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

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

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

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

WHAT WERE SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2017?

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

THE MISSION OF THE ARBALEST QUARREL 

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

• ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS

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

• EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT OUTRIGHT

• INDOCTRINATION OF AMERICA’S YOUTH

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

• DIRECT MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA ATTACKS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

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

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

• DENIAL OF GUN POSSESSION TO ENTIRE GROUPS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WORK AHEAD FOR THE ARBALEST QUARREL IN 2018

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

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

If the American people are to maintain their unique roots, we must work, first and foremost to keep sacred the Bill of Rights, and that means we must understand the import and purport of the Bill of Rights as the drafters intended, and we must insist that rights and liberties be preserved, protected, and strengthened. We must argue for the continued primacy of this Country as a sovereign, independent Nation State and we must insist that the federal Government’s first order of business, as servants of the American people, is to see to the needs of and well-being of, and security and safety of the American people. And, who are the American people? They are the citizens of this Country and those citizens, the American people, do not include anyone who resides here illegally, whatever that person's motive or circumstance for being here. And, no individual who resides elsewhere has a right to emigrate to this Country simply because that person seeks to live here, for good or for ill; and no one who has entered this Country illegally, whether consciously or through no fault of their own, can demand, as a matter of right, as a matter of law, the right to remain here. For law is not ad hoc. If Congress deigns to allow illegal aliens to remain here, then Congress must refrain from granting such individuals, citizenship. For, to grant citizenship to those who have consciously or not ignored our law, or who claim an exception to law that does not presently exist in law will serve only to destroy our system of laws. To change law or to ignore law on a whim sets a poor precedent and such action, in the seeming moral sense of it, will destroy this Country from within.We must hold to our core values. We must not be seduced into accepting notions of moral and legal relativism and we must not fall prey to historical revisionism. These notions are poisonous, pernicious, debilitating. We are a People with one common language, English. No Nation has remained a separate and distinct Nation State that has inculcated, internalized a notion of bilingualism or multilingualism or that has abided bilingualism or multilingualism.No one, whether inside or outside Government, shall indoctrinate the American people. Each American citizen has a right to free expression and to freely express his or her mind. That an individual may wish to express an idea or to possess a physical item that another individual may personally dislike, or even abhor, so what of it? The founders of our free Republic and the framers of our Constitution did not undertake to institute or to insinuate into the natural and fundamental rights and liberties of the American people a notion of “political correctness.” Such a notion is of modern invention and vintage, designed to serve an ulterior purpose. Indeed, had the founders of our Republic thought of such an absurd concept at all they would undoubtedly have held political correctness to be decidedly politically incorrect. Nothing is more devastating or destructive to the citizenry of this Nation or, for that matter, to the citizenry of any nation state, than the sins of hypocrisy and sanctimony. Unfortunately, both are in abundance in this Nation. We can for that thank the arrogance of mainstream media and of those with power and money and influence, both here and abroad, who wish to dictate a mode of thought the rest of us are obliged to adhere to. The American people should be particularly wary of those legislators and those presumptuous “elites” who bandy about such expressions as “rule of law,” and “living Constitution,” and “open borders,” and “citizen of the world” and “job creator,” and “commonsense gun laws,” and “social Darwinism, and “identity politics,” and “political correctness.” These expressions, and there are others, have become trite and dangerous clichés, shorthand simplistic sloganeering, that are either misunderstood and therefore misused, or are otherwise given to suggest or convey something overtly positive, even exemplary, when, in fact, their utilization is meant to harm the American citizen, meant to harm you! Always be mindful of seemingly noble sounding and high-minded verbiage thrown out to the masses for consumption like so much popcorn and roasted peanuts and cotton candy. Be observant, be cautious, think critically before throwing your lot in with everyone else simply because everyone else is “doing it” or “believing it.” You are no longer in high school. There is no longer any need for you to belong to this or that “clique,” in order to "fit in."The framers of the Constitution glorified the right of the individual to be individual and to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions. Our sacred rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights are a testament to that fact. That is our birthright. The right of free speech; freedom of association; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These are not mere platitudes. These are a few of the most important natural rights, codified in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute and unconditional, and they are slowly being eroded. Americans should consider, critically, how the words of a news commentator, or of a Hollywood star, or of a mega-sports star, or of a legislator, or of a financier, or of a government bureaucrat, or of a highly paid comic on nighttime  television meant to cajole or persuade Americans would impinge on or infringe those rights and liberties before you throw your lot in with them. For you may be hoodwinked into giving up everything of real consequence._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GROUPTHINK VERSUS THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

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

THE OWNERS AND EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ARE HYPOCRITES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS GO AFTER FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS IN CONNECTICUT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY THIS CASE IS IMPORTANT

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

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

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

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

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

A RELOOK AT CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

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

FAKE (PHONY) NEWS VERSUS TRUTH IN NEWS REPORTING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY?

The Arbalest Quarrel has previously analyzed New York State gun laws to determine whether a New York resident, who wishes to own and possess the Maxim 50 “integrally suppressed muzzleloader,” manufactured by SilencerCo, can lawfully do so. SilencerCo says that civilians can do so in all 50 States, which, then, includes New York. SilencerCo says that, in most States, individuals can purchase the Maxim 50 directly through interstate commerce, direct from the manufacturer, SilencerCo, meaning that an individual need not purchase the Maxim 50 through an intermediary, meaning a licensed dealer in firearms. According to SilencerCo, a civilian, who desires to purchase the Maxim 50 in some jurisdictions—which includes New York—that civilian can still do so but must obtain the Maxim 50 through a licensed gun dealer. That means that a person who wishes to purchases the Maxim 50 in a jurisdiction, such as  New York, and certain other jurisdictions that SilencerCo mentions on its website, can do so but can only do so through a licensed gun dealer, operating and doing business in the State in which the individual resides. Specifically, SilencerCo says this:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA)* was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilencerCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL. Is this statement true?Through our own detailed research of New York gun laws, the Arbalest Quarrel concluded that, contrary to SilenceCo's pronouncements, the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York. No reputable licensed gun dealer will, under New York law, accept delivery of a Maxim 50 for ultimate disposition to a civilian. Therefore, no law-abiding New York resident, who is a civilian, and who does not fall under an exemption, should attempt to obtain one.Since a New York resident, who does not fall within an exemption, cannot legally accept delivery of the Maxim 50, either directly from the manufacturer, SilenceCo, or indirectly, from the manufacturer, through a licensed gun dealer, no New York resident (a civilian), can legally possess the Maxim 50. You can read our highly detailed, comprehensive analysis of the impact of New York firearms laws on the issue of the legality/illegality of the Maxim 50 in New York, on the Arbalest Quarrel website, under the title, “Is the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader”, Manufactured by Silenceco, Legal in the State of New York?” Also, in that Arbalest Quarrel article on the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, as part of our detailed, comprehensive analysis, we discuss, in depth and at length, the concept of a ‘firearm,’ under federal law as well as under New York law.The legality of civilian ownership and possession of the Maxim 50 must satisfy both federal law as well as the laws of the jurisdiction where the civilian, desiring to possess the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, resides. Under federal law, the Maxim 50 does not satisfy the federal definition of ‘firearm,’ and, so, does not fall within the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Since we have previously discussed application of federal law to the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, at length, in our previous article on the Maxim 50, apropos of New York law, we won’t reiterate the points here, but invite interested readers, once again, to peruse our in depth analysis in our article--Is the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader”, Manufactured by Silenceco, Legal in the State of New York?”After posting our article, a second reader asked the Arbalest Quarrel whether the average law-abiding civilian, not under disability, may lawfully own and possess the “Maxim 50 Suppressed Muzzleloader” in New Jersey.Now we can cut to the chase here because, as of the date of the posting of this article, SilenceCo will not ship the Maxim 50 either directly to a resident of New Jersey or indirectly, to a resident of New Jersey, through a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey. This statement contradicts SilenceCo's claim “that civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader” since SilencerCo asserts, at another point on its website, that the Company will not ship the Maxim 50 in three States, even indirectly through a licensed firearms dealer—operating and doing business in New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. SilencerCo says, of these three States, “Maxim 50 is currently restricted in these states pending legal determinations." So, because SilencerCo will not ship the Maxim 50 even to a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey, California or Massachusetts.” This means that a resident cannot lawfully obtain the weapon even indirectly through a licensed gun dealer, because it would be illegal to do so, as the Maxim 50 is banned in those States.But, is that, in fact, true, and, if so, why?One website “Range365,” had this to say about the problem SilencerCo is having with New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts: “As soon as the company announced the gun and its legal status, it was challenged by lawyers and authorities in three states with some of the toughest gun laws in the country and where suppressors are banned at a state level: New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Here’s an official statement from SilencerCo regarding the legal status of the Maxim 50: ‘Upon launching the Maxim 50, SilencerCo received several immediate legal challenges from authorities and lawyers in the states of New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts. Since we have no desire to place any consumer in a situation where they may get arrested and charged with a felony because their state defines a firearm differently than the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), we have placed orders from those states on hold and are refunding customers pending conversations amongst lawyers. These three states have rules that are not entirely clear with respect to firearms and silencers and antique firearms, and it is relevant to point out that no states contemplated a product of this sort in their laws. Muzzleloaders are considered “‘antique firearms’” by the ATF, and therefore, the Maxim 50's integral suppressor isn't considered a suppressor.SilencerCo asked for and received a determination from the BATFE on behalf of the federal government prior to launch but could not do so officially from each state government or risk specific state-level legislation being passed prohibiting the product before it was even launched. We will refund orders to customers from these states and update consumers as soon as feasible as to the ultimate determination in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. “We believe that law­ abiding citizens should have the ability to purchase and own silencers, regardless of what state they live in. We will continue our efforts in advocacy and encourage all who share our desire to take action and contact their elected representatives by visiting www.fightthenoise.org.’Federally, the Maxim 50 is considered legal because, as a muzzleloader, it is defined as an “antique firearm” and not a “firearm” by the ATF, which exempts them from many gun laws. Muzzleloaders are not required to go through an FFL (they are in NJ) and can be shipped right to your door, in most states. Likewise, because the integral suppressor can’t be removed or attached to a “firearm,” it is not considered a suppressor and is not subject to National Firearms Act regulations.”The Maxim 50 is currently restricted in these states pending legal determinations. So, SilenceCo will not ship the Maxim 50 even to a licensed dealer operating and doing business in New Jersey, California or Massachusetts." The Arbalest Quarrel, for its part, doesn’t assume any  assertion, involving legal issues, is true until we analyze the applicable laws impacting firearms in the respective jurisdictions ourselves, and, having done so, then explain our findings to interested readers. So, let us begin, forthwith.

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW JERSEY GUN CONTROL LAWS?

New Jersey law utilizes some of the language of federal firearms law, but, as with New York firearms law, New Jersey firearms law has its own unique twists and wrinkles.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY GUN CONTROL LAWS?

We go to the New Jersey Annotated Statutes for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions. We turn to N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1 of Title 2C, The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons. First, we look at the definition of ‘firearm.’ N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1 of Title 2C says, “the following definitions apply to this chapter [Chapter 39 (Weapons)] and to Chapter 58 [Possession of Firearms].”

DEFINITION OF 'FIREARM' IN NEW JERSEY LAW:

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f) says this: “‘Firearm’ means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, automatic or semi-automatic rifle, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectable ball, slug, pellet, missile or bullet, or any gas, vapor or other noxious thing, by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of an air gun, spring gun or pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is a spring, elastic band, carbon dioxide, compressed or other gas or vapor, air or compressed air, or is ignited by compressed air, and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person.”The Maxim 50 fits the New Jersey definition of 'firearm.' So, the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey firearms laws.

DEFINITION OF 'ANTIQUE FIREARM' IN NEW JERSEY LAW:

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(a) says this: “‘Antique firearm’ means any rifle or shotgun and “antique cannon” means a destructive device defined in paragraph (3) of subsection c. of this section, if the rifle, shotgun or destructive device, as the case may be, is incapable of being fired or discharged, or which does not fire fixed ammunition, regardless of date of manufacture, or was manufactured before 1898 for which cartridge ammunition is not commercially available, and is possessed as a curiosity or ornament or for its historical significance or value.”The manufacturer says, in its product manual, to “USE ONLY BLACK POWDER OR APPROVED BLACK POWDER SUBSTITUTE IN YOUR MUZZLELOADER.” So, then, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, is also an "antique firearm."

WHY, SPECIFICALLY, THE MAXIM 50 IS BOTH A FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW AND AN ANTIQUE FIREARM UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW

Clearly, under New Jersey law, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader is a firearm under New Jersey law precisely because the weapon does fire a "solid projectable ball, slug, missile or bullet. . . by means of a cartridge or shell or by the action of an explosive or the igniting of flammable or explosive substances."  But, the weapon is also an "antique firearm" under New Jersey law precisely because the weapon "does not fire fixed ammunition." * The conclusion we are forced to draw is singularly bizarre, to be sure, but true, nonetheless, given the definitions provided to us in the New Jersey Annotated Statutes: A weapon, any muzzleloader that is either a shotgun or rifle satisfies the definitions of both a 'firearm' and an 'antique firearm' under New Jersey firearms laws. So, some weapons. including, then, the Maxim 50, can be both a firearm and an antique firearm. This makes the concept of 'antique firearm', then, essentially redundant.Thus, under New Jersey law, unlike the situation in federal law, a muzzleloader, that does not fire fixed ammunition, is both a firearm and an antique firearm. This fact is important as it leads directly to the question whether a person, namely a civilian, not under disability, who seeks to purchase a muzzleloader rifle or shotgun--any muzzleloader rifle or shotgun--must obtain a valid New Jersey firearms identification card to do so, lawfully. To explain this, we turn, once again, to New Jersey Statute.

DOES PURCHASE OF A MUZZLELOADER IN NEW JERSEY REALLY REQUIRE A FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION CARD?

N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b) Purchase of Firearms, of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 3. Sentencing  >  Chapter 58. Possession of Firearms; Licensing Firearms purchaser identification card says: "No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of nor receive, purchase or otherwise acquire an antique cannon or a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card, and first exhibits the card to the seller, donor, transferor or assignor, and unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder signs a written certification, on a form prescribed by the superintendent, which shall indicate that he presently complies with the requirements of subsection c. of this section and shall contain his name, address and firearms purchaser identification card number or dealer’s registration number. The certification shall be retained by the seller, as provided in paragraph (4) of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:58-2, or, in the case of a person who is not a dealer, it may be filed with the chief of police of the municipality in which he resides or with the superintendent."Pay particular attention to the first conjunct of the sentence: “No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of nor receive, purchase or otherwise acquire an antique cannon or a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or possesses a valid firearms purchaser identification card.” Under a reasonable construction of N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b), this would suggest that a person (civilian), not under disability, who resides in New Jersey, does not require a valid firearms purchaser identification card to possess an antique rifle or shotgun. But, if an antique rifle and an antique shotgun are also defined as 'firearms'--and they are defined as 'firearms' under N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f)--then a valid firearms purchaser identification card is required. Clearly the two Statutes, N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(b) and N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f), are inconsistent. The two Statutes are in conflict as to the issue whether a resident of New Jersey is required to hold a valid firearms purchaser identification card to possess an antique rifle or antique shotgun. The problem arises because, under the definition of 'firearm,' as set forth in N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(f), there is no distinction made between weapons that fire "fixed ammunition," namely and essentially, those weapons that utilize cartridges, and those that do not, namely, those that utilize black powder as a propellant, along with a separate ball or pellet, as is the case with muzzleloaders, such as the Maxim 50. Is this conflict due to devious design in the drafting or due to inadvertent ignorance or negligence? Who can say?Okay, then. So, the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, is both a "firearm" and an “antique firearm” under New Jersey law. In either event, a person, who is a civilian residing in New Jersey, and who is not under disability, can lawfully possess a rifle that is muzzleloader and a shotgun that is a muzzleloader. But, in either case, that person must first obtain a valid New Jersey firearms identification card to do so, lawfully. These weapons are not banned in New Jersey. Is that all we should be concerned about, when dealing with the Maxim 50? That, indeed, would be the only thing that we would have to worry about, if the Maxim 50 were an ordinary muzzleloader. But, wait a second! The Maxim 50 is not an ordinary muzzleloader. Yes, the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey law and it is also an "antique firearm," under New Jersey law, but, specifically, it is both a firearm and an antique firearm that, under either or both definitions, utilizes a suppressor, integrated into the weapon, according to the manufacturer. In fact, that is the significant and defining feature of the Maxim 50 and a significant selling point. The weapon comes equipped with an integrated firearms suppressor (essentially, an (integrated) “firearms silencer,” under New Jersey law (and we understand that the word ‘firearms silencer’ is inaccurate and essentially a misnomer, as the component "silences" nothing and that the expression 'firearms suppressor' is the preferred expression as it this expression that is used in the firearms industry)).  We must now ask a salient and penultimate question: Does New Jersey discuss silencers in its annotated Statutes? Yes, it does.  Yet, this fact is of no substantive legal or logical consequence if “silencers” are legal in New Jersey. But are they? Let's see.

DEFINITION OF 'FIREARM SILENCER' IN NEW JERSEY LAW

N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g) says this: “‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.Important Note: under this definition, the fact that the Maxim 50 weapon makes use of an integrated silencer or suppressor, doesn’t obviate or change  the basic nature of the weapon as a ‘firearm silencer' under New Jersey law, whether the silencer is integrated into the weapon or not.Once again, this fact would be of no substantive consequence if “silencers” were legal in New Jersey. But are they? This takes us to the next critical question:

ARE SILENCERS LEGAL IN NEW JERSEY?

