail the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Of course curtailment of a fundamental right and basic liberty is presented to the public, not as a loss but as a benefit, namely that, for the good of society – the collective, the masses – an American must surrender his or her firearms. If you do not buy into that – and know sane, rational American should – you should not buy into the argument proffered by the FBI that, for the good of society, you must allow Government to pry into your sensitive private data – into your personal and business life – and trust that the Government will use good judgment and refrain from doing so except when necessary “to provide for the common defence” of the Nation.

NOTHING LESS THAN THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE AT STAKE

Americans should never for one moment doubt that Government will, if the public is not continually astute and vigilant, undermine the rights and liberties of the American people. The federal Government is continually pressing the public to relinquish its rights and liberties for such security the federal Government says it can and will provide Americans in the alternative. Americans have seen before where this has gone and they know where this is headed. Nothing good can come of it.The federal Government wishes to know what Americans are thinking. It wishes to control Americans’ thoughts and will do so by gaining entry to their secrets in derogation of the Fourth Amendment, just as it seeks to control Americans’ speech, in derogation of the First Amendment, and as it intends to control Americans’ access to firearms, in derogation of the Second Amendment. All of this is done under the guise of providing for the common defence of the Nation. But, the Nation suffers all the same as Government power increases commensurately with a decrease in the rights and liberties of the American people. What is occurring today in America is demonstrative of the founders’ greatest fear: that Government would turn on the people. As the doctrine of the separation of powers collapses, as the parameters of Government exercise of power extends, and as the rights and liberties of the American people continues to erode, the continued existence of our Nation as a free Republic begins to crumble.Congressional Republicans and Democrats who play along with the carefully orchestrated charade and pretense of providing for the common defence of the Nation are not doing Americans a service. They should be protecting Americans rights and liberties. They are not. Instead, they are actively, insidiously, at work destroying those very rights and liberties, in defiance of and contemptuous of the oath of Office they have taken. They are a disgrace to this Nation and to its People.The web blog, Salon, had an interesting point to make about Governmental lust for power, desire for control over the citizenry, and its attack on the Fourth Amendment, when it stated the other day:“Security officials keep the public focus on the limits of surveillance rather than on its excesses; at the very same time, the frequent exposure of new surveillance capacities perversely functions to normalize those excesses. If widespread surveillance is ordinary, it cannot be shocking. Instead, the anomaly becomes whatever surveillance capability lies just beyond law enforcement’s capability or authorization.”If Americans are to place their faith in something of value, that faith should rest first and foremost in the Bill of Rights. Americans’ faith will be ill-spent if that faith is placed solely in institutions of Government; in the empty words of politicians; in the propaganda spouted through the mainstream media on behalf of Government and on behalf of groups bent on destroying the Bill of Rights; in the operations of Government intelligence agencies and federal police forces who claim to provide for the common defence of the Nation, at the expense of the rights and liberties of the American people. Government, after all, does not have a vested interest in preserving Americans’ rights and liberties. It never does. The primary interest of our federal Government – indeed, of all central governments is acquisition of power for itself. If the Bill of Rights is to remain tenable, if it is to exist as something more than a mere but empty expression of the sanctity of the individual, the public must be cognizant of the natural tension that exists between a strong central government and the rights and liberties of the citizenry. If the citizenry willingly accedes to the loss of their rights and liberties, what truly remains of the Nation? Security proffered by Government? But security – real security – of the Nation – for our Nation – truly rests in the rights and liberties of the people as codified and sanctified for the people by the founders of the Nation in our Bill of Rights. CONCLUSIONIf you are harboring any second thoughts about the sanctity of and importance of your Fourth Amendment privacy rights, or about the critical importance of the Bill of Rights to our Nation’s survival as a free Republic, generally, consider where the greater threat to your rights and liberties reside: Islamic terrorists threatening our shores or a central, federal Government that hungrily amasses for itself ever more power, ostensibly for our benefit if we would be ever so kind to allow the Bill of Rights to fall by the wayside?We invite reader comment on this article.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE TRUE BASIS OF EXECUTIVE OVERREACH

“Rex Non Potest Pecarre”: The King Can Do No Wrong

Dost there exist any limit to the power of a person who dareth claim absolute power unto himself? If so, where doth the boastful claim lie if not in the arrogance of one's moral perfection?In England, during the Middle Ages, Monarchs did indeed wield absolute power over the conduct and, in fact, over the very lives of the populace – the subjects – in their realm. But, apart from the actual ability to wield absolute control over the lives of the denizens of the realm and to craft laws in whatever manner the Monarch wished, a question arose as to the legitimacy of a Monarch’s executive decrees and actions.In the Eighteenth Century, an English jurist, William Blackstone, developed a rationale for the legitimacy of a Monarch's absolute power, going so far as to say that the King not only is incapable of doing wrong, but is incapable of even thinking that he can do wrong. In essence this means that subjects of the realm have no redress in law for alleged wrongs. Another way of saying this is that the King has absolute immunity. But, why is that? For this reason: the subjects of the realm have no redress, and, what is more, the King's subjects have no need of redress. They have no redress because the idea that redress is necessary presumes the King could do wrong and, in fact, has committed a wrong for which redress is required. But, since the King cannot do wrong, no wrong has been committed by him that would require redress. If a subject of the realm dared claim the King committed a wrong, the King had absolute immunity anyway. And, woe to that person who would claim the King wronged him.What does this have to do with us, the American people, at the present time? One would think, nothing. After all, our system of government is referred to as a Free Republic, not an Absolute Monarchy, and it is predicated on a system of checks and balances.

Overreach: Governance By A Personal Notion Of What Is Right?

In a Free Republic, unlike an Absolute Monarchy, the maxim, “the King can do no wrong," is an anathema. To negate any possibility of our government resembling the English Monarchic system -- where legislative, executive, and judicial functions were concentrated in one person, the King -- the founders of our Republic created a tripartite, or three Branch system. The powers of each Branch of our Government were carefully demarcated and delineated. Law-making functions, executive functions, and judicial functions would not and could not be concentrated in any one individual or group of individuals. Let us consider the above commentary in light of America’s present situation.We see in the actions of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama, and in one of the candidates for U.S President, namely and especially, Hillary Rodham Clinton, an insidious attempt to slither around the notion that America still has and, indeed, ought to continue to have, a representative form of government where executive functions, legislative functions, and judicial functions reside in three separate but co-equal bodies.What specifically is most disturbing about Barack Obama’s governance is his claim to act in accordance with his personal notions of what is right. Through issuance of executive orders Obama has essentially rewritten Congressional immigration and firearms legislation.The President's actions amount to executive overreach of the most ambitious and disturbing and egregious sort, and these illegal actions stem from Obama's arrogant belief in his own moral superiority. How often has Obama said that he will act if Congress does not and that he does so when he feels that it is the morally right thing to do. Do not Obama's words entail that the failure of Congress to act means that Congress is immoral? Obama is extremely presumptuous; he is disrespectful of our three Branch system of Government; and he is contemptuous of Congress.One's infatuation with one's moral superiority is extremely dangerous when one can exert control over others. One's feelings of grandiosity is the basis for executive overreach, and suggests that one suffers from megalomania.Obama deceptively claims he is not making law, only implementing law that Congress has itself made. In so saying Obama would have the American people believe that his immigration orders are not an unlawful encroachment on the singular authority of Congress “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And Obama would have the American people believe that his recent executive directives that, in pertinent part, redefine what it means “to be in the business of selling firearms,” are neither an unlawful constraint and infringement on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, nor an unlawful encroachment on the authority – the sole authority – of Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof,” under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.” Obama is fooling no one.Now, Obama adamantly maintains that his executive directives on both immigration and firearms’ regulations do not involve the making of law but consist only in acting within the authority granted to a U.S. President, under Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution that says, the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But the assertion is no more than a platitude. For, Obama has also been heard to assert or strongly suggest on numerous occasions that, “if Congress doesn’t act, I will.” This is tantamount to saying, “I am the King” and “legislative power to make the law, amend the law, or to ignore the law, as well as the power to execute the law reside, alone, in me.” Obama often punctuates his edicts with the claim that, “when Congress doesn’t act, I will when it is the right thing to do.” This latter remark harks back to the English doctrine of the notion that “the King can do no wrong,” which is to say that the King is the holder of absolute moral authority and absolute legal authority.Many commentators have said that Obama’s misuse of executive orders amount to “executive overreach.” But, in truth, Obama’s directives go beyond mere “executive overreach.” Obama’s executive directives and actions do much, much more. His actions erode the public’s confidence in the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and diminish the public’s trust in the continued well-being and efficacy of a free Republic.This brings us to the matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s push to claim the mantle of “Queen of the Commonwealth of America.” There is much to be said about Clinton’s past and present actions to cast substantial doubt on her character to adequately and diligently represent this Nation. But, one episode is so damning that it taints the very Office of President should Clinton gain entry to it.Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct sensitive government business transcends the bounds of propriety and descends into conduct that, if not facially criminal, certainly calls into question her ability and willingness to conduct the Nation’s business in the best interests of the Nation’s citizenry, consistent with and respectful of the Country’s Constitution and the Country’s institutions.If the Director of the FBI, James Comey, fails to recommend that criminal charges be brought against Clinton, this may involve placing political considerations and concerns above legal ones. For, imagine what occurs if Comey does recommend criminal charges against Clinton. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General, must decide whether to indict Clinton. How would she act? Would she not consult with the President? If so, what Would President Obama have her do? Would not the President be obliged to allow the Attorney General to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and to prosecute Clinton zealously, in the interests of justice, in accordance with the maxim that no American citizen – even the rich and powerful – is above the law?Obviously, Clinton would have to bow out of the race if she were indicted on criminal charges. But, whether or not criminal charges are ultimately brought against Hillary Clinton, that is beside the point. The mere perception of serious wrongdoing on her part – and there is much of that – should be sufficient grounds for her to bow out of the race for U.S. President. And Clinton would bow out if she were a person of integrity whose salient concern was the well-being of the Nation and the American people. Sadly, she is not a person of integrity.A person with integrity would think more about the well-being of the Nation, its laws, its system of Government, its people, and less about satisfying his or her sense of self-aggrandizement. But, then, Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t one of those people.Clinton cares not one whit what the American people really think about her. She is disdainful of everyone. Even those who would vote for her do so, oddly enough, even when acknowledging that Clinton utterly lacks integrity, honesty, and sincerity – three endearing qualities existing in any person of honor and certainly qualities an American would and should expect in the U.S. President. Those qualities, though, aren’t part of Hillary Clinton’s make-up. Those qualities are not part of her nature. But, then, why should they be? To anyone who might be heard to complain, Clinton would likely say, as she has said dismissively and even derisively to those who challenged her handling of the Benghazi incident: “What difference does it make?” Indeed! What difference can it make to one in whose bosom lies absolute moral authority? After all, “The Queen can do no wrong!”[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

GUNS ARE VIRULENT VIRUSES: WIPE THEM OUT!

Guns are virulent viruses: wipe them out! Consider the phrase as a slogan. Mull it over in your mind. Really think about it: the phrase’s nuances, its connotations. Now, suppose a member of the public who has never given firearms much thought is continually bombarded with the slogan: “Guns are virulent viruses: wipe them out!” He hears the slogan on the evening news. He sees it in the newspapers. Pundits voice it loudly on the radio. Pastors preach it to their congregations. The public comes to see that firearms are indeed virulent viruses. Of course they must be wiped out! Perception is reality. Isn’t it?Clinical psychologists and political propagandists know very well that, how a person perceives reality – how a person perceives the world around him – becomes the world a person lives in. No one knows this better than members of the antigun movement and those that support its efforts, including antigun legislators and billionaire globalists, all of whom see, in America’s Second Amendment, something incompatible with the new pan-Western ethos. They unabashedly seek not only to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but to debase it, to demolish it, to obliterate it.The mainstream media is a useful vehicle for conveying the messages of the antigun movement. Thus, of late, we are witnessing a twist to the antigun movements’ messaging – a twist at once subtle but noteworthy. The mainstream media – the pawns of and at the behest of antigun groups and like-thinking intellectual and business “elites” both here and abroad, and of their friends and fellow travelers in Congress, in State Legislatures across the Nation, and in the Oval Office – has made a pronounced and explicit change to its messaging.Heretofore, the public has been conditioned to associate guns with criminals, with lunatics, with terrorists. The phrase, “gun violence,” has been, and rightly so, inextricably tied to the individual – the sentient being responsible for the gun violence. The antigun movement has now, as a matter of strategy, completely severed that connection. The mainstream media, the voice of the antigun movement, is addressing guns as the sole true scourge of all violence associated with guns and paying less heed to the individuals who wield the guns and who commit violence with them.Consider a few examples. In the July 31st 2016 edition of the NY Times, the editorial staff, in an article proclaiming the paper's endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination, said, “Mrs. Clinton is a strong advocate of sensible and effective measures to combat the plague of firearms.”A firearm, though, is merely a tool, a physical object, manufactured from metallic or non-metallic materials. By referring to the firearm, a non-living object as a “plague,” antigun groups, through the mainstream media, are subtly, diabolically changing the public’s perception of them. They are slowly, subtly nudging and shifting the manner in which the public perceives gun violence – shifting the public’s perception of gun violence away from the criminal, and the lunatic, and jihadist as the primary agents of violence, who happen to use a firearm to commit acts of unconscionable violence, and shifting the public’s perception toward the firearm itself as the primary agent of violence.The firearm is depicted today as a virus that infests human beings. Not surprisingly, the numerous antigun movement requests for CDC studies into the “plague of firearms” is consistent with the incongruous attempt to associate firearms with virulent viruses that, as with all disease viruses, must be eradicated. Indeed, one left-wing web blog, "The Iowa Daily Democrats," supportive of the antigun movement’s efforts, in an article, with the emotionally charged title, "Guns: Democrats vow to end the American Plague," unashamedly and viciously attack the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, by comparing firearms, incongruously, to virulent viruses. The world-wide web is filled with this claptrap. The public’s attention and perception is directed to guns as the primary agent for violence, rather than to the sentient beings who wield the guns and who, alone, logically, are solely responsible for the violence committed with guns.The firearm, as the primary actor of violence, relieves the human actor of moral and legal responsibility. This idea is preposterous, of course. But, the rationale behind it is diabolically clever. It is the antigun movement’s response to the gun advocate’s argument that the law-abiding gun owner – tens of millions of us – do not and never will pose a "gun" problem. But, if guns are construed as disease viruses, then the mere existence of them is the problem. What sane person wants to be a carrier of a virulent disease? Obviously, no one. Ergo, a healthy society must eradicate the plague of firearms. This means the government can and must – and will – forcibly remove guns from those otherwise law-abiding members of society who feel comfortable living with the plague of firearms. This, of course, is all for the best – the Second Amendment be damned!The stratagem places in high relief the salient goal of the antigun movement which really has little if anything to do with – and never did have anything to do with – criminal use of firearms. The stratagem  has everything to do with dispossessing the law-abiding citizen of his or her firearms, that is to say, elimination of the firearm from American society. Thus, the U.S. becomes a society not unlike that of the UK, or Canada, or Australia.Newspapers across America are jumping on the “guns are the problem” bandwagon, directing the public’s attention away from the individuals who create the violence and redirecting the public’s attention onto the mechanism itself: the gun as disease virus.The Plain Dealer, A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper, in an editorial appearing on Sunday, January 3, 2016, by George Rodrigue, under the title, "Fear, facts, and the question of guns: George Rodrigue," minimizes the importance of the Islamic jihadists who were responsible for dozens of deaths in San Bernardino, California, and emphasizes the implement – the gun – that they used. The writer says, “[l]ast month, two radicalized Muslims [and note the absence of the word ‘terrorist’ to describe these two] shot 36 people at a San Bernardino holiday party. That touched off an anti-Muslim backlash, along with a wave of new gun purchases. Those reactions overestimate the risk of domestic Islamic terrorism, and underestimate the risks of firearms.” What?The writer of this Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial is strongly suggesting to the reader that the jihadists are not the primary agents of the despicable acts of violence they caused. It was the firearm’s fault. The killers were only along for the ride. The writer of the editorial is bluntly telling the reader that, if Islamist terrorists kill Americans, we, Americans, are to blame the gun for this – for our acquiescence to the existence of guns in our Nation – and we are not to blame the terrorist because there are more guns than terrorists in America. This means, according to the writer of the editorial, that more guns kill Americans than Islamist terrorists do. So, guns, according to Rodrigue, pose a greater threat to Americans, are more dangerous to Americans and, therefore ought to be despised more by Americans than ought the threat posed by Islamic terrorists. This is ludicrous. For those college students happening to take an introductory course in formal and informal logic, discerning and describing the numerous fallacies inherent in the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial would make for an illuminating, educational exercise.If the antigun movement, and its supporters both here and abroad, succeed in their singular, all-consuming effort to end lawful ownership and possession of firearms, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will have been erased from the collective consciousness of the American people. The Second Amendment will no longer exist as a natural, right preexistent in the people. It will exist only as an obscure, fragmentary footnote in history, devoid of legal efficacy. In time the notion that the American people actually had a fundamental right to keep and bear arms – a right that could not be infringed by government – will become but a distant memory, relegated to folklore. The United States will have ceased to exist as a free republic.The antigun movement doesn’t care. It is oblivious to the import of the Bill of Rights and to the notion of America as a free republic if such is conditioned on the existence of a right that the movement finds repugnant to its sensibilities. It intends to infect the entirety of the American public with its own psychosis.Oh, how much easier, it would have been to constrain civilian ownership and possession of firearms if the Second Amendment had never existed or had, at least, excluded the cogent, independent and insufferable clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That it does exist, the antigun movement intends to change the public’s perception of guns so that the public will become, eventually, amenable to relinquishing them. Public perception can be molded. It is infinitely malleable.So, remember, perception = reality. If the public comes to associate guns as living things and, too, as things, inherently evil, the public will come to feel ill simply to come into contact with a firearm. If guns are associated with disease viruses, which humankind obviously and with good reason, has a natural antipathy and, indeed, understandably, a raw, intrinsic fear of – think of Typhus, the Black Death, the Bubonic Plague, Influenza, the Ebola virus – then, naturally, and with good reason, the public will perceive firearms as a thing to be despised, and loathed, and feared. The antigun movement treats the American public like Pavlov’s dog.So it is that antigun groups, through the mainstream media, have devised a new stratagem for getting rid of guns: equate guns with virulent viruses, and hit the public hard with that message.The ludicrousness of the idea is lost in the perception of it that affects – and is meant to affect – a person on an emotional, visceral level.Perception is, after all, reality![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE ANTIGUN MOVEMENT

The ultimate goal of the antigun movement is this: the universal elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and possession. This is true and incontrovertible. Everything the antigun movement does is directed to the attainment of that goal. Nothing the antigun movement does diverges from the path to that goal. When asked to admit the truth of the assertion, the antigun movement, and its sounding board, the mainstream corporate media, will deny it, curtly and vehemently. But, the antigun movement’s actions belie its blunt denial.Realization of the movement’s goal amounts to de facto repeal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms – a right expressed clearly and cogently, succinctly and indelibly, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, if there exist any residual doubt as to the import of that right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid such doubt to rest in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.In Heller the Supreme Court held: “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This right, the high Court maintains, operates as a constraint on the federal government. The question subsequently arose, in McDonald, whether the Heller holding applies to the States as well. The high Court held that it did, asserting, clearly, categorically, unequivocally, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Still, the antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings. The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following: one, no one needs a gun because the police will protect you; two, curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents; three, civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them; four, since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession; and, five, the Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either. These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.The antigun movement does not recognize the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, which is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. Rather, the antigun movement sees each individual American as a random bit of unharmonious energy, running hither and yon – an individual who is likely to harm self or others unless appropriately constrained for his or her own good and for the good of the greater society. A firearm in the hands of a civilian lessens government’s ability to control that individual. Ergo, the government must keep the two – firearm and individual – separated. What NRA works to keep conjoined, antigun groups wish to sever and keep disjoined.As the antigun movement works incessantly, inexorably toward its ultimate goal, the movement invariably butts up against the NRA, which the movement routinely and pejoratively refers to as the “gun lobby.” But, the antigun movement refrains from referring to itself as the “antigun lobby.” Now, lobbying activities are protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and NRA is open about its lobbying efforts on behalf of its millions of members. Yet the antigun movement cloak’s its own lobbying activities and blatantly panders to the U.S. President. President Obama, for his part, has not shied away from using the power of his Office to further the agenda of the antigun movement through issuance of executive actions, and he has formally announced, in January of 2016, his intention to do so.Now, Congress, under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, has sole authority to make law. The question is whether Obama’s antigun measures operate within the framework of existing Congressional firearms laws, as he claims, or operate beyond the boundaries of existing law. That Congress might obtain some resolution of that question, U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., Chairman of the Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice and Science, requested Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appear at a hearing, held on January 20, 2016, to discuss the President’s recent executive actions.Senator Shelby made abundantly clear that the President does not have the authority to tell Congress what it must do. But the President has done just that, using the mechanism of executive directives, crafted by the Attorney General, herself, to conduct an “end-run” around Congress. The President isn’t asking Congress and the American people for permission to do what he wants to do. He is telling Congress and the American people what he’s going to do and cajoling both Congress and the American people to get on board with his game plan. That is extreme hubris.If the antigun movement is able to harness the Office of the President to craft its own laws to further a personal agenda, in defiance of both Congressional legislation and U.S. Supreme Court decision, then the Constitution is belittled and the Republic is endangered.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NRA: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S VOICE

Antigun Groups Curry Favor with the President to Further Personal Agenda and to Attack the NRA