No they are not! Why is that? Let’s see. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c), “silencers” of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3, titled, “Prohibited weapons and devices,” of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons, categorically bans the possession of silencers. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c), “silencers” says this: “Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree.”Now we must consider whether the fact that the Maxim 50 is manufactured with a suppressor that is integrated into the weapon serves to override the problem commonly associated with “silencers” as separate components of weapons. This requires us to ask and answer the salient, critical, and ultimate question:

DOES A WEAPON--IN THIS CASE, THE MAXIM 50--THAT UTILIZES A SILENCER (SUPPRESSOR) THAT IS INTEGRATED WITH THE WEAPON, RATHER THAN CONSTRUED AS A SEPARATE COMPONENT OF A WEAPON THAT NEED NOT, THEN, BE UTILIZED WITH THE WEAPON--SATISFACTORILY AVOID THE PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH SILENCERS AS ILLEGAL COMPONENTS OF WEAPONS, UNDER NEW JERSEY LAW?

Once again, pay attention to the language of Statute. Under New Jersey law, specifically, N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g), “‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm.” Under a reasonable interpretation of New Jersey law, a firearm silencer (firearm suppressor) is broadly defined to include many things: instruments, attachments, weapons or appliances. The manner in which the device is employed by or utilized in a weapon--whether separate and apart from a weapon or incorporated in a weapon is, then, irrelevant to it's nature and to the question of its lawfulness in New Jersey. The fact, then, that the firearm silencer (firearm suppressor) is integrated into the Maxim 50 is of no moment. Under the definition provided in N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-1(g), the fact that the Maxim 50 weapon makes use of an integrated silencer or suppressor, doesn’t obviate or change the basic nature of the weapon as a ‘firearm silencer' under New Jersey law, whether the silencer is integrated into the weapon or not. To the extent that a "silencer" is per se a "weapon" is sufficient to render it illegal under N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c). Again--N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c) “silencers” of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3, titled, “Prohibited weapons and devices,” of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 2. Specific Offenses  >  Part 5. Offenses Against the Public; Public Order, Health and Decency  >  Chapter 39. Weapons, categorically bans the possession of silencers. N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3(c): “Any person who knowingly has in his possession any firearm silencer is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree”--presents an insurmountable problem for SilencerCo and for those individuals, namely residents of New Jersey, civilians, not under disability, who would like to purchase and possess the Maxim 50.So, the fact that the Maxim 50 is a firearm under New Jersey law and the fact that the Maxim 50 is also an antique firearm under New Jersey law do not, of themselves, create insurmountable legal hurdles for those individuals--residents of New Jersey, civilians, not under disability--who might wish to own and possess a Maxim 50. But, the fact that the Maxim 50 is also a 'silencer' does create an insurmountable hurdle for those individuals who seek to own and possess a Maxim 50, in New Jersey. And, this is the problem presently plaguing SilencerCo that would like to be able to market the weapon to civilians in New Jersey. 

BOTTOM LINE:

The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50 suppressed Muzzleloader, whether construed as a “firearm” or as an “antique firearm” is, in either case, a silencer, under the laws of New Jersey and, therefore, patently illegal for a person to own or possess in New Jersey unless a person falls within the purview of N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-6, titled, Exemptions, which include, inter alia, federal law enforcement officers, Members of the State Police, Members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard if on actual duty, and licensed dealers in firearms, during the course of their normal business. Therefore, the average, law-abiding New Jersey resident, who does not fall within an exemption, and who is not under disability, should not attempt to obtain the Maxim 50. To do so is to invite decidedly unpleasant legal repercussions.As we said in our previous article, determining the legality of the Maxim 50 in New York, whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________*Note: There is another perplexing wrinkle in New Jersey. New Jersey firearms Statutes make no mention of a handgun in the definition of 'antique firearm.' So, do not assume that, because it might appear that a handgun is an "antique," that the handgun can be treated like an "antique rifle" or "antique shotgun". It cannot. A handgun that is a muzzleloader is not an "antique firearm" at all under New Jersey law.  Under N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(a) Purchase of Firearms, of the New Jersey Annotated Statutes  >  Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice  >  Subtitle 3. Sentencing  >  Chapter 58. Possession of Firearms; Licensing Firearms purchaser identification card, a person requires a handgun identification card to purchase and to possess a handgun, regardless of the kind of handgun. N.J. Stat. § 2C:58-3(a) says: “Permit to purchase a handgun. No person shall sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver or holder is licensed as a dealer under this chapter or has first secured a permit to purchase a handgun as provided by this section.”_________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

STEPHEN PADDOCK, MASS MURDERER

PART ONE

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

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

IS THE “MAXIM 50 SUPPRESSED MUZZLELOADER”, MANUFACTURED BY SILENCERCO, LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK?

A reader of the Arbalest Quarrel asked us whether New York bans the Maxim 50, manufactured by SilencerCo. To answer this question, we first went to the manufacturer’s website to get a handle on what the Maxim 50 is since the manufacturer’s description of it serves as the basis for legal analysis. The central issue is whether the Maxim 50 is a firearm under Federal and New York law. If the Maxim 50 is construed as a firearm under Federal law, it comes under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and under the purview of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and, as applicable, under the purview of those Acts as subsequently amended.The manufacturer, SilencerCo, describes the Maxim 50 as an “integrally suppressed muzzleloader.” The manufacturer says:“For the first time since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in 1934, civilians can enjoy suppressed shooting in all 50 states with SilencerCo’s latest innovation: the integrally suppressed Maxim 50 muzzleloader. In addition, this product can be purchased right now on the web with no regulation (no 4473, no $200 tax stamp, no photographs, and no fingerprints) and be shipped immediately to the customer with few exceptions.” New York is one of those few exceptions, according to the manufacturer. SilenceCo says a prospective purchaser, residing in New York may still obtain the weapon, but must do so, not directly, through interstate commerce, shipped directly to the purchaser’s home, but, indirectly, through a holder of an FFL.

BUT, IS THE MANUFACTURER’S STATEMENT ACCURATE? CAN A NEW YORK RESIDENT, NOT UNDER DISABILITY, PURCHASE THE MAXIM 50, LAWFULLY, THROUGH A LICENSED NEW YORK GUN DEALER EVEN IF THAT NEW YORK RESIDENT CANNOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE MAXIM 50 THROUGH THE MANUFACTURER, DIRECTLY?

Can a resident of New York, who wishes to purchase the Maxim 50 obtain it, lawfully, then, through an FFL?To begin to answer this question intelligently, we must first ask what sort of thing the Maxim 50 integrally suppressed muzzleloader is, when viewed under federal law and under New York law.Let us look at the Maxim 50 from the standpoint of Federal law, first. Two federal code sections are critical to our investigation: 26 USCS § 5845 (Definitions) of the United States Code of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E; Alcohol, Tobacco, And Certain Other Excise Taxes; Chapter 53 Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, And Certain Other Firearms; Subchapter B. General Provisions and Exemptions, Part I. General Provisions; and we look to 18 USCS § 921 (Definitions); Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure; Part I. Crimes; Chapter 44. Firearms. We know that the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loader, since the manufacturer of the product describes it as such, and as the manufacturer further explains its nature, in detail, in the product manual, we can rest assured that the Maxim 50 is, in fact, a muzzle loader. The question for us is whether a muzzle loader is a firearm, under federal law. For, if federal law defines the Maxim 50 as a muzzle loader, then that fact is determinative of whether the device--which, as the manufacturer says comes equipped with an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--falls under federal firearms restrictions. We begin with the assumption that the expressions ‘firearm suppressor’  and ‘firearm silencer’ refer, from a legal standpoint, essentially to the same sort of thing. The term ‘silencer’ may be a misnomer to firearms experts, but, as it is that expression, 'silencer,' that is used in federal law and in New York law, rather than the more appropriate expression, 'firearm suppressor,' we need not quibble about the relative inaccuracy of the expression, 'firearm silencer,' when considering the legality of possession of the device by the average law-abiding American citizen. The firearms expert will understand that, to the legislator and to the police, and to the lawyer, the expressions, ‘firearm silencer,’ and ‘firearm suppressor,’ and ‘integrally suppressed firearm,’ or, as in the instant case, ‘integrally suppressed muzzleloader,’ mean pretty much the same thing in respect to what it is that the component is designed to do.

IS THE MAXIM 50 A FIREARM UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

26 USCS § 5845(a) says that, “The term 'firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term 'firearm' shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machinegun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector's item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.” 26 USCS § 5845(a). AND,26 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.Through 26 USCS § 5845(a) and 26 USCS § 921(a)(3), it doesn’t appear the Maxim 50 is a “firearm.” But further clarification is necessary. We obtain that clarification in another U.S. Federal Code Section. We ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 AN ‘ANTIQUE FIREARM’ UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

If the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm,” then, under 26 USCS § 5845(a), it is not a ‘Firearm.’ How does federal law define an ‘Antique Firearm?’ The expression ‘Antique Firearm,’ has two definitions. If the Maxim 50 falls under either one of those two definitions, then, the Maxim 50 is an ‘Antique Firearm’ under Federal law.18 USCS § 921(a)(16) says:“The term ‘antique firearm’ means—(A)  any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or(B)  any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica—(i)  is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or(ii)  uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or(C)  any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.”AND,26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replica thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.”The Maxim 50 is, of course, a weapon manufactured after 1898, so it doesn’t qualify as an ‘antique firearm’ under 26 USCS § 5845(g), but, it is a muzzle loader that does in fact use black powder, according to the manufacturer’s instruction manual. And, if we can infer that the Maxim 50 does not incorporate a “firearm frame or receiver” and that it cannot “be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock or any combination thereof,” then it is not a ‘firearm,’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(16), and that is sufficient to remove the Maxim 50 from the category of ‘firearm’ under federal law.But, wait a second. Even if the Maxim 50 is an ‘antique firearm’ and, hence, not a ‘firearm’ under federal law, isn’t the Maxim 50 a “silencer?” Yes. BUT, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “firearm silencer.” That fact is crucial. But, how do we know this? We know this because federal law makes clear that, since the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm, under federal law, the Maxim 50 isn’t a “silencer” either, under federal law. Once again,18 USCS § 921(a)(3) says, “The term ‘firearm’ means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. Since The Maxim 50, as a black powder muzzle loader  with integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer), isn't a firearm under federal law, then, by legal implication, the Maxim 50's silencer--more to the point, integrally suppressed muzzleloader--isn't a “firearm silencer,” under federal law, either.But, we still aren’t quite finished with our analysis. We must ask,

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS “ANY OTHER WEAPON” UNDER FEDERAL LAW?

But, once again, the answer is, "No." The expression 'Any Other Weapon'--a generic description of 'weapon'--also finds its way in federal law. 26 USCS § 5845(g) says, “The term 'any other weapon' means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.”The Maxim 50 cannot be readily concealed “on the person,” and, indeed, it isn’t designed to be the sort of implement to be capable of being concealed on the person. So, the Maxim 50 is not defined, in federal law as, ‘any other weapon.’So, under federal law, we conclude that the Maxim 50 isn't a firearm and it doesn't fall under restrictions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, or under restrictions of the Gun Control Act of 1968.So, under federal law, the Maxim 50 doesn’t appear to run into problems under federal law.BUT,What about New York law, specifically. Is the Maxim 50, with integrated suppressor, considered a firearm within the jurisdiction of New York?

DOES THE MAXIM 50 COME UNDER THE PURVIEW OF NEW YORK GUN CONTROL LAWS?

To some extent New York law follows the dictates of federal law, but New York law has its own twists.

IS THE MAXIM 50 DEFINED AS A FIREARM UNDER NEW YORK LAW?

We look to the Consolidated laws of New York for the answer.Let’s look at some definitions under Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2) and (3) of Article 265 provide us with two definitions of importance to us here.“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.”“3. ‘Firearm’ means (a) any pistol or revolver; or (b) a shotgun having one or more barrels less than eighteen inches in length; or (c) a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length; or (d) any weapon made from a shotgun or rifle whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise if such weapon as altered, modified, or otherwise has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; or (e) an assault weapon. For the purpose of this subdivision the length of the barrel on a shotgun or rifle shall be determined by measuring the distance between the muzzle and the face of the bolt, breech, or breechlock when closed and when the shotgun or rifle is cocked; the overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore. Firearm does not include an antique firearm.”The Consolidated laws of New York do not, to the best of our information and belief, define an implement that has the characteristics of the Maxim 50. New York law does define the expression, ‘antique firearm,’ but that definition does not track the federal law definitions.NY CLS Penal § 265.00(16) says, “‘Antique firearm’ means: Any unloaded muzzle loading pistol or revolver with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system, or a pistol or revolver which uses fixed cartridges which are no longer available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.” Under New York law the Maxim 50 is a muzzle loading device but it isn’t a pistol or revolver.It would appear, at first glance, that the Maxim 50 doesn’t come under the purview of Article 265 (Firearms and Dangerous Weapons) of the Consolidated Laws of New York. But, on closer inspection, it’s clear that the Maxim 50 does come under the purview of Article 265. Let’s look once again at NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).“2. ‘Firearm silencer’ means any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms to be silent, or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearms.” The expression, ‘firearm silencer’ refers to “any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance . . . to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun. . . .” Pay close attention to the word, ‘gun.’The term, ‘gun,’ is an amorphous concept that can reasonably apply to the Maxim 50. New York law doesn't define the word, 'gun.' It is simply mentioned in New York law. And, we don't see a definition for the word, 'gun,' as such, defined in federal law either. So, we have to go to a common dictionary source to get a handle on the plain meaning of the word. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory.’ The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines, the term, ‘gun,’ as ‘A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.’  Clearly enough, the Maxim 50 is a gun under New York law. Since the Maxim 50 is manufactured with an integrated silencer component--as the manufacturer refers to the Maxim 50 as an integrally suppressed muzzleloader--the Maxim 50 does fall under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(2).The drafters of ‘firearm silencer’ clearly and poignantly intended to make firearm silencers unlawful in New York. Case law makes this point clearer still. The Opinion of the Appellate Court of Albany is insightful and is quoted at length in the 1984 New York case, Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881.In Oefinger vs. New York State Police, 146 A.D.2d 186, 540 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4881, “The Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms denied the gunsmith's request for permission to transfer two machine guns and a firearm silencer to persons who could lawfully possess them in New York. The gunsmith, who was also a dealer, filed an action for a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the state police's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court modified the trial court's judgment so as to allow a declaratory judgment because such was designed to allow the adjudication of rights before a wrong took place. Thus, the gunsmith did not need to be in danger of prosecution before a declaratory judgment as to his rights could be entered. The court then declared that the gunsmith could not lawfully possess or dispose of firearm silencers and machine guns.  N.Y. Penal Law § 265.00(8), (9) defined a ‘gunsmith’ and a ‘dealer in firearms’ and prescribed the activities in which persons who were duly licensed for those businesses could lawfully engage. Because possession and disposition of a silencer or machine gun were not mentioned in N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(8), (9), 265.02(2), 265.10(3), they were not permissible.”The Appellate Court of Albany said this about the possession of silencers by either a New York licensed dealer or gunsmith: "Penal Law § 265.00 (8) defines a ‘gunsmith’ and Penal Law § 265.00 (9) defines a ‘dealer in firearms.’ “These definitions specifically prescribe the activities in which those persons or entities who are duly licensed for those businesses under Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) can lawfully engage.  Applying the rule of statutory construction that states expressio unius est exclusio alterius, 'an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded' (Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v City of New York, 41 NY2d 205, 208-209, quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240).  It follows that inasmuch as subdivisions (8) and (9) of Penal Law § 265.00 contain no reference to firearm silencer possession and disposition by a ‘gunsmith’ or a ‘dealer in firearms,’ such possession and disposition are not permissible (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) provides an exemption for gunsmiths and dealers in firearms from all of the penalties provided by Penal Law article 265. The exemption provided by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) permits gunsmiths and dealers in firearms to engage only in the activities prescribed in the definitions of those terms in Penal Law § 265.00 (8) and (9), for without such exemption the prescribed activities would be  unlawful. Contrary to plaintiff's claim, however, the exemption cannot be construed to broaden and expand the statutory activities in which a gunsmith or dealer in firearms can lawfully engage.”“By similar reasoning and applying the same statutory rule of construction, a ‘dealer in firearms’ is not authorized to possess or in any other way deal in ‘machine guns’ (Penal Law § 265.02 [2]; § 265.10 [3]).  The definition of ‘firearm’ contained in Penal Law § 265.00 (3) does not include ‘machine guns,’ which are separately defined in Penal Law § 265.00 (1).  Again, contrary to plaintiff's contention, no exemption is provided in Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (10) for a licensed dealer in firearms to possess or dispose of machine guns to any individual who may lawfully possess them.  The activities of licensed dealers in firearms are limited to pistols or revolvers (Penal Law § 265.00 [9]).  As to licensed gunsmiths, the activities permitted by Penal Law § 265.20 (a) (8) in respect to machine guns applies only if they are the [manufacturers]’ of machine guns. Since plaintiff is not such a ‘manufacturer’ of machine guns, the statute has no application to him. Pursuant to Penal Law § 265.00 (8), a licensed gunsmith may engage in certain activities with respect to machine guns, but disposition is not one of those activities.  Plaintiff's other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.”Under New York law, as interpreted by the Appellate Court of Albany, licensed dealers and gunsmiths are not permitted to transfer machine guns or silencers. Whether the integrally suppressed muzzleloader (silencer) of the Maxim 50 is integrated into a device that is not construed as a firearm under federal law or New York law is, then, decidedly and decisively legally irrelevant.The Maxim 50 is a “gun” under New York law, and since the suppressor (silencer) is integrated into that gun, it is the Arbalest Quarrel’s educated opinion (albeit, not a formal legal opinion), that the Maxim 50 is illegal in New York.FURTHER NOTE:The Arbalest Quarrel has spoken with one licensed gun dealer in New York, and holder of an FFL, who told us that, under no circumstances, would he accept delivery of the Maxim 50 for anyone. And, it is doubtful that a New York resident, not under disability, would be able to locate any conscientious licensed New York gun dealer or gunsmith who would be willing to accept delivery of the Maxim 50 on behalf of a customer, for transfer to that customer. It should go without saying, then, that, under no circumstance should a resident of New York attempt to obtain delivery of the Maxim 50 directly from the manufacturer; for, to do so would be to invite serious criminal repercussions under New York State law. Such attempt to obtain possession of the Maxim 50 in New York would invite unwelcome attention from the BATF as well. Interested parties should peruse the National Firearms Handbook which can be found on the BATF website. Other web pages on the BATF website contain a wealth of information on firearms rules and regulations.To its credit SilenceCo does make clear that “customers from any state should verify they are abiding by all state, local, and federal laws before purchasing.”  Individuals interested in obtaining the Maxim 50 should takes those words to heart.BOTTOM LINE: The Arbalest Quarrel concludes that the Maxim 50, as with “Assault Weapons,” as the expression ‘Assault Weapon’ is defined in the Consolidated Laws of New York, is illegal in New York. Therefore, no New York resident should attempt to obtain one.Whether the Maxim 50 is "legal" in other States requires a separate analysis of each State's own peculiar firearms' laws. The Arbalest Quarrel will analyze other State laws to ascertain whether the Maxim 50 is legal in those States, upon specific request of readers._________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WE MUST ACT NOW TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIRST:

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

SECOND:

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

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

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

HOW DOES CONGRESSMAN COLLINS’ BILL MODIFY EXISTING FEDERAL LAW?