Nothing speaks more clearly and cogently of the duplicity and hypocrisy existent in Obama’s efforts to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms than the personal attacks he levels against NRA. The singular aim of NRA is nothing less than defense of the inalienable, natural, and fundamental right to keep and bear arms – clearly and cogently articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights, as the second of ten critical, enumerated rights.We all know that the President and the various antigun interest groups habitually refer to NRA, disparagingly, as the “Gun Lobby.” They do this to suggest that NRA represents a small, select interest group, namely, gun manufacturers, whose singular objective is to make money from the sale of firearms. If true, NRA would be a “trade” group. Now, trade groups, on behalf of their members, do lobby Congress. And, there is nothing wrong with that. But, NRA is not a trade group.Although firearms’ manufacturers – which, by the way have their own trade groups – may benefit tangentially from the efforts of NRA to secure the sacred right of people to keep and bear arms, NRA does not represent gun manufacturers, and NRA is not an organization that comprises gun manufacturers. To the contrary, NRA is composed of American citizens – millions of Americans. Americans do not become members of NRA because they are interested in making money off NRA’s efforts. Americans become members of NRA because they know the United States will not long stand as a free republic if the right of each American to keep and bear firearms is curtailed. NRA is one organization that embodies and engenders the spirit of America as a free republic.The salient purpose of the NRA is to protect and preserve, for Americans the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It works on behalf of its members, certainly, but, in fact, it works on behalf of all Americans who cherish their Bill of Rights.NRA does lobby on behalf of its members, just as the antigun interest groups lobby on behalf of their members, although the antigun groups’ members amount to a miniscule fraction of Americans. Moreover, unlike the antigun groups that are essentially nothing more than a lobbying vehicle for those individuals and cabals both here and abroad who wish to erode the Bill of Rights and to destroy the Second Amendment, NRA is much more than a lobby group.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the many services NRA provides for average Americans, law enforcement, and, traditionally, for the U.S. military. Readers are invited to read the Arbalest Quarrel's extensive article on the history of the NRA, posted on April 8, 2015.President Obama and Hillary Clinton and the antigun groups attack the lobbying efforts of NRA. But, there is nothing wrong in the act of lobbying, per se. Lobbying is an activity protected under the First Amendment. And, it would hardly do for the antigun forces in this Country to attack the NRA on the ground that NRA's lobbying efforts are wrongly directed to defending and preserving one of America’s inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights, especially in light of the lobbying efforts of the antigun groups that are directed to attaining the opposite end – the tearing down of a sacred right that the founders of a free republic gave to us. And it would hardly do for antigun groups to attack the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment when those same antigun forces openly declare, albeit disingenuously, that they do not wish to tear down the Second Amendment, when they seek to do just that. For, if they were serious in their assertions and declarations that they do in fact support the Second Amendment, then they would not be continuously, endlessly, and vociferously attacking NRA. That they do incessantly attack NRA, their hypocrisy and duplicity is glaringly obvious for all to see.At the behest of the President and at the behest of the antigun groups the mainstream media argues, emphatically, but falsely, that NRA represents and conducts lobbying activities on behalf of firearms' manufacturers, whose interests, the selling of firearms, play well to the ignorant among America’s populace who are conditioned, through the power of the mainstream media, to equate guns solely with violence – that is to say – with nothing good, even as that violence, as everyone knows, is produced, not by the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners but, rather by a notably few, the very worst who live among us – namely, career criminals, psychopathic gang members -- many of whom have entered and remain in the U.S. illegally -- assorted lunatics and, of late, radical and radicalized Islamic jihadists.But, it is one thing for antigun groups to attack the NRA, as an organization whose goal it is to preserve the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and to attack, too, those Americans who choose to exercise that right. It is quite another for the President to do so. Why is that? For this reason: when the President of the United States attacks NRA and, by extension, attacks millions of Americans who simply wish to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the President is, himself, operating as a lobbyist for a specific interest group, at the detriment of the interests of another group. In this instance we see the President, Barack Obama, representing groups whose interests – the destruction of the Second Amendment and the erosion of the other nine Amendments – are at odds with the well-being of a free republic and with the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights.The duplicity and hypocrisy of the President of the United States are obvious and self-evident. President Obama and, before him, President Clinton, have used the power and influence of the Office of the Chief  Executive, to condemn the lobbying efforts of the NRA and, in so, doing, they have played favorites: furthering the dubious interests of those interest groups whose avowed goal is the dismantling of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the undermining of our Bill of Rights.In contradistinction to the underhanded, secretive use of the Office of the President (the Chief Executive of the Nation) by antigun interest groups to further their own nefarious, insidious objectives, NRA’s lobbying efforts have been subject to full disclosure, have been directed to the most honorable of goals – preservation of Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms set forth with specificity in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – and have been directed to securing appropriate legislation through Congress, not through the Office of the President.The right of an interest group to lobby Congress to further that group’s objectives, if those objectives are properly disclosed, is legitimate, fully protected political speech, under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the antigun groups, apart from lobbying Congress to further their own ends – upending the Second Amendment through the Legislative process – have, inappropriately, sought intervention by the Chief Executive, as well -- have, in fact, concentrated their lobbying campaign on the Chief Executive because Congress won't do their bidding. They trust that the Chief Executive will. But that means the Chief Executive is expected to legislate antigun laws on their behalf. And that is monstrous. We see the ludicrousness of President Obama's message to the public: asserting that he must intervene because Congress won't legislate in this area, but then asserting that he isn't making new law but simply operating within the constraints of present Congressional legislation! While an interest group is not prohibited from seeking special favor of, or groveling before, or currying favor from the Chief Executive, such instant and easy access to the President of the United States by one group, to the detriment of others, is fraught with danger especially when this behind-the-scenes actions of noxious special interest groups, namely and specifically, antigun interest groups, furthers goals that are diametrically opposed both to the well-being of a free republic and to the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights upon which a free republic depends for its survival.One must wonder whether President Obama’s recent impermissible promulgation of antigun legislation, through the device of executive directives, was not inspired by, or, more to the point, directed by antigun interest groups. Did not these antigun interest groups – angered by the failure of Congress to extend the parameters of the national instant criminal background check system of the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994” – exert pressure on the President – convincing Obama, who was amenable to their goals anyway, to use the power of his Office to further the antigun agenda along precisely because Congress wouldn’t? And, does not this circumvention of Congress by the antigun interest groups constitute an illegitimate exertion of influence by these groups on the Executive, contrary to and irrespective of the will of the American people? Do not the actions of Obama amount to a compounding of fault, having allowed his Office to be a conduit for illegal law-making?Indeed, one antigun group, “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” has, for decades, attempted to use the power of the Executive to further its own nefarious goals.The Brady Campaign, an antigun lobbying group, had appealed directly to President Carter, in the 1970s, to harass gun owners; and Carter did just that. The Brady Campaign had little success with the Republican Presidents, Reagan and H.W. Bush. But, then, Bill Clinton entered the picture. The Brady Campaign sent a confidential memorandum to the White House, setting out exactly what the Brady Campaign antigun interest and lobbying group wanted from and expected to obtain from Clinton, including, inter alia, licensing requirements and registration for handgun owners, bans on firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ waiting periods, and a required “arsenal license” for anyone who owned 20 firearms or more.The Brady Campaign sought to use the power of the Executive Branch to put pressure on the Legislative Branch to further the interest of a small, virulently antigun segment of the population. Obviously, the Brady Campaign and other antigun groups have been working behind-the-scenes in recent times, as well, to push Obama to accede to their desires. Since Obama harbors anti-Second Amendment, antigun sentiments, anyway, he has been all-to-willing to use the power and influence of his Office to push the agenda of these groups – especially now, as he, in his final year of Office, is no longer afraid of offending Congress.If Hillary Clinton becomes her Party’s nominee and, thereafter, gains the Presidency, her Administration will be essentially an extension of her husband’s previous Administration, and the Brady Campaign and other antigun lobbying groups will continue to exert inappropriate, illegitimate, and, in fact, illegal influence over Hillary Clinton, just as they had exerted such influence over her husband and over Obama.Clinton, as we know, is more than merely amenable to this influence. She will be enthusiastic about using the Office of the Presidency to further the antigun agenda, even as this means by-passing Congress, and notwithstanding that Congress has sole authority to enact the laws of the Land, consistent with its law-making powers under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is successful in securing the Office of President of the United States, Americans will see further erosion of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They will see the continued erosion, too, of the Separation of Powers Doctrine as the Executive Branch amasses ever more power unto itself.You can help prevent Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to the highest Office of the Land. If you are an NRA member, that is good. If you are a “Life Member” of the NRA, that is even better. America’s interests in preserving the Second Amendment and in preserving, as well, the other Nine Amendments of our Bill of Rights, are enhanced, and the influence exerted by the anti-American, antigun interest groups are, contrariwise, diminished, as NRA accrues more members. We ask that you encourage your family and friends to become members of NRA. And, please do not forget to vote![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUN LAWS THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE, LITERALLY!

A Critical Look at California's New 'Assault Weapons' Bill and a Comparison and Contrast with New York's 'Assault Weapons' Laws

California is playing the child’s game of “leapfrog” with New York and with other States that enact draconian firearms laws. What do we mean by that? Just this: as one State Legislature drafts and enacts ever more draconian gun laws, the other States follow suit and attempt to do the first State, one better. Let’s see how this plays out.The New York State Legislature in Albany, NY, rewrote the law defining the expression ‘assault weapon.’ The Safe Act became effective on January 15, 2013 and was the de facto model for new antigun laws around the Country. The Safe Act was also the de facto model for Dianne Feinstein’s failed effort to enact a new federal assault weapons’ ban and ammunition ban in 2013. Fortunately, Republicans in Congress and the NRA stopped a federal “Safe Act” in its tracks.The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, was the impetus for – actually the pretext for – implementation of new and highly restrictive gun and ammunition bans.Notwithstanding oppressive gun restrictions in New York, the Safe Act further encroached on Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, adding new restrictive provisions to the New York Penal Code and to other Statutory Sections of the Consolidated Laws of New York and making existing gun provisions even harsher.The drafters of the Safe Act aimed to ban ever more types of guns. To make guns bans palatable to the public, the drafters of the Safe Act continued, through the artifice of rhetoric to create the illusion that some firearms were evil. They called these firearms assault weapons.Once a firearm is defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ that firearm becomes, at the stroke of a pen, a “banned weapon.” Under present New York law, specifically, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) and (C), firearms, namely, rifles and pistols that, one, are semiautomatic in operation, two, can accept a detachable magazine and – if the first two necessary conditions are met – then three, if those firearms have at least one of a specific set of features as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) or (C). If all three conditions are met, then, under New York law, those rifles and pistols are, by virtue of a legal fiction, ‘assault weapons,’ and are, therefore, banned weapons.Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B), Shotguns that are, one, semiautomatic in operation and, two, have at least one of a particular set of characteristics as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B) are also ‘assault weapons.’ And the New York Safe Act adds a fourth category of “assault weapons.” Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(D), Shotguns that utilize a revolving cylinder are, by definition, also ‘assault weapons’ and therefore banned weapons. We have discussed the legal fiction of 'assault weapons' as constructed by the drafters of the New York Safe Act, at length, in previous articles that appear on this site. See in particular: "Cuomo's NY Safe Act and the notion of 'assault weapon;'" "NY Safe: Looking at the 'assault weapon;'" and, "NY Safe: 'assault weapon' definitions.'"At the moment, typical handguns that utilize a revolving cylinder, and rifles that utilize a revolving cylinder – rare as revolving cylinder rifles  are – are not, under present New York law, defined as ‘assault weapons;’ but who can say what the future holds if antigun legislators, like New York Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, continue to control the politics of gun ownership and possession, and draft ever more onerous and heinous gun laws for law-abiding Americans who happen to reside in New York.Let us now compare the definitions for rifles that are also ‘assault weapons,’ as those definitions appear in both the California Penal Code and the New York Penal Code, because CA A.B. 1663, throws a wrench into the mix, specifically in respect to rifles.In the New York Penal Code rifles that are also assault weapons must, as we have said, be semiautomatic in operation and also be capable of accepting a detachable magazine. These are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled before a weapon can be considered an ‘assault weapon’ in New York. If and only if a rifle is semiautomatic in operation and is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, then NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), says that we look for additional characteristics that a rifle might have if it is to be deemed an ‘assault weapon’ under New York law. So, then, if the rifle has at least one additional characteristic, for example, a second handgrip, or a flash suppressor, or a folding or telescoping stock, or a bayonet mount, then the rifle is, under, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), an assault weapon. Otherwise it isn’t.Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), at the moment, reads much like NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A). Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) sets forth three requirements for rifles that are also assault weapons, two, of which, like New York, are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled: one, the rifle must be centerfire semiautomatic in operation, and two, the rifle must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If those necessary conditions are met, then we look to see if the rifle has at least one of several listed features such as, inter alia, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a folding or telescoping stock, or thumbhole stock. If these three conditions are met, the firearm in question is an “assault weapon” and, therefore, a banned weapon under California law. Thus, we see that Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as it presently reads, mirrors NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) in every critical respect.Even before CA A.B. 1663 was drafted, California “did New York one better.” Under present California law, rifles that are also assault weapons include, under Cal Pen Code 30515(a)(2), “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” Recall, under New York law, rifles that are also assault weapons must be semiautomatic in operation and be capable of accepting a detachable magazine only. So, under present New York law, no rifle is an assault weapon that happens to have a non-detachable, i.e., fixed, magazine. A rifle might have a magazine that can hold 100 rounds of ammunition. If that magazine is fixed to the rifle, that is to say, if that magazine cannot be readily detached from the body of the rifle, the rifle is not an ‘assault weapon’ under present New York law.In California, on the other hand, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), a rifle that has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition is an ‘assault weapon.’ So, in the California Penal Code, unlike the New York Penal Code, a semiautomatic rifle may, under the appropriate circumstances, based on definition, be deemed an assault weapon if the rifle utilizes either a detachable or fixed ammunition magazine.Now, what would CA A.B. 1663 do, if enacted? CA A.B. 1663 modifies Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), which would be amended to read: a rifle is an assault weapon if that weapon is a “semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” Do you understand the meaning of that sentence? Read it again. In fact, read it several times, but don’t be upset if you continue to scratch your head in bewilderment as to the meaning of that sentence; for, the meaning of that sentence isn’t clear to us either.The California legislators, who drafted that sentence – making liberal use of negatives – apparently derive pleasure from torturing the English language as much as they enjoy torturing those California residents and U.S. citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as drafted by the Legislature, is inherently ambiguous. That was obviously the intention of its drafters.Under one interpretation – a more conservative interpretation – a rifle is an assault weapon, in California, if it is a centerfire semiautomatic weapon that can accept a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds. However, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon that can accept a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds of ammunition the magazine might be capable of holding. An argument can be made for either interpretation and, if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted, and thereafter challenged, it will take a court of law to decide which interpretation is correct. You will note, too, something else about the definition of ‘assault weapon’ as promulgated in the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1). In the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), there is something missing. In the original version of that statutory section, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is not deemed to be an assault weapon, unless it have at least one of several enumerated characteristics. That requirement has been eliminated in the revision.Essentially, the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) – if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted and codified into law – is the obverse of Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), which reads that a rifle is an assault weapon if it is “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” But, the idea here is that, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence – as the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) reads – the number of rounds that a detachable magazine can hold is not decisive or even relevant to the issue whether a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon. So long as a rifle is capable of accepting a detachable  magazine – even if the magazine is capable of holding only one round – that will be sufficient to transform the rifle into an assault weapon, and, therefore, a banned weapon, in California.Let’s distill all of this. So, if CA A.B. 1663, becomes law a rifle is also an assault weapon, and therefore, a banned weapon in California under two scenarios:Under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as amended by CA A.B. 1663, a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic, and it is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds that the rifle’s detachable magazine may hold (under a liberal interpretation of the amended statute). And, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2) – the language which remains unchanged – a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic and has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds.In the continuing game of “leapfrog,” antigun forces in the New York Legislature may be, even now, drafting new legislation, redefining and refining the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to “improve upon” California’s 'assault weapons' fetish. If right of the American people to keep and bear arms, as embodied in the Second Amendment, is to survive in the 21^st Century, it is incumbent upon each American to defend that right against the forces intent on destroying it, just as the Second Amendment was, itself, meant to defend the sanctity of each individual law-abiding American. The Second Amendment protects us so long as we protect it. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NRA DIDN’T TAKE THE BAIT AT THE CNN “GUNS IN AMERICA” TOWN HALL MEETING “DE-BATE”

Once the CNN Town Hall meeting, that took place Thursday evening, January 7, 2016, primetime, had concluded, the liberal mainstream media, together with the hordes of sycophantic left-wing web blogs – including, “Forward Progressives,” “Liberals Unite,” “The Daily Beast,” “Addicting Info,” and “the Atlantic Broadband,” to name a few – went immediately to work, on behalf of President Obama, attacking both the Second Amendment and the NRA, chastising and belittling the NRA for having turned down the President’s invitation to take part in the give and take “debate” with the President, at the Town Hall meeting.Of course, had Obama not made mention of the NRA’s failure to attend the Town Hall, the mainstream media and left-wing web blogs would not have even brought the matter up. But, Obama doesn’t say anything unless his utterances have effect. And he meant to poke fun at the NRA for its failure to accept his “invitation” to join in on the conversation.These and other left-wing panderers to Obama and destroyers of our Bill of Rights either cannot understand or otherwise choose not to understand why the NRA has refused to take part in the CNN Town Hall meeting – why, in fact the NRA refused to “debate” Obama. The reason is plain. The CNN Town Hall presentation, featuring Obama was, contrary to the producers’ assertions, an orchestrated event. A handful of individuals stood up, said their piece, and listened intently, while the Commander in Chief of the night’s performance, Obama, lectured, as he is ever wont to do.This staged performance, this carnival, was not a debate and was never intended to be a debate. It was simply a vehicle through which the President might appeal to the American people, explaining why, as he sees it, he must take action because Congress, in Obama’s mind, won’t.The NRA knew, of course, that the entire event was staged and the NRA made the right decision – the only sensible decision it could make under the circumstances. The NRA wasn’t snubbing Obama; nor did the NRA feel any sense of apprehension, contrary to the remarks of the left-wing web blogs.The simple truth is that the NRA had nothing to gain by attending an event that merely served Obama’s political aims – an event where nothing the NRA happened to say would benefit its members – where anything the NRA might say would only be turned against it at an event that was nothing more than a theatrical performance with the President, Barack Obama, cast as the box office star, protagonist, and the NRA cast in the role as the villain, antagonist. But that didn’t stop Obama from poking fun at and attacking the NRA in absentia.Obama asserted at one point: “There’s a reason that the NRA isn’t here. They’re right down the street. You think they’d be prepared to have a debate with the President.” The President might have added – “if in fact I intended for this event to be a true debate. And, there’s the rub. The “Town Hall” event wasn’t a ‘debate’ in the true sense of the word.In this day and age, the word, ‘debate,’ has been so over-used and misused that the public can be forgiven for having forgotten what a real debate is. Obama surely knows what a true debate is and of what a true debate consists. And the NRA knows this as well, and that is why the NRA wasn’t about to take the bait that Obama dangled in front of it. For, the NRA would have been foolish indeed to have done so.A true debate has a highly structured format and takes place, not in a highly charged arena or amphitheater, but often enough in a smaller, and always neutral forum; and each party who takes part in a true debate stands on an equal footing with the other.The CNN Town Hall meeting that took place last Thursday had neither the physical structure associated with a true debate, nor a format that could, under even a loose definition of the term, be considered a true debate. And, the NRA definitely would not have stood on an equal footing with Obama since the NRA would, for its part, only be able to proffer questions to the President, as any other member of the audience would, and the President, Obama, for his part, would then commence to lecture NRA on the way things are and why they must be as Obama sees them.Even the phrase, “Guns in America,” – the identifying title for the night’s performance – carries negative connotations and makes clear to the viewing audience that the salient matter to be addressed that evening involves guns and Americans’ access to them, not the extent to which the Executive Branch of the United States Government seeks to extend its authority over the U.S. Congress and, by extension, over the American people – the more pressing issue, to be sure.The physical stage for the event that took place at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia was constructed to draw the viewer’s  attention to the President. Obama sat in the center of a seemingly circular theater, along with the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper, around which sat one hundred people. If anyone should doubt that the event was to highlight the President – to place him prominently in the limelight of the night’s events – the very positioning of the President, as he sat on a stool, in the “center of the circle,” emphasized his singular importance and the weight that was to be given to anything he might happen to say that evening. The CNN spectacle was not a “debate” in the traditional, formal, sense or, for that matter, in any sense.In a traditional debate there is a policy issue to be resolved. The unstated policy issue here is abstruse, certainly, but of paramount concern to those who hold dear the Bill of Rights: whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall within and do not extend beyond the scope of existing Congressional legislation and therefore amount to the lawful use of the President’s executive authority or, on the other hand, whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall outside of and extend beyond the parameters of existing Congressional firearms’ legislation and therefore amount to a clear abuse of Presidential authority.Now, as it happened, the President did not remark on what he deemed to be his Constitutional authority to issue executive directives pertaining to firearms’ laws; and those questions posed to him by members of the audience simply reflected the questioner's personal feelings toward and concerns about guns, not about Obama’s use or abuse of executive authority. The questions did not even skirt the salient issue which goes directly to the power the Chief Executive, Barack Obama, would exert to contravene the clear import of the Second Amendment, ostensibly to curb gun violence, through the mechanism of executive directives.In a true debate one party, sitting center-stage, wouldn’t be fielding a set of questions, that were anything but impromptu, from a mere handful of audience members, who had been pre-selected. And, in a true debate, the public would not be compelled to sit through a fireside chat. Rather, in a true debate, there are two equal parties, each of whom takes a position, one pro, to advocate for the position, and one con, to refute the position. Each side presents its arguments according to a set format, during a set period of time. Through it all there are a stringent and clear and cogent set of protocols that each side must adhere to in a true debate.Had this been a real debate, the NRA would probably have agreed to take part in it, even welcomed it. The President and his team members would present their case, advocating for the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives, and the NRA spokespersons would present their case, refuting the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives. A judge, or an audience would thereafter decide who presented the most convincing argument. That, in essence, is the structure of a true debate. And, a true debate takes place in a fair, impartial, neutral forum. The audience would not be taking an active part in presenting argument but would dutifully listen to each side’s presentation of facts, logical arguments and, yes, emotional rhetoric. That would be something the American people deserve. That is something the American people might reasonably expect. Sadly, that is rarely how issues are ever presented to the public.President Obama, through the power of his Office, and through support from the mainstream media, is not really interested in hearing the views of those members of the public who believe strongly in the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and who believe strongly in the Separation of Powers Doctrine, other than to discount such views out-of-hand or to belittle them, or, as was the case with the Town Hall meeting, to pretend that he, President Obama, understands and really cares what anyone who supports the right of the American people to keep and bear arms has to say. So, the NRA did well to avoid making an appearance at the staged CNN event. It would have been impossible for spokespersons for the NRA to be on an equal footing with President Obama at this non-debate, anyway.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

On December 19, 2015, on Saturday night, the week before Christmas, when vast numbers of Americans are out and about, the Democratic Party held its last “debate” of the year, hosted by ABC News. If you missed it, you weren’t alone. The Democratic Party bigwigs obviously don’t want Americans to see it – hence, the reason for holding it on a weekend night, and the New York Times didn’t even bother to report on it. Take a look at the Sunday, December 20, 2015, print edition of the NY Times; you will find nothing about it.The “debate,” which took place in what appeared to be a small lecture hall at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, was filled with a handful of the Party faithful. Hillary Clinton, grinning, as always, but not smiling, looked as if she would rather be somewhere else. She did her best, as always, to avoid answering pointed questions. Her responses invariably carried the message: if I am elected your President, you can rely on me! Two of the salient issues covered during this debate concerned the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremism, and, one of the Democratic Party’s favorite subject: gun control.So, where does Clinton stand on threats to the Nation posed by Islamic extremists and on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in their own defense? Since Clinton has a lock on the Democratic Party, her responses to last night’s debate, give some clue of what a Clinton Presidency would look like.The ABC news moderator, David Muir, established the setting for the first set of questions, directed to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley. They concerned the San Bernardino incident. As Muir pointed out, that incident, is deemed to be an act of terrorism, as acknowledged by Obama, who had said, dubiously, just before Thanksgiving, that there was no credible intelligence, indicating a plot on America. Muir pointed out that the couple who had committed the act of terrorism on U.S. soil had assembled an arsenal, were not on law enforcement’s radar, were completely undetected by intelligence and yet, for all that, just before Christmas, Obama is again telling the American people that no credible terrorist threat exists against America. That remark is inconsistent with the reality of the fact of an Islamic terrorist attack on our land. Therefore Obama’s remarks are altogether inexplicable.Muir asked Clinton to respond to how confident Americans should be, in spite of, or, perhaps, precisely, because of Obama’s remarks, that there aren’t other such couples in the U.S. who are as yet going undetected, and how Clinton would go about finding them. Clinton responded as she usually does, by evading the question and interjecting empty feel-good pronouncements. She said that her job is to keep America safe and to keep the families of America safe and that she has a plan to go after the Islamic State. That, of course, is all well and good. But, what would she actually do to keep Americans safe in this Country? She said only that she would work with Muslims in this Country who would be “our early warning system” and that she would rely on them to learn what they are doing about dealing with the radicalization of Muslims.Clinton intimated that technology companies must work with government. What she meant by that, as she clarified her remarks, later in the debate, is that technology companies must be willing to give up their encryption keys to government. This of course weakens our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and opens Americans’ computers to hackers both here in this Country and abroad.Martha Raddatz, the second ABC news moderator, pointed out to Clinton that, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, Clinton has emphasized gun control but that in recent ABC poll most Americans now feel that arming themselves, rather than stricter gun laws is the best defense against acts of terrorism. Raddatz pointedly asked Clinton, “are they wrong?” Clinton responded, with her wry smile, that you have to look at the role that terrorism plays at home and abroad, “and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us.” Clinton then went off on a tangent talking about the need to build a coalition at home and abroad to take on the "Islamic State."Raddatz then brought Clinton back to the question at hand, asking Clinton, “can we stick to the question about gun control? Clinton responded: “Guns in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. Arming more people . . . I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Applause from the peanut gallery. “I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations, and, yes, coalitions, within our own Country. The first line of defense against radicalization, according to Clinton, is in the American Muslim community. People we should be welcoming and working with.” Clinton then goes into a diatribe against the Republican Party generally and Donald Trump in particular. Clinton begs the question when she says that the Republicans are sending the wrong message that there is a clash of civilizations. Perhaps, there is just that: a clash of civilizations. Certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic State, there is a clash of civilizations. And, we would do well to consider the problem posed by Islamic State as just that serious. Clinton ends her response, with this: “guns have to be looked at as their own problem, but we also have to look at how we are going to deal with radicalization here in the United States.”Guns, in the minds of both Clinton and Obama are seen as a broader problem that encapsulates terrorism. Thus, Clinton speaks of the San Bernardino attack on innocent Americans, not as an act of Islamic terrorism but, rather, as a gun issue. The killers are described as “shooters,” not “terrorists.” Thus, Clinton places emphasis on the weapon used in the attack, rather than emphasizing the reason for the attack. She therefore places Americans in danger of further attack by Islamic radicals, for she absolutely refuses to consider that more armed Americans would best forestall such attacks.  And, there you have it. Clinton says, not only that guns serve no purpose as tenable means of self-defense, but that they present their own “problem.” And, as for Islamist radicalization, her answer to lone-wolf acts of terrorism is that Americans should simply rely on the Muslim community, who harbor them, to turn them in to the authorities.What can Americans expect from a Clinton Presidency? Just this: one, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; two, erosion of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists and to spread the gospel of “political correctness;” and, three, destruction of the Second Amendment because ownership and possession of firearms in this Country is to be perceived not as a fundamental right but simply as a problem.We have a question for each of the candidates from either party: “If you were given carte blanc, to rewrite any one or more Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, would you desire to do so? And, if so, how would each of the Amendments, that happen to remain, if any, read? We would especially like to see Clinton’s honest response to that[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OBAMA: JUMPING THE GUN!

Obama's Executive Action Not Only Unlawfully Expands Federal Law, But Operates To Convert Private Sellers Of Guns Into Gun Dealers

President Barack Obama claims that his executive action, using the mechanism of executive orders to expand gun background checks, falls within his lawful authority. But does it? For all his pontificating at the CNN Town Hall Meeting, televised on Thursday, primetime, that one remark, stated and reiterated during the Town Hall Meeting, is deserving of close consideration and dissection because, if Obama is wrong, then we can dispense with any further discussion of the purported merits of his antigun agenda.We begin with one incontrovertible fact. The very use of executive orders is fraught with peril because the President is essentially making law, not executing law. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all legislative functions rest with Congress. The making of law does not rest with the President. The President’s duty is not to make law but to execute the laws that Congress makes.In accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means that the Chief Executive has no authority to tell Congress what Congress must do. But that is precisely what the Chief Executive, Obama, does when he issues an executive decree. He is in fact saying to Congress: “you haven’t done what I want you to do, so I will take action myself.” Well, Congress doesn’t work for the President of the United States. Congress works for the American People. If Congress doesn’t legislate in the manner that the President wishes, or if Congress fails to legislate at all in an area that the President wants, that failure to legislate is not lawful grounds for the President to do so. But, that is precisely what the President is doing here.One of the four key features of the antigun executive orders President Barack Obama plans to issue in the coming days or weeks pertains to expansive gun background checks. President Obama has set forth his intentions in his “Fact Sheet” what he intends to do. Just a few of the significant ways in which Obama is taking aim at Congress and at the Second Amendment involves gun sales. Through his executive orders he intends to:“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’ For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.”Is Obama saying that anyone who sells a firearm is ipso facto a ‘dealer of firearms’ and, therefore, according to Obama, 'in the business of selling firearms?' It would seem so. For, Obama has not clarified what it means to be in the business of selling firearms but, rather, has muddied the waters. Both in the above Fact Sheet and at the Town Hall meeting, Obama fails to clarify what it means to be a “gun dealer” and what it means for a person to be “in the business of selling firearms.” And, this is clearly intentional. Obama sees anyone, who sells or transfers a gun, is a “gun dealer” – that is to say, “a person who is in the business of selling firearms.” But, are these expressions truly nebulous? Not at all!Contrary to what Obama would have the American public believe, the phrases, ‘dealer in firearms,’ and, ‘in the business of selling firearms,’ are not subject to myriad definitions, dependent upon the personal whim of the President. They are legal terms of art, specifically defined in law by Congress. They are not subject to tweaking by the President.Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11), “The term ‘dealer’ means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ‘licensed dealer’ means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq].”Case law further clarifies the meaning of ‘dealer in firearms’ and ‘in the business of selling firearms.’ In the annotated notes of the U.S. Code, there are several cases that clarify the meaning of these important expressions. See, e.g. United States vs. Fifty two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d (MD Fla. 2005). A “person is ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms’ at wholesale or retail’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(21)(C)  if that person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as regular course of trade or business with principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such person does not include person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for enhancement of personal collection or for hobby, or who sells all or part of that person's personal collection of firearms.” And, in United States vs. Masters (CA4 SC 1980), the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said, “For defendant to be ‘dealer’ within meaning of 18 USCS § 921, there must be willingness on defendant's part to deal, profit motive and greater degree of activity than occasional sales by hobbyist; defendant's primary business need not be dealing in firearms nor need he necessarily make profit from such dealings; showing that defendant had guns on hand or was ready and able to procure them and sell them to such persons as might accept them is sufficient to establish defendant as ‘dealer’.”Obama wishes to make anyone who sells a firearm into a “dealer of firearms.” In so doing, he would make it a crime for a person, even the occasional "hobbyist," to lawfully sell or, for that matter, even to give away a firearm to another person, if the transferee does not have an "FFL." And, in so doing, Obama wishes to do away with the very possibility of a "private sale" or, for that matter, even a "private transfer" of a firearm that does not amount to a sale or trade in and of firearms. He cannot lawfully do this because that amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law.Now, Obama claims that his executive actions, directed to firearms, fall within existing federal law and that he is only proposing regulations to effectuate existing federal law and not creating new law. But, that is absolutely false because, in his executive actions, he is expanding the very concept of what it means to be a person who is “in the business of selling firearms.” When Obama attempts to transform anyone who sells or transfers a firearm into a person who is "in the business of selling firearms," he is attempting to make the transferee of a firearm, who is merely a “hobbyist,” into a criminal who is impermissibly selling or transferring a firearm, absent a federal license, in violation of 18 USCS Section 1922(a)(1) and 18 USCS Section 924(a). In effect Obama is attempting, unlawfully, to turn the occasional hobbyist into a "criminal arms dealer,” namely, someone who is, in fact, in the business of selling firearms, but is doing so, as a criminal, selling to other criminals, in clear contravention to federal law.For the federal government to prove that a person was operating unlawfully as a dealer in firearms – essentially, a criminal arms dealer – “the federal government must prove the status of the defendant as a ‘dealer in firearms.' In order to satisfy this burden the Government need not prove that the defendant's primary business was dealing in firearms or that he necessarily made a profit from such dealing; ‘it must (however) show a willingness (on the defendant's part) to deal, a profit motive, and a greater degree of activity than occasional sales by a hobbyist.’ United States v. Huffman, (4th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 80, 81, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 123, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92; United States v. Tarr, (1st Cir. 1978) 589 F.2d 55, 59."Thus, under federal statute and federal case law, in order for the government to prove that the person, who is selling a firearm to another person is doing so unlawfully, it is not enough for the government to prove that the seller of the firearm(s) is attempting to make a profit from the sale of a firearm or firearms. The government must also prove that the seller is not making an occasional sale of a firearm “as a hobbyist.” In other words, the federal government must prove, under existing law, that the person who is making a sale of a firearm or firearms is not a “criminal arms dealer” – a criminal who is selling firearms to make a profit.Obama is unlawfully expanding the notion of a “criminal arms dealer” to a law-abiding citizen, who is really only a “hobbyist,” under existing federal law. Such an attempt by Obama amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law, not a theoretical permissible executive action, that amounts merely to regulation within existing federal law. When Obama expands federal law, he is entering into the purview of Congress, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of the Separation of Powers Doctrine because he is legislating – that is to say – he is making new law. He is not merely effectuating the intentions of Congress through the promulgation of rules within the framework of existing law.Obama begs the very question at issue by asserting that anyone who transfers firearms to another is, ipso facto, a “gun dealer” and “in the business of selling firearms” under federal law and is doing so illegally if that person does not have a federal firearm's license (FFL). Why does Obama want even private sellers of firearms -- "hobbyists" -- to obtain a federal firearm's license? He wants private sellers of firearms to obtain a federal firearm's license because, licensed dealers in firearms are required to perform a criminal background check under existing federal law, pursuant to the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922. A person who is not “in the business of selling firearm,” is under no such legal mandate to conduct an national instant criminal background check. In fact, a “hobbyist” cannot even access that system precisely because that person doesn’t have an FFL!So, what is Obama doing? Just this: he is placing the “hobbyist” in an impossible position if that “hobbyist” wishes to sell, trade, gift to, or otherwise, in some manner, transfer his firearm to another person. Obama is saying to that person: “we are assuming that you are a gun dealer and, if you are a gun dealer, you must undertake a criminal background check on the transferee. But, in order to be able to have access to FBI NICS files, you must first obtain an FFL. If you do not have an FFL, you better get one, if you can. If you can’t obtain an FFL, do not attempt, under any circumstances to transfer a firearm to another because my Administration will assume that you are an unlawful arms dealer, and I will see to it that the Justice Department prosecutes you to the fullest extent of the law.”Do you understand what more Obama is attempting to do through his unlawful executive actions? He is using his Office to enact new gun laws. In effect he is precluding, under threat of federal criminal indictment, the transfer of any firearm by one private law-abiding gun owner to another private law-abiding gun owner. Obama is not attempting to close a so-called “gun loophole.” He is in effect precluding every individual from transferring firearms, regardless of venue. This amounts to the unlawful regulation of commerce by the Executive Branch to stifle legitimate trade in firearms between two law-abiding individuals who happen to be “hobbyists.” Moreover, Obama’s unlawful executive actions negatively impact the absolute and exclusive interest that a person has in his or her own private property.If Obama admits to this but argues that his executive directives are necessary to prevent a private person, who is not a gun dealer, from transferring a gun in interstate commerce, his executive directive is redundant because, under, 18 USCS § 922(a)(1)(A), “it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, if I, for example, as a "hobbyist," who is not, then, in the business of selling firearms, wish to sell a gun over the internet, and I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, I cannot lawfully do so in any event. I may, however, transfer a firearm to another through the mediation of a licensed dealer who will then be required to perform a necessary background check on the transferee. Thus, further regulation of firearms' sales on or over the internet aren't necessary. Such sales are already regulated!What about sales of guns at gun shows? Well, gun shows, too, do not present a problem. Most sellers of firearms at gun shows are licensed dealers in firearms and, so, must, under present federal law, perform a criminal background check on anyone whom the dealer is transferring the gun to. Now, if I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, and I, as a law-abiding American and gun owner, wish, as a private person -- a hobbyist, not a licensed dealer in firearms -- to sell a firearm to another person, at a gun show, I can make a transfer of a firearm to another, without performing a background check, but, that does not mean that I am permitted to sell a firearm to a person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. Under 18 USCS 922(d), it is unlawful for anyone – whether a licensed dealer in firearms or a private individual – to sell to individuals who are not permitted to own or possess a firearm. These include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, an individual who has been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution or who is an illegal alien. So, then, if I, as a private individual and law-abiding American citizen and gun owner and, as defined in law, a “hobbyist,” not a “licensed dealer in firearms,” offered a firearm for sale or trade, to a person, whom I did not know, and that person was a convicted felon who cannot lawfully own or possess a firearm, I have committed a crime in taking part in that sale, and I can and ought to be prosecuted. So, I, as a law-abiding citizen, have to be damn careful whom it is that I am transferring that firearm to.Now, will criminals sell firearms to other criminals? Of course they will. And they will do so in venues other than at gun shows which are likely to be carefully monitored by the State police. Obama’s executive orders, though, clearly are not directed to precluding firearms’ transactions among criminals. They are directed to further restricting gun transactions among law-abiding Americans. Obama’s goal, is -- as is the penultimate goal of all antigun groups -- just this: restricting the number and kinds of guns that a law-abiding citizen may own; and restricting the extent to which an individual may exercise control over his or her own property. What these executive actions of Obama won’t do – and, in fact are not designed to do – is curb criminal sales of firearms. They are specifically designed to curb what has, prior to Obama’s executive actions, amounted to the lawful transfer of firearms between and among law-abiding Americans, who do not fall, under the federal legal definition of ‘dealer in firearms,’  and 'in the business of selling firearms.'Obama intends to extend the scope of federal law beyond that which Congress has authorized. He cannot do so legally. Moreover, there is no need for further federal law. There are no loopholes. So, there is nothing that requires closing.Obama fails to appreciate and respect the fact that our federal statutes and federal case law are sufficiently broad to encapsulate all firearms’ transfers in every conceivable venue. Criminal transfers of firearms would be effective if existing federal law was enforced. They are not. But, that is not the fault of Congress. It is the fault of the Chief Executive. Obama, who fails to enforce federal law.Obama also fails to appreciate the sanctity of the Separation of Powers Doctrine upon which a Free Republic is able to survive and thrive. The very structure of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution establishes that no one Branch may subsume the duties of the other two within it.Obama’s executive actions are demonstrative of his disrespect for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Nothing he can assert or suggest, predicated on his personal notion of morality, and personal distaste for firearms ownership and firearms possession among law-abiding Americans can condone and justify his actions. But, then, Obama is not interested in the rule of law. He has a personal agenda: the very dismantling of the Bill of Rights, using, as singular pretext, his stated concern to curb firearms’ violence.Congress has, in the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, as cited supra, made it unlawful for a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to a person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. § 923 absent the appropriate background information on the individual as set forth in Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) says, in pertinent part, "No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business." Other federal law, cited supra, precludes anyone, whether a licensed dealer in firearms or not, to lawfully transfer a firearm to a person who is not permitted under federal law to own and possess firearm.Obama’s executive actions are unnecessary if he believes there are loopholes in the law – for there aren’t any. And, they are otherwise inscrutable. Obama is unlawfully attempting to preclude firearms’ transfers among law-abiding Americans and gun owners who are not licensed dealers in firearms and who would not wish to obtain a federal firearm's license and, more to the point, could not obtain a federal firearm’s license had they wish to do so precisely because they are not in the business of selling firearms.Obama's executive directives are a scarcely disguised attempt to hide his an intent to control the distribution of one's private property.Again, what President Obama is doing, surreptitiously, insidiously, and unlawfully, through his executive directives, is destroying the very concept of a “private sale” of a firearm, and he does this by unlawfully transforming, through Presidential edit, every individual, who wishes to sell a firearm, into a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a federal license to sell firearms. Federal firearms’ licenses are expensive. Even to attempt to obtain one is a time-consuming process, administered through the BATF. It is difficult to acquire – impossible, really, for a person who simply owns one or two or a few firearms and who wishes to transfer them to another law-abiding American and who cannot legitimately make the case that he or she is anything other than a "hobbyist." Obama's executive directives are not necessary because they are not directed to curbing transfer of firearms among criminals.  These executive directives are directed to revising what it means to be a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who is a licensed dealer in firearms. Obama's executive directives are inconsistent with current federal law; they impermissibly expand federal law; and, lastly, they are inconsistent with current BATF regulations, promulgated on what federal law actually says about who is a dealer in firearms and not on what the President would like the definition of ‘dealer in firearms’ to mean. Obama cannot lawfully prevent private sales of firearms; he cannot require a private seller, who is not in the business of selling firearms, to obtain a federal license – which is impossible for a private individual to obtain anyway; and he cannot require a private seller of a firearms to perform a federal background check. But, Obama doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about limitations on executive authority. He doesn’t care that he is placing law-abiding gun owners, who are not gun dealers, and who may wish to transfer a firearm to another law-abiding American, in a precarious, impossible position. He doesn’t care about any of this. He intends to press ahead with the antigun agenda: destruction of the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear arms.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN FORCES LEAP OUT OF THE STARTING GATE FOR THE NEW YEAR WITH A RENEWED ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Gun Seizure Law