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

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

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

AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT TO MODIFYING ANY FEDERAL FIREARMS LEGISLATION

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

CONGRESSMAN CHRIS COLLINS’ SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT (“SAGA”): A GOOD START BUT NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT

THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT

INTRODUCTION

The seminal Second Amendment Heller case (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008)) made categorically clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia; and the seminal Second Amendment McDonald case (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010)) that followed Heller, two years later, made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms—an individual right—applies to the States as well as to the federal Government. Unfortunately, many State Legislatures, along with many legislators in Congress and, worst of all, many jurists on State or Federal Courts strongly oppose the holdings and reasoning of the Majority in Heller and McDonald. This animosity carries over to and is reflected in poorly drafted legislation and in poorly crafted legal opinions. Occasionally, though, State Legislatures and Congress get it right, and do draft laws recognizing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Congressman Chris Collins’ (NY-27) Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”) that the Congressman recently introduced in Congress is just such a bill. We heartily support the Congressman’s efforts. But, what might we expect?

WHAT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF PASSAGE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT?

Unfortunately, not good. We take our cue from other pro-Second Amendment bills. We have yet to see movement on several national handgun carry reciprocity bills that presently exist in a state of limbo, locked up in Committee.  Even if Congressman Collins’ bill makes it out of Committee, and, further, is voted on and passes a full House vote, it likely would be held up in the Senate where it must garner a super majority—60 votes—to pass and see enactment. The bill likely would not pass as a “stand-alone” bill in any event. That means the bill would have to be tacked on to other legislation to have any chance of passage. But, assuming the bill were enacted, what might we expect from it?

WHY DID CONGRESSMAN COLLINS DRAFT THE SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEE ACT AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL?

Congressman Collins, a Representative of New York, obviously had Governor Cuomo’s signature anti-Second Amendment legislation, the NY Safe Act, in mind, when he drafted this bill; for the bill, if enacted, is, ostensibly at least, at loggerheads with a key feature of the Safe Act—Section 37 of the Act—the Section that bans the possession and sale of all firearms defined as ‘assault weapons.’According to the Congressman’s Press Release “Congressman Chris Collins (NY-27) has proposed new measures for protecting Second Amendment rights by introducing legislation to limit states authority when it comes to regulating rifles and shotguns, commonly used by sportsmen and sportswomen. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA) would prevent states from implementing any regulations on these weapons that are more restrictive than what is required by federal law. Upon passage of this bill, most of the language included in New York State’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 signed into law by Governor Cuomo would be void." But, is that true? Is the Press Release accurate? Or, does the Press Release presume more about the bill than what the bill produces, in the event the bill, as drafted, sees the light of day and becomes law?

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY?

The bill (H.R. 3576), amends Section 927 (Effect on State Law) of Chapter 44 (Firearms), of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) of the U.S. Code.As presently enacted Section 927, says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” In pertinent part, Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 sets forth:“A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.”What does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code purport to do; and what does the modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code mean?To understand the import of Congressman Collins’ bill, it is first helpful, in this instance, to understand what those who oppose it would do to challenge it, assuming the Second Amendment Guarantee Act does become law—which is far from clear given Democrats’ hysterical aversion to the Second Amendment and Republicans’ constant foot-dragging.

IF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND LEGISLATORS CHALLENGE THE BILL IN THE EVENT IT BECAME LAW, UNDER WHAT GROUND MIGHT THE BILL BE CHALLENGED?

Congressman Collins’ bill is likely to face stiff opposition and resistance in Congress prior to enactment—assuming it even moves out of Committee—as it would almost certainly be challenged, inter alia, on Constitutional, Tenth Amendment grounds were the bill to become law.What does the Tenth Amendment say? The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The Tenth Amendment has always been a sticky wicket, especially in matters involving the Second Amendment because the matter of firearms’ regulations and licensing, apart from the regulation and licensing of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices, falls, traditionally, within the police powers of a State. Although the federal Government has, in the last several decades, amassed ever more powers unto itself, the fact of the matter is that this Nation is a confederation of independent sovereign States. This idea seems to be lost on people, not least of all in light of the present “Charlottesville” episode—a matter which the Arbalest Quarrel will be writing on in the near future, taking the mainstream news media to task for unleashing a wave of opinionated fake news on the matter, and which the mainstream media is egging the Trump Administration to handle, on the federal level, to support Marxist efforts to erase our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values.Yet, the federal Government cannot indiscriminately, lawfully, run roughshod over the States and the people. In the matter of Congressman Collins’ bill, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, this creates something of a quandary; for, the bill—as the Congressman articulates through his Press Release—substantially preempts States’ rights on matters of firearms regulations and licensing. The paramount question is this: if Congressman Collins’ bill does become law, can those, who would then seek to mount a Tenth Amendment challenge against it, likely succeed in the Courts? The answer isn’t clear, but, a careful analysis of the bill’s text suggests the bill can survive a Tenth Amendment challenge, as it was carefully drafted to sidestep just such a challenge. Why do we say this? Well, looking at the Tenth Amendment issue, the actual drafter or drafters of the bill made clear the intent of the Act to supersede State regulation of and licensing of firearms; for, Congress would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, be exercising its authority to regulate firearms moving in interstate commerce. It is a categorical, unequivocal principle of law that Congress has plenary power to regulate goods moving in interstate commerce under the Commerce clause. On that matter, no legitimate legal question exists, as the U.S. Supreme Court has made this point abundantly clear.“As we observed in Lopez, [United States v Lopez (1995) 514 U.S. 549, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624] modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence has ‘identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 276-277, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1, 101 S. Ct. 2352 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 150, 28 L. Ed. 2d 686, 91 S. Ct. 1357 (1971)). ‘First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 256, 85 S. Ct. 348, 13 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1964); United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 114, 85 L. Ed. 609, 61 S. Ct. 451 (1941)). ‘Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.’ 514 U.S. at 558 (citing Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20, 32 S. Ct. 2, 56 L. Ed. 72 (1911); Perez, supra, at 150). ‘Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, . . . i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.’ 514 U.S. at 558-559 (citing Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 37). United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 609; 120 S Ct. 1740, 1749; 146 L. Ed. 2d 658, 670 (2000).”So, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would likely survive a Tenth Amendment challenge. But, the strength of the bill, as drafted, also poses a weakness, notwithstanding. For, while State laws, such as New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, cannot, if Collins’ bill is enacted, most likely preclude importation of firearms into their State—including and importantly so-called assault weapons, as importation of such firearms affects interstate commerce and federal law, would, under the Second Amendment Guarantee Act, preempt State law in matters affecting interstate commerce—still, once the firearms are presented in States such as New York and Maryland, it isn’t clear, from the present language of the bill, that firearms’ dealers would be able to sell or trade such “assault weapons” to individuals residing in those States, so long as laws such as the SAFE Act and the Firearm Safety Act are in effect. And, those Acts would still be in effect. For, contrary to Collins’ Press Release, restrictive State gun laws, such as the NY Safe Act, do not, ipso facto, become nugatory. A legal challenge to the constitutionality of New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act would have to be made. But, once made, it is still unclear whether the Safe Act and the Firearm Safety Act could not prevent transfers of "assault weapons" to individuals, not under disability, within the State, on the ground that regulation of "assault weapons" was being conducted intrastate, thereby not affecting interstate commerce.The question, from the standpoint of those challenging restrictive gun legislation existent in States such as New York, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and others, then becomes whether so-called “assault weapons” that some States wish to ban and, at present, have banned outright, can be sold as “protected” firearms under federal law, once they are in a State, such as New York. If so, that means, then, that States could not legally proscribe the transfer, ownership, and possession of those weapons, try as they might. The issue raised by the Second Amendment Guarantee Act is analogous to the matter pertaining to machine guns, submachine guns, and selective fire weapons, as federal law completely preempts the field concerning those weapons, which means that States have absolutely no legal power to enact laws involving the regulation, licensing, and disposition of those kinds of weapons in their States. Federal law completely preempts the field in matters involving the licensing, regulation, and disposition of machine guns. Language in Section 922 (Unlawful Acts) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code makes clear the intent of Congress to preempt the field, in its entirety, in matters pertaining to the transfer and ownership and possession of machine guns. Paragraph “o” of Section 922 of Title 18 says,“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.(2)  This subsection does not apply with respect to—(A)  a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or(B)  any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect [effective May 19, 1986].”Curiously, the expressions, ‘firearm,’ ‘rifle,’ ‘shotgun,’ and ‘machine gun,’ are not defined in Section 922 of Chapter 4 (Firearms) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, where a person might expect to find them, but in Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Service Code of the U.S. Code, 26 USCS § 5845. In 26 USCS § 5845(b), “The term ‘machinegun’ means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”Keep in mind that Congressman Collins’ bill modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code only, which deals with federal preemption of State law regulation of firearms,  generally, but the bill modifies nothing in Section 922 of Title 18, where one would expect to find an assertion of those particular firearms and firearms’ components that federal law is preempting States from regulating and there is no modification of Section 5845 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) where firearm terminology is specifically defined. And, it is in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that we see federal preemption of regulation of machine guns; and it is in that same Section of Title 18 that, in 1994, Congress expressly banned ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” nationally—as part of antigun efforts that orchestrated enactment of the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.” A national ban on the transfer of and ownership of so-called “assault weapons,” along with a ban on LCMs, was set forth in federal law, subsumed in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. But inclusion of an “assault weapons” provision of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which added a paragraph “v” which made it “unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon,” and inclusion of a ban on large capacity magazines, set forth in paragraph “w” of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which made it “unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device,” both expired in September of 2003. Those provisions of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code were never reauthorized, despite subsequent and numerous efforts by antigun politicians to do so.Since the impetus for the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was predicated, obviously and reasonably, on Congressman Collins' laudable desire to negate the impact of the NY Safe Act on the federal level, through the federal preemption—since Albany appears either unwilling or incapable of repealing the NY Safe Act on the State level itself—we can infer that the Second Amendment Guarantee Act was designed principally to preclude States, such as New York, from banning substantial numbers of semiautomatic firearms that’s State antigun legislators, with great fanfare, cast into the category of “assault weapons.”Congressman Collins, a staunch proponent of the Second Amendment, clearly seeks, through enactment of his bill, to provide Americans the converse—the flipside—of efforts to curb exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment Guarantee Act, as some would argue, proscribes States from regulating all categories of rifle and shotgun, thereby curbing, with one fell swoop, attempts by any State Legislature to impose specific restrictions on the ownership and possession of one large category of firearms, those subsumed under the nomenclature “assault weapons,” and curbing, as well, attempts by any State Legislature to impose size restrictions on ammunition magazines.But, does Congressman Collins’ bill, that modifies Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, make federal preemption of regulation of assault weapons and other firearms’ components absolutely clear?Once again, as presently enacted Section 927 says:“No provision of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq.] shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.”Collins’ bill deletes the first word of Section 927—the word, “No,”—and replaces that word with the phrase, “Except as provided,” and, then adds language, establishing, inter alia, that States cannot enact laws pertaining to rifles and shotguns that are “more restrictive. . . with respect to such a rifle or shotgun.” But, and this is an important, but, is such language enough to negate restrictive State firearms’ legislation such as the NY Safe Act? We don’t think so—thus, the failings of the bill, in its current form. For, what do the words, ‘more restrictive with respect to such a rifle or shotgun,’ mean, here?The reader must understand that federal law preemption of firearms, Sections 921, et. seq., of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, is directed essentially to a specific class of firearms, namely machine guns. As made clear in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Federal law preempts the field as to those kinds of firearms only, and the language of the law makes federal preemption in matters involving the regulation of machine guns patently clear. Congressman Collins’ bill is silent on the subject of so-called “assault weapons”—which some believe Congressman Collins’ bill, if enacted, would adequately address, and which it must address if it were to do what it purports to do: preclude States from prohibiting the transfer and possession of firearms that New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act prohibit, expressly, and prohibit outright--"assault weapons."Had Congressman Collins’ bill been more explicit and precise, we believe that language should appear in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code that would work in tandem with the language appearing in Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. And, in Section 5845 of Title 26, we would like to see language that clearly and specifically defines the expression 'semiautomatic weapons.' And, in Section 922 of Title 18, we would like to see language that sets forth the lawful transfer of all semiautomatic weapons to individuals, not under disability. The federal preemption Statute, namely, Section 927 of Title 18, as modified in the Second Amendment Guarantee Act would then make federal preemption of the entire field of semiautomatic firearms abundantly and categorically clear. Ideally, language modifying Section 5845 of Title 26, and modifying Sections 922 and 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code would establish federal preemption of the entire field of firearms but--and this next point is critical--only to the extent that such modifications serve to enhance the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. We have no desire to see federal preemption leading to mass registration of firearms and draconian licensing measures on the federal level that we already see much too often on the State level.Ideally, language in the Congressman’s bill would have set forth, in Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code explicit protection of all commercial transactions, among all the people, who are not under disability (as categories of disability are set forth with particularity in paragraph “g” of Section 922 of Title 18), involving all firearms—rifles, shotguns and pistols, whatever the configuration or mode of operation of those rifles, shotguns, and pistols; and, further, Collins’ bill should have included language doing away with BATFE licensing of such firearms as well, which, in the case of machine guns, involves a lengthy, time-consuming, expensive and mentally exhaustive process that does nothing to enshrine the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, as exercise of that fundamental right is unduly hampered by a multitude of administrative obstacles. Lastly, we would like to see firearms’ licensing at both the State and Federal levels ended. As a parenthetical note, we point out that Congressman Collins’ bill is altogether silent on the matter of handguns which means that, under his bill, handguns would not be subject to federal preemption. States would still be able to impose draconian restrictions on the American citizenry in matters involving handguns. But, why should Americans suffer the indignity of exhaustive, extensive, and expensive firearms’ regulatory hurdles at all?One doesn’t need a license to freely exercise one’s right of free speech—at least at the moment—although leftwing groups—most notoriously, the so-called “ANTIFA,” an anarchist/communist, domestic terrorist group (as much as any other terrorist group that this Country formally recognizes), is doing its best to constrain the right of free expression in this Country. Why must one secure a license to exercise a fundamental natural right of self-defense, as firearms are the best means available to secure one's safety and well-being when threatened and access to firearms, for those not under disability (as set forth in paragraph "g" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code), is guaranteed under the Second Amendment!Congressman Collins’ modification of Section 927 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, alone, does not, we believe, adequately establish federal preemption of firearms’ regulation because the purpose of Section 927 is simply designed to preclude conflict between State and Federal firearms laws. That is the Section’s only purpose. Its purpose is not to define the kinds of firearms that fall under the auspices of federal preemption—which is addressed, and is meant to be addressed in Section 5845 of Title 26 of the U.S. Code (referred to more specifically as the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S. Code) and does not set forth the manner in which federal preemption of firearms is specifically addressed, as is the case with machine guns, as set forth in paragraph "o" of Section 922 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. We also note that the Congressman’s bill, as drafted, uses the permissive ‘may,’ rather than the obligatory ‘shall’ suggesting, then, that States might still regulate firearms, transecting, then, federal preemption, rather than being totally eclipsed by it. Furthermore, as drafted, Congressman Collins’ bill does not adequately establish the kinds of firearms that he intends federal law to preempt. The draft language of the bill simply sets forth that State law “may not” enact a law “that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law.” But, federal law, Sections 921 et. seq., direct attention to machine guns. Federal law does not address so-called “assault weapons”—semiautomatic weapons and, in New York, revolving cylinder shotguns (which are also defined as 'assault weapons'). Consider: had federal law still imposed federal licensing requirements on “assault weapons,” as it once had, in 1994, then New York’s SAFE Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, regulating such weapons, likely would have been struck down as unlawful under Section 927 because Federal law had, at that time, in effect, at least, preempted the field as to the regulation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. What this means is that such restrictive State gun laws, regulating or proscribing ownership and possession of “assault weapons,” at that time, would either have been redundant, if otherwise consistent with federal law, or unlawful, if inconsistent with federal law.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line: In its present form, Congressman Collins’ Second Amendment Guarantee Act (“SAGA”), is a good start toward giving the Second Amendment full effect, as the framers of our Bill of Rights intended. And the Congressman is to be commended for his effort. But the bill, as drafted, leaves, we feel, too much uncertainty, in its present form, to be effective in defeating restrictive, draconian State gun measures like the New York’s Safe Act and Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, contrary to the opinions of some. More work on the bill is needed. But, such work would, we feel, certainly be a worthwhile endeavor._________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERFORMS A SURPRISE SWITCHEROO TO THE CONSTERNATION OF D.C. GOVERNMENT, MAINSTREAM MEDIA, ANTIGUN GROUPS, AND ANTIGUN LEGISLATORS, IN WRENN CASE

APPELLATE COURT VACATES ORDERS OF LOWER DISTRICT COURT AND REMANDS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT OF DISTRICT’S “GOOD-REASON” ANTIGUN LAW.