A law that just took effect in California raises the ante in the antigun movement’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A British newspaper, the guardian, said, in a December 31, 2015 article titled, “Landmark California gun seizure law takes effect 1 January but amid concerns,” that the “gun statute going into effect on 1 January gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat, the first law of its kind in the country.”A California, antigun proponent and assemblywoman, Nancy Skinner, sponsored the antigun legislation. But, how does this new restrictive California antigun bill, that just became law, actually operate? Not trusting the guardian – a liberal newspaper with a profound antigun bias, based in the antigun United Kingdom – to adequately provide the American public with the details, the Arbalest Quarrel decided to take a look at what this law really says and the manner in which it actually operates.The bill, CA A.B. 1014, that took effect on January 1, 2016, both amends existing California State Statutes and creates a substantial number of new California Penal Code Sections. Let’s take a close look at just a few of the pertinent changes that CA A.B. 1014 makes to California law.Cal Pen Code § 1524 sets forth the general grounds under which a search warrant, primarily pertaining to investigations of felonies in California, can be lawfully issued. A new paragraph in Cal Pen Code § 1524, establishes an unusual condition under which a court can issue a warrant. The new paragraph, which has nothing to do with investigations of felonies, says that, “A search warrant may be issued upon any of the following grounds. . . (14)Beginning January 1, 2016, the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order that has been issued pursuant to Division 3.2 (commencing with Section 18100) of Title 2 of Part 6, if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law."To understand the import of the changes that CA A.B. 1014 brings to California’s Statutes, we must zero in on the phrase, “gun violence restraining order.” This is something entirely new to California gun laws and to the laws governing the operation of injunctions in California. And, it is something that, at present, exists in no other State.Prior to enactment of CA A.B. 1014, a California peace officer, when responding to a domestic disturbance, was required to take temporary custody of a firearm at the scene of the domestic disturbance but only if the firearm is in plain sight. The officer was not authorized to hunt around for a firearm. The emphasis, then, in California law, prior to enactment of CA A.B. 1014, was on the domestic disturbance, not on one’s firearms, where one has a personal property interest in those firearms. Now, Cal Pen Code § 18250 is California’s domestic violence Statute. It authorizes a peace officer to take temporary custody of a firearm at the scene of a domestic violence. The amended version of this Statute sets forth in pertinent part, “If any of the following persons is at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, is serving a protective order as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code or is serving a gun violence restraining order issued pursuant to Division 3.2 (commencing with Section 18100), that person shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present. . . .”What CA A.B. 1014 does is to create, presumptively, a nexus, that is to say, a connection, between domestic disturbance or violence and firearms. CA A.B. 1014  is, then, aimed directly at gun confiscation. It operates through the mechanism of a ‘temporary restraining order.’Attorneys use a shorthand phrase for a ‘temporary restraining order.’ They refer to it as a “TRO,” (where each letter is pronounced, separately). What is a TRO? A TRO is an extraordinary writ. It is an extreme form of legal injunction. And it is one that courts traditionally are loathe to issue. Why is that?Our system of laws is grounded on the idea that a person has a right to his or her day in court. Court proceedings, whether in criminal matters or civil matters, almost invariably commence with a formal written complaint. No action is taken against the named defendant in a complaint until that defendant has had an opportunity to respond. This means that two parties are involved in the legal process: a plaintiff and a defendant. And a court of competent jurisdiction hears what both parties have to say before entering judgment for one or the other party. But, a person requesting a court to issue a TRO is essentially declaring: “I can’t wait for a hearing. The risk of harm is imminent unless the court takes immediate action on my behalf.” The petitioner is asking a court to render a decision, ex parte. That means the court is asked to render a decision on the basis of one party’s allegations alone – something a court of law is, understandably, in our adversarial system of law and justice, wary of doing.Cal Pen Code § 18150 is the specific mechanism for issuance of this singularly bizarre TRO: a gun violence restraining order.Cal Pen Code § 18150 sets forth, inter alia: “An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.” [Furthermore] A court may issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order if the petition, supported by an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155, and any additional information provided to the court shows that there is a substantial likelihood that both of the following are true: The subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering the factors listed in Section 18155 [and] An ex parte gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.”How long does the gun violence restraining order remain in effect? Cal Pen Code § 18155(c) says, “If the court determines that the grounds to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order exist, it shall issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition, and expires no later than 21 days from the date of the order.”Now, California Assembly woman Nancy Skinner, might argue, if asked to explain whether the purpose of her bill is not, after all, to restrict gun rights, that her bill, CA A.B. 1014, is not aimed at suppression of gun rights but only aimed at protecting a person from harming himself or others with guns through the legal procedural device of a temporary restraining order. But, then, one might sensibly respond to Nancy Skinner's remark by mentioning that California already has a full panoply of injunction laws that one may draw upon in a pinch, and, so, the State certainly doesn’t need another one. In fact, drilling down through the California Civil Code –  under Title 7, “Other Provisional Remedies in Civil Actions,” of Part 2, “Of Civil Actions,” in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 3, “Injunction,” Cal Code Civ Proc § 527.6, “Temporary restraining order and order after hearing prohibiting harassment,” – California has in place a mechanism for granting exceptional relief, that is to say, a TRO. So, again, it would be appropriate to ask Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, once again, whether her bill is not a backdoor attempt to further restrict gun rights, albeit under the guise of purportedly preventing violence with guns.Indeed, why did the California State Legislature deem it necessary to establish a whole new TRO law scheme, giving it a unique descriptor, “gun violence restraining order,” if not to further erode gun ownership and gun possession in California? And, if that is the true purpose behind CA A.B. 1014, then why not add a “knife violence restraining order,” and a “baseball bat violence restraining order?” But, then, they are all equally absurd because each is aimed at addressing an inanimate, non-conscious object, and none of them are aimed at the cause of perceived violence, namely, the person. Injunctions, including TROs, are, after all, historically, and sensibly, directed toward individuals – sentient beings – not objects.The very placement of the “gun violence restraining order,” in the Penal Code, in lieu of the Civil Code, where TROs traditionally fall – since TROs pertain to civil remedies – is demonstrative of a clever new way in which California antigun legislators seek to regulate firearm ownership and possession. The “gun violence restraining order” is a legal artifice through which one’s firearms can be confiscated, immediately, without hearing, and, indeed, without formal legal notice, simply upon the affidavit of a police officer or immediate family member – and eventually, perhaps, even upon affidavit of a neighbor – any one of whom may have an ulterior motive for taking action against this or that person, which has nothing to do with the matter of imminent harm. Understandably, then, the laws codifying the gun violence restraining order are found, not in the aforesaid, Civil Code of California, but, rather, in a new and extremely broad category of laws in Part 6 of the California Penal Code, including Division 3.2, Gun Violence Restraining Orders,” Chapters 1 through 6.The “gun violence restraining order” directly infringes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But it also infringes the Fourth Amendment. What does the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say? Just this: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Cal Pen Code §18250 and Cal Pen Code §1524(14) turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. Why is that? For this reason, there is no precedent in the law of California – or in any other State for that matter – for anything like a “gun violence restraining order,” where a person’s firearms – his or her private property – could be confiscated without legal notice to that person.CA A.B. 1014 is, ultimately, less about protecting people through TROs and more about suppressing the inalienable right of Americans to own and possess firearms – treating the very ownership and possession of firearms as inevitably criminal, and, therefore, a proper subject – in the eyes of antigun zealots – of the most draconian antigun measures that can be devised, however irrational those measures may happen to be.The antigun forces in the California Legislature will, no doubt, in time, create ever more novel antigun laws, restricting ever more kinds of guns that a Californian may own, and scrutinizing ever more closely the lives of those Americans who reside in California, who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Antigun States such as New York and New Jersey will likely follow suit – each State borrowing from the other, the same draconian laws.One thing is certain. The right of the American people to keep and bear arms will grow ever more tenuous and ephemeral if the antigun forces continue to have their say and their way.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A COURT OF LAW THAT REJECTS U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW AND UNDERCUTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IN HELLER AND MCDONALD AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BOWS TO THE WILL OF GOVERNMENT IN FRIEDMAN CASE

State governments and local governments that enact or establish antigun laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). State and local governments are not allowed to take the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court lightly; and they are certainly not permitted to ignore the rulings of the High Court in the Heller and McDonald cases out-of-hand. This is not an option. It may therefore come as a shock to some people and an unpleasant surprise to many that State and local governments often do just that. Many State and local governments, not only ignore, but openly defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Worse, some federal and State courts, when called upon in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs -- individuals and groups -- to review plaintiffs' challenges to governmental actions, directly and negatively impacting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, often give legitimacy to unconstitutional laws enacted by State legislatures and to unconstitutional ordinances, rules, and regulations adopted by local governments, rather than striking them down as an unconstitutional restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right. Antigun proponents zealots, unsurprisingly and unremarkably, don’t see -- never see -- a problem with this. Indeed, Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” for one -- the antigun political group that Bloomberg created upon leaving office as Mayor of New York City, after serving as its Mayor for twelve years -- is ecstatic over an April, 2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). Just read the report by the left-wing news commentary site, “AlterNet,” on this. The article, which was posted on December 12, 2015, is titled, “Aggressive Pushback at Evil NRA Is Working; Lives Will Be Saved as a Result.”While the antigun crowd sees reason to applaud any attack on Americans’ Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, even, and especially, those negative decisions, impacting the Second Amendment, handed down by courts of law -- the institution of last resort, called upon to defend Americans' rights and liberties -- an institution that reasonably would be expected to preserve and defend, assiduously, the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans -- no American, regardless of personal sentiment, or ethical view or political persuasion, should be pleased when the Second Amendment is in fact denigrated. No one should be pleased when the Second Amendment is attacked and denigrated because an attack on the sanctity of any one Amendment of our sacred Bill of Rights is, in essence, an attack on the sanctity of all of them. Political rhetoric should not be given equal weight with – much less lord over -- our system of laws, and political rhetoric should not be used as a wedge to divide the public on matters directly impacting our fundamental rights and liberties, guaranteed to all Americans in our Bill of Rights.Steven Rosenfeld, the author of the aforesaid “Alternet” article obviously disagrees. He argues that curtailment of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, politically motivated, is politically warranted, even if not legally warranted, consistent with antigun rhetoric, spawned in the political world. And, Rosenfeld laments that our Second Amendment right is “bogged-down” in the legal world. So it is that Steven Rosenfeld waxes poetic and exclaims, exuberantly, how wonderful it is when the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is denigrated,  and when unconscionable, abhorrent and unconstitutional laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations of States and Cities, that negatively impact our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are allowed to flourish -- with the assistance of and, indeed, blessing of those courts of law that write decisions, giving credence to and that sanctify those State and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and that advance no compelling governmental purpose; and that, in fact, are specifically designed to undermine and defeat Americans’ fundamental rights.Courts that give credence to and that, in effect, sanctify such restrictive and oppressive and unconstitutional "edicts" of government are to be singled out for condemnation. In lieu of rendering decisions that defend and preserve Americans' fundamental rights, such courts of law are to be seen as operating subordinate to, subservient to and merely as an extension of government, rather than as a component of a legitimate, independent institution in its own right, whose singular purpose is as overseer of government and protector of our laws and of our fundamental rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution.  Case in point: the aforesaid Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), decided in April of 2015.In the Friedman case the Plaintiff Appellants, including an individual, Ari Friedman, and a group, the Illinois State Rifle Association, brought suit against Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, in the State of Illinois. Highland Park had passed an ordinance, prohibiting the possession of “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines,” namely ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds. The ordinance defines an ‘assault weapon’ as any semiautomatic gun that can accept a ‘large capacity magazine’ and has at least one of five banned features, including, inter alia, a pistol grip without stock; a folding, telescoping stock; a grip for the non-trigger hand; or a barrel shroud. Moreover, the ordinance prohibits the ownership and possession of some firearms by name, such as AR-15s and AK47s.Plaintiff Appellant Friedman lawfully owned a banned rifle and several large capacity magazines, before the ban took effect. The prohibited firearm and magazines are not "grandfathered in" by the ordinance. In that respect, the Highland Park ordinance goes well beyond the highly restrictive and oppressive New York Safe Act, insofar as and particularly as those residents of New York who lawfully owned and possessed firearms defined as 'assault weapons' prior to the effective date of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, are permitted to retain their weapons so long as they are timely registered in accordance with New York law. In Illinois, though, under the unconscionable City of Highland Park ordinance, Plaintiff Appellant Friedman was forced to surrender his banned weapon and banned ammunition magazines to the government. And had he failed to do so, he would be criminally prosecuted for possessing the very items that were perfectly legal for him to own prior to implementation of the ordinance. Friedman, as a law-abiding citizen dutifully, albeit certainly not happily, surrendered his "assault weapon" in order to avoid certain prosecution, and he wants to own these weapons back.To have any chance of regaining possession of his weapons -- his personal property -- Friedman had no recourse but to file an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the oppressive ordinance and hoping that the federal court would strike down the restrictive gun ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of a fundamental right. Friedman, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, that joined him in the lawsuit, argued that the City of Highland Park ordinance was inconsistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed to all Americans, as an individual right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent, too, with Supreme Court holdings in Heller and McDonald. The District Court, nonetheless, found in favor of the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, and Plaintiffs thereupon appealed the adverse decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Heller, at the outset of its Opinion, acknowledged that “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.” The Seventh Circuit also pointed to the holding of the high Court in the subsequent McDonald case, decided in 2010, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” McDonald essentially took the holding of Heller -- which applies to unconstitutional actions of the federal Government impacting the Second Amendment, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment -- to  unconstitutional actions of State and local governments, impacting the Second Amendment under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Given the clear, cogent, unambiguous, and comprehensive import of these two holdings in Heller and McDonald, the salient issue before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was certainly easy to promulgate and should have been: whether the Highland Park ordinance, that proscribes certain weapons, operates as an unconstitutional constraint on a person’s right to keep and bear arms and, if not, then, whether the ordinance is the least restrictive means available to the City for advancing a compelling governmental purpose. Had the legal issue been set forth in this way, in accordance with the actual holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, utilizing the appropriate standard of review, namely the stringent strict scrutiny standard, to test the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance, the Seventh Circuit Court would have struck down the ordinance as an impermissible constraint on an Americans’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases. For, under the strict scrutiny test there is no logical, coherent reason for the City of Highland Park to adopt an ordinance, negatively impinging upon and infringing a fundamental right that mandates a wholesale ban on an entire category of firearms, firearms that had been, prior to adoption of the ordinance, perfectly legal for law-abiding residents of the City to own and possess -- namely and specifically firearms that the City arbitrarily defines as impermissible “assault weapons" and on ammunition magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds. And, the government proffered no empirically and legally sound reason for the ban. Yet, the Seventh Circuit refused to apply the strict scrutiny test to the Highland Park ordinance even though, the City ordinance, on its face, impinged upon and infringed a fundamental right, and, indeed, the ordinance was specifically designed to do so.*In its decision the Seventh Circuit also dismissed, inexplicably, the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, giving nothing but lip-service to them, through the mere act of reciting the holdings in the Court’s opinion, but failing, utterly, in adhering to them. In fact, not only did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals fail to apply – as it should have done – a strict scrutiny standard of review to an ordinance impacting a fundamental right, the Court really failed to apply any standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. Instead, notwithstanding the clear import and purport of the High Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald and, notwithstanding that the Seventh Court of Appeals had before it, for its review, an ordinance directly, and emphatically, and categorically impacting a fundamental right, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Seventh Circuit upheld the City of Highland Park ordinance. In permitting an unconstitutional local ordinance to stand, rather than striking it down, the Court of Appeals relied not on actual holdings of the high Court in Heller and McDonald, but on dicta in those cases, arguing that, because the high Court did not – according to the Seventh Circuit’s faulty reasoning – define the scope of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the Seventh Circuit was free to read into Heller and McDonald essentially whatever it wanted to.Curiously, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied a “political” rationale to its decision, foregoing, altogether, application of the appropriate legal standard of review, and this becomes evident in the issue that the Court framed for itself and thereupon sought to resolve, namely: “whether the ordinance leaves residents of Highland Park ample means to exercise the ‘inherent right of self-defense’ that the Second Amendment protects.” The legal issue, that the Court framed for itself in this odd way, totally ignores the fact that many of Highland Park residents desire to hold onto an entire category of weapons and magazines that were and are perfectly legal to own and possess under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings in Heller and McDonald, where the U.S. Supreme Court made absolutely clear that government laws and ordinances that ban, wholesale, entire categories of weapons, are patently illegal.By constructing the legal issue in the way that it did, the Seventh Circuit not only took away the freedom of the people to own and possess firearms that they previously had lawful access to but deliberately and defiantly refused to consider the constitutionality of the City ordinance at all in light of the Second Amendment and in light of the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. In the issue that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals devised for itself, the Court insinuated politics into the issue, and in the resolution of the issue that the Seventh Circuit constructed for itself, the Court begged in the question the very answer it sought.The Seventh Circuit surmised that, because the City of Highland Park did not prohibit all weapons, the City could prohibit some of them – including an entire category of weapons that had been perfectly lawful to own and possess prior to adoption of the City ordinance – and that the City could, in fact, prohibit, perfunctorily, without cause, those weapons and weapons' paraphernalia, such as – what the City deemed to be – high capacity ammunition magazines, as it wished. In the issue that the Court devised for itself to resolve, the Seventh Circuit didn't even need to listen to and consider the absurd arguments that the City put forth ostensibly in support of its wholesale gun ban. The Court included the rationale of the City government in its Opinion, to give seeming weight to its decision. But it was all empty "effect," for the Court had ipso facto decided that, so long as the City of Highland Park left its residents with the means to own and possess at least one kind of firearm -- whatever firearm the City deigned to allow its law-abiding citizens to possess -- say an antique Blunderbuss -- virtually all other firearms could lawfully be, and eventually would be, banned. In fact the Court's reasoning leaves the door open for just that result: eventual adoption of yet further gun bans.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's decision is grounded not only on faulty legal reasoning, but on faulty logical  reasoning -- reasoning truly at odds with the principles of sound logic and reasoning that is, at once, at odds with the holding in Heller. The Heller holding entails, by logical implication, that bans on entire categories of weapons are impermissible absent a clear and compelling reason for government to do so and this means that a government is not permitted to ban entire categories of weapons unless the court of review satisfies itself that a particular governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation is the least restrictive means available for advancing a compelling governmental interest.Moreover, The Heller holding that constrains the federal government from enacting laws that constitutionally impinge upon and infringe the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States and local governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in accordance with the holding in McDonald. Thus, neither the federal Government, nor State and local governments, are permitted to infringe the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms absent extremely stringent scrutiny of the laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by a reviewing court of competent jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit failed, utterly, in performing its legal duties. Let's take a closer look at the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Friedman to see more precisely where faults in the Court's legal and logical reasoning rest.The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Friedman is faulty, first, because the holdings of Heller and McDonald make abundantly clear that choice of weapons – those that have been available to Americans in the past – should continue to be available to Americans in the present, and into the future, absent a compelling reason set forth by government, to the satisfaction of the reviewing court, that establishes a lawful need to preclude ownership and possession of those weapons. In that regard, it is not for government to decide which firearms to permit Americans to continue to own and possess and which ones must be surrendered, based on mere personal predilections of government. That the City of Highland Park would do so – that it would dare to do so – amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property and serves at once to denigrate the import and purport of the holdings in Heller and McDonald because the ordinance amounts to a ban on an entire category of firearms and ammunition magazines absent any showing by the City of Highland Park that the City has in fact a compelling reason to do adopt such bans and absent any showing on the part of the City that the language of the ordinance as adopted is the least restrictive means available to the City  to advance a compelling local governmental interest -- which is to say that the compelling governmental interest is so critical that the government is justified in infringing a fundamental right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is the strict scrutiny test.*The Seventh Circuit did not consider strict scrutiny criteria at all when rendering its decision, and it should have done so. It simply allowed the City of Highland Park to assert an ad hoc assortment and array of non-empirical declarations of the usual sort developed by and utilized by antigun proponents to further a personal social and political agenda: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to force our unique Constitution toe the line with those of other Western nations -- nations whose history and culture are markedly different from our own.The Supreme Court, in Heller, made abundantly clear that the District of Columbia could not ban an entire category of firearms. In Heller, the District of Columbia attempted, unlawfully, to ban all handguns from the hands of the District of Columbia populace. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as unconscionably broad and an unconstitutional infringement of the Second amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Similarly, and by logical implication, then, the City of Highland Park could not constitutionally mandate a wholesale ban on so-called “assault weapons” and on magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Certainly the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals could not allow the Highland Park ordinance to stand without first applying strict scrutiny to the City’s infringement of a fundamental right. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard of review, relying on political considerations to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted. The Court  failed to apply the appropriate standard of review – or any recognized legal standard of review, for that matter. This amounts to prejudicial error, subjecting its decision to remand for further consideration, requiring application of the appropriate standard of review. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted.Second, in affirming the decision of the lower, District Court, the Seventh Circuit made the dubious assertion that, “the best way to evaluate the relation between assault weapons, crime, and self-defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions.” But, there is nothing in the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases that are ambiguous, and there is nothing in those decisions that suggest that a court of review can or should consider political matters when rendering a legal decision, impacting a fundamental right. Certainly, the Seventh Circuit did not point to any ambiguities in the Justices’ text, and there is nothing in the Supreme Court holdings that so much as intimate that political considerations are merited when testing the constitutionality of a governmental law, ordinance, rule or regulation. The Seventh Circuit simply made a bald and bold pronouncement.The best way for a court of review – in fact the only lawful way for a court of review – to review a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges on and infringes a fundamental right is for that court of review to demand that the government that enacts or adopts such a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, sets forth, in the first instance and to the complete satisfaction of the reviewing court, the government's legal argument, supporting the government's  contention that a given law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is, in that government's contention is constitutional. The government necessarily has a heavy legal burden to carry for a court of law must assume that any such law, ordinance, rule, or regulation that negatively impacts a fundamental right is unconstitutional. A court of law, reviewing such governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation, negatively impacting an American's fundamental right, has no discretion in the matter. The reviewing court must apply the strict scrutiny standard to test whether the governmental action can stand or be struck down. Moreover, and importantly, judicial deference to the political process is not a legally tenable basis or mechanism through which to test whether a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that is clearly directed to and impacts a fundamental right is permitted to stand. The matter before the court is a purely legal one, and it is one that goes directly to the constitutionality of the law or ordinance. Political concerns are of no moment, or consequence in the reviewing court’s determination.The issue of the constitutionality of a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right is solely and precisely and absolutely a legal issue, not a political one. Deference to political concerns has no place, where, as here, in the Friedman case, an ordinance directly impacts a fundamental right, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in opining that there is one.Furthermore, and it bears repeating, where fundamental rights are at stake, government is under a heavy burden to justify any restriction on an American’s exercise of a fundamental right. That means, once again, that a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation  is presumed, from the get-go, to be unconstitutional, when a court of review begins its analysis of the impact of a law or ordinance on a fundamental right, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that a given law or ordinance is in fact constitutional. If a court of review finds that the government has failed to meet its burden, which is to say, that the court of review finds that the law or ordinance is, prima facie, unconstitutional, then that court of review must strike down the offending statute or ordinance. It has no choice in the matter, regardless of what it may otherwise wish to do. But suppose the court of review finds that the government has met its burden of proof and that the court finds the offending statute or ordinance to be facially constitutional. That doesn’t end the matter under the standard of strict scrutiny. That doesn't mean that the governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is permitted to stand. For, even if the government, in the first instance, is able to carry the heavy burden of proof and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that the law or ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, the matter doesn’t end there. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. The court of review must then decide whether a given law or ordinance that is ostensibly constitutional is, for all that, still, in the government’s adoption of that statute or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, the least restrictive means available to the government by which to advance a compelling governmental purpose. If so and only if the court  of review finds to its satisfaction that an oppressive law or ordinance that impacts a fundamental right is the least restrictive means available to that government to enable it to advance a compelling governmental purpose, can the court of review then and only then allow the oppressive law or ordinance to stand. Otherwise the court must strike down the offending law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation. In that judicial review of a State law or local governmental ordinance, rule, or regulation impacting a fundamental right, no deference is to be given to the political process. When a court of competent jurisdiction is called upon to review the constitutionality of laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations that impact fundamental rights, consideration of political issues, social issues and the political process are wholly inappropriate. Governmental laws and ordinances and rules and regulations impacting fundamental rights are most serious. An analysis of them involves the application of law, not politics, and courts of review are called upon to make a legal assessment  of them. Matters impacting fundamental rights are never to be left to the wishes or to the wants or to the will of government. And, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is absolutely wrong to assert that they can be and, for that matter, ought to be, left to government. And, by failing to apply the legal standard of strict scrutiny to an ordinance that directly impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right, the Seventh Circuit reduced itself to a servile vessel of government, giving deference to government action, where it should never have done so.Third, in its deferential, even obsequious regard for government, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals added that, “the central role of representative democracy is no less part of the Constitution than is the Second Amendment: when there is no definitive constitutional rule, matters are left to the legislative process.” This is patently false. The matter before the Seventh Circuit has nothing to do here with public policy any more than it has to do with the political process. The matter before the Court in the Friedman case has everything to do with the City government’s creation of  and adoption of an ordinance directly and negatively impacting a fundamental right. And, a definitive constitutional rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, does exist, contrary to the Seventh Circuit's assertion that there is none. The Seventh Circuit simply decided to ignore the Supreme Court’s clear and categorical and cogent holding. The Seventh Circuit’s argument in the Friedman case is not a direct and perceptive and critical review of a governmental ordinance, directly impinging upon and infringing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, but an unconscionable digression from its duty to review, critically, the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. The Seventh Circuit altogether ignores its duty, a that duty rests squarely on testing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance in light of the holdings in Heller and McDonald.Fourth, the Seventh Circuit said, “another constitutional principle is relevant: The Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are cherished as elements of liberty, rather than eliminated in search for national uniformity.” Even so, where, as here, the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake, the assertion of such a principle in this instance amounts to nothing more than rhetorical flourish, not sound legal reasoning. The Court’s assertion is not sound and has absolutely no relevance here because, once again, where a fundamental right is at stake, the application of that right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – applies “across the board,” that is to say, nationally – and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases make this point poignant, clear, categorical, and unequivocal. “Local differences” are absolutely beside the point where fundamental rights, as set forth in our Bill of Rights, are at stake.The Seventh Circuit simply and erroneously sets up a peripheral straw man issue and ignores the salient one which goes to the very heart of the import of the Second Amendment: whether the City of Highland Park Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and, were it not so, then, whether that ordinance is, nonetheless, the least restrictive means available to the City of Highland Park for advancing a compelling governmental interest. By failing to consider the impact of the City of Highland Park ordinance on the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Seventh Circuit improperly reduced a serious constitutional issue before it to one of mere public policy, political process, and local political and social concerns. Such analysis by a court of review might be adequate to address some minimal social concern or political matter, but not one that goes to the heart of our rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution, namely and specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.In his lengthy dissent, Judge Manion asserted, in his opening remarks, that “by prohibiting a class of weapons commonly used throughout the country, Highland Park’s ordinance infringes upon the rights of its citizens to keep weapons in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and their property. Both the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” The dissenting Judge also noted that Plaintiff Appellant Friedman did, in fact, lawfully keep in his home, for self-defense, the weapons and ammunition magazines that the ordinance now bans, and that Friedman was compelled to surrender them to the authorities or face a misdemeanor conviction that is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of between $500.00 and $1,000.00. The City of Highland Park ordinance thus forces a law-abiding citizen either to forsake his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms or to become a misdemeanant, end up in jail, pay a fine, and probably never again be able to own or possess any firearm.Once the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, finding for the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, against Plaintiff Appellants, Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Appellants petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan all were in attendance to consider the writ of certiorari. A majority of Justices denied the writ. Justices Thomas and Scalia were so incensed at the refusal to grant the petition for writ that Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, admonished their brethren in a dissent.In his opening remarks, Justice Thomas wrote, “‘[O]ur central holding in’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was ‘that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.’ And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec­ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.” It is abundantly clear that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has failed in its duty to carefully review a governmental ordinance that, on its face, amounts to a deliberate, audacious, callous, caustic, and defiant attack, not only on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but on clear and unambiguous holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald that directly apply to the Friedman case and inform the Court how to review an ordinance that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. By failing to consider the import and purport of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its holding in Friedman improperly and defiantly ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.The Seventh Circuit has capitulated to local government; ignored the directives of the U.S. Supreme Court; failed to apply the appropriate legal standard when testing the constitutionality of a law or ordinance, infringing a fundamental right; reduced a serious constitutional issue to a mere administrative one; saw fit to prostate itself before a mere local government, raising that government to the level of potentate; made itself, wittingly or not, into a subservient ally of antigun groups; and allowed its status as an independent trier of law and fact to play a subordinate role to political forces. In ceding its own, critical judicial role, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated a callous disregard of its duties and joined with government in undermining the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is most unfortunate that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices paid no heed to the remonstrations of Justices Thomas and Scalia. In denying the Friedman Appellants' petition for writ of certiorari, the majority of Justices allowed a clearly unsound and deeply offensive ruling of the Seventh Circuit to stand, unchallenged.The adverse and legally and logically unsound decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman, coupled with the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Appellants' petition for writ sets a bad precedent. Had the Justices, instead, granted the petition and determined to review the decision of the Seventh Circuit, then, thereafter, federal, State, and local governments and, too, federal and State courts would be placed on notice that the holdings of Heller and McDonald are not to be taken lightly. What has transpired in the Friedman case will only embolden antigun groups and their allies in government and in courts friendly to their political objectives to take further steps and ever more daring and outrageous steps to undercut the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Erosion of our remaining rights and liberties, as set forth in our Bill of Rights will, as well, follow suit.Indeed, when one takes the time to pause and consider what has, of late, been occurring in our Nation, one becomes immediately aware that the destruction of our Bill of Rights -- most prominently, our First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, along with our sacred Second Amendment -- is already well underway.____________________________________

*UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION:

Reviewing this post, we must clarify the points made in our analysis of strict scrutiny as a standard of review in Second Amendment cases. In our jurisprudence, where fundamental rights are at stake, such as exercise of one's Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, governments must apply the least restrictive means to accomplish their goals. And, Courts will use strict scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of laws, impacting fundamental rights, when a challenge is made as to the constitutionality of them.The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller did not, though, articulate a specific standard of review a court must use when assessing the constitutionality of a law when a constitutional challenge to a law impacting the Second Amendment is raised, apart from stating that the most liberal standard of judicial review, rational basis as a means test, is altogether inappropriate for means testing. It is not clear that the Highland Park Court used any standard of review but merely and essentially rubber stamped government edit. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied any standard of review, in Friedman vs. Highland Park, then, tacitly, the Court applied "rational basis," the lowest most deferential standard of review. But, The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller pointedly remarked that rational basis was never the correct standard of review in Second Amendment cases and can never be appropriately applied in any Second Amendment case.That the  high Court did not apply a standard of review in Heller though was probably due to the fact that the Court found the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns to be facially, per se, invalid. The law was designed to destroy the core value of the Second Amendment and therefore had to be struck down as a blatant example of a law that was unconstitutional. So, the high Court found it unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny.For those laws, infringing the Second Amendment right that do not, on their face, appear to be invalid, then, arguably, consistent with Heller, heightened scrutiny of such law must be invoked and applied by a court of review.Strict scrutiny, as a means test, is, traditionally, the most durable and most stringent standard of heightened security a court or judicial review can apply, when deciding the constitutionality of a law. Yet, some Courts--those obviously antithetical to the Second Amendment-- have, through the failure of the Heller Court to articulate a definitive standard of review, tended to apply an intermediate scrutiny test or, as in the Friedman vs. Highland Park case, a rational basis, if a standard of review was applied by a Court at all, if only tacitly. Again, rational basis is not an appropriate standard for means testing a law infringing upon the Second Amendment in any circumstance. Curiously, rational basis is used by New York Courts and is used by those Courts with regularity to justify the NY Safe Act and to justify any other restrictive gun law that the New York State Legislature and other governmental bodies in New York implement. Under strict scrutiny or even under intermediate scrutiny, it is unlikely that New York's draconian gun laws would stand. New York Courts know this, and that may explain why they rigidly adhere to application of an incorrect, liberal standard of review at all.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ CALL FOR NATIONAL GUN CONFISCATION IS LEGALLY INSUPPORTABLE AND MORALLY INSUFFERABLE

THE NEW YORK TIMES RESURRECTS FEINSTEIN'S MONSTER

The antigun groups have now made clear beyond any doubt their singular goal: remove firearms from the hands of Americans, nationally. In a rare editorial, appearing on the front page of the Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition of The New York Times, titled, “The Gun Epidemic,” the Times editorial staff presents its arguments for massive gun confiscation, at the national level. The New York Times – a vehicle of international socialist and globalist interests – is intent on divesting Americans of their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the Times is clearly and unconscionably setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency in 2016.The San Bernardino shooting incident, carried out by Islamic extremists – foreign invaders, whose allegiance, as the Times reports, are to the Islamic State – should be a clarion call to arms to all Americans. Instead, the Times uses this despicable attack by the Islamic State on innocent American citizens as a pretext for disarming all Americans. Treating this invasion on our shores as simply one more mass shooting, without regard to the motivation behind it, the Times calls for a massive, gun confiscation program at the national level. The rationale given for this unprecedented call for gun confiscation is reduction of gun violence – the same platitude voiced over and over by those individuals and groups intent on divesting Americans of their natural birthright and denying to Americans the right of self-defense, notwithstanding that the Federal Government either cannot adequately protect Americans from mass shootings -- whether or not these attacks are random or carefully planned and organized -- or the Government simply will not do so, despite constant assertions and assertions to the contrary.Since President Barack Obama refuses, incongruously, to seal our borders despite clear evidence of an attack in our Country by Islamic radicals, and since he continues to allow into our Country those of the Islamic faith, who are impossible to vet, one must wonder whether Obama is intentionally jeopardizing the security of the American people, to keep the American public off-guard, consistent with international globalist and international socialist interests and objectives, in preparation for America’s integration into a unified Socialist State at some point in the not too distant future. If so, the salient reason for the NY Times’ call for a program of massive gun confiscation has little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence in this Country -- from whatever source -- and has everything to do with destruction of America’s sovereignty and subjugation of its citizenry. A massive gun confiscation program on the national stage would certainly hasten the accomplishment of that goal, paving the way for repeal of America’s Constitution, and, therefore, repeal of a critical portion of the Constitution -- America's Bill of Rights. Thus, would we see the international globalists and socialists smoothing the transition for the Nation's incorporation into a unified mega-international Socialist Order. And, the American people would be given a new constitution sans any mention of a right, existent in the people, to keep and bear arms.To Americans who see the United States as an independent sovereign Nation, beholding to and dependent on no other nation, and who place their faith in their Bill of Rights and, particularly, on the strength of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights, such acts of gun violence, committed by criminals, lunatics, and, of late, by Islamic jihadists, there bespeaks a need for a strong citizenry, and that means an armed citizenry, not a disarmed, weakened one. But, a disarmed, weakened citizenry is clearly and specifically what the federal government has in mind for Americans. President Barack Obama has made that point many times and more incessantly -- with an air of urgency in recent days. Lest there be any doubt about this -- about the intention of wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests behind this effort to disarm the American citizenry, who use the mainstream news media to confound Americans and who proclaim that the only answer to this onslaught of gun violence in America is for American citizens to place their blind faith in and allegiance to the federal government, rather than to place faith in themselves and to take personal responsibility for defense of self and family -- suggesting, then, that the federal government -- and only the federal government can and, more to the point, is  warranted and permitted to protect them -- one ought to stop and consider the import of the following two remarks, appearing in the sixth paragraph of the NY Times front page, editorial: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”  The average person may not be quick to catch this, but there is an oblique message in these two assertions – both of which are utterly damning to American sensibilities, to the autonomy of the individual, to the sanctity of Americans’ Second Amendment, and certainly divisive, as the editorial can and is probably meant to tear the public apart, for The New York Times' assertions do most assuredly play to the sentiments of antigun proponents and zealots, even as those same sentiments will anger, and rightly so, every other American. So let us parse those assertions.The NY Times says the language of the Second Amendment is “peculiar.” Yet, the Times’ use of the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the language of the Second Amendment, is itself peculiar. The meaning of the independent clause in the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – is straightforward, cogent, clear, and certainly not “peculiar” to the American people. Indeed, that The New York Times would use the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the Second Amendment at all, suggests that the newspaper does not reflect America’s interests but, rather, the interests of the international socialists and globalists, intent on dismantling the Second Amendment in particular and dismantling the nine other Amendments, generally, which depend on the Second Amendment, ultimately, for their preservation. For, only to foreign governments whose history is unlike ours and whose constitutions are devoid of any mention of an inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms would America's Second Amendment possibly look "peculiar." But for an American newspaper to use that adjective to describe the Second Amendment, that should give the public pause.Take a look at the constitution of any other Western nation. Even if a constitution talks about firearms in the hands of the citizenry at all -- and very few constitutions do -- no constitution but that of the United States places that right squarely in the hands of the citizenry itself. In no other nation on this Earth does the right to keep and bear arms reside in the People. Rather, that right resides exclusively in the State. In those Western Countries that the New York Times clearly emulates, namely, France, England, and Norway, which the Times mentions in its editorial, the constitutions of those Countries do not respect the inalienable right of their citizens to keep and bear weapons in their own defense and as a means to secure their individual rights and liberties. Therefore, Countries such as France, England, and Norway, unlike the United States, clearly do not recognize that the citizens, themselves, are the ultimate guardians of their own rights and liberties, and so their citizens do not have the inalienable right to defend themselves with the most effective means available for doing so – that provided by a firearm; nor do those Countries recognize, in their people, the right of their people to secure their own rights and liberties through firearms, if the need should ever arise.Indeed, the Times admits, “that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.” But, in that very admission, the Times follows up with the singularly bizarre assertion, “But at least those Countries are trying.” Really, “trying?” What are those Countries trying to do through strict gun laws? The Times' assertion is incoherent. If those Countries are trying to provide safe havens for Islamic foreign invaders, and convert their citizenry into a flock of defenseless sheep, then those Countries are certainly succeeding! Must the U.S. follow the lead of those Countries? The New York Times says, unequivocally, “yes.” The language of our Second Amendment, however, manifestly counters the Times’ assertion with an emphatic, “no!”The New York Times also says, “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” This, too, is a particularly odd and outrageous remark as it denigrates our jurisprudence.First, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expressly set forth in the language of our Country’s Bill of Rights. The New York Times cannot reasonably deny the truth of that assertion. And, as a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of something more than some protection. As a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of the strongest possible protection. Second, to say that a fundamental right is not unlimited, namely, absolute, is merely a legal platitude. The Times is incorrect to suggest, as it does, that the Government can employ whatever regulation of the right it wants, whenever it wants, simply because no right, even a fundamental right, is not absolute.Second, the Times says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to “reasonable regulation.” Understand, the New York Times is making a legal pronouncement, here, not merely – as most readers are inclined to see it – a colorful, somewhat innocuous, editorial remark. The Times is tacitly invoking a criterion of judicial review that many State courts use in order to determine whether a State law – regulating gun possession and gun ownership, say -- can withstand judicial scrutiny. The Times is asserting, albeit cryptically, that this standard of judicial review, ‘reasonable regulation,’ should apply, across the board, without exception, to each and every legal challenge a complainant may bring to the constitutionality of a federal or state gun law restriction. But, there is a serious problem with this. The problem is that the criterion of  ‘reasonable regulation’ is a very weak standard, virtually indistinguishable from the ‘rational basis test’ which many State courts, such as those in New York, the home of the New York Times, routinely use to test the constitutionality of their State's own draconian gun laws.Under both the ‘reasonable regulation’ standard and ‘rational basis test,’ State courts simply look to see whether a particular law is rationally related to a particular governmental purpose. In effect, this weak standard of review hamstrings Courts and allows States to impose draconian gun laws on the public. The New York Safe Act, which is one of the most restrictive gun measures in the Nation, when compared to the gun measures of any other jurisdiction in the United States, passes judicial scrutiny in New York precisely because the New York State Government need only assert – and need not argue – that the NY Safe Act is rationally directed to a legitimate government purpose – say, reduction in gun violence. If the New York Safe Act were challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction in New York – and of course various provisions of the Act, as well as the Act in its entirety, have been challenged in New York courts since enactment of the NY Safe Act – that court of competent jurisdiction is only permitted to decide whether the  Safe Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. In applying that standard of judicial review -- rational basis -- a court must give considerable deference to a legislative action. So, unless the law is clearly arbitrary on its face or clearly has no relationship at all to the matter for which it ostensibly was enacted, which is to say, that the government cannot demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, the law will be upheld. So, under either the rational basis test or the reasonable regulation standard, the latter of which the Times makes specific reference to in its front page editorial, a court of competent jurisdiction is prohibited from going further in its scrutiny of the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation. So, under the rational basis test a law can be very broad in scope and overreach its stated objective. That is of no consequence to the basic question of the constitutionality of it under either the rational basis test or under the essentially identical reasonable regulation standard. And the result is – as the NY Safe Act clearly demonstrates – that extraordinarily draconian gun laws pass constitutional muster. This is perverse. And, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the NY Safe Act flies in the face of the high Court’s holding because New York courts continue to use a relaxed standard of review in testing the constitutionality of the NY Safe Act, notwithstanding that the Act has a highly corrosive effect on a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Gun ownership and gun possession is a fundamental right. Even antigun proponents and zealots cannot reasonably deny the legal certainty of that fact. Legislation that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms demands extraordinary judicial scrutiny, not weakened, relaxed scrutiny. State courts and federal courts are, under our jurisprudence, expected to utilize the strict scrutiny test where fundamental rights are impacted. Can the New York Safe Act withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny criterion? The answer is clearly, “no.” Under a strict scrutiny criterion, the State Government has the burden of showing that the NY Safe Act, which places inordinate restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms, is nonetheless necessary to satisfy a compelling State interest – in this case: the compelling interest of the State to reduce gun violence. But, importantly, under the strict scrutiny test, the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation under review is not presumed, unlike the constitutionality of a law or governmental regulation would be presumed under the rational basis test, or under that test's functional equivalent, the reasonable regulation standard. Therefore, the burden of proof for the State of New York is a difficult one under strict scrutiny would be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Under either the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, on the other hand, a court of review in New York is legally required to presume, in the first instance, that a law or regulation is constitutional, hence valid. So, under the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, the New York State Government is able, very easily, to enact draconian gun laws that, just as easily, pass constitutional muster. This explains why challenges to various provisions of the Safe Act – except in one or two instances – fail, and this explains why challenges to the Safe Act in its entirety have, to date, also failed. And, this explains why draconian gun laws, such as the New York Safe Act, are able to exist and continue to exist at all. And, critically, this also clearly explains why The New York Times expresses a desire for courts of competent jurisdiction to use a relaxed standard of judicial review when testing the constitutionality of a draconian State or federal gun law or governmental regulation.Through application of the rational basis test or reasonable regulation standard, New York, and any other State, and, for that matter, Congress itself, can enact gun laws that infringe the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, and such laws will still, almost invariably, pass a constitutional challenge. And that is why, traditionally at least, our jurisprudence respects challenges to laws that impact fundamental rights such as the right of the people  to keep and bear arms, requiring State and federal governments to overcome an extremely difficult standard of judicial review if their restrictive gun laws are to be held constitutional and, therefore, to survive challenges to their constitutionality. This means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a law or regulation is constitutional. But, under either the rational basis test or "reasonable regulation" standard that the NY Times refers to in its editorial, the burden rests with the challenger, in the first instance, to show that a particular law or governmental regulation is, in fact, unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the burden rests squarely on the government to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the law or regulation is, in fact, constitutional. That is a crucial difference and explains why the New York Times not only asks for enactment of extremely restrictive gun laws on the national stage but, as well, explains why the Times would mandate use of a relaxed standard of review once the laws were challenged in federal court, and the constitutionality of those laws would be challenged. Under a relaxed standard of judicial review, such draconian gun laws would very likely survive a court challenge, testing the laws' constitutionality. Thus, the Times calls for use of the "reasonable regulation" standard of judicial review.But, if a New York State or New York federal court of competent jurisdiction applies strict scrutiny, say, to the New York Safe Act, for example, as it should, in lieu of the rational basis test, the New York State Government must prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the NY Safe Act furthers a compelling government interest. But that doesn’t end the inquiry. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. Assuming the Government can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the New York Safe Act does serve a compelling State interest, the State Government must then show that the NY Safe Act is narrowly tailored to meet that objective – say, reduction of gun violence. That means the Government must prove to the satisfaction of the court, that the NY Safe Act is the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence in the State even if the State  can show that the Act is directed to satisfying a compelling State interest. If and only if the reviewing court is satisfied that the NY Safe Act amounts to the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence will that court of review hold the Act constitutional. Otherwise, it will not do so, and cannot legally do so. Application of strict scrutiny to a law or governmental regulation is very difficult for a government to overcome. Application of the standard of strict scrutiny is meant to be difficult to overcome when a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake.Challenges to fundamental rights are meant to fail precisely because preservation of the fundamental rights of the American people is itself fundamental to preservation of a free Republic. And a free Republic cannot long endure if State and federal governments can, virtually at will, enact laws that tend to undercut and negate the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the New York Safe Act would survive judicial review under a strict scrutiny test. Since the NY Safe Act directly impacts a fundamental right it is presumed from the get-go, that the Act is constitutionally invalid. Thus the burden on a State government or on the federal government to show that a draconian gun law is legally required is considerable, and necessarily so. A reviewing court is likely to see the NY Safe Act as the charade and subterfuge it really is: an underhanded attempt to undercut and negate the efficacy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence.Clearly, for the New York State Government to argue that denying to thousands of law-abiding New York residents access to large categories of firearms is the least restrictive means available to it for reducing gun violence is neither logically sound nor legally defensible. It is therefore highly unlikely that the NY Safe Act could withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny standard. Thus, to say that no right – even a fundamental right – is not absolute, is not to suggest that a government can essentially regulate the right away whenever it so wishes. And, The New York Times is wrong in suggesting that it can.Now it is one thing for courts in New York to apply a weak standard of judicial review that allows for the existence of draconian gun laws, negatively impacting the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; it is quite another to suggest that such a weak judicial standard should be applied across the board. Yet, this is precisely what the NY Times is asking for: that Congress should enact laws denying to tens of millions of law-abiding Americans the right to own and possess entire categories of firearms and that, if anyone should challenge the constitutionality of such a law, then a court of competent jurisdiction should be required to apply a relaxed standard of review, namely ‘reasonable regulation,’ which would virtually guarantee that an unconstitutional law would pass constitutional muster when it should not and would not if challenged under the strict scrutiny test.As you may recall, Democrats attempted, essentially, to expand the NY Safe Act nationally in 2013. The "illustrious," Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Party Senator from California, introduced a bill, in 2013, in the Senate, to ban so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity ammunition magazines.” Her bill, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” included 157 kinds of firearms that the American public would no longer be able to lawfully own and possess. And Americans could no longer own and possess ammunition magazines that held more than 10 cartridges, if that bill became law. Feinstein's “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" was meant to resurrect the earlier “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which banned 19 weapons and, in fact, to expand upon “The Assault Weapons of 1994,” which expired in accordance with its sunset provision in 2004. Fortunately, attempts by antigun Senators to renew the law, failed. And, Feinstein’s new 2013 bill could never gain traction. It failed by a vote of the Senate, 40 to 60, in April of 2013. Now, through despicable hubris and subterfuge on the part of a newspaper, The New York Times, that newspaper is attempting to resurrect Feinstein’s own dead antigun bill, using “fear," together with sleight-of-hand, to encourage the American public to take action against its own best self-interest – in effect calling upon the public to contact Congress to bring Feinstein’s Monster, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” back to life in the form of an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2016.”If there is any doubt about the New York Times’ deplorable intentions actions, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Times makes the point that: “certain kinds of weapons . . . and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up. . . .” This is essentially Feinstein’s: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Now, under a strict scrutiny standard of review, Feinstein’s resurrected antigun bill, as a draconian antigun law – essentially the New York Safe Act, applied nationally (assuming for purpose of argument that  an assault weapons ban could succeed, at all, in 2016, when the Act failed in 2013) -- would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts, once challenged, and it would be challenged. But, under a relaxed “reasonable regulation” standard or under its functional equivalent, the “rational basis” test, such a law would more easily pass judicial scrutiny. This is why the New York Times presses for both an assault weapons ban and, at once, deviously, insists upon a relaxed legal standard of review, so that the Government can legally require Americans who own “certain kinds of weapons” – and one can fill in the blank as to what those weapons are, although the list would probably and eventually be extended to encompass all of them – to surrender them to government authorities and if such overreaching law were challenged in federal court, such challenge would almost certainly fail.The Times adds, piously, that Americans must give up their weapons "for the good of their fellow citizens.” In other words, the Times is saying that, for the “good” of the Collective, as defined by the puppet masters of Government, the sanctity and autonomy of each individual American must be forfeited. Of course, this will not make Americans safer. In fact it will make Americans substantially less safe as American citizens will be more prone to gun violence by sociopathic Islamic jihadists, psychopathic criminals and criminal gangs, and assorted lunatics. No doubt, the Times had substantial assistance from a phalanx of antigun lawyers to assist it when drafting its front page editorial.And, keep in mind that, if the New York Times is suggesting that, in the very act of dispossessing Americans of their firearms, thereby dismantling the Second Amendment, the Government is in some bizarre manner doing something beneficial for Americans, it is abundantly clear the Times is actually doing something quite contrary to the seemingly benign act of disarming Americans. The New York Times is actually targeting all Americans – hence, resurrection of Feinstein’s Monster. Clearly, the desire of the Times editorial staff is to target the millions of  law-abiding, sane, rational American gun owners – not simply Islamic jihadists, criminals and lunatics. For, in this same front page editorial, the Times asserts, that any American who wants those weapons, which the Times calls “weapons of war,”  must be corralled and considered criminally suspect. The Times asserts in the flamboyant, typically pious manner of the antigun zealot: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Ergo, if an American would want such a weapon, much less insist on owning and possessing such a weapon, there must be something seriously wrong with that individual. Thus, The New York Times is targeting essentially all Americans. This is a frontal assault on the Second Amendment itself – a frontal assault on the exercise of a fundamental right of every law-abiding American. The only outrage and national disgrace here is The New York Times itself that would undercut our Free Republic and undermine the Bill of Rights that is the bedrock of our Free Republic.If the Second Amendment is frontally assaulted by the very Government -- the federal Government that is supposed to defend and preserve it, since it is a component of our Constitution – indeed a fundamental part of it -- then the People must defend it because  a quiet coup d’etat of the federal government is already underway. Thus, The New York Times isn’t preventing insurrection, it is fomenting it, inviting it, daring Americans to take arms against the very federal Government that was created to serve the People, as that same federal Government  now boldly asserts its dominion over the People – with the devout blessing of, and encouragement of, a member of the “Fourth Estate,” that the founders had themselves blessed with protection through the language of the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the Press. That same Press is now working with the federal  Government -- not as a check against it but as a tool of it -- against the American people.The New York Times has, in its front page editorial, insidiously suggested, through a very thin veil, that any American who would fight to preserve that “peculiar” Second Amendment is an American who must be treated no differently than a lunatic, criminal, or Islamic jihadist. And, as if the incendiary nature of that front page editorial were not enough, the Times continues feeding the American public with copious amounts of nonsensical fodder inside that same Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition.In another article, appearing on page 5 of the Saturday edition of the New York Times, the newspaper cites to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama’s emulation of Australia’s gun laws. The New York times says, “President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation ‘like ours.’” The newspaper also mentions Clinton’s statement that “the Australian approach is ‘worth considering.’” Actually, Australia is anything but a nation like ours. In our article posted on December 1, 2015, in the Arbalest Quarrel, and which was also posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News in condensed summary, we emphasized that Clinton’s support for a national gun confiscation program, if actually implemented, would be patently illegal. The mainstream news media did not, at that time, give wide coverage of her remarks at last month’s Town Hall Meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, as Clinton’s remarks were seen as too farfetched even for the mainstream news media, as her remarks show a callous disregard and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution – this coming from a person with legal training who was educated at an elite university – and most Americans would clearly take serious exception with those remark if they were subject to widespread coverage and her chances of securing the U.S. Presidency in 2016 would be jeopardized. The mainstream news media did not, apparently, wish to ruin Clinton’s chances. Apparently, the New York Times, as one mainstream news media source, has, almost two months since that Town Hall meeting, reconsidered and decided to fully support Clinton’s position on gun ownership and possession, extreme as it is and trust that, by adopting that extreme position, itself, make it appear less extreme to the American people. Of course, The Times is well aware that it is actively creating dissension in the American populace, but it is betting that most Americans will side with Clinton on Second Amendment issues. Supposedly, public addresses by the current U.S. President will also serve to make assaults on the Second Amendment less “off-putting” to most Americans. At least that is the grand design of the international globalists and socialists, who control the mainstream media and who pull the strings of many Government Officials, including those of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama.The Times newspaper is clearly setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency. But that Presidency will pave the way for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by way of a full frontal assault on the Second Amendment. A Republican Congress would never allow the Second Amendment to be defeated. But, assuming arguendo, Congress were to enact a law requiring confiscation of guns on an unprecedented scale, the law would not withstand judicial review under a strict scrutiny standard. The U.S. Supreme Court would be the last Branch of Government called upon to protect the U.S. Constitution. For, if federal courts applied a lesser standard of scrutiny to a massive national gun confiscation law, such as ‘reasonable regulation,’ that the New York Times is asking for, Congress would be defying the U.S. Supreme Court which has the last word on the constitutionality of a Congressional Act. For a massive gun confiscation scheme would effectively nullify the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the 2008 Heller case and, so, would be unconstitutional on its face. That, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow.For this reason, in yet a third article appearing in the Saturday edition of the NY Times, there is posed the possibility of the U.S. President defying both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court by imposing a massive gun confiscation scheme through executive order. Of course the NY Times would like to see this but even the Times recognizes that such an action by a U.S. President would be patently illegal. Still, if Barack Obama dared to do that – attack the Second Amendment head-on – such unilateral action by the Chief  Executive, who is not reluctant to use executive orders would, in this instance, amount to an impeachable offense. But, if the Democrats take control of Congress and if Clinton secures the “Oval Office,” then Americans have much to worry about. For Clinton would certainly make several federal district court and appellate court appointments and U.S. Supreme Court nominations and such people, whom she would appoint to the federal courts and nominate to the highest Court of the Land would generally support unconstitutional executive orders, designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Ultimately, a Clinton Presidency could very well pave the way for de facto, revocation of the Second Amendment, if not outright repeal of it. Other rights under the Bill of Rights would fall like dominos.If the New York Times would manifest a concern over an assault on the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press, it is disheartening that it would demonstrate such a callous disregard for the Second. The Bill of Rights is not to be thought of like so many flavors of ice cream. One doesn’t pick and choose which ones to approve of and which ones to disapprove of. Thus, one must ask the publishers and editors of the New York Times, who, in this front page editorial, have attacked the Second Amendment without even a semblance of restraint: "have you lost your minds?" They may think that the American public is behind them on this. The Times is clearly directing its attention to the frightened and ignorant among us, who see in a Clinton Presidency what the Times says the public needs: protection that only Big Government can provide. What the Times fails to see, though, is that, if most Americans perceive a threat to their sacred rights and liberties, they will defend those rights and liberties at whatever cost, not merely from lunatics, criminals, and foreign invaders, but from an overreaching government itself. Indeed, the threat to the rights and liberties of the American People posed by the federal government itself is significantly more dangerous – infinitely more dangerous – than acts of gun violence perpetrated by lunatics, criminals and, of late, from radicalized Islamic sociopaths. The New York Times is hoping and trusting that most Americans do not -- and will not -- realize what it is they are being asked to sacrifice in the name of feigned security.So it is that the real threat to America is becoming increasingly plain to most Americans. That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State, and they are using, through the New York Times newspaper, the bugaboo of Islamic jihadists to frighten the American public into forsaking its sacred rights and liberties. The New York Times is obviously the sounding board that gives voice to the propaganda such powerful, ruthless individuals and groups seek to use against the American People – that the People will give up their rights and liberties, unknowingly, through subterfuge, possibly, and, if that fails, then through coercion. As these un-American interests so dare to bring America to its knees, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day of reckoning is fast approaching.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CLINTON CLAMORS, ALL GUNS MUST GO!

The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country. On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. In response she remarked that Canada, the UK, and Australia have all implemented national “gun buyback” programs. Remarking further on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary. It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. But, it stretches credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens would voluntarily surrender to their Government for wasteful destruction, well over 600,000 perfectly functional firearms, even if one accepts at face value Clinton’s disingenuous remark that the Australian populace was actually getting a “good price” for them.Of note, Clinton didn’t bother to elaborate on what specific “automatic” weapons were surrendered to the Government authorities; nor did she bother to elaborate on the specific “good price” each Australian happened to receive for his or her weapon or weapons. Indeed, how would Clinton know the price any Australian received for a particular weapon? And, if the price were unknown, then it would be patently ridiculous to assert that Australians received a “good price” for those weapons.Indeed, Australians, who were compelled to surrender their weapons, may not feel that the Australian Government gave them a “good price” for their weapons. More to the point, one might stop to consider that, to the typical Australian gun owner, who thought it important enough to purchase and possess a firearm in the first place, no price is a good price for a weapon that had to be forfeited to the Government. For, once forfeited, Australians knew that they would never again be able, lawfully, to obtain suitable replacement firearms.Of course, no one at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting bothered to weigh-in on these matters. And Clinton, for her part, did not trouble herself to offer argument in support of her statements, relying only on bald assertions, lest she defeat the poignancy of her rhetoric. And, this is the most aggravating thing about Clinton, even if one is drawn to her at all. She treats her adult, target audience as if she were speaking to grade school children. In her remarks to the public she routinely tends toward gross exaggeration, conflation, pontification, embellishment, evasion, falsehoods, over-generalizations, over-simplifications and outright lies. If one tries to pin her down, she refuses to respond, flamboyantly throwing her hands up in disgust.Clinton’s goal is securing the Oval Office, whatever the cost. Doing so would be the culmination of her quest for self-aggrandizement. In pursuit of that goal she forever engages in shameless self-promotion. Everything she says is carefully orchestrated for emotional effect, not for intellectual clarity. A Town Hall meeting is not, apparently, the place where the American public is expected to pose hard, well composed questions to this Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States; nor should the public expect detailed, cogent, intelligent answers. Clinton doesn’t relish a lively, frank, intelligent debate before the public – ever!Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations rest a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed, calibrated remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Congress would never oblige. And, even if she, as U.S. President, would dare, through an illegal executive order, to implement such a vast gun forfeiture scheme, she must know that the result could invite insurrection. Perhaps that is why Clinton added, somewhat obliquely and lamely – although the damage had already been done – that she didn’t know how such a massive undertaking could be instituted here in the U.S., for the mechanism of a gun buyback is surely simple enough. Just ask the Australian Government. But, in the U.S., it is the public’s response to such a program that would be particularly problematic to Clinton and to other antigun proponents, both in this Country and abroad, who wish to dispossess Americans of their firearms. Clinton is evidently suggesting that she doesn’t know how she could get the majority of law-abiding American gun-owners to acquiesce to a quiet coup d’état by the Federal Government; for a massive gun confiscation scheme is exactly that: a takeover of the Federal Government from the People.The mainstream news media – apparently, and rightfully, concerned that members of the public who do not share Clinton’s views on gun ownership and possession – namely, the vast majority of us – might object to the idea of a massive gun forfeiture scheme carried out on the national stage – created a news blackout of her remarks, lest the American public find a Hillary Clinton Presidency too repugnant to even contemplate. The mainstream news media obviously realized -- even if Clinton, herself, did not immediately realize the serious ramifications of her blunder -- that a federal government seizure of millions of firearms from the hands of the American public means nothing less than the seizure of government from the People! Such an undertaking is unforgivable. It is legally and ethically indefensible even if seemingly tenable to an irrational antigun crowd, unable to truly appreciate what it would presage for Americans’ rights and liberties, and even if desirable to a predacious, calculating and scheming cabal of international socialists who would like very much to see the United States Constitution discarded and a Free Republic dismantled.Under our Constitution a national, coercive gun confiscation program is patently illegal, and rightly so. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own. For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another. It is legally defensible and feasible in Australia. It is not legally defensible here in the U.S., even if it were feasible, and it isn’t. Australia’s history as a Nation is wholly unlike that of our own. And the Constitutions of Australia and the U.S. are notably quite different.Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. As an ex-commonwealth Nation, Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms. This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, such rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of "the Crown." Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here. Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.The assertion of that right, etched in stone, serves two purposes. It serves, one, as an emphatic reminder to those who serve the People – the Congress, the Executive and its bureaucrats, and the Judiciary – that together comprise the federal government – that the sovereignty of this Nation rests in, with, and upon “We the People.” The American People will suffer no rule under any other nation or under any trans-national or international ruling body; nor will they be subordinate to the federal government. And, the assertion of that right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves, two, as a constant reminder to those elected to serve the American People and to those appointed or hired as functionaries to serve the American People that ultimate power rests in, with, and upon the People and that those limited powers the People have granted to the federal government are for no purpose other than to serve the People. The American People reserve to and for themselves alone, the absolute power to revoke any and all federal government powers if or when that government ever subverts the Will of the American People.In light of these facts it is exceedingly odd, even perverse, that the leading Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton – who graduated from an elite law school in the United States – would dare emulate Australia’s gun buyback, confiscation program and that she would assert how much she would like to see a national gun “buyback” program played out in this Country since such an undertaking is patently illegal under our Constitution. In the assertion Clinton dares to express her blatant contempt for the American People.But there is more. Apart from the legal constraints, precluding a massive, coercive national gun confiscation program, there is another matter to consider. It is one that is rarely if ever discussed. It is the ethical theory upon which massive, coercive gun confiscation programs are grounded. The Australian Government argues, at least tacitly, that gun confiscation programs maximize “the good” for society, for “the Collective.” But, “the good” referred to here has nothing to do with crime reduction. It has everything to do with maximizing control over the citizenry, over the commonalty. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. It is based on the notion that “the good” equals what is best for society, that is to say, what has “maximum utility” for society as a whole. But who decides what “the good” for society is? In Australia, it is the Government that decides. Moreover, whatever “the good” for society – for “the Collective” – is or is presumed to be, will, most likely, not be good for the individual in that society. And, therein lies the root problem with utilitarianism. The drafters of our Constitution did not subscribe to utilitarianism. Our Constitution, framed on the idea of limited government and on a Bill of Rights, incorporating the right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right that shall not be infringed – clearly expresses the sanctity and autonomy of the individual over the collective “good” of society. Ethics in this Country, as manifested in our Bill of Rights, is grounded on what is “morally right,” not on what maximizes utility (“the good”) for the collective. Ethical theories that are based on the notion of what is morally right are known as deontological theories, in philosophy. The two ethical theories, utilitarianism and deontology, are mutually exclusive; for, what is morally right and in the best interests of the individual in society is antithetical to what may happen to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, for “the Collective.” No better example of the conflict of the two ethical theories exists than that illustrated by massive, coercive gun confiscation programs, such as those created and implemented by Australia’s Government, on the national stage.Taking away the guns of the citizenry will enhance a government’s control over its citizenry. Enhancing government control, as perceived by the antigun crowd and by international socialists, equates with maximizing “the good,” maximizing “utility” for society, under the utilitarian ethical model. But, taking away guns from the law-abiding citizen does not enhance safety for that citizen, as an individual, in his or her own right. Rather, the individual is less safe as the individual is essentially defenseless against an armed psychopathic criminal or a lunatic. Moreover, the individual is harmed by that individual’s own government since an unarmed citizenry cannot adequately defend itself against the suppression of the citizenry’s rights and liberties. So, gun coercive confiscations programs are unethical under a deontological theory of ethics, grounded on what is “morally right,” even if such programs may, to some, appear to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, that is to say, for “the Collective.” And, in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and given the primacy of “We the People” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, such coercive gun confiscation programs – whether or not cloaked as seemingly benign gun buyback programs – are facially illegal.Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama, clearly holds to utilitarianism – an ethical theory that is repugnant to the sensibilities of our founders as reflected in the Constitution the Founders drafted for future generations of Americans. On both legal and ethical grounds the position of President Obama and Hillary Clinton on gun ownership and gun possession in this Country is unsound. It is little wonder, then, that, although voicing constant rancorous, vociferous objection to gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, they offer no sound argument in support of their position – only empty emotional rhetoric and platitudes – because sound argument in support of their dubious position on gun ownership and gun possession in America simply does not exist.The existence of our Bill of Rights is a testament to the fact that our founders did not hold to utilitarianism. Our Constitution is predicated on a moral code, not a utilitarian one. The criterion of moral conduct is based on what is right; not one that is based on a Quixotic quest to maximize utility for society, for the Collective. The Second Amendment is an assertion of the importance of individual responsibility; and morality is predicated on the right of the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, the founders of our Republic believed all the more in emphasizing, exemplifying, and extolling the sanctity of and the moral worth of the individual, and significantly less on maximizing utility for an amorphous society – for “the Collective,” which effectively denigrates the individual. Gun confiscation/forfeiture programs illustrate distrust of government in its own citizens. The citizen is told that, for his or her own good, the citizen must be dispossessed of firearms. The philosophy of President Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify the predominance of government might over individual rights and liberty; government control over the citizen, rather than citizen control over government; inculcating obedience to authority and subservience to the State, rather than enhancing freedom of expression, individuality, and personal autonomy.Americans, of late, suffer endless exhortations that they ought sacrifice their rights and liberties for the Societal Collective “good.” Strident remarks against gun ownership and gun possession should serve, especially, as a warning to Americans that if they do not take steps to preserve their Constitution, they will lose it. A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ON THE SUBJECT OF A NATION’S CONSTITUTION