PRELUDE TO COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT CASE, WRENN VS. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The decision handed down very recently, in Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, would not have been possible were it not for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Justice Antonin Scalia’s glorious and sublime legacy will forever be tied to that one singularly important case: a case that stands as a living testament to Justice Scalia’s service to and his great love for this Nation and for its people. In that singular, seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, Justice Scalia threw down the gauntlet at those malevolent forces that seek to tear down the fabric of our Free Republic as they whittle away at the Nation’s sacred Second Amendment. They shall not have an easy time of it as the Second Amendment now stands front in center in the Nation’s psyche as a meaningful reminder to those who seek to disassemble our Nation and who seek to tear down and reconfigure our Bill of Rights out of all semblance to that as conceived by the framers of it. They will learn: our Bill of Rights and, especially, our Second Amendment, will not be toyed with.Through Heller three points are made abundantly clear. One, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer to be dismissed as a subordinate right. The right expressed is fundamental, second in importance to no other right that comprises the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. Two, the right, as codified in the Second Amendment, is capable of vindication and shall ultimately be vindicated in our Courts of law when Government, whether State or Federal, dares blithely to trample upon it. And, three our Nation stands preeminent above all other Nations on this Earth. The founders of our Nation took great pains to establish that such Government they happen to form shall serve—must serve—at the behest of and at the pleasure of the Nation’s people, responsive to and responsible to the Nation’s people. The founders of our Nation forged that understanding in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights provides the mechanism to make that fact poignantly clear to anyone or any group who might disagree with that idea and who would dare wish to test the resolve of the American people.Tyranny cannot arise where the citizenry stands armed against the imposition of it. Implicit in the language of the Second Amendment is the idea the individual’s existence as an individual, separate and apart from any group affiliation, remains always sacrosanct and inviolate. Any threat to individuality constitutes a threat to the sanctity of one’s personal security and well-being—a threat to one’s personal integrity. Thus, the language of the Second Amendment also implies the right of the individual to take responsibility for his own life, his own protection, his own personal safety and well-being. Government cannot do this, and the law makes clear that it is not Government’s duty or responsibility to do this. It is not Government’s duty or responsibility to protect the security and integrity of the individual, and case law makes this point clear. But, in turn, this means the Government must not intrude on one’s life. Each of us, in this Nation, has the right to be free from Government interference and meddling. Each of us has the right to protect the integrity of his person—of his self—from the tyranny of Government and from threats posed to one’s self by others who would dare do one harm.No other Country will recognize or acknowledge these sacred truths. We know this because no other Country has codified in its own constitution or in any other legal writing of that Country the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Contrary to notions promulgated by propagandists or apologists for restricting the exercise of the fundamental and natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, this right is not archaic. It is not anachronistic. It is not to be construed, as some ignorant or ignoble people may wish perhaps, to convey it, as mere anomaly, or peculiarity, or curiosity, or annoyance. It is the very instantiation of the sovereignty, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual self.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is, therefore, as meaningful and purposeful today as it was in the day the founders of our Nation codified and enshrined this sacred natural, preeminent, fundamental right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The founders of our Nation’s federal Government knew that the forces that seek to waylay a Nation’s people—to crush a Nation’s people into submission—lie ominously about—secretly, silently, malevolently. The founders of our Nation therefore sought a mechanism to fervently prevent or, at least, to forestall the subjugation of a Nation’s people—to forestall or prevent the subjugation of a people from the greatest and gravest and most insidious threat existent to our Nation’s people—a threat posed not from outside the Nation—but from the bowels within it. They sought to create an insurmountable hurdle to those secretive, powerful, evil forces that might seek then as now, the creation of a one world government—a government seemingly promoting the well-being of the planet’s people, but intent on crushing everyone, for the benefit of a few. Thus, our Nation’s founders drafted a short but prominent statement reminding those who may seek to destroy the American people, in body, mind, and spirit, and who may seek to dismantle this Nation State, that they will have a difficult time of it—that they will find the implementation of their insidious plan difficult, if not impossible—but certainly, impracticable—precisely because of those words etched in stone, impervious to erasure, that are, forever, our sacred Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), penned by Justice Scalia, made clear, unmistakable, unequivocal, and categorical that the Second Amendment bespeaks an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms logically entails the right of self-defense. In that seminal case, as well, the high Court’s majority made clear, unmistakable, unequivocal, and categorical that Government cannot legally preclude the right of each of us to defend ourselves with a handgun in one’s own home.Does that mean that one’s right of self-defense stops at the doorstep of one’s home? Not at all. Yet, the forces that would crush the American people into submission went quickly and quietly to work to undermine the Heller rulings. They attempted and continue, to this very day, to attempt to undermine Heller. They do this through State Legislatures; through Congress; through mainstream news organizations; through grass root efforts, organized and funded by those despicable, disreputable, but powerful, highly secretive, and incommensurably wealthy overseers who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights; and, most unfortunately, the forces that would crush the American people into submission do this through our Courts.While politicians and media attempt to whittle away at the Heller rulings through pompous oratory and misleading and dubious assertions, their fellow travelers in the Courts attempt to whittle away at Heller through obfuscation and through use of arcane legalese that serves to hide the misapplication of law, and that is designed to hoodwink the lay person, not attuned to the intricacies of legal thought.But, with Heller, the floodgates are open. The right expressed in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can no longer be simply and summarily dismissed as a subordinate right or, worse, as a dead letter—a meaningless assertion without force or substance.The case handed down by the D.C. Circuit, yesterday, in Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), is the latest case to deal directly with a core Second Amendment issue. Does the right of use of a handgun in one’s self-defense in one’s home extend to the carrying of a handgun in one’s self-defense—which implies the carrying of a handgun in public—namely, outside the home. If so, defense of self, then, does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home, and Government is enjoined from creating arbitrary standards to restrict one’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.The decision was correctly decided in favor of plaintiffs but it came through a convoluted, circuitous path through the lower District Courts; and the ultimate decision, wasn’t unanimous. One Judge, in the three-Judge panel that decided the case, dissented from the majority opinion.The jurist who wrote the opinion for the Majority, Judge Griffith, began, thus: “Constitutional challenges to gun laws create peculiar puzzles for courts. In other areas, after all, a law’s validity might turn on the value of its goals and the efficiency of its means. But gun laws almost always aim at the most compelling  goal—saving lives—while evidence of their effects is almost always deeply contested. On top of that, the Supreme Court has offered little guidance. Its ‘first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment’ is younger than the first iPhone. District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller I), 554 U.S. 570, 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). And by its own admission, that first treatment manages to be mute on how to review gun laws in a range of other cases. See id. at 634. But listening closely to Heller I reveals this much at least: the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach. This lesson will prove crucial as we consider the challenges presented in these cases to the District of Columbia’s limits on carrying guns in public.”Judge Griffith, concluded the Wrenn opinion with this: “To watch the news for even a week in any major city is to give up any illusions about ‘the problem of handgun violence in this country.’  Heller I, 554 U.S. at 570. The District has understandably sought to fight this scourge with every legal tool at its disposal. For that long struggle against gun violence, you might see in today’s decision a defeat; you might see the opposite. To say whether it is one or the other is beyond our ken here. We are bound to leave the District as much space to regulate as the Constitution allows—but no more. Just so, our opinion does little more than trace the boundaries laid in 1791 and flagged in Heller I. And the resulting decision rests on a rule so narrow that good-reason laws seem almost uniquely designed to defy it: that the law-abiding citizen’s right to bear common arms must enable the typical citizen to carry a gun.”Judge Griffith obviously took pains to appease the angry antigun mob with a few sops. But, he made clear, if only tacitly, alluding to Justice Scalia’s assertions in Heller, that Government restrictions on one’s right to keep and bear arms, predicated on securing the safety of society does not invariably take precedent over the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, Government restrictions on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, grounded on notions of protecting society as a whole, in order to secure the safety and tranquility of the collective, of the hive, is doubtless false, fatuous. What Government is truly undertaking in restricting the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to constrain and control the people—to protect Government and the “elites” from the visible “threat” posed to their own unlawful usurpation of authority. Thus, restrictive gun legislation is contrary to the very import and purport of the Bill of Rights, as envisioned by the framers.As with the Kolbe case (Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42. F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017) ), that the Arbalest Quarrel will continue to analyze, the Arbalest Quarrel will provide an in-depth analysis of the Wrenn case as well.Keep in mind that both cases, Kolbe and Wrenn, involve two core Second Amendment issues, and those two issues go hand-in-hand.Kolbe involves the issue as to what firearms are protected under the core of the Second Amendment. The Wrenn case involves the issue as to what constitutes good cause or, rather, whether, one must establish cause at all to carry a handgun—to be able, then, lawfully to carry a handgun; and that issue necessarily implicates the notion of where a person may exercise the right: namely, whether the right to defend one’s life with a handgun exists only  inside the home, or outside the home, as well. Plaintiffs in Kolbe have filed for an extension of time for U.S. Supreme Court review of their case. The $1,000,000.00 question in Wrenn is: what will the Defendant, District of Columbia do, now that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit effectively struck down the restrictive District of Columbia handgun carry Statute?This state of affairs is odd to say the least and exasperating for government, for no State government has, in recent times, coming on the heels of Heller, failed to secure a win at the U.S. Court of Appeals level, in spite of the rulings and reasoning of the majority in Heller. Consider: Plaintiffs--namely, those individuals and entities filing complaints alleging government violation of the core of the Second Amendment--who lost at the U.S. Circuit Court level, in those critical cases implicating the core of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs then filed for U.S. Supreme Court review, but failed to obtain review. Four U.S. Supreme Court Justices must vote to hear a case. We know that Justices Scalia and Thomas had voted to review U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015) and in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498 (9th Cir. Cal., 2014) because Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote scathing comments, indicting the decisions of the U.S. Circuit Courts in those cases and tacitly voiced, vociferously, their disapproval of those jurists--Justices--on the high Court who failed to vote in favor of review of the cases. Likely, Justice Alito cast a third vote in favor of review of the Friedman and Jackson cases, consistent with the votes cast by Justices Scalia and Thomas; but three votes is insufficient to support U.S. Supreme Court review. Recently, the high Court also rejected a writ of certiorari in Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (9th Cir. Cal., June 9, 2016). Justice Thomas wrote a comment, amounting to a vehement denunciation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in that case. The comment obviously alluded, as well, to more than slight chastisement of those Justices on the high Court who voted against review of Peruta. Justice Gorsuch, the most recent Justice to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, now joined Justice Thomas in dissenting the denial of the writ of certiorari. In each of those cases--Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6902 (7th Cir. Ill., 2015), Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5498 (9th Cir. Cal., 2014), and Peruta v. Cnty. of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (9th Cir. Cal., June 9, 2016)--the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, clearly and, to our minds, unconscionably, revolted against the clear and categorical pronouncements of Heller and, further, deliberately and wrongly failed to heed to U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In so failing to follow high Court precedent, those recalcitrant U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal denigrated our system of laws that relies for its efficacy, efficiency, and consistency on adherence to case law precedent.At this moment it isn't clear what the Defendant, District of Columbia, will do having lost in Wrenn. There are three options. One, the District of Columbia can file its own petition for review of the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the District of Columbia does this, the high Court may very well decide to hear the case as Wrenn's connection to Heller--emanating as it does in the same jurisdiction--begs for a hearing if the District of Columbia dares to take the case up. Two, the District of Columbia can request an en banc review of the adverse decision. While en banc review--that is to say, a hearing of the full complement of U.S. Court of Appeals Judges of the D.C. Circuit to review the decision of the three-Judge panel--is not guaranteed, as an appellant cannot demand en banc review as a matter of right any more than a petitioner can demand that the U.S. Supreme Court accept petitioner's writ of certiorari (in fact, the high Court accepts very few cases for review), there is, we believe, albeit unfortunately, in all likelihood, more than an even chance that the decision of the three-judge panel would be reversed, since the D.C. Circuit, like the Ninth Circuit, has a deep-set aversion to the Second Amendment. Three, the District of Columbia can let the ruling of the three-Judge panel in Wrenn stand. This means the District of Columbia will become a "shall-issue" handgun carry jurisdiction. For supporters of the Second Amendment, as true Americans, faithful to the strictures of the Bill of Rights as defined by and understood by the framers, are, this last scenario is an acceptable situation. For, while the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals does not constitute binding precedent in other jurisdictions, the decision does constitute support, that sister jurisdictions might adopt.One cautionary note to those individuals who seek to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia on the basis of the Wrenn decision: Be advised that to do so, one must still obtain a license to carry a handgun, issued by the appropriate authorities in the District of Columbia. Do not attempt to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia without first obtaining a valid District of Columbia handgun license! It is a serious offense to do so; and penalties are harsh.One last note: Assuming the decision in Wrenn is not overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, hearing the case en banc, in the event the full complement of Judges decides to hear the case, or, in the alternative, assuming the decision in Wrenn is not overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the event the District of Columbia petitions the high Court for review of the case and the high Court accepts review of Wrenn vs. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348 (D.C. Cir. July 25, 2017), that means one more United States jurisdiction is slowly, if grudgingly, commencing to comply with the rulings of Heller. That also means that we, supporters of full exercise of the right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment, are one step closer to realization of our goal of National handgun carry reciprocity. It is time for Congress to get off its duff and act to make National handgun carry reciprocity a reality!______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK TIMES BLAMES GUN FOR LUNATIC’S MURDEROUS RAMPAGE AT BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL IN NEW YORK CITY

NEW YORK TIMES BLAMES GUN FOR LUNATIC’S MURDEROUS RAMPAGE AT BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL IN NEW YORK CITY

Introduction to multipart series article on New York Times fake news story

“Lux et Veritas”: “Light and Truth.” Don’t expect to find either in the New York Times.

After the tragic incident at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, on Friday, June 30, 2017, when a lunatic, Henry Bello, an unlicensed, Nigerian-born “doctor” and irate employee of the Hospital—let go for good cause—sexual harassment—went on a shooting spree, killing one person, a physician, and seriously wounding several others before taking his own life, the New York Times wasted no time, casting blame and aspersion on the party the Times holds to be truly responsible for the crimes of murder and attempted murder: a firearm, variously and ineptly described by the newspaper reporters writing the story, Marc Santora and Al Baker, as an “assault rifle”—which it wasn’t or as an “assault weapon,” which it couldn’t be, since there is, really, no such weapon. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is nothing more than a legal fiction, drummed up by antigun media sorts, for psychological effect, and used by antigun groups and like-minded politicians to deny Americans their fundamental and natural right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The firearm—that the “health care provider,” Henry Bello, used to deprive one health care provider, a physician, of her life, and who then seriously injured several more health care providers, attempting to deprive them of their life and well-being—would be described simply but at least accurately as a semiautomatic rifle, and more descriptively and accurately as an AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, manufactured by Anderson Manufacturing, lawfully modified by a licensed New York gunsmith to conform to New York State law.The Times reporters, Santora and Baker, clearly blame the rifle for the horrific crimes committed by a lunatic, in whom blame really, and solely, rests. The blame that Santora and Baker thrust more on the M4 AR-15 Rifle, and less on Bello, is tacit but nonetheless clear enough, as the reporters argue that, but for the rifle, the tragedy that occurred at the Hospital would not have taken place.Santora and Baker create a fairy tale disguised as a news story to suggest the rifle is the principal perpetrator—not Bello, who pulled the trigger, because Bello couldn’t help himself. You see, Bello is, or rather was—before the rifle turned on him or before Bello turned the rifle on himself—mentally ill.The Times newspaper in a follow-up article to the deadly Bronx-Lebanon shooting, posted on-line, on July 3, 2017, and published, in the print edition of the paper, on July 4, 2017, with the title, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor was able to Buy Assault rifle,” makes abundantly clear that the M4-AR 15 rifle must be perceived as the central character and the main culprit in the incident as the reporters, Santora and Baker, who wrote the story, focus their attention on the rifle, rather than on Bello. That isn’t to say the Times reporters don’t also focus their attention on other culpable players in the tragic incident. For, Santora and Baker mention others who abetted the M4-AR15 rifle—the principal assailant—and who abetted Bello, who was more along for the ride.The reporters cast a wide net. They blame the gunsmith who modified the weapon to conform to the New York Safe Act so that a New York gun dealer could lawfully sell the weapon. They also blame the gun dealer who lawfully sold the modified M4-AM 15 to Bello. And, finally, the Times reporters blame the NY Safe Act, itself, for the tragedy that occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital because, as the Times reporters strongly suggest, the SAFE Act, strict as it is, isn’t strict and restrictive enough—not nearly strict and restrictive enough.The Arbalest Quarrel explains in a series of in depth articles that follow this introduction, previously posted as one, unbroken essay on the Arbalest Quarrel website, and to be posted in multiple parts on Ammoland Sporting Shooting Sports News, how the New York Times’ implicit bias toward and against firearms generally and against civilian possession and ownership of firearms particularly colors its news accounts so that what the public takes to be factual news coverage of specific events, appearing in the news section of the publication, is really an opinion piece, masked as a factual news piece, that really belongs in the editorial section of the newspaper.The New York Times newspaper, as with other mainstream media organizations, makes much of the notion of “fake news,” when vigorously attacking alternative media sources, but never once admits that the Times newspaper, itself, is often a main source of its own “fake news.” Whence cometh "Fake News?"“Fake news” is a thing conceived or contrived by the mainstream media as a device or conceit to attack alternative news and commentary sources, which the mainstream media perceives, and, admittedly and rightly so, as a mechanism to counteract mainstream news media influence over the American public."Fake news" is an expression that has, through overuse, principally by the mainstream news media that first commenced use of it, become nothing more than cliché.  It is the mainstream news media that is truly the perpetrator of "fake news" and has used it to sway public opinion. But, what is this thing, referred to as “fake news," really?”What “fake news” really refers to is fabricated stories. It is not merely false news—in the sense that the reporters or distributors of the news are delivering false news of events inadvertently as they are not aware that the news is false—but a more serious affront to conscience, where the reporters or distributors of the news deliberately conceive and distribute contrived stories—stories that are specifically designed to deceive the target audience--to induce, in the target audience, false perceptions of events—stories designed to mislead the target audience and to sway public opinion in a specific direction, a direction designed to further the aims and goals of mainstream media’s powerful wealthy benefactors—those forces at work, behind the scenes, whose aims are antithetical to the aims of and antithetical to the best interests of this Nation and of its people. The mainstream media has, accordingly, evolved into a propaganda machine—a well-oiled and well-funded tool of those forces that seek to undermine the rights and liberties of the American people—especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.While the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of the Press precludes any attempt by the Government to abridge that Freedom, there is nothing in the First Amendment that precludes the Press from presenting biased reports of the news. But bias in the news is what the American public receives daily from the mainstream media. A prime example of implicit bias in the news is seen in mainstream media’s attempt, to sway public opinion on the matter of civilian ownership and possession of firearms.In the Times article, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Gun,” that we deconstruct, we point to specific factual errors made pertaining to the firearm the Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker,   talk about in the story. To those individuals who might assert that the Arbalest Quarrel is merely quibbling, we point out that factual errors about guns is a serious matter.If the mainstream media attempts to make a case for restrictive gun laws, it should, at the very least, know of what it speaks. But, obviously, the mainstream media knows little about the technical aspects of firearms that it writes about. Worse, it doesn’t care. Worst of all, the mainstream media concocts a mythology about guns that has absolutely no basis in reality and is designed to induce, in the public, fear and loathing toward firearms and to mistrust those who support and respect the right embodied in the Second Amendment that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt strongly enough about to set in stone.The mainstream media, which includes the NY Times newspaper, apparently believes it can, when it chooses, be sloppy when talking about the news, and the Times is often sloppy. Now, it is one thing for a news source to provide erroneous information about firearms out of ignorance, and we see that constantly in articles about firearms. Sloppiness in news articles may be the result of ignorance or it may be the result of a rush to make a deadline. In either event such ignorance may be forgiven if a correction or retraction is in the offing. However, when a major news source, that reaches millions of Americans, makes the same error over and over, it is reasonable to conclude, and we do conclude, that erroneous remarks about firearms are the result of something more than ignorance or a casual disregard toward reporting on them and about them. What we are seeing is nothing less than a deliberate, callous, deceitful, orchestrated program of conscious deception, to make the public induce Americans to relinquish their fundamental right to keep and bear arms—our birthright.“Truth in reporting” on the news involves more than disgorging statements that ostensibly cohere with or correspond to specific “facts” about the world.A trustworthy news organization should ever be mindful of the subliminal effect the narrative of a story has on the audience because the narrative—the theme of the story—is always inextricably intertwined in and linked to the statements made.Narratives of articles appearing in the news section of a paper should always be functionally neutral. That is not always possible, of course. Still, a reputable news organization should—indeed, must—strive to achieve neutrality in its news accounts. That should always be the goal of any news organization. That is what news organizations and publications, such as the New York Times, will pointedly say that it delivers. But that is a double lie. The Times does not invariably provide accurate news accounts of the events and subjects its reporters write about even if it says it does. And, with mainstream media news accounts pertaining to firearms, the public rarely, if ever, sees accurate, neutral reporting of the news—for that isn’t the aim of the Times or of other mainstream news organizations and publications. We, personally, have never seen neutral accurate reporting about firearms in mainstream media.The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital tragedy is merely the latest, or certainly one of the latest of serious tragedies to occur in this Nation. But, by making the firearm the deceased killer, Henry Bello, used in the shooting, the focus of the story, rather than Henry Bello, himself, the reporters suggest that the firearm has a will of its own. The reporters induce an irrational fear of firearms in the mind of the public.You would think that Times reporters would attempt to alleviate fear of guns—as guns are merely inanimate objects. Instead, the Times Reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, magnify that fear, intensify it, suggesting that fear of guns is a healthy response to guns—suggesting that guns have a will of their own and that will—an evil will—is one that influences the wielder of the firearm to commit heinous acts, such as those committed by Henry Bello. It is a ridiculous notion, but one that we see conveyed over and over again in the mainstream media--usually tacitly, but sometimes, bizarrely enough, overtly too.This irrational fear of guns is broadcast in the mainstream media, throughout the Country. Today a child in public school who so much as points a finger at another child, suggestive of a gun, and says, “bang,” is forthwith immediately suspended and that child’s parents are contacted by the School Board officials who then encourage the parents to seek psychiatric care for the child. Really? Who is it that is in dire need of psychiatric care, here? Is it the child? Is it the young child who likes to play “soldier” or “cowboys and Indians” with a toy gun, or is the members of the School Board who have been conditioned and brainwashed by false narratives they see on “news” programs or that they read about in newspapers, such as the New York Times?A retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel, Jeff Cooper, has coined a word to describe this irrational fear of guns—a fear that manifests, in the mind of a susceptible person, that a firearm is a sentient being, harboring evil intentions—that a firearm is a demon. This irrational fear of guns is called, “hoplophobia,” and this fear is not ameliorated by mainstream media news accounts. Rather, mainstream media news accounts deliberately generate this fear. Such behavior by seemingly reputable news organizations is reprehensible, unforgivable.If publications like the New York Times intend to thrust their animosity toward firearms and toward civilian ownership of firearms on the public, then there is a place for the publications to do so. It is called the editorial section of a newspaper. Opinions belong in the editorial section of a newspaper, not in the news section. Reporting on the news and commenting or reflecting on the news are two different things. The New York Times, as with many if not most other mainstream news publications and news broadcasting organizations, is notorious for intermingling and conflating news reporting and news commentary, suggesting, deviously, to the target audience, that, what happens to appear in the news section of its paper, is neutral news report, not opinion, when in fact, the New York Times and others of its ilk are deceiving those members of the public that do not and cannot see the difference—which even for astute communications and propaganda specialists—is not often readily discernible, except through careful analysis. This conflation of news reporting, on the one hand, and news commentary or news opinion, on the other, is by design. And the Times, unfortunately, isn’t the only mainstream news publication that does this. News commentary that appears in the editorial section of a newspaper is understood to be biased. That is fine. That is opinion, and the public knows or should know that opinion equates with implicit bias. Opinion is not expected to be neutral. And, implicit bias, when it isn’t cloaked as such, is acceptable, even welcomed. Public policy is grounded as much on opinion—about what a government should do—as much as by the events in the world that may require the development and implementation of policy to deal with those events. But when news is intertwined with opinion, as we see regularly in mainstream news publications and broadcasts, then news reports are “colored.” What is happening in the world becomes blended with what a particular reporter of the news believes is happening in the world—and that belief is always colored by one’s personal biases and values, and by ones hopes and fears and expectations, and all too often those beliefs are false.When assertions cohere with or correspond with facts, we say assertions are true. When assertions do not cohere with or correspond with facts, we say assertions are false. When assertions, true or not, are blended with value judgments, “ought” statements or “should” statements, such statements or assertions are not about the world. They are, rather, about one’s personal beliefs about the way the world ought to be, not the way the world is.Messrs. Santora and Baker have, in their “news article, made statements, knowingly or not, that are false. Worse, they have taken those false statements, predicated on their own false beliefs about firearms, and have concocted a fairy tale about guns. They have taken events, accurately reported about Bello, and about the NY Safe Act--factually true statements about the world--but, surreptitiously, blended those facts with fiction. They then draw tacit conclusions about reforming the NY Safe Act to make the Act ever more restrictive, consistent with both their personal distaste for firearms and with their false beliefs about them. Thus, they turn what is supposed to be a neutral news story into an opinion piece, but masked as a news story since it appears in the news section of the Times publication instead of in the editorial section of the paper. This is not acceptable, honorable, journalistic behavior, unfitting for any organization that prides itself “on all the news that’s fit to print.”The Arbalest Quarrel explains in detail exactly how Times Reporters Santora and Baker distort the news by inserting or injecting personal biases into their story, and, how, by tacitly arguing for reformation of the SAFE Act, consistent with their biases and false beliefs, they represent powerful interests in this Country and abroad, who seek to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The Arbalest Quarrel has attempted to contact Messrs. Santora and Baker, to defend their distortions about firearms. Mr. Bill Frady, host of the famed, “Lock N Load" Radio Show, has invited these two Times reporters to appear on his program. The Arbalest Quarrel would look forward to debating Messrs. Santora and Baker over the manner of their reporting and on assertions they make regarding the particulars of firearms and ammunition that they talk about in their article.If the New York Times wishes to engage in dialogue with us over the “gun” issue, the Arbalest Quarrel will be more than happy to do oblige. We would look forward to an open dialogue about the technical aspects of firearms, and the manner in which false information about firearms is delivered to the public. We would specifically like to engage the New York Times in a frank discussion over their news narratives that we see as no less than editorials and arguments for more restrictive gun laws, disguised as neutral news reports.As of the posting of this article on the Arbalest Quarrel weblog and on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, we have not heard back from the NY Times reporters.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

NEW YORK TIMES INSINUATES BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL SHOOTER, HENRY BELLO, DID NOT ACT ALONE; HE HAD ACCOMPLICES.

NEW YORK TIMES INSINUATES BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL SHOOTER, HENRY BELLO, DID NOT ACT ALONE; HE HAD ACCOMPLICES.

NEW YORK TIMES INTIMATES RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRONX-LEBANON HOSPITAL TRAGEDY RESTS WITH THREE PARTIES ALONG WITH HENRY BELLO—ONE OF WHOM IS THE TRUE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE CARNAGE BELLO WROUGHT

By now, anyone who keeps abreast of National news is aware of the tragedy that occurred recently at Bronx Lebanon Hospital in New York City. News accounts point out that a “physician” from Nigeria, Henry Bello, went on a shooting spree after having his limited hospital privileges revoked. Although the Hospital used the appellation “Doctor” to describe Bello’s position with the hospital, Henry Bello did not have the privileges of a medical doctor because Bello did not have a license to practice medicine in New York. The Hospital ultimately terminated Bello’s employment, and it did so for good cause: sexual harassment. Bello, obviously in a rage over the termination of his employment with the Hospital, decided to get even.The matter of sexual harassment, though, ought not have come as a surprise to the Hospital Administrators—which should have given careful thought before they hired Henry Bello—because Bello has a criminal record that includes, among other things, the crime of sexual abuse. Other incidents in his life, as reported through a multitude of news accounts, available to anyone through a simple internet search, point to a mentally unstable person—a person who certainly had no place in a Hospital setting, in the capacity of an employee. Is what had transpired at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital an instance of a theme one sees in a typical Hollywood horror film--i.e., a psychotic patient posing as a staff physician, fooling Hospital staff, visitors, and patients, and then going berserk--killing and injuring people at random, once having fallen into a murderous rage over a perceived wrong. What occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, though, is factual, not a fictional Hollywood script. To make the argument that Hospital Administration hired Henry Bello because the Hospital happened to be short-staffed merely demonstrates desperation substituting for and overriding common-sense. Clearly, there existed, at the Hospital, both security lapses and employee hiring lapses. What actions are Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Administration officials taking to correct these obvious lapses in policy and judgment?Hopefully, Bronx-Lebanon Hospital will give more thought to its hiring practices going forward, since, obviously, the Hospital's past practices are quite sloppy. And, once Hospital Administration reappraises its hiring policies, it should also consider reevaluating its security policies. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital ought to ask how an individual could secret a rifle into the Hospital and why, apparently, the Hospital had no armed security officers at the Hospital’s entrance and at its reception desk. Furthermore, if security officers were present at the Hospital’s reception desk, how is it that none of them managed to discover an assailant walking past them, hiding a bulky weapon—a rifle, not a handgun—under a thin lab coat? In that regard, it appears that this tragic incident was not the first to occur at the Hospital.Mainstream news accounts do not spend time investigating how an individual, once in Bronx-Lebanon Hospital, had sufficient time to murder one person, a physician, and wound several more, stalking the interior of the Hospital. Mainstream media news sources gloss over these matters, at best, or fail to mention them at all. The New York Times, for its part, ultimately turned its attention to and expressed keen interest investigating and reporting on Henry Bello’s accomplices in the crime.

NEW YORK TIMES ALLUDES TO BELLO’S ACCOMPLICES IN THE COMMISSION OF HIS HEINOUS ACTS

You didn’t know that Bello had accomplices, did you? But, it seems that he did, for the New York Times makes abundantly clear Henry Bello did not act alone—that he did not truly act alone—when he went on his murderous shooting rampage at the Hospital, killing one physician and shooting several more people before the carnage ended—with Bello’s principal accomplice turning on Bello, himself.