It may seem of more interest to legal scholars than to those with a decidedly less academic bent to give serious consideration to the import of and, indeed, necessity for a Nation’s written Constitution, but no citizen of any Country should pass off an understanding of that citizen’s system of laws, considering it too complex a subject to devote substantial time to study. Still, in this day and age where the very concept of the ‘nation state’ has, for powerful and ruthless international socialists and socialist technocrats, outlived its usefulness and is seen as an anachronism that should be dispensed with, along with a nation state’s constitution, it is incumbent upon the citizen of a nation state to take a closer look at his or her nation’s constitution -- assuming a nation state has one at all -- to better understand what rights and liberties are also being dispensed with.In our own Country, where the expression, ‘isolationism,’ is today treated unkindly by the mainstream media, where the expression ‘Made in America’ has become archaic, and where our Country’s Bill of Rights is considered old and dusty, it behooves Americans now, more than ever, to take a very close look at the Constitution that the founders of our Republic created, and which our citizen soldiers have fought and died for in the years since, to preserve.There is pressure exerted by internationalists in our own Nation State who feel that our Constitution needs to be revised so that it “fits with” the reality of “globalization” and with “neoliberal economic principles” and with international jurisprudence – matters and notions truly antithetical to the continued existence of our Nation State as an independent and free Republic.As our Nation and other Western Nations are increasingly under attack by savages from the Middle East and from international socialists in the West who use the unrest in the Middle East to further their own agenda, citizens of all Western Nations -- and most importantly citizens of our own Nation -- ought to “think through” what they are being asked to trade: personal rights and liberties for seeming internal security.Americans, in particular, might reflect on the fact that our Fourth Amendment right to privacy is being slowly and systematically eradicated as surveillance becomes ubiquitous. Our First Amendment Right of Free Speech is being challenged by the agents of censorship who seek to ram “political correctness” down our throats. And, what of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms, unlike the notions of free speech and privacy, cannot be so easily molded and reconfigured like pottery clay by international socialists and their technocrats -- to be rendered “harmless.” The very physicality of firearms strengthens the reality of them so that their loss would be immediately felt by the American citizenry -- in a way and in a manner that the loss of the right to free speech and the loss of privacy may not be immediately felt.Now much is said, by those who wish to disarm the American public, of the harm that guns may cause to innocents, but virtually nothing is said of the necessity for an armed citizenry as the Founders of our Republic envisioned. Worse, for those of us who value the continued existence of our rights and liberties – much worse than any harm caused by guns in the hands of psychopathic, violent criminals and psychotic lunatics, that are but a tiny segment of the population, to be sure – is the lack of guns in the hands of an armed citizenry if it should ever have to deal with a federal government run amok. The Founders knew this and for that reason the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms was indelibly incorporated into our Constitution.Now our armed citizenry is sometimes compared to the armed citizenry of Switzerland and the armed citizenry of Israel. Those two Countries, Israel and Switzerland, do not suffer incessant attacks by gun grabbers. But, before we wax poetic over the virtue of Switzerland’s lenient attitude toward gun ownership, where able-bodied citizens are, in fact, required to keep firearms in their household, or, where, in Israel, its citizens are generally able to obtain licenses to possess firearms, relatively easily, including automatic weapons in some cases, one should understand that there is nothing in the Swiss Constitution that informs the Swiss citizen that he has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And Israel doesn’t even have a written Constitution.Even though Switzerland demands that its citizens be armed for defense of Country, Swiss law can change that requirement, literally overnight. So, the present maintenance of an armed Swiss citizenry must, then, be statutory, that is to say, not part of Switzerland’s Constitution. And, in Israel, a citizen must indicate a need for a firearm before a firearm is issued to that person – even if the application process is a simple and relatively painless. Moreover, Switzerland changes its Constitution quite regularly. The latest Constitution was adopted in 2000. And, Israel, for its part, has not, since its inception as a Nation State, in 1948, drafted a Constitution; nor has Israel indicated, to this day, any serious desire to do so.Keep in mind, too, that the population of Switzerland is or, at least, had been, at one time, essentially Germanic, homogenous, and the people are tied closely to their Country’s Government. In Israel, too, the population is essentially homogenous, since the majority of its citizens are Jews. So, a codification of a right to keep and bear arms may, perhaps, be deemed unnecessary and superfluous by the citizens of those Countries. But, in the absence of Constitutional language, enshrining a right to keep and bear arms, the idea that a codification of a right to keep arms is unnecessary would be given serious consideration if Swiss law and Israeli law were to change. Suppose the Swiss Government reversed its position on gun ownership by Swiss citizens – no longer allowing -- indeed no longer ordering -- its citizens to be armed, but, instead, requiring its citizens to surrender their firearms to Government authorities. And, suppose the Israeli government imposed stringent restrictions on gun ownership by Israeli citizens, making the process of obtaining a gun license extremely onerous. Neither Swiss citizens, nor Israeli citizens would appreciate that turn of events, but in the absence of a Constitutional guarantee, the citizens of those two Countries would have no legal recourse. Still the possibility that Swiss or Israeli attitudes toward gun possession and ownership would change in the foreseeable future is remote. Now imagine the likelihood of the average law-abiding American citizen continuing to own and possess firearms were the U.S. to adopt the Swiss Constitution and Swiss procedures for easily rewriting its Constitution. Or imagine the likelihood of the average law-abiding American citizen owing and possessing firearms were the U.S. to adopt the governmental framework of Israel which has no written Constitution.Now, the population in the U.S. – with millions of illegal immigrants, currently residing in the U.S., tens of thousands of whom are known criminals and probably drug cartel gang members – is hardly homogenous, unlike the populations in Switzerland and Israel. Nonetheless, American citizens emanating from many Countries – certainly the vast majority who came to this Country through legal channels – inevitably develop a love for this Country. They learn our Country’s history, study its laws, learn its language – English – even as they maintain, and rightfully so, their own unique history, and as they celebrate the traditions of their native Countries, in their homes. But, we are all Americans. And, what secures the rights and liberties of all Americans is our written Constitution – a remarkable Constitution that has stood the test of time. Most remarkably, our Constitution enshrines the importance of the individual over that of a central government. This was no accident. It was as the framers of our Constitution intended.The framers of our Constitution were, rightfully so, always suspicious of a strong central government and that fear is well borne out today as the U.S. Government has been taken over by plutocrats, whose desires and goals for the United States are not co-extensive with those of the People. Hence, the U.S. is the only Country on the face of the Earth that has codified the fundamental right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right preexistent in the People – not a privilege extended to the People by grace of the State as is the case in those Countries – those very few Countries that deign to permit, authorize and, in Switzerland, even require its citizens to keep and bear arms.Still, as weight of World Opinion is decidedly against an armed citizenry – especially an armed citizenry that exists by right, not by license – we, Americans, must be extremely and forever extra vigilant. The Second Amendment has become the bete noire not only of misguided, frightened sheep at home, but of powerful, ruthless, and cunning oligarchic international socialist groups abroad, such as those who designed and implemented the EU. And, they are hell-bent on world domination. Their principal goal extends to destruction of the very notion of the “Nation State.” These groups likely intend to reduce the American citizenry to abject penury – in mind and spirit, as well as in the American citizenry’s pocketbook.The existence of our Second Amendment is inconsistent with the objective of these groups. Through their agents in the U.S. Government, they can ignore out-of-hand, and by able sleight-of-hand, the precepts of the Fourth Amendment. And they can with a little more effort, shackle our Right of Free Speech as embodied in the First Amendment. But they cannot effectively dismantle or disregard the Second Amendment until or unless they can physically remove firearms from the hands of the U.S. citizens. That is an arduous task, as well the Founders of our Nation intended it to be.It is not, then, just a singular currency and a singular language that unites the American citizenry. It is the “Bill of Rights” as secured essentially by the “Second Amendment.” A strong central U.S. Government remains in check less by the three Branches of Government – for, as we have seen, these three Branches have been essentially subsumed into one – and more by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.And, the Second Amendment is the one clear, undeniable chink in the plan of these international socialist oligarchs for a one world government – a government ruled by them and by them alone. These international socialists know that they cannot adequately, effectively control Americans until they are able to control their access to physical firearms.In 1933 President Roosevelt – via executive order, ostensibly based on national emergency – demanded that every American turn in that American’s gold bullion and coins. And many Americans did so. Thus, the Government itself hoards most of the gold. How many Americans do you suppose would voluntarily turn in their firearms today if, by executive order, a President, at the behest of the puppet-masters – claiming national exigency or emergency – asked, or urged, or ordered every American to do so – that the Government itself may, alone, hoard weapons? Very few, would be our guess. Americans know that such executive order would be patently illegal. National exigency or emergency -- whether purported or real -- does not warrant -- can never legally warrant the trampling of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so long as the Second Amendment exist. Americans certainly know this. Such an executive order would require not a surrender of arms but, rather, a call to arms![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

RE: TPP ~ Trivial Questions Trump Substantive Issues In 2016 Republican & Democratic Presidential Debates

After three Republican Party debates and one Democratic Party debate, there is one issue that has yet to be discussed. It is one issue that has yet even to be broached. It is an issue that no moderator of any debate to date has requested a candidate respond to, and it is an issue that no candidate of either Party who seeks the Office of President has ever brought up. It is an issue that impacts our Nation’s economy and, at one and the same time, it is an issue that affects the very application of our Nation’s laws. It is the seven ton elephant in the debating halls that is as yet altogether ignored. It is the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its companion, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the latter of which will draw the U.S. into the orbit of the International Socialist Conglomerate State – the European Union (EU).That the mainstream media talks about the TPP only in whispers, and about the TTIP not at all, and that both centrist Republicans and centrist Democrats have conspired with Obama through an unholy cabalistic alliance that seeks to keep its sinister machinations wholly private – well away from the eyes and ears of the American Public – bespeaks a state of affairs remarkable in the depth and breadth of its scope and truly horrific in its aim. The TTP and TTIP are not simply about or even mainly about “trade.” These acronyms for international agreements that hide deceit bespeak nothing less than the waylaying of American Sovereignty by those who have the duty to safeguard it. The American Public is denied the truth at every turn and served a plate of lies.Thus, it was refreshing, at last, to hear one candidate, at least, Ted Cruz, take the CNBC mainstream media machine to task for failing to ask substantive questions, inciting, instead, a brawl, where the candidates were encouraged to tear into each other – even as this same mainstream media machine handles the Democratic Party candidates with kid gloves. And the public could plainly see the moderators – like emperors with no clothes – squirming in their seats and looking at once ashamed and indignant at the achingly obvious truth of the accusation.Still, even after Cruz had the nerve, the courage, to bring up this painfully obvious truth, not one of the Republican candidates attributed the ransacking of the U.S. economy by the World’s powerful, ruthless Globalist interests to awful “trade deals.” But, who is really to blame for the destruction of the U.S. economy: is it powerful private interests who seek monopolistic power or is it Big Government?Carly Fiorina danced tortuously around the issue – asserting that, yes, the rich and powerful – Crony Capitalism – use Big Government to their advantage but claiming that the fault for Crony Capitalism rests with Big Government itself. Carly Fiorina argues that, in order for private business to succeed, such business had to grow in size with Government. The fault, then, for the dire state of our economy, according to Carla Fiorina, rests not with the rich and powerful, themselves, but with Big Government. Thus, Carly Fiorina concludes, Big Government itself is the cause of Crony Capitalism.That’s quite a story. Might it not be more reasonable to conclude that the rich and powerful, through the influence of money, has ever had Government in their pocket? Would it not be more reasonable to argue that the Federal Government – whatever its size – could and would just as easily be bought by the rich and powerful if politicians allow themselves, in the first instance, to be corrupted? Has this not in fact happened? Indeed, might one not more reasonably argue that the distinction between the monstrous entities that have crushed small business and competition into submission in this Country and which have now entered the global arena, have, all along, colluded against the American People – against small business and true competitive capitalism? Would it not be more reasonable to conclude that the Federal Government and the rich and powerful are both to blame for Crony Capitalism and that the two are essentially merging – perhaps already have, in a very real sense, merged – into one amorphous blob, intent on constructing, with Globalists around the World, a single, grand, Socialist Order? And, if so, what becomes of the Nation State? Is the Nation State reduced to ceremonial insignificance, like the British Monarchy – taking what little money remains in the pockets of its People simply to pay for the mere trappings of State?Did not Clinton’s NAFTA usher in a Global political and economic nightmare? Did not NAFTA pave the way for destruction of America’s manufacturing base. Have these seekers of a one World Government not encouraged millions of Mexican Nationals to surge, illegally, across the border, along with tens of thousands of psychopathic Mexican gangsters – the mega-drug cartels? Is there not a concerted effort behind – an orchestrated design to use – these illegal aliens as a vehicle to slowly erode our Country’s heritage, culture, and history? Is there not a malevolent intent to fracture the foundation of our unique Nation State?Now, Donald Trump did intimate that NAFTA is the vehicle that has made Mexico a lot of money at the expense of the U.S. And, therefore, Trump argues, the Mexican Government should pay for a border wall to lock out further incursions by illegal Mexicans into this Country. By extension, this border wall would also effectively lock out illegal incursions of individuals from Honduras, Guatemala, San Salvador and from other Central and South American Countries. But, Trump failed to mention “NAFTA” by name, as a salient driving force behind our failing economy – a salient force responsible for the erosion of small business in and the dismantling of the middle class of this Country. But, then, during this last debate, Trump was given precious little opportunity to expound on America’s horrendous trade policies.Yet, for all that was said during the debates, to date, the TPP and the TTIP are the most audacious and insidious of all the secretive trade deals. They represent the culmination of Globalist efforts to benefit multinational corporate interests at the expense of our Nation’s economy and of the small American businesses that once survived and thrived in it, but don’t any longer.You would think that discussion of TPP and TTIP would have warranted at least a few words from the candidates of either Party. The mainstream media – the lackeys of Globalist interests – obviously were told to refrain from pointing to that seven ton elephant in the debating halls. And not one of the Republican or Democratic Party Candidates for the Office of President of the United States have mentioned a word of it in any of the debates to date. And, why is that? Would any of the candidates actually support TPP and TTIP? If so, why? Let each of those candidates that might support TPP and TTIP sound off. Apparently, they cannot, or, perhaps, they simply will not. But, then, why is that? Is the subject matter of these secret trade deals so sensitive that it cannot be discussed in the debates -- cannot even be referred to if only obliquely, despite the clear reach and impact of these trade deals on the American economy, upon our legal system and, indeed, upon the continued sovereignty of our Nation? Is the issue of the trade deals, which clearly crosses Party lines, too sensitive to discuss precisely because it defines neither Party but subsumes elements of both? Might these trade deals, which clearly benefit the rich and powerful of this Nation and other signatory Nations to the detriment of everyone else -- that benefit the very "rich and powerful" that Carly Fiorina mentions -- be taboo? Are these trade deals too sensitive even to touch upon because their very essence illustrates beyond refutation the identity of aims between the "rich and powerful" and Big Government -- a confluence of interests between the "rich and powerful" multinational business interests on the one hand and the centrist Democrats and Republicans and Obama Administration, on the other? If so, then the truth of that premise reduces to absurdity Carly Fiorina's claim that the aims of the rich and powerful and those of Big Government are not co-extensive at all. And, more to the point, the truth of the premise illustrates that, in some matters at least -- namely and specifically -- political and economic benefits that serve  the power "elite" are shared goals of that power "elite" on the one hand, and the Obama Administration and substantial elements of both political Parties on the other -- a goal that the power "elite" and elements of Big Government are willing to pay even if the price of that goal is the subordination of this Nation's laws to those of international, foreign bodies and the loss, too, of the economic well-being of this Nation's citizenry.What can be gathered from leaked documents about the TPP and TTIP is that these deals are not just about trade, they are about the sovereignty of this Nation as reflected in the supremacy of our Nation’s laws. If foreign companies doing business in the U.S. can bring suit for alleged grievances before international tribunals instead of American Courts, what does that say about the import and purport of America’s laws? Once our legal system is subordinated to those outside our Country – to foreign tribunals or foreign courts – America loses its sovereignty. And, would not our loss of sovereignty also require, at some point, a complete revamping of our Constitution? Do you think that could not happen?Might not a secret Constitution to replace our “old” one – as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refers to it seemingly derogatorily – be not ready for publication, to be taught to our children when the time is right? Might not such a “new” Constitution, sans our Second Amendment, or a Second Amendment that retired Justice John Paul Stevens would like to see reworded, be in the offing as he argues for in his book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”? And isn’t Justice Stephen Breyer’s new book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” curiously, frighteningly prescient, as it serves those powerful, ruthless interests behind the TTP and the TTIP? After all, Justice Breyer argues that foreign laws should inform our own case law because, as the title of his book makes clear, there are, now, “new global realities.” The welfare and supremacy of this Country must, apparently, make way for new, global realities – new economic and political imperatives.Are we not witnessing the slow, not so imperceptible movement toward eradication of the very concept of the ‘Nation State’ – eradication of our “Nation State?” Do we not see this implicit in the very manner in which the mainstream media handles the debates? Do you not feel that the debates of late – with all the hoopla that the mainstream media can muster – have less the stately grandeur one might expect of a real debate among those who seek the highest Office in the Land, and more the appearance of trivial spectacle like “America’s Got Talent”? Are you sure you didn’t see a vendor hawking popcorn and peanuts, cotton candy and hotdogs, to the audience? Take a closer look during the next debate. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, if you do.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

While it may seem a waste of words even to discuss the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential candidates’ positions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, some elucidation is in order since we can zero in on the current strategies each of the five Democratic candidates would employ for undermining the Second Amendment were that person elected to the Office of President. So, let us consider where each of the five candidates stand on the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as laid out during the October 13, 2015 Democratic Party Debate, held at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas.Well, none of the Democratic Party candidates serve as a supporter, much less an exemplar, of the Second Amendment. That, we know. But, if so, how can an American -- any American -- claim to represent all Americans who does not vow to uphold the “Bill of Rights” of the U.S. Constitution – all Ten of them, not Nine or Eight of them?Now, some might argue that Jim Webb, who, as the moderator, Anderson Cooper, pointed out, had, at one time, at least, received an “‘A’ rating from the NRA,” is, in fact a supporter of the Second Amendment. In fact, Cooper asked Webb whether Webb would agree that arming more people is Webb’s answer to a mass shooting. Webb did not take the bait but said that there are two fundamental issues involved in this discussion and that both need to be respected. The first issue, Webb said, goes to the question “who should be kept from having guns.” Webb said that criminals, gang members, and those who are mentally incapacitated should not have access to guns. The second issue, Webb asserted, goes to the tradition in this Country. Webb pointed out that people have a right to have access to guns to protect their families from violence since they do not have bodyguards as those in high levels of Government do. Now, these assertions might suggest that Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment but, if you carefully analyze what he said, Webb qualified and effectively undermined his position by arguing for more “background checks,” and he clearly asserted that mental health practitioners should share their patients’ medical information with Government.The use of background checks as well as the introduction of measures compelling mental health practitioners to divulge medical information that is subject to the doctor/patient privilege serve only to destroy the inherent right to privacy. And both measures result in secretive Government registration lists – all part of “Big Data” for the benefit of “Big Government.” So, if you think that Jim Webb is a devoted protector of Americans’ Second Amendment Right of the people to keep and bear arms and, as well, protector of Americans’ Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, you better think twice. Many viewers of the televised debate were taken in by Webb’s pronouncements, believing that he supports the Second Amendment. At one time, perhaps he did. As a Democratic candidate for President, he most certainly does not.Anderson Cooper then asked Bernie Sanders to address his position on guns. Cooper, pointed out – among other things – that Sanders had, at one time, shielded gun companies from lawsuits. Cooper suggested, without explicitly stating, that Sanders supports gun ownership. In his response Sanders corrected Cooper, beginning with Sanders' point that he had received a “D Minus” rating from the NRA -- shamelessly boasting to the American public that the NRA does not approve of Sanders’ position on “guns.”To exemplify the import of the “D-Minus” Rating, Sanders said that he had, since 1988, supported a ban on “assault weapons” – this coming from a man who also remarked that Vermont has virtually no gun control laws -- a curious addendum to Sanders' statement, indeed.Sanders also said that he has, through the years, supported instant background checks and that he ascribes to “doing away with this ‘terrible’ gun-show loophole.” He also said that we have to deal “aggressively" at the federal level, with straw man purchases. Finally, Sanders said that people who face mental health crises must get mental health counseling immediately.Anderson Cooper pressed Sanders on whether he wishes to shield gun companies from liability. Sanders replied, “of course not.” Sanders added that he does not believe that a gun shop owner who had legally sold a gun to a purchaser should be held accountable if a crime is committed with that gun. But, he added, where a gun shop owner or gun manufacturer had knowingly sold a gun to a criminal, then that gun shop owner or manufacturer should be held accountable.As with Webb, Sanders is arguing for mandatory mental health care intervention and the sharing of private medical records – even if this is only tacitly stated. Is this such a bad thing? Yes, it is!Since the distinction between non-serious mental health problems and serious mental health issues is nebulous at best, those Democrats, and Republicans, too, for that matter, who are jumping on the mental health care bandwagon, are essentially setting the stage for a gun ban impacting a tremendously large segment of the American population – a population consisting, conceivably of tens of millions of Americans. Moreover -- and it bears repeating -- the requirement that mental health care practitioners must share medical information with government officials absolutely destroys the sanctity of the doctor/patient privacy privilege and destroys, as well, the import and purport of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Anderson Cooper, obviously providing a leg up for Hillary Clinton, then asked Clinton whether she felt that “Bernie Sanders is tough enough on guns.” Hillary must have gotten a pleasant jolt out of that question, thinking to herself, “thank you Anderson Cooper.” She responded, “no, not at all!” Clinton pointed out that we lose ninety people a day to gun violence and that this has gone on for far too long. Clinton didn’t trouble herself to support the assertion with evidence. Clinton never does. Nor did Clinton bother to explain what groups of people are responsible for the gun violence. Clinton, as always, is notoriously vague. So, was Clinton referring to criminals as the source of gun violence or was she referring to law-abiding citizens? Anderson Cooper, obligingly, never bothered to ask Clinton for clarification.Clinton – now on a roll – she must have loved that Cooper brought up the issue of "guns" – said, “it is time the entire Country stood up against the NRA.” Clinton got a large round of applause for that last remark. Clinton is always at her best when posturing to her audience who are satisfied receiving choice sound bites from her – never demanding cogent, comprehensive, coherent, intelligent arguments in support of her positions -- assuming she has a firm conviction about anything, apart from her singular lust for securing the Office of the Presidency.Clinton in her remarks is essentially asserting that the NRA is something other than the millions of Americans who compose it and millions more who derive benefit from it – whose interests the NRA represents. Is Clinton suggesting that tens of millions of Americans – stand up against themselves – against their own interests? Once again, Anderson Cooper didn’t trouble himself to ask Clinton to expand upon her bald, bold pronouncements. Rather, he allowed her to bask in the limelight of her mesmerized devotees, who hang on her every empty and, often, inconsistent word. Clinton then unleashed another volley of ludicrous assertions that -- one might reasonably suspect -- she expects the public to take for profound aphorisms. She blurted out that the majority of Americans support background checks and even the majority of gun owners do. Oh, really? But, instead of quizzical gazes from the audience, she gets another round of applause.Clinton then attacks Sander’s record on guns. She said that Sanders voted against the “Brady Bill” five times and that, according to Clinton, since the passage of the “Brady Bill,” more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. If true, one must wonder that, if the “Brady Bill” were so successful, why are the Democrats proclaiming the need for yet more restrictive gun legislation?Oh, and now that Hillary is on a roll, more nonsense gushes forth. She asks: Did you know that the gun manufacturing industry in America is the only industry immune from lawsuits? She further asserts that gun manufacturers are the only manufacturers who are not accountable. Clinton would have you believe that this nonsense is just common knowledge rather than vacuous remarks, devoid of any legal or logical substance.Sanders responded that we need to expand background checks, do away with the “gun show loophole,” deal with mental health issues, and do away with straw man purchases. This all boils down to: limit as far as possible the number of Americans who can possess firearms, and make sure that those few remaining law-abiding Americans, who can and do lawfully possess firearms, register them so all governmental bodies know who those Americans are -- which makes confiscation of firearms, then, a relatively simple task.Not to be outdone, Martin O’Malley blurted out his own righteous indignation. O’Malley referred to a lawsuit that was filed by a couple against a person who sold several thousand rounds to the individual who killed their daughter in a “mass shooting” in Aurora, Colorado. O’Malley said that the game was rigged against this couple. The case – we’d all like to have the citation to it – was thrown out of court. Worse, according to O’Malley, the couple were “slapped with $200,000.00 in court fees.” And, who was responsible for this alleged perversion of justice, according to O'Malley? The proverbial Bogeyman! The NRA of course. The NRA, according to O’Malley, gets its way in Congress and “we” – whoever “we” refers to – take a backseat. O’Malley concludes his rant with: “It’s time to pass comprehensive gun safety legislation in this Nation!” More applause.Sanders and O’Malley then get into it – as egged on by Cooper. Clinton, for her part, standing calmly between the two – nods her head knowingly, and smiles vacantly, demonstrating seeming composure, as Sanders and O’Malley exhibit a very un-presidential loss of control.Finally, Cooper deigns to give the lost black sheep of the herd, Lincoln Chafee, a couple of minutes to chime in. Chaffee remarks that he has consistently voted for “commonsense gun safety legislation,” and that he has earned an "F" Rating from the NRA -- something to be proud of, apparently. Continuing to smile at seemingly nothing, as he has done throughout the “debate,” Chafee adds that “commonsense” gun safety legislation cannot be passed because the “Gun Lobby” comes in and tells the people, “they’re coming to take away your guns.” Well, aren’t "they" though?So, there you have it: the Democratic Presidential Candidates' policy positions and strategies for undermining the Second Amendment. Oddly enough, though, as each of the Democratic Party candidates for President denigrated “guns,” during the lengthy ten minute tirade, not one of them bothered to explicitly mention the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is really what the "gun" issue is all about, which the candidates talked roundabout, climbing over each other in their mindless zeal to excoriate.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, APPLICATION FOR AN UNRESTRICTED, CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

PART THREE: PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY -- A LOOK AT ACTUAL APPLICATION LICENSING PROCEDURES IN THE SEVERAL STATES

SUBPART ONE: NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

THE CIRCUITOUS, TORTUOUS ROUTE TO OBTAINING MULTIPLE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSES AS EXPERIENCED BY OUR INTREPID CITIZEN, MR. RIGHT.

Mr. Wright is a resident of New York State, and, as we previously mentioned, in Part Two of this multi-part series article, he lives in Nassau County, but his corporate offices are in New York City. MrWright first sought to obtain a concealed handgun carry license for his hometown, in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. And, he believed, logically, that once he secured the license, the license would be valid through the entirety of New York, at least, if not valid in any other State. Simple enough, you might think. Simple enough, Mr. Wright thought. Mr. Wright was wrong in his assessment. As he found out, through some digging, New York does not issue one concealed handgun carry license that is good throughout the State for most individuals, unless they are retired, qualified police officers or retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers. Of course, current active-duty New York police officers and current active-duty law-enforcement officers do not require a license to carry a firearm. Their badge and ID is license enough to carry anywhere in the State.Mr. Wright soon learned that a concealed handgun carry license that is issued by the County of Nassau would allow Mr. Wright to carry a handgun concealed in Nassau County and in all Counties within the State of New York, but would not allow him to carry a handgun concealed in any of the five Boroughs of New York City. So, Mr. Wright first decided that, as it made sense for him at least, at the outset, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license in his hometown of Nassau County, he would begin there. If Mr. Wright wishes to carry a handgun anywhere within the five Boroughs of New York City, he would unload his handgun and place it in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip through the city’s five boroughs. Ammunition must be stored in its own locked container. Both the handgun and ammunition should be stored in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the locked containers must be kept the furthest distance as possible from your person. Of course, Mr. Wright did not know this at the time, but would learn just how complicated and convoluted the laws of New York City, in particular, are, once he became knowledgeable of the City’s firearms’ Rules.

THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

So, Mr. Wright went about the arduous task of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license in Nassau County. Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department is the issuing agency authorized by law to grant handgun licenses in the county. Mr. Wright then learned that the holder of a valid license may carry a handgun loaded in all counties in the State of New York, except for all five boroughs of the City of New York. Mr. Wright could download an application and, as well, for a handgun license, but once completed, he realized that he personally had to go to the Police Department’s headquarters located at 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501 to file it. Mr. Wright also downloaded Nassau County’s “Pistol License Section Handbook.” During some off-time, during the weekend, Mr. Wright sat down to read the “Handbook.”Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department issues six types of handgun licenses: one, “Target/Hunting License;” two, “Business License;” three, “Restricted Business License for Armed Guard & Armored Car Guard;” four, “Civilian Full Carry License;” five, “Retired Police Officer/Federal Law Enforcement Officer License;” and, six, “Retired Peace Officer License.”Mr. Wright reviewed the requirements for each type of license and the restrictions, if any, on the licenses. Mr. Wright found it easy enough to rule out several licenses. Since he resided in Nassau County, but his business was in New York, he decided that he would like to apply for a “Civilian Full Carry License.”Mr. Wright then reviewed the actual “PISTOL LICENSE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS” that he had printed out along with the “Handbook.” From a quick scan of the Handbook, Mr. Wright ascertained, immediately, that the Application did not provide any space allocation for setting down the type of handgun license the applicant wished to apply for. Mr. Wright wondered, then, whether the “Application” was, for all intents and purposes, an initial application and that, based on Mr. Wright’s responses, and on the basis of the Nassau County Police Department’s initial investigation of him, the Application would either be accepted for further processing, or his Application for a pistol license – any kind of a pistol license – would be summarily rejected. But, Mr. Wright, realized that his initial assessment was wrong, once, after a cursory inspection of the Handbook, he carefully read and memorized important details. He noticed that, on the very first page of the handbook, the NCPD had this to say:"Please note that while pistol licenses are processed as quickly as possible, the present processing time is approximately six (6) months. All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready. PLEASE DO NOT CALL TO INQUIRE AS TO THE STATUS OF A PENDING APPLICATION."Mr. Wright’s gaze was drawn to a particular sentence that wasn’t in bold type: “All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready.” This sentence proclaimed that the NCPD would, itself, determine what kind of license it would issue to an Applicant, if a handgun license would be issued at all. So, Mr. Wright reasoned, he would not have any choice in the matter after all. The next day Mr. Wright phoned the NCPD and asked to speak to an Officer with the “Pistol License Section” of the NCPD. Once connected to the appropriate Officer, Mr. Wright explained that he was reading through the handbook and he was aware that the NCPD issues six types of handgun licenses and that he is aware of only two that could feasibly apply to him: the “target/hunting license” and the “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright explained that he wanted a handgun for self-defense, adding that he was not interested in hunting or for plinking at targets. The Officer replied in an offhanded way that, if Mr. Wright qualified for a license at all, he would not be receiving a “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright wanted to know why that is. The Officer pointed out that very few of those are issued. Mr. Wright asked him if the NCPD obtains many requests for “civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer stated that, in fact, many New York residents do want full carry licenses but very few are ever issued. “Who,” Mr. Wright asked, “receives ‘civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer replied: “judges and politicians.” Mr. Wright thanked the Officer for his time and for his honesty and, once he hung up the telephone, he wondered if it would be worthwhile for him to spend the time, which would be considerable, and a sum of money, which would not be inconsiderable, to apply for a handgun license at all, in his own home town, if, at best, he would receive nothing more than a “target/hunting license.” Mr. Wright decided that he would complete the application process.In continuing to read through the application process, it was very clear to Mr. Wright that, if a person, was to receive a handgun license at all – any kind of license, that person would need to be literally squeaky clean. Indeed, one question required Mr. Wright to indicate whether he had received a traffic violation within the last five years and “traffic violation” included “traffic infractions.” This was what the Handbook set forth:“An applicant for the issuance of a pistol license must:

1. Provide two passport-size photos with their application;

2. Reside within the confines of the County of Nassau;

3. Complete the notarized form letter (found in the application package) which states all persons 18 years of age or older who reside with the applicant are aware applicant will be securing a firearm(s) in the residence.

4. Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age or older, provided however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard, or the National Guard of the State of New York, no such age restriction shall apply;

5. Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

6. Not have had a license revoked or be under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 530.14 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law or Section 842-A of the NYS Family Court Act;

7. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully residing in the United States;

8. Not have been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2);

9. Having been a citizen of the United States, never renounced his or her citizenship;

10. Be of good moral character;

11. Demonstrate the existence of proper cause or legitimate business necessity for the issuance of a license other than Target/Hunting or Retired Officer;

Note: The NCPD may alter a licensee’s classification at any time upon a finding that proper cause/legitimate business necessity no longer exists. Proper cause, like any license requirement stated herein, must be demonstrated each time the license is renewed and at any time upon request by NCPD Pistol License Section personnel. If proper cause is not proven, the license will be modified accordingly to reflect the appropriate classification.

12. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a felony or other serious offense, as defined in Section 265.00(17) of the NYSPL;

13. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;

14. Disclose whether he or she has been the subject or recipient of an Order of Protection or a Temporary Order of Protection;

15. Not be a fugitive from justice;

16. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802;

17. Not have been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene pursuant to Article 9 or 15 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law, Article 730 or Section 330.20 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law, Article 402 or 508 of the NYS Correction Law or Section 322.2 or 353.4 of the NYS Family Court Act;

18. Not have been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to Article 10 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law;

19. Not have had a guardian appointed for him or her pursuant to any provision of New York State law, based upon a determination that as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incapacity, condition or disease, he or she lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs;

20. Not have a history of suffering from a mental illness;

21. Be free from any mental disorders, conditions, defects or diseases that would impair or affect his or her ability to safely possess or use a firearm;

Note: If an applicant is being treated by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, he or she must obtain a letter of “no objection” from that caregiver.

22. Demonstrate that no good cause exists for the denial of such license.”

Mr. Wright could deduce from the nature of the questions in the handbook, which were mirrored in thirteen questions that required a simple “yes” or “no” answer, that a “yes” answer was sufficient grounds for immediate disqualification for any handgun license. And, if an applicant were to lie, in the hope that the NCPD might not, through its investigation, uncover the deception – well – the NCPD had that possibility covered as well, for the “Pistol License Application Questionnaire” set forth this:“ANY OMISSION OF FACT OR ANY FALSE STATEMENT WILL BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTES A CRIME PUNISHABLE BYFINE, IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.”Mr. Wright, who is a man of impeccable integrity and honesty would never lie; nor had he need to. He could honestly answer, “no” to each question. Mr. Wright’s main concern – indeed – Mr. Wright’s only concern was that he would likely not receive a “civilian full carry license.” Having reviewed both the Application Questionnaire and the “Pistol License Section Handbook” in depth, Mr. Wright, who was also a man who was methodical and meticulous in attending to details decided that if he were to enhance his prospect for obtaining a civilian full carry license, he should consult with both an attorney and with a professional organization adept at understanding and handling the intricate process of obtaining a handgun license.At the end of the day, after waiting the full six months to obtain a handgun license, issued by the NCPD, Mr. Wright obtained his handgun license: a “target/hunting license.” He was unable to obtain a “civilian full carry license” as issued by Nassau County, his own hometown. Had he been a judge or a politician, instead of a mere “businessman,” as the NCPD Officer explained to him, the outcome would likely have been different. Apparently, the NCPD has determined that the life of a politician or a judge is more valuable than that of an American citizen who is only a businessman. One can only wonder what the founders of this Republic would have said about that!If Mr. Wright wished to acquire a handgun license for self-defense, he realized that he would have to obtain one in another New York jurisdiction. As his business was located in New York City and, as his attorney and other specialists suggested that his opportunity for securing an unrestricted “full carry” license may actually be better once he applied for a handgun license as issued by the NYPD, Mr. Wright now used considerable energy and resources to obtain what he hoped would culminate in his first unrestricted full carry concealed handgun carry license. In the back of his mind Mr. Wright was more than a trifle upset that he – an honest, law-abiding American citizen and a successful businessman who has helped fill the State and City and County coffers with substantial tax dollars, much of which would go to the very police departments bestowed with the singular power to determine how much value to place on his life – should deny him the right of access to a handgun simply that he might exercise his right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deny him one of the most basic of human imperatives: the impulse to defend one’s own life.Would the NYPD treat Mr. Wright just as curtly? Mr. Wright aimed to find out. In the next subpart of this multi-series article, we will discuss Mr. Wright’s experiences involving his application for a New York City unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES

A Roadtrip With A Handgun: The Case For Universal State Reciprocity

PART TWO: The Pragmatic Basis For Universal Concealed Handgun Carry Among The Several States

INTRODUCTION

This article is the second of a multi-part series. The purpose of this second article, and of those that follow, is to establish a cogent, coherent case for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity based on pragmatic grounds. In our first article of this multi-part series, as posted on the Arbalest Quarrel website, we provided you with the legal and moral grounds for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity and responded to the usual arguments that antigun proponents and zealots raise against implementation of concealed handgun carry reciprocity across the United States. In this segment of our series, and of those that follow, we provide you with the pragmatic grounds for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity. We illustrate for you the travails encountered by one individual as he attempts to secure for himself a number of concealed handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions that will allow him to protect his life and well-being with the most effective means possible – a handgun – as he travels in and through several States to conduct business. We look at: one, the actual police licensing division handbooks and application forms of particular jurisdictions; and, two, the actual procedures involved in applying for and securing a handgun license.

QUALIFICATION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH WE DISCUSS THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING APPLICATION PROCESS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

In providing you with and discussing the content of actual licensing handbooks and application forms, and, in setting out the procedures and events that took place for our businessman, whom we employ as a test-bed for illustrating the onerous nature of handgun licensing generally and whose personal experiences form the basis for this exercise, we have taken certain liberties. First, the handgun licensing manuals or handbooks and application forms, that we point to and discuss at some length, are current as of the time that any particular article in this multi-part series is posted. We do this for a couple of reasons: One, firearms laws and procedures go through a process of change in the course of years – often, unfortunately, becoming more draconian and formidable, rather than less so as time passes. If we are going to explain to you the handgun licensing procedures of various jurisdictions, it would be more helpful to you, if we explain the state of firearms’ laws today, rather than yesterday. Two, at the time that the individual, who is the subject of this multi-part series, obtained his first few concealed handgun licenses, police department websites that make it easy to obtain handgun licensing handbooks and application forms were nonexistent. So a person – in this case, our businessman – had to allocate the time to drive to the appropriate police station to obtain the necessary handbooks and forms. And a personal visit often required him to wait in line, for an hour or more, simply to request a copy of the handgun licensing handbook and forms, that he needed, as these documents and forms were not “hanging on a rack” or “sitting on a table” – readily accessible to the public. Second, we have found it difficult to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that our businessman went through to secure his first handgun licenses and it is difficult to reconstruct the precise sequence of events involving renewal of those licenses. So, we have had to attempt, as best we could, to reconstruct those sequence of events. But, keep in mind that the important objective here is to make the point, demonstrably, that obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is not a simple endeavor, to be undertaken casually.The process of obtaining even one concealed handgun carry license can be time-consuming, convoluted, and incredibly complex, and, for most of us, quite expensive. Moreover, at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that an applicant will obtain his or her prize. We would hazard a guess that police departments across the Country are, generally, reluctant to issue unrestricted, “full concealed carry” handgun licenses. And, the licensing officers are often given wide latitude and discretion in doing so. If, then, a person is refused issuance of a concealed handgun carry license, that person must go through the ordeal of a police administrative hearing, and, sometimes, administrative appeals that, ultimately, may very well go against the applicant, thus requiring a lawsuit after all administrative all appeals have been exhausted. And law courts, too, are not generally predisposed to find in favor of the applicant who desires a “full carry” handgun license. The standard, in many courts, is “abuse of discretion.” If the applicant fails to prove, through the proffering of evidence, that “abuse of discretion,” occurred in his case, that applicant will end up empty-handed, with nothing to show for the experience but frustration, some not unexpected anguish, and the loss of considerable time and money spent chasing shadows.

THE QUAGMIRE OF HANDGUN LICENSING PROCEDURES

At present, since universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity doesn’t exist, the law-abiding American citizen who wishes to exercise his natural right of self-defense as embodied in the Second Amendment must wade through a quagmire of laws, rules and procedures if he or she wishes to secure a concealed carry handgun license. The application process in the vast majority of jurisdictions across the Country is complicated, expensive, and time-consuming. The law-abiding citizen, who wishes to secure one or more handgun licenses for himself or herself, must exemplify the qualities of patience and fortitude. According to the NRA-ILA, only a handful of States, as of the posted date of this article, allow the law-abiding American to carry a handgun concealed, for lawful purposes.In the following segments, beginning with Part 3 of “A Road Trip with a Handgun” we provide you with a pragmatic look at what the typical law-abiding American citizen must contend with as he undertakes the arduous task of obtaining concealed handgun carry licenses in a multitude of States – licenses he needs that allow him to protect his life as he conducts business across State lines.In what follows, the identity of the businessman, upon whose experiences this exercise is loosely based, has been kept confidential in order to protect his privacy. We have also changed certain details of this person’s life, including the nature of his business, and specific points in time when he actually applied for the various jurisdictional pistol licenses. But, the situations that we discuss here – the hurdles this American citizen, and resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, has had to face and overcome to first obtain and then, periodically, maintain his concealed handgun carry licenses – are all true. The point of this exercise, in describing the complexity of securing concealed handgun licenses in several States, is to educate you and to sensitize you to the harsh realities involved in simply securing for yourself the means by which you might best exercise the basic right of self-defense that underlies the Second Amendment guarantee. In a very real sense the sacred right to keep and bear arms that is etched in high relief in our Bill of Rights – a Right that would not exist but for the blood that was spilled by Americans in forging our Nation – must be fought for yet again, but this time Americans must wage war against oppressive governmental bureaucracies that our Nation has devolved into. That this war must be waged at all is due entirely to the efforts of all too many State and federal Legislators and to the efforts of their backers. Antigun proponents and zealots do not recognize or have otherwise long-since forgotten that the average law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend his or her life and if that right is exist as something more tangible than vacuous words, it must be permitted real expression. And this means that Americans ought to be able to defend their lives and well-being with the best means available for namely, through that provided by a firearm.Universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity among the several States would go a long way to safeguarding and effectuating the import of self-defense as embodied in the Second Amendment.

BACKSTORY, CONCERNING OUR BUSINESSMAN

We refer to our businessman, here, by the name Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright has an impeccable, unblemished record: no arrests, no instance of drug abuse, no history of mental illness, no domestic disturbance incident and no physical handicap that would otherwise preclude the issuance of some sort of handgun license. In other words, there is nothing in our businessman’s past or present life and circumstances that could conceivably be ground for immediate rejection of issuance of a handgun license of some sort. That is to say, good cause for denying our businessman the right to possess a handgun or, for that matter, from possessing any firearm does not exist. But, our businessman doesn’t want a restricted handgun license because that would effectively preclude him the use of the weapon for self-defense in many environments, which is precisely why many jurisdictions are loathe to issues such licenses to average, law-abiding Americans. They do not want Americans having access to handguns for self-defense. Yet, our businessman seeks an unrestricted, concealed, “full carry” handgun license or permit for just that purpose: self-defense.But, to obtain an unrestricted, “full carry” license in many jurisdictions, such as New York, there is a higher standard that an applicant must meet. It is not enough to show that good cause does not exist for denying a person the right to possess a handgun. The applicant must show that good cause exists why that person should be permitted the right to carry a handgun, concealed, for the purpose of self-defense, in a public space – that is to say – outside of one’s home or business. In other words, the applicant must show why some aspect of that person’s life places that person in more serious danger than the average law-abiding American faces. That higher standard is very difficult to meet and often requires the assistance of a professional firm that specializes in firearms’ licensing and, in some cases, the expertise of an attorney may be required. And, those services are not cheap. They may very well cost the applicant thousands of dollars.Our objective is, then, to expose, in minute detail, just how difficult it is for most law-abiding Americans – other than those individuals who fall within certain exceptional categories, such as retired police officers, judges, and politicians – to simply exercise their natural right of self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In our next article, we get into the guts proper of what is actually involved in obtaining an unrestricted concealed carry handgun license. We begin by discussing the procedure for obtaining a “Civilian Full Carry License” in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. As Nassau County is our businessman’s hometown, he decided that he would obtain a Nassau County handgun license first. He would learn that a “Civilian Full Carry License” is not easy to come by. He would also learn that, once he received that license, a Nassau County “Civilian Full Carry License” would permit him to carry a handgun concealed anywhere in the State of New York, except for the five Boroughs of New York City. And our businessman, whom we will hereafter call Mr. Wright, will realize, shortly, that, one valid unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is, then, insufficient if one wishes to exercise the natural right of self-defense.So, join our businessman on his journey. Both he and you are in for quite a ride.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.