ABOUT THOSE ACCOMPLICES—

The Times strongly suggests that Henry Bello had one principal accomplice who assisted him in carrying out the multiple crime and two others who abetted him. The name of the principal accomplice—indeed, the master architect of the crimes—is, as can be gleaned from a perusal of a recent NY Times story, none other than what the Times refers to as the "assault weapon," a.k.a., the “assault rifle.”  In a Times story, titled, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle,” published Tuesday, July 4, 2017, Times journalists, Marc Santora and Al Baker, assert that Bello “carried a semiautomatic AM-15, which is Anderson Manufacturing’s version of the AR-15, a civilian rifle, close in design to the M-16.” * A digital version of the story, available to subscribers of the NY Times and non-subscribers of the paper, alike, was posted one day earlier, on July 3, 2017. The digital version of the story is titled slightly differently, through inclusion of the word, ‘Troubled,’ appearing before the word, ‘Doctor’: “Despite Strict Gun Law, Troubled Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle.” More precisely, the manufacturer of the rifle, Anderson Manufacturing, designates the rifle as the “AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle.”But the New York Times newspaper reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, do not, apparently, exhibit an interest in providing the public with those details since it does nothing to move the narrative along--a narrative the newspaper wishes to project on the screen of the American public’s consciousness—namely that guns are evil personified and must, in good conscience, be outlawed.A photograph of the rifle Bello used during his murderous rampage at the Bronx Hospital appears immediately to the left of a photograph of Bello himself on page “A15” of the print edition of the Times newspaper. The photographs carry a strong message. The message is that the fault for the tragedy that occurred rests not merely on Bello but, more particularly, on the rifle.The appearance of the rifle, directly to the left of Bello, in the print edition of the news story graphics—below which the caption reads, in part, “Dr. Bello and the AM-15 that he used,”—is not and should not be considered mere happenstance.Readers of English, as those of other Indo-European language, read, left to right. As advertisers and psychologists know, the eye is trained to emphasize words and graphics that appear to the left of one’s visual gaze and to minimize those that appear to the right of one’s visual gaze, consistent with the way a reader of English or of other Indo-European languages, from an early age, is trained to read. Thus, scanning an image or word is managed and emphasized, “left to right.”By juxtaposing a photograph of the rifle next to and to the left of the photograph of Bello, the editors of the NY Times, responsible for the placement of words and graphics in the Times newspaper, create the impression—whether consciously or not, but probably consciously—that the implement Bello employed in carrying out his crimes—the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle—is, truly, the real culprit—the main perpetrator, evil doer, and mastermind of the crime—and that Bello, who pulled the trigger, less so—that Bello happened merely to be the toady who pulled the trigger, as commanded by the M4 AR-15 Rifle.Thus, Henry Bello happened simply to be more along for the ride. In this way, the subliminal message conveyed to the reader of the Times story is that both the rifle used to commit horrible crimes and the individual who utilized the rifle are both sentient beings: one of whom is truly evil—the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, and the other, who is not, namely, Henry Bello, who is--now, was--simply mentally ill--seriously mentally ill--and therefore, not responsible for his actions. The message: blame the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle, not the man; place the ill individuals in a mental health facility, and, at once, eradicate firearms.The public is presented with the sad, inevitable, inescapable conclusion, consistent with the subconscious messaging projected, that the rifle, the M4 AR-15 Rifle, is Public Enemy No. 1—a Public enemy beyond redemption, that will ever remain so, but that Henry Bello is not, or, if he had remained alive, not beyond redemption. We are to believe that Henry Bello is—that is to say, was—basically a good man in a bad Karma and that he was brought to do horrific acts—ever more horrific acts because he was a health care provider—through the diabolical machinations of another, the M4 AR-15 Rifle. Had the M4 AR-15 Rifle not turned on Bello, Bello likely would have argued, at trial, in his defense, that the actions of unspeakable savagery, should be ascribed to the M4 AR-15, that made him do it--after all Bello was seriously mentally ill-no question about it--and the Times reporters acknowledge as much. Having commanded Bello to kill himself, rather than to give himself up to the police, the M4 AR-15 has thereupon successfully eliminated the one perpetrator that can effectively cast blame on “him”—“the Rifle”—but the M4 AR-15 Rifle isn’t talking, and isn’t expected ever to cooperate with investigators.Were the Times editors, who created and positioned the graphics that appeared with the print edition of the story, aware of the impression they were creating with the graphics that were used in association with the newsprint edition of the story? Perhaps so, if we give the Times editors credit as psychologists and experts in the field of propaganda.As we know full well, the Times is notorious for creating illusions and allusions about guns: false notions about guns and hints about the “nature” of guns, as if guns have “natures” at all and that they can and do behave like the worst of people amongst us, not unlike any sentient being. The authors of the Times article, Messrs. Santora and Baker, suggest, as well, that there were two additional accomplices to the crimes—those that were not at the scene of  the crimes but who were, nonetheless enablers of the crimes committed by the M4 AR-15 Rifle and by Bello: one, the dealer, who lawfully sold Bello the rifle he used to kill an innocent individual—a medical doctor—and to seriously injure several other innocent people; and, two, the gunsmith—holder of both a valid federal firearms license (“FFL”) and a valid New York State gunsmith license, who lawfully modified the rifle (the “Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle”) to conform to New York’s restrictive gun laws that then allowed the dealer to lawfully sell the rifle to an individual, Bello, the killer, who, was not under disability.The Times’ reporters, in a scarcely disguised attempt to implicate and castigate both the gunsmith and the dealer—particularly the dealer, who sold the Rifle to Bello—as we can glean from both the graphic of the dealer’s store and of the dealer’s vehicle--as the graphics, accompanying the story create a distinct and unflattering impression, completely unfair, that the dealer is somewhat of an unsavory individual for being a dealer in firearms at all. To emphasize the point, Messrs. Santora and Baker point to the location of the Gun dealer’s store, adjacent to a used-car dealership, a fact, yes, but a fact completely irrelevant to the story, and yet, at once, suggestive of the idea that a gun dealer and a used car dealer both operate morally dubious and objectionable businesses, not unlike those purveyors of payday loans and pornography.The Times reporters suggest that these two abettors of Bello—the gun dealer and the gunsmith—are definitely morally culpable even if not legally culpable in the matter of Bello’s actions and of the actions of the principal criminal, the M4 AR-15 Rifle—under a philosophical notion and legal theory of causation. In other words, we are to believe that, if the gunsmith had not modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle, to conform to the New York law, the rifle could not have been lawfully sold in the State to average, law-abiding citizens, who are not under disability; and had the dealer who lawfully sold the rifle to Bello, not obtained the rifle from the gunsmith to sell to Bello, then Bello would not have used that rifle to commit the horrific acts he committed. This chain of causation is aptly demonstrated in a child’s nursery rhyme, by "Mother Goose": “This is the House that Jack Built.”What is left unsaid but what is certainly true, though, is that, as long as Bello operated in murderous frenzy mode, he would still have committed his acts of murder and mayhem: if not with the M4 AR-15 Rifle, then, perhaps, with another firearm, or if not with a firearm, then perhaps with a knife, or with a hatchet, or with a bomb, or with anything else at hand. A reasonably intelligent person can devise many effective ways to destroy human life, and destroy human life relatively quickly, if destruction is in the heart and mind of that person.The journalists, Messrs. Santora and Baker are adamant in their insinuation that the gun dealer and the gunsmith ought not to be ignored in the blame game the reporters construct—and Messrs. Santora and Baker do not ignore them, spending substantial time talking about them in their story. Messrs. Santora and Baker apparently consider both the licensed gun dealer and the licensed gunsmith to be participants in Bello’s brutal actions, along with the principal killer, the M4 AR-15 Rifle—passive participants to be sure, but critical players and factors in the equation of violence that occurred, since, as they present in their NY Times story, but for the actions of the gun dealer and the gunsmith, Bello would not have committed the horrific crimes he did commit with the implement he employed—the M4 AR-15 Rifle; and that, but for the very existence of the M4 AR-15 Rifle or any other firearm, there would be no tragedy. But, is that true? Obviously, that statement is not true, and there is no reasonable basis for that tacit conjecture.Bello intended to cause serious harm. If a firearm were not available, he would have found some other implement. No doubt about it--another implement that would have been just as effective--perhaps a butcher knife or an axe. But, Bello did not use a butcher knife or axe to commit horrific crimes. He used a firearm, and since it is firearms that the mainstream media is forever focused on, as the source of many if not most of the major ills in society, the fact that a firearm happened to be utilized by Bello in the death of one individual and in the injury of several others, that fact plays well into the narrative the mainstream media, such as the narrative New York Times newspaper, loves to play into and relishes: namely, that restrictive firearms laws, such as the New York Safe Act, must be made ever more strict. But why is that? What is it about the firearms that creates in the minds of those that perceive “the gun” as the object, the focus of attention when an individual uses it to harm another--the focus of such morbid fascination? The public sees no such focus of attention on the implements employed to harm others when that implement is a knife, or an axe, or an automobile. Mainstream news media sources maintain that “the gun” is an implement that enables a person to kill efficiently, quickly. Yet, a person can in fact kill many people just as efficiently and effectively with a knife, or with an axe, or with an automobile. But, then knives and axes and automobiles are not implements specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms—referring, specifically to firearms, as the f0unders of a free Republic and the framers of the Constitution intended—is a right specifically, expressly codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution—in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. But, the Second Amendment, as with the entirety of the Constitution, is an “old” document. The mainstream media considers the Second Amendment to be outdated, archaic, anachronistic. Reporters, such as Santora and Baker of the New York Times, suggest as much. They take the position that the Second Amendment may have had import and purpose at one time but that it doesn’t any longer and that the Country would be better off were the Second Amendment to be ignored, and, therefore, de facto repealed. Since, then, from their perspective, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has no legitimate, reasonable purpose in this day and age, no one should have expectations that anyone, not under disability, may legitimately, lawfully exercise that right as one will. So, the reporters, Santora and Baker, cast about looking for those individuals, apart from a lunatic and a killer, Henry Bello, in which to place blame for the horrible tragedy that occurred at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital. Messrs Santora and Baker make much of the fact that the gunsmith that modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle that Bello utilized to kill one person and to seriously injure several others at the Hospital was exercising a loophole through which a banned firearm, called variously, an ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’—the former expression which is simply a legal fiction, and the latter expression which, as applied to the M4 AR-15 Rifle, manufactured for the civilian market, not for the military or law enforcement, is a misnomer, and , in either case, the two expressions are not synonyms and therefore are not interchangeable—allowed a banned weapon to be sold legally in New York through modifications to the weapon. The idea conveyed by Messrs. Santora and Baker is that the gunsmith who made the modifications that allowed the M4 AR-15 Rifle to be sold lawfully in New York to those individuals, not under disability, as the expression, ‘disability’ is defined in the U.S. Code, 18 USCS § 922(g), and the dealer who lawfully sold the M4 AR-15 Rifle to Bello, ought to be implicated in the crimes, precisely because they utilized loopholes in the New York Safe Act to avoid the import of the Act. But, this is no different than a professional CPA who lawfully uses loopholes in the Federal Tax Code to benefit his or her client. Now, it is not a reasonable response to say that, after all, a CPA lawfully using perceived loopholes in the Federal Tax Code to benefit a client is not harming and cannot harm another human being while a New York gunsmith and a New York gun dealer that use loopholes in the New York State Penal Code to legally sell an otherwise illegal weapon to a person, not under disability, does allow the purchaser of the weapon potentially at least—and, in the Bronx-Lebanon case, actually—to harm or kill another human being. For, the gunsmith that modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle that permitted the weapon to be sold lawfully in New York, and the gun dealer who lawfully sold the M4 AR-15 Rifle to Henry Bello, did not deviously, insidiously, devise schemes to avoid the import of the SAFE Act. Rather, the SAFE Act itself is a devious, insidious, scheme—a massive loophole—to slither around the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the SAFE Act of New York and similar draconian firearms’ Acts presently in force in other jurisdictions would survive U.S. Supreme Court review. But, then, those legislators and jurists who hold nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment see no reason why they cannot treat the natural right, codified in the Second Amendment, with disdain. So, we see politicians and jurists and journalists voicing vociferous distaste for and utter disdain toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the legislation drafted, in the opinions reported, and in the articles written, operating as either express or implied attacks on the sanctity of the natural right codified in the Second Amendment.Messrs. Santora and Baker would likely protest that the NY SAFE Act must go further and more must be done to prevent individuals, not under disability, but who, like Henry Bello, present a danger to self and to others when they have access to firearms. That does present a conundrum, but one no different than the dangers posed by those who have no business being behind the wheel of an automobile. We do not see States constantly imposing new requirements on motorists; but, for all that, the right of the people to drive vehicles on public roads is not expressly established in the Bill of Rights, although one might make the claim that such right might be presumed as existing under the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as an unenumerated right. But, such a right would not, in any event, be construed, nor should it be construed, as a right of the same magnitude as that right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.But, in responding to those who insist that restrictive gun laws must be enacted to prevent those individuals, who, like Henry Bello, present potential problems before the fact, from obtaining firearms, how might that be accomplished? The short answer is that it cannot and ought not be accomplished. The fact is that it is dangerous to presume on past conduct precisely what a person will do in the future. Today, millions of law-abiding citizens, and non-citizens who legally reside in the U.S., possess firearms and pose no danger to themselves or to anyone else. If draconian gun laws are enacted in an attempt to weed out anyone deemed to pose a potential risk to self or others if that person has access to firearms, how do we go about weeding out those individuals? The fact of the matter is that the occasional lunatic, as with the occasional drunkard behind the wheel of a car, will do harm. We know that. But the danger posed is minimal, and minimal as it is, that danger can be reduced yet further--through the arming of more citizens, not disarming them. But if Government is permitted to exert ever more control over the lives of millions of rational, law-abiding citizens in order to successfully weed out the few potential risks, a greater harm to a free Republic and to the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights exists.Neither a State Government nor the federal Government should be permitted to place ever increasing restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The risk posed by criminal elements in society and by lunatics is far and away less significant than risks posed to the preservation of our Republic and to the preservation of the rights and liberties of Americans.There exist forces in America today that seek to align our values with those of Western European Nations. Social, political, economic, and philosophical constructs, such as liberal democracy, multiculturalism, bilingualism, neoliberalism, globalization, and open borders are not consistent with the rights and liberties codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, and, particularly, those social, political, economic and philosophical constructs are not consistent with our Nation’s Second Amendment. No other Nation on Earth has, within its Constitution, anything remotely like our Second Amendment. For, the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists intrinsically and inextricably in the individual. It is not a privilege bestowed on the citizens or subjects of a Country by Government. That such right of the people to keep and bear arms be recognized as residing in the individual, the Second Amendment must not be toyed with. The NY Safe Act is an abomination. The very language of the Statute betrays the unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment and illustrates Government’s distrust of and contempt for the individual. Further restrictions imposed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms demonstrates a profound disconnect between Government and the people governed. There are mechanisms to deal effectively with people like Henry Bello. The answer, once again, is to arm more people, not to disarm them. Tragedies do happen through misuse of firearms, as with misuse of other objects. But, restrictive gun laws that attempt to foreclose the harm caused by a few, foreclose, as well, and worse, the right of the many to have access to firearms for self-defense. Restrictive gun laws are incompatible with our Nation’s Constitution and with the continuation of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation and free Republic.The journalists, Messrs. Santora and Baker are adamant in their insinuation that the gun dealer and the gunsmith ought not to be ignored in the blame game the reporters construct—and Messrs. Santora and Baker do not ignore them, spending substantial time talking about them in their story. Messrs. Santora and Baker apparently consider both the licensed gun dealer and the licensed gunsmith to be participants in Bello’s brutal actions, along with the principal killer, the the M4 AR-15 Rifle—passive participants to be sure, but critical players and factors in the equation since, but for the actions of the gun dealer and the gunsmith, Bello would not have committed the horrific crimes he did commit with the implement he employed—the M4 AR-15 Rifle; and that, but for the very existence of the M4 AR-15 Rifle or any other firearm, there would be no tragedy. But, there is no basis for that tacit conjecture. Bello intended to cause serious harm. If a firearm were not available, he would have found some other implement. No doubt about it--another implement that would have been just as effective--perhaps a butcher knife or an axe. But, Bello did not use a butcher knife or axe to commit horrific crimes. He used a firearm, and since it is firearms that the mainstream media is forever focused on, as the source of many if not most of the major ills in society, the fact that a firearm happened to be utilized by Bello in the death of one individual and in the injury of several others, that fact plays well into the narrative the mainstream media, such as the New York Times newspaper, loves to play into and relishes: namely, that restrictive firearms laws, such as the New York Safe Act, must be made ever more strict.However, that it was that Henry Bello employed an the M4 AR-15 Rifle to kill one individual and to seriously injure a half dozen others and given the Times' particular fascination with blaming firearms for a multitude of sins in society, it is no surprise that the Times reporters would cast a wide net to condemn both the licensed gunsmith who lawfully modified the M4 AR-15 Rifle to conform to New York State gun laws and the dealer who lawfully sold the modified M4 AR-15 Rifle to Henry Bello. Thus, the Times reporters, Santora and Baker, give some  measure of “credit” for the horrific crimes Bello committed with the M4 AR-15 Rifle to the licensed gun dealer and to the licensed gunsmith  even though the New York gun dealer and the new York gunsmith did not know, and could not have known and certainly would not, willingly, have abetted Bello’s criminal actions had they known of Bello’s murderous inclinations and intentions.

AS RESTRICTIVE AS THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT IS,  NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS, SANTORA AND BAKER ARGUE THAT THE SAFE ACT ISN’T AS STRICT AS IT NEEDS TO BE—THAT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS RESTRICTIVE AS IT OUGHT TO BE.

The Times reporters strongly suggest that the SAFE Act, strict as it is, isn’t strict enough. They are asserting that the SAFE Act has “loopholes” that need to be closed. But, to make that point, the NY Times plays fast and loose with facts concerning so-called assault weapons and would deny access of firearms to millions of law-abiding New York residents based on the reprehensible actions of a few lunatics and psychopathic criminal elements in society. But should restrictions impacting the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms be drawn based on the lowest common denominator in society? Or, is the call for ever more restrictive gun laws, ostensibly to deal with lunatics and criminal psychopaths, no more than a convenient, seemingly palatable makeweight? Is the desire of  the gun grabbers for more and more restrictive gun laws not really designed to disarm the tens of millions of law-abiding, sane Americans who seek merely to exercise their personal right of self-defense—with the most effective means available, a firearm—against those who would otherwise find it easy to prey upon them.The gun grabbers might respond that they are not attempting to dispossess the average, honest, law-abiding, rational individual of all weapons—only certain kinds of weapons. But, they inevitably, invariably, make a poor show of it by exhibiting their lack of knowledge of both firearms and of ammunition for firearms. And, that lack of knowledge is considerable. Many examples are found in mainstream media news stories, such as the one that is the subject of this article.The Times consistently, erroneously conflates assault weapons with military assault rifles. One sees this in the very title of the July 4 news article, “Despite Strict Gun Law, Doctor Was Able to Buy Assault Rifle,” —substituting one expression, 'assault rifle,' for the other, 'assault weapon,' without rhyme or reason. But assault rifles and so-called assault weapons are not the same thing. They are not functional equivalents and should not be considered functional equivalents. The expression, ‘assault rifle,’ is a military term of art and refers to selective fire weapons. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ on the other hand, is not a military term of art; nor is it a term of art in the firearms’ industry.“Assault rifles” are selective fire weapons. Selective fire weapons are weapons that can fire in either semiautomatic mode or full automatic mode, through the incorporation of a selective fire lever or switch on the weapon. Such weapons do not fall under the SAFE Act. They fall under the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that bans certain classes of firearms, including machine guns. So-called “assault weapons” are not military assault rifles because assault weapons are not capable of full auto fire. So-called “assault weapons” are not designed by gun manufacturers for the military or law enforcement markets; only for the civilian market, given specific limitations in their application which limitations make them unsuitable for military or for law enforcement work.Such weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are not military weapons. And appearance does not change the functional nature of the weapon. Consider: an automobile designed to look like a Ferrari that has a typical Toyota Corolla engine under the hood may look exotic and sexy, and to some people, perhaps intimidating, frightening, but one only needs to take the car out for a spin to realize something amiss. On the other hand, a Buick Skylark, manufactured during the 1960s might look relatively tame, but, outfitted with a 350-cubic inch V8 engine, the Skylark declared its power once the driver tapped on the accelerator.Similarly, calling a firearm an ‘assault rifle,’ or using the expression ‘assault weapon’ interchangeably with ‘assault rifle’ when the weapon is capable of semiautomatic operation only does not thereby convert the weapon into a military assault rifle; and designing a weapon to look like an assault rifle, does not an assault rifle make.Functionality, not cosmetics, is critical to—and the key—to a weapon’s performance.

“ASSAULT WEAPONS” ARE NOTHING MORE THAN ORDINARY SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS OUTFITTED MERELY TO LOOK INTIMIDATING TO THE UNEDUCATED. REMOVE THE PISTOL GRIP, FOLDING STOCK, AND HANDGUARD, AND THEN FINISH THE WEAPON IN WALNUT, IN LIEU OF POLYMER AND BLACK STAINLESS STEEL, AND, ABRACADABRA, WHAT DO WE HAVE? NO MORE NOR LESS THAN THE SAME WEAPON FOR CIVILIANS AND NOTHING THAT THE MILITARY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OR FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.

The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ isn’t a military term of art; nor is it an industry term. The expression is a political expression, created by antigun groups and utilized as a tool for propaganda. The mainstream media says that such weapons are essentially military weapons, “weapons of war,” as some journalists refer to them in that way. Or, they say that such firearms are “military style weapons,” or that “they are like” military weapons. In fact, phrases such as ‘looks like a military weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or ‘military style weapon’ when parsed, don’t mean a damn thing. A weapon either is or isn’t a military weapon—a weapon for military use. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is merely a legal fiction to confuse and intimidate the ignorant and unwary.Through that legal fiction antigun legislators create a special category of weapons—a category that includes generally, and almost invariably, many semiautomatic weapons—weapons that, by law, are illegal for the average civilian to own. Semiautomatic weapons that legislators, at their whim, deem to be “assault weapons” are banned unless those weapons happen to be “grandfathered in”  by law. But is that all there is to it? Are those weapons designated as ‘assault weapons’ the only weapons the American public cannot legally own and possess? No; not at all. The problem is that, through time, the gun grabbers seek to place more semiautomatic weapons in the category of banned semiautomatic weapons, until, eventually, all semiautomatic weapons become inextricably linked to “assault weapon” nomenclature. This is by design. This is what the gun grabbers intend to do. For they will not sit contented until all weapons in the hands of civilians are banned.Indeed, the expression ‘assault weapon’ is, now, virtually synonymous with the expression ‘semiautomatic weapon.’ Categorizing this or that weapon as an assault weapon out of whole cloth creates a warrant for ever more weapons to be placed in the domain of banned weapons. Thus, we fall down a slippery slope. But, this is no “slippery slope fallacy." It is an inevitability.Antigun groups and antigun legislators seek, eventually, to ban all semiautomatic weapons. They do this by subsuming ever more weapons and ever more components of weapons under the ‘assault weapon’ designation. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent antigun legislators from subsuming non-semiautomatic firearms under the category, ‘assault weapons,’ too. In fact, we already see this. Consider: Section 37 of the New York Safe Act lays out several definitions of ‘assault weapon': Specific definitions of 'assault weapon' for pistol, rifle, and shotgun. Section 37 is codified in subdivision 22 of Section 265 of the Penal Code of New York.One definition of ‘assault weapon,’ in New York law specifically includes some weapons that aren’t semiautomatic in operation at all. Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act, for example, bans revolving cylinder shotguns, referring to them as “assault weapons” even though revolving cylinder shotguns aren’t semiautomatic in operation.Note, on Governor Cuomo’s New York Safe Act website, he provides an example of a revolving cylinder shotgun, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun, via a graphic that, according, to the SAFE Act represents an example of a banned “assault weapon,” because, as the site sets forth, the weapon is “semiautomatic” in operation and has at least one “military characteristic.” The Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun is an assault weapon under the SAFE Act, but the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun isn’t an assault weapon on the basis of having a military characteristic at all, contrary to the explanation given for including it in the banned 'assault weapon' category. The Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun is designated an ‘assault weapon’ under the SAFE Act precisely and exclusively because it is a revolving cylinder shotgun and, under the SAFE Act, that fact alone is the reason why it is banned as an ‘assault weapon.’ The fact that this shotgun has a “military characteristic” means nothing. It is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition for legally ascribing the designation, ‘assault weapon’ to it. Rather, the fact that a shotgun is a revolving cylinder shotgun is both a necessary and sufficient condition for banning it as an assault weapon under the NY Safe Act.But for the existence of Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun would not—and in fact could not—legally be designated a banned ‘assault weapon,’ precisely because it isn’t semiautomatic in operation. Why do we say this? We say this because a person must comply with what the law expressly says, and not what one believes the law, erroneously to mean, even if that erroneous belief is held in good faith and even if the person who comes to have a false belief as to which firearm is or is not an assault weapon can point to an official New York State website as the reason for that person’s false belief. For all that, if the Governor expects the public to rely on the accuracy of the very Act that he signed into law, you would think he would make it a point to know what it is that he is talking about and would ascertain that an official New York State website that purports to provide a person with information a person can rely on as true and completely accurate is in fact true and completely accurate.Now, some people might interject that we are quibbling here; for, after all, the Armsel Striker-12 is defined as a banned ‘assault weapon’ under New York law even if the reason provided on the New York State website is not accurate. But, that is sloppy and dangerous thinking. For, suppose, Section 37(D) of the SAFE Act were repealed. In that case, the Armsel Striker-12 Shotgun would be perfectly legal for a person, who is not under disability, to possess in New York. But, given what the NY SAFE Act website says about the weapon, the person who is relying on the website for advice, to comply with the law, would believe that possession of the weapon is prohibited in the State when that would not be the case at all. We say this precisely because the Armsel Striker-12 is not semiautomatic in operation. If Section 37(D) of the Safe Act did not exist, then a shotgun that is not semiautomatic in operation could have any number of so-called military characteristics. Under the New York Safe Act, that shotgun would not be an “assault weapon,” and, then, under New York law, that weapon would not and, thus, could not, legally be banned as an ‘assault weapon’ because the weapon is not, by definition, an ‘assault weapon.’Section 37(D) does proscribe the Armsel Striker-12 but not for the reason the New York State website says. A revolving cylinder shotgun, such as the Armsel Striker-12, represents a special, a unique instance where a weapon is not semiautomatic in operation—which is otherwise a condition precedent for ascribing the designation, ‘assault weapon’ to the firearm, but is defined as an assault weapon due to the fact that it operates through revolving cylinder and that it happens to be a shotgun. Many handguns are designed as revolvers—that is to say, that function through a revolving cylinder, whether double action or single action—and such firearms are not defined as ‘assault weapon.’ So, it all boils down to definition—whatever it is in the feverish mind of the drafter of the legislation.

THE ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ DESIGNATION IS DEVILISHLY AND CONVENIENTLY CHANGEABLE AS IT CAN MEAN WHATEVER THE LEGISLATOR WISHES FOR IT TO MEAN.

The “assault weapon” attribution is amorphous and nebulous and allows antigun legislators to broaden the scope of banned firearms at will, at their whim—to include anything and everything they wish to include under that designation, as a mark of opprobrium.

NEW YORK TIMES—WHOSE LOGO IS “ALL THE NEWS THAT’S FIT TO PRINT”--PLAYS FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE TRUTH ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO FIREARMS.

The NY Times inappropriately uses an opinion piece, that belongs in the Op Ed section of the paper, as a news piece because the paper illustrates clearly and forcefully and unmistakably its vehement distaste for firearms in civilian hands. Value judgments belong in the editorial section, not in the news section, of a newspaper. The Times is not, it is clear, invariably, concerned with truth in reporting—certainly not on matters pertaining to firearms as the paper deliberately confuses the public rather than informs the public.The NY Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, assert that, “the law [NY SAFE] was also aimed at decreasing the damage a gunman could do by limiting the size of a clip to 10 rounds.” But, then, since Henry Bello "carried three of them," as Messrs. Santora and Baker assert, quoting an unnamed law enforcement official: “as a practical matter, Dr. Bello ‘had his 30 rounds.’” What are the Times reporters getting at here? It’s no secret.The NY Times is making a case, in customary oblique fashion that, since semiautomatic weapons generally use clips, it hardly matters how many rounds a clip may hold. An individual can carry several clips at once, easily loading them into the firearm. Thus, the Times is making a not very subtle suggestion that the NY SAFE Act should be amended to ban semiautomatic weapons, along with their component parts, and ammunition for the weapons, altogether.In the same article, the NY Times’ reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, play fast and loose with another point, asserting that, “while the weapon [the AM15, that Bello used], did not have some of the features it might have before the SAFE Act was passed, it was just as powerful.”Messrs. Santora and Baker description here is inaccurate. For it is not the weapon itself but, rather, the .223 cartridge that the weapon, the M4 AR-15 Rifle, happens to be chambered for, that the reporters should have referred to when using the adjective, ‘powerful.’ But, we can excuse them imprecision here on that point, as it is understood that the reporters must be referring to the cartridge rather than the weapon when they assert that the weapon Bello used, in the commission of his crimes of murder and intent to commit murder, is “powerful.”The reporters’ quote, for ostensible credibility, a law enforcement official--albeit unnamed--to buttress the claim that the .223 cartridge is a powerful cartridge. Yet, we do not know who this official is other than that he is in the field of law enforcement. But, crucially, is there anything about this law enforcement official’s background to suggest the official is a ballistics and firearms’ expert? No! There is nothing to suggest that.Messrs. Santora and Baker, assert, further, quoting, apparently the same law enforcement official: “‘They [the gun industry] turned an AR-15’s aiming and firepower into a World War II rifle without the bolt action.” This statement is either erroneous or ambiguous and vague. We must ask: what World War II rifle is this law enforcement official referring to? If he is referring to the standard U.S. Army issue rifle issued to troops during World War II, that rifle would be the M1 .30-06 Garand. But, the M1 .30-06 Garand Rifle was semiautomatic in operation, not bolt action, and it did use a high-power cartridge: the .30-06—a cartridge that is still much in wide use today, especially in hunting rifles, for taking down large game, such as deer, moose, antelope, and bear. If the law enforcement official, whom the Times reporters quote, is in fact referring specifically to a standard bolt-action World War II rifle, then that official may be referring to the Model 98 Mauser Rifle, that the Germans referred to as the Gewehr 98. The Gewehr 98 was chambered for the 7.92 millimeter cartridge—essentially equivalent to the U.S. M1 Garand Rifle that is chambered for the .30-06 cartridge. The Gewehr was a standard issue rifle of German Infantry troops during World War II, and it was manufactured for German troops in several configurations, all of which operated by bolt action. They were not semiautomatic in operation, unlike the U.S. Army’s M1 .30-06 Garand.The official, whom Messrs. Santora and Baker quote, also says, wrapping up the Times article: “It was point and shoot for him [Bello] because he was shooting up close, and the lethality here was enhance by the large rounds—the .223 that’s in that weapon—as opposed to a handgun or something else.”The law enforcement official, whom the Times reporters quote, says the .223 cartridge are “large rounds.” But, is the .223 cartridge a large round? What does the expression “large round” mean? Do firearms experts even use expressions “large round” or “small round” to describe cartridges?

AMMUNITION CARTRIDGE BASICS

To weapons experts, cartridges fall into one of three major categories or groups. One group includes handgun cartridges. These are generally the least powerful cartridges. The second group of cartridges is referred to as intermediate cartridges. The third group of cartridges includes high-power cartridges.Within each group of cartridges, experts describe cartridge characteristics. These characteristics break down into discussions of the case; the primer; the propellant; and the projectile. The expression, ‘large round’ or ‘small round’ is inherently vague and therefore essentially meaningless and arms and ballistics experts do not use those words as technical terms.What can we say, generally about these three different groups of cartridges that is still essentially accurate? Handgun cartridges are the “weakest” in terms of power.** The .223 cartridge, a typical ‘assault rifle’ cartridge, falls in the intermediate cartridge range. There is a reason for this. Assault rifles, in full auto mode are difficult to control. That is one salient reason the military uses a round .223 round cartridge for the rifle instead of a high-power cartridge, such as the ,30-06. Incidentally, the .223 cartridge round is essentially identical to the 5.56 cartridge, although experts may wish to argue the intricacies of the point. The 5.56 cartridge is designated in millimeters and is the standard NATO round in use by the military of NATO Countries today.Note: the Anderson Manufacturing AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle can be chambered for both rounds since, once again, they are essentially identical. But the salient point here is that both rounds are not deemed, in the arms industry, to be “powerful” cartridges. The term, “high-power,” as applied to cartridges, is a term of art. It applies to many cartridges, but not to the .223/5.56. High-Power cartridges have no use in selective-fire assault rifles due to control issues in full auto mode.If a military assault rifle were chambered for a typical high-power cartridge such as the .30-06—the round utilized in the semiautomatic M1 Garand Rifle—such round in an assault rifle would be useless for hand-held full auto fire because a soldier would find the weapon extremely difficult to control. This is one salient reason that the intermediate cartridge—the .223—was developed by the military for the assault rifle. In full auto mode, a soldier can fire his weapon effectively, controllably, with this round. The .223 also is an effective round for hunting small varmints, such as ground hogs. But, it is ineffective for taking down larger game, such as deer. That is why, once again, many large game rifles are chambered for the powerful .30-06 cartridge.The .223 also has distinct advantages for civilian defensive use. The cartridge is frangible. That means it is designed to disintegrate when it comes into contact with a hard surface. A .30-06 cartridge, on the other hand, can easily penetrate hard surfaces. So, if the Times writers, Santora and Baker, through the law enforcement official they quote are claiming the .223 cartridge is large and/or powerful—suggesting that it is on par, say, with the firepower of a typical rifle cartridge used to hunt large game—they are simply wrong and, more to the point, the law enforcement officer they rely on, for technical firearms and ballistics information, is himself wrong--feeding the reporters with false information, regarding the AM15 Optic Ready .223/5.56 Caliber M4 AR-15 Rifle and regarding the .223 cartridge. These reporters should have corroborated the claims made by the official with whom they spoke to ascertain if that official was in fact a firearms or ballistics expert. Obviously, that official doesn’t strike us as a firearms or ballistics expert, given his purported remarks. But, if Messrs. Santora and Baker were to insist that the official whom they quote is in fact a firearms or ballistics expert, the official certainly doesn’t come across as such, to us, predicated on what the official says in the Times article. Messrs. Santora and Baker did not, apparently, corroborate what the law enforcement official, whom they quote, had said. If they did attempt to corroborate the points made by the law enforcement official they quote, they would have most certainly found discrepancies. Perhaps the reporters did find discrepancies, but decided to ignore those discrepancies anyway because the truth would not have fit the narrative they sought to present to the public. But, that would suggest they had little regard for the truth in their presentation. As with the fictional “assault weapon” itself that the reporters, Santora and Baker talk about, the article presented is essentially an Op Ed propaganda piece masked as a news story.The New York Times presents false information pertaining to firearms and ammunition, passes that information off as factually true, and uses that information in an Op Ed piece, itself disguised as a factually true and neutral news article. The newspaper does this to buttress a narrative. It is a narrative which the public has seen many times before and, undoubtedly, will see many times to come. It is this: “assault weapons are weapons of war and ought to be banned outright.” The verbiage may change slightly here and there. But, the message is always the same, droning incessantly on and on again ad nauseum. It is a message intended not to educate the American public, engaging the public’s intellectual faculties, but, rather, one designed to stir the emotions of the public—the “lizard” part of the brain.

WHAT IS THE ENDGAME OF THE NEW YORK TIMES ON THE MATTER OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION?

The points made here are not insignificant as they have quite profound social, and political and legal consequences for the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, secondarily, for the credibility of the Times and similar mainstream media news publications. The Times newspaper, in the Santora and Baker news article, is attempting to make the case for restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms through an ever more restrictive NY Safe Act, but they are making their case through inaccurate statements.Incidentally, hunting rifles that are chambered for the high-power .30-06, do not—presently at least—fall within the domain of ‘assault weapons,’ and are perfectly legal for a person, who is not under disability, to own, in New York. We would like to ask Times reporters, Messrs. Santora and Baker, whether hunting rifles, that are chambered for the .30-06 ought not also to be placed under the category of “assault weapons” since the .30-06 as a high-power cartridge, is certainly much more powerful than the .223, the latter of which is designated as an intermediate cartridge, in terms of power. But, then, we know the answer. A ban on all firearms is the endgame of the gun grabbers. If pressed, Messrs. Santora and Baker would likely admit as much, as would the publisher and editors of the New York Times.

TRUTH IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT FOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA—RELATIVE TO THE NARRATIVE THEY WISH TO CONVEY TO SUSCEPTIBLE MINDS.

For a newspaper that prides itself on the truth, the NY Times demonstrates a considerable lack of it when it comes to an understanding of firearms and ammunition and of firearms’ and ammunition nomenclature. But, then, the NY Times has no desire to inform the reader with facts. The NY Times, as with other mainstream newspapers and like-minded mainstream media outlets, are interested in conveying the same tiresome message—as they always do whenever and wherever a tragedy with firearms occurs. It is that firearms of all sorts should be—must be—banned.The fact that millions of average law-abiding citizens in our Country, unlike those subjects in Australia and those in the nations of Western Europe that comprise the EU, have successfully defended their lives and those of their loved ones against brutal attacks by savage criminals does not, apparently, enter into their equation. But, then, antigun groups, antigun legislators and antigun media types aren’t really concerned about the life of any one individual. They are only interested in the well-being of the hive, of the collective; and that hive—that collective—is well served when it is controlled. Their agenda is not the safeguarding of the Nation’s Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. They seek to destroy this Country’s heritage, along with the Bill of Rights, as the framers of the Constitution understood it to mean, and that meaning is not to be toyed with.Our history is not to be erased, and rewritten to conform to the New World Order--a deeply troubling phrase that Senator John McCain oddly used, and used several times, one Sunday, on Meet the Press, when interviewed by the network host, Chuck Todd. Curiously, Chuck Todd never once asked the Senator to explain his use of that phrase, and McCain, for his part, although emphasizing the expression through repeated use of it, during the Sunday morning show, never bothered to explicate the bizarre, disturbing phrase himself. Yet, he must have realized that the expression has specific negative connotations and associations for Americans who hold our Free Republic and Constitution dear, and he must have given serious thought to use of the expression but never bothered to explicate it or provide a reason for using it at all during the interview. Our Nation is not a product of nor is it to be reformed and transformed, like so much clay, into something completely alien to our founders’ conception of our Nation as a free Republic. We see the forces that crush our Nation and its citizenry through the insidious ideas manifested in non-American conceptual constructs such as: democratic liberalism, multiculturalism, bilingualism, neoliberalism, and globalization.We, Americans, are not and do not ever wish to be construed as “citizens of the world.” We are citizens of the United States and shall forever remain so. We do not seek nor ever wish to gratuitously open our borders up to everyone.We shall maintain the integrity of our Nation’s borders. We shall maintain our Nation’s singular language: English. We shall use our military first and foremost to protect our Nation’s interests and our Nation’s security. And, we will never compromise the right our framers bequeathed to us in our sacred Second Amendment. This is what we must defend at all costs if our Nation is to survive against the insidious currents that seek to deprive us of our birthright—that seek the very end of the concept of the ‘Nation State.’Mainstream media organizations such as the New York Times orchestrate against the preservation of our Nation—against the idea of a free Republic as our founders intended it. They construe our Bill of Rights in a manner alien to our framers’—alien to the meaning inherent in the rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights as the framers drafted it.The Second Amendment has no place in the World as the New York Times and other mainstream media organizations envision it, as they would like it to be, as their overseers, the wealthy, secretive group of so-called “elites”—internationalists and trans-nationalists wish to transform it—to remold it—in a way inapposite to the principals laid down by the fathers’ of our Nation.The mainstream media, echoing the interests, concerns, and aims of their internationalist, trans-nationalist overseers and benefactors do not believe in the right of each individual to be individual, to be left alone. So, they do not believe in natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.The New York Times and other mainstream media organizations, at the behest of their internationalist, trans-nationalist overseers, desire no less than absolute control over the individual. That entails destroying the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and that means, as well, destroying the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Firearms in the hands of the American citizenry are an anathema to those who seek absolute control. Americans are perceived by these “elites,” who owe allegiance to no Country—as no more than a mass of bees that make up a hive. Firearms in the hands of the citizenry do not allow for orderly control and, so, firearms must be eliminated from the hands of the citizenry—from the hands of the multitude of worker bees of the hive.The internationalist, trans-nationalist “elites” are not really concerned about gun violence caused by criminals, by gang members, by terrorists, by the occasional lunatic. No! they are concerned about guns in the hands of the average, rational, law-abiding citizen. It is the average, sane, law-abiding citizen that these “elites” truly fear and that fear is reflected in the restrictive gun laws that exist today. That fear is reflected in ever more restrictive gun laws they seek to see enacted. But, these “elites,” through the New York Times and through similar publications and through other mainstream media outlets say that such restrictions on access to guns and ammunition are ultimately for the good of the people. What they really mean, though, is that such gun restrictions operate for the benefit of the “elites” who seek to clamp down on the American citizenry. They seek to enact restrictive gun laws for their own good, clearly to the detriment of the American people. Restrictive gun laws operate as, and are designed to operate as, constraints on the people. Restrictive gun laws do not operate as and are not designed to operate for and never were designed to operate for the good of the American people. But, these internationalist, trans-nationalist “elites”, through their public loudspeakers, the mainstream media, would not, of course, say that.What these so-called “elites” propose for Americans is the end of all that Americans hold precious, the end of all that Americans hold dear: the end of Americans’ sacred rights and liberties, codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The “elites,” see this as necessary. They see this as the way things should be, must be, if their dream of a New World Order is to become a reality. So, they argue that such restrictions and repressions on firearms ownership and possession and such restrictions and repressions on other natural rights and liberties are truly, manifestly, for our own good, of course.What is good, and right, and natural is, they believe, just a matter of perception. Change one’s perceptions and you change one’s reality—you change one’s sense of what is just and proper. And, the forces that crush this Nation and its people into submission intend to do just that: to change our perceptions, to change our attitudes and perceptions toward guns and to change our attitudes and perceptions toward everything else that we hold dear: our history, our heritage, our values. The forces that crush seek to change everything that makes us, uniquely, Americans. The forces that crush seek to change our reality—to change the idea that we, Americans, are unique, and to destroy the notion that our uniqueness is expressed and reflected first and foremost, in the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.Loss of this one unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms is sufficient to destroy our Nation’s identity; it is sufficient to effectively disable and disassemble the U.S. Constitution; it is sufficient to break our Nation’s back and our Nation’s spirit. That is what the gun grabbers want. That is what they seek. That is what they have worked and continue to work relentlessly, unceasingly, consistently, and strenuously toward.____________________________*The prefix, “AM,” refers to the manufacturer, Anderson Manufacturing. The prototypical rifle, the “AR-15,” with the prefix, ‘AR,’ does not denote ‘Assault Rifle,’ contrary to what some people might think. Rather the prefix, “AR,” refers, to the manufacturer of that semiautomatic rifle, “ArmaLite.” The original “AR-15” “Assault Rifle,” prototype became the standard arm for the U.S. Army foot soldier during the Vietnam War.The U.S. Army reluctantly adopted the M16 assault rifle as the standard infantry rifle in lieu of the M14 selective-fire rifle it had much preferred—as a replacement for the World War II M1 Garand rifle, that, in design, the M14 superficially resembled.The military M16 “Assault Rifle” had several variants and was chambered for the 5.56 millimeter cartridge. The 5.56 millimeter NATO round, is a cartridge essentially identical to the 2.23 caliber cartridge round that many semiautomatic rifles, manufactured for the civilian market, are chambered for—semiautomatic rifles that continue to be described by the mainstream media, inaccurately, as military “assault rifles” or, otherwise, for political propaganda purposes, described as “assault weapons”—a fictional phrase that has no recognized meaning in military or firearms industry argot. Often the two expressions, ‘assault rifle’ and ‘assault weapon,’ are used interchangeably by the mainstream media, antigun groups, and antigun politicians when talking about semiautomatic rifles manufactured for the civilian market. The two expressions are not synonymous, and the use of the two expressions, interchangeably by mainstream news organizations, does nothing to enlighten the public, and does much to illustrate the ineptitude and sloppiness of journalists and commentators when reporting news.**There do exist handguns chambered for .50 caliber cartridges and there even exist a few exotic handguns chambered for the .60 caliber cartridge —the latter of which are found in atypical, novelty handguns. Handguns that are chambered for the .60 caliber "nitro express" cartridge likely are not designed to be fired at all—given, arguably, the sheer difficulty, if not virtual impossibility, for most individuals to be able to hold onto the weapon, once having fired it, let alone maintaining the ability to shoot such weapons accurately. Such handguns certainly do not have utility in any common real world application, whether for law enforcement, for the military, for hunting or for self-defense. More likely, handguns chambered for such cartridges are "show pieces"--curiosities only, designed for the collector--to be showcased in gun collection displays but not actually to be used. Both cartridges, the .50 caliber and .60 caliber, are more powerful—much more powerful than the intermediate .223 cartridge. But, these cartridge exceptions, in handgun cartridges, do not belie the general rule regarding three major categories of cartridges: handgun rounds (generally, the least powerful cartridge rounds); intermediate assault rifle rounds; and high-power rifle or machine gun (the most powerful) rounds. Even so, the American public should keep in mind that handguns or rifles chambered for the .50 caliber cartridge or for the exotic .60 caliber "nitro express" handgun cartridge round, are not, and never were, designed, and, sensibly, never will be manufactured for use in hand-held full auto fire weapons be those weapons, selective fire assault rifles in full auto mode, or full auto only submachine guns.The .223/5.56 NATO cartridge round was specifically designed for selective fire “assault rifles,” enabling the user of those rifles to fire a round, controllably, in full auto mode. Were a high-power rifle round like the .30-06 caliber, or .50 caliber cartridge chambered for the assault rifle would render the assault rifle uncontrollable in full auto mode. Moreover, for a soldier to have to carry a substantial number of high-power rifle .30-06 caliber cartridge rounds or a substantial number of .50 caliber cartridge rounds would be unduly burdensome due to weight considerations and, too, would lessen the number of rounds the foot soldier might otherwise be able to carry on his person. ______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DID THE FEDERAL COURTS IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BETRAY AMERICA’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? IT APPEARS SO.

MARYLAND’S FIREARM SAFETY ACT: ATTACKING THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH THE VENEER OF PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

KOLBE VS. HOGAN

PART TEN

Despite the need for deference to our federal and State court systems, we must speak out and speak out harshly when it is clear, on both legal, logical, and, not least of all, ethical grounds, that a court disregards U.S. Supreme Court precedent and does so, not out of ignorance of the law as it exists, but with apparent deliberate disregard to Supreme Court law, and more so when it acts with clear disdain for Supreme Court, rendering decisions at odds with Supreme Court precedent with impunity. We certainly see the hallmarks of this in recent lower federal Court decisions and in higher federal appellate Court decisions. The disdain for U.S. Supreme Court precedent in matters involving our Nation’s Second Amendment is not, today, unfortunately, a unique, or, at worst, rare, happenstance. No! disdain for high Court rulings in matters involving our sacred Second Amendment has become no less prevalent—contrary to what Americans might think—in the decisions handed down in the seminal Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court cases: District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742; 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020; 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The Kolbe vs. Hogan case ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)), is a case in point: a case that demands harsh criticism. The ultimate decision must be deemed no less than a betrayal; and, lest some believe we use the harsh word, ‘betrayal,’ here as mere hyperbole, we wish to controvert that belief. We are deadly serious in our choice of words to describe the ultimate decision handed down by the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

WHY WE ASSERT THAT THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS OPERATES AS A BETRAYAL

The decision in Kolbe stands as a betrayal first because the rulings of the lower U.S. District Court that first heard the case, and the rulings of the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals that had the last word in the case, applied legal reasoning in clear contravention of and in contradistinction to U.S. Supreme Court case law precedent as set forth in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742; 780, 130 S. Ct. 3020; 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).The rulings of the U.S. District Court of Maryland and those of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that reviewed the case, en banc, cannot be reconciled with the rulings of the high Court, try as some jurists on those Courts might, opining that Maryland’s outrageous gun legislation does not offend the Second Amendment and, therefore, that it is consistent with or otherwise compatible with the holdings and reasoning of Heller and McDonald. Yet, the fact of the matter is that the rulings and reasoning of the U.S. District Court of Maryland, and of the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that had the final word in the case, are not consistent with the rulings and reasoning of the high Court’s majority and cannot be legally or logically reconciled with those rulings and reasoning, and, so, operate as blots on our case law—opinions resisting high Court rulings—manifesting a federal Circuit’s defiance of a bedrock principal of U.S. jurisprudence: adherence to case precedent. The ultimate rulings in Kolbe vs. Hogan operate as a betrayal, second, on an elemental level. They operate as a betrayal to our Constitution, to our Nation, and, not least of all, to the American people, namely and specifically, as a betrayal of the natural right of self-defense existent in the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. The rulings of the lower U.S. District Court, as affirmed by the full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, defiantly and decisively and rudely attack this sacred, fundamental right of the U.S. citizenry as codified in the Nation’s Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.How did the federal Courts of the Fourth Circuit display their disenchantment with the right of the people to keep and bear arms and by what tortuous reasoning did those Courts come to disenfranchise a substantial number of American people of their natural right to keep and bear arms?

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND HAS FIRST CRACK AT THE OBSCENELY RESTRICTIVE FIREARMS SAFETY ACT OF MARYALND

Before the Kolbe case wended its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for an en banc review, the lower U.S. District Court of Maryland had first crack at it, and did so, falling back on its own faulty, indeed benighted, case law precedent, in clear and abject derogation to and defiance of case law precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Fourth Circuit is not alone in their tacit condemnation of U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Second Amendment matters. Other federal Circuits have acted similarly: relying on their own faulty case law precedent and on similar rulings of sister federal Courts in other jurisdictions, such as, and principally, those of the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, and those of the D.C. Circuit—all of which continue to defy high Court case law precedent, as if to suggest that the combined rulings and reasoning of multiple Appellate Courts outweigh the singular holdings and reasoning of the highest Court in the Land, even as these Appellate Courts, as one, pretend, insincerely, to apply the rulings of the high Court in the decisions they render. The Kolbe case is simply the latest major Second Amendment case coming out of any Circuit that, as with decisions emanating from sister Courts that hold the same disdain toward the Second Amendment, reflects hostility toward, rather than deference toward the rulings, reasoning, and methodology of the high Court Majority in the landmark Heller and McDonald cases.The Kolbe case was first heard in the United States District Court of Maryland, where the case was captioned, Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110976; 2014 WL 3955361 (U.S. Dist. Md. 2014). The Governor, at the time, Martin J. O’Malley, was named as a Party Defendant in the case. His name, as a Party Defendant, was replaced by that of Larry Hogan, who became the new Governor of Maryland as the Kolbe case slowly, inexorably wended its way through the federal Court system.The Kolbe case remains noteworthy in two important respects. First, the case illustrates the extent to which a federal Court will go to disregard United States Supreme Court reasoning and rulings when that lower federal Court permits its personal philosophical predilections to interfere with sound legal judicial decision-making. Second, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that heard the case, en banc, negatively impacts the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people.But, it is one thing for a lay person to happen to hold a negative if aberrant view toward possession and ownership of firearms and toward the Second Amendment because that negative viewpoint does not of itself translate into the infringement of another American’s fundamental, natural right to keep and bear arms. It is, though, quite another thing for a jurist, deciding a case that impacts millions of law-abiding gun owners, to thrust his or her personal viewpoint on other Americans and place the judicial imprimatur on a matter that unconstitutionally intrudes on the rights and liberties of Americans who do not happen to share that jurist’s philosophical bent toward gun possession and gun ownership and, more to the point, when that philosophical viewpoint, culminating in a judicial decision, is contrary to the rulings and reasoning of the highest Court in the Land, the United States Supreme Court. But that is what we have here and what, unfortunately, we see in many lower U.S. District Court and what we see in higher U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal decisions involving the core of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND’S DECISION WAS DECIDED ON MOTION; THE CASE NEVER WENT TO TRIAL.

Critical as this Second Amendment case is to the rights and liberties of law-abiding Americans, the case never went to trial. The U.S. District Court of Maryland decided Kolbe on Motion, specifically on arguments presented in Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“MOSJ”). An MOSJ is governed by Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a). How does that Rule work?Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a) sets forth that a Party’s Motion will be granted only if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. But, an MOSJ requires a Court to consider the Motion in a light most favorable to the nonmoving Party, in this instance, the Party Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Kolbe and others. Did the Court follow this directive of the Rule? Hardly!

THE CENTRAL ISSUE BEFORE THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND THAT HAD FIRST STAB AT KOLBE.

How a Court frames the issues before it, often goes a long way, in determining how that Court will ultimately decide a case.The central question before the U.S. District Court went to the constitutionality of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act. What does the Act say? In critical part, it says this:The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 provides in general that, after October 1, 2013, a person may not possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive ‘assault pistols,’ ‘assault long guns,’ and ‘copycat   weapons’ (together, ‘assault weapons’). Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (‘CR’) §§ 4-301(d), 4-303(a)(2). In addition, the Act states that a person ‘may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.’ Id. § 4-305(b). A person who violates the Act ‘is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both,’ although different penalties are provided for a person who uses an assault weapon or LCM in the commission of a felony or a crime of violence. Id. § 4-306.” The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 is a highly restrictive gun control Act. Maryland’s gun control attacks the very core—the very heart—of the Second Amendment and it does so in a particularly blatant fashion. No doubt about it. The Party Plaintiffs rightly, appropriately challenged the constitutionality of it, asserting that a State ban on firearms lumped into the amorphous category, ‘assault weapons,’ and a ban on critical components of those firearms, referred to as “LCMs” (large capacity magazines), impermissibly violates the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs also argued the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Act is void for vagueness.For relatively quick final resolution of the case both Party Plaintiffs and Party Defendants, together, agreed the District Court ought to bypass consideration of Plaintiffs’ prayer for a preliminary injunction and should proceed immediately on consideration of the case on its merits. The Court did so.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE

Did the Court prejudge the case? Consider: In the first paragraph of the Opinion, the Court asserted, “On May 16, 2013, in the wake of a number of mass shootings, the most recent of which claimed the lives of twenty children and six adult staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, the Governor of Maryland signed into law the Firearm Safety Act of 2013. The Act bans certain assault weapons and large-capacity magazines (‘LCMs’).”  Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768, 774; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110976; 2014 WL 3955361 (U.S. Dist. Md. 2014).The assertion is simply a presumptive rationale for enactment of a draconian antigun Act that the U.S. District Court of Maryland bought into. It has no pertinent legal merit. It should not have been included in the Court’s Opinion.If the U.S. District Court felt compelled to make the assertion, the Court could have done so and ought to have done so merely in a footnote to the Opinion, as a parenthetical matter. Instead, the Court’s assertion became the touchstone of its decision—the paramount ground upon which it rendered its decision, having agreed that Maryland’s public policy objective justified banning an entire category of weapons, commonly used by millions of Americans, thereby accepting, on its face, the constitutionality of the governmental action, rather than scrutinizing it in terms of its deleterious impact on a fundamental Constitutional right.The District Court’s analysis was wrong, blatantly wrong. In fact, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia vs. Heller, pointed out—cautioned Courts of review—that certain policy choices are off the table precisely because they effectively and essentially obliterate exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia said this:“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns [citation omitted]. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636; 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2822; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 684 (2008), The U.S. District Court did not heed Justice Scalia’s directive. Instead it went its own way, either oblivious to the import of Justice Scalia’s warning or exhibiting a deliberate disdainful attitude toward it.

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF REVIEW A COURT SHOULD EMPLOY WHERE THE VERY CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ATTACKED?

Since the standard employed will have decisive impact on the result obtained, it is incumbent on a Court of competent jurisdiction to use the correct Standard of review. There are three traditional standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. These three standards of review of a governmental action may be considered tiers or levels of scrutiny. What are the differences? Generally, as one scholar asserts “The essential difference among rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny lies in the extent to which the Court is willing to examine empirically the nexus between the challenged statute’s ends and the means by which they are sought. Depending on which test is applied, the classification must either be ‘rationally related,’ ‘substantially related,’ or ‘narrowly tailored’ to a ‘legitimate,’ ‘important,’ or ‘compelling’ state interest. The varying levels of scrutiny used to keep the state in line with the Constitution represent the reality that while policymakers are granted considerable leeway in achieving societal goals, there are occasions where we prefer not to grant them a presumption of benevolence in their policy choices.” NOTE: HIV-Positive, Equal Protection Negative.” 81 Geo. L.J. 375, 383, by Sean Doyle, J.D., Georgetown University. Although the focus of that article is directed to the “extent to which traditional equal protection jurisprudence and the current Supreme Court will protect individual rights when policymakers attempt to control the spread of AIDS,” Id. at 378, the author’s brief description of the salient differences among the traditional standards of review have general application. The author of the Note added this remark: “When it is likely that ignorance, prejudice, or antipathy has informed the judgment of policymakers, courts will review the legislation from a more critical standpoint in order to safeguard the equitable promise of the Equal Protection Clause.” “HIV-Positive, Equal Protection Negative.” 81 Geo. L.J. 375, 383, by Sean Doyle, J.D., Georgetown University. That remark is more of a hope than a promise for, where, as here, a Second Amendment issue comes before a federal Court where a Court is biased against an American’s exercise of his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, that Court will invariably find an infringement of the right to be acceptable, notwithstanding the extent to which the infringement of the right is particularly onerous, even absolute.The question we must ask here is: how do these three standards “stack up” when a Second Amendment challenge to a Governmental action is raised? And, more to the point, we need to ask: should a Court even invoke a standard of review when it is evident that the core—the very heart of the Second Amendment—is attacked? And, if no standard of review should be employed, what does that mean? How is a challenge to a Statute that attacks the Second Amendment--a Statute that attacks the very core of the Second Amendment-- to be resolved?These questions would not have been given serious consideration—a few of them might not have even been asked—prior to Heller and McDonald, but, post Heller and McDonald, a Court of review must be mindful of these questions and be ready to answer them and be wary of any governmental action directed against the Second Amendment.Government actions that impinge on and infringe upon the Second Amendment—should reasonably, at the very least, invoke the highest level of review—strict scrutiny and, if that standard of review were properly employed, any highly restrictive gun legislation would be summarily struck down. And, where the very core of the Second Amendment is attacked, a governmental action that attacks the very core of the Second Amendment should be summarily struck down without need of a Court to resort to any standard of review. {We will discuss this latter idea in detail, in a future article}.Yet, the Second Amendment has been, for decades, in many federal and State Courts, treated as a secondary, subordinate right rather than as a fundamental right, notwithstanding that its station in the Bill of Rights is overt, manifest--not left to conjecture. Be that as it may, some federal Circuits, to this day--and in clear contravention to the dictates of Heller and McDonald--still use rational basis--the most lenient--standard--to test the constitutionality of even the most draconian of gun laws such as, and particularly, the New York Safe Act which was signed into law by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo in January 2013.The New York Safe Act is the model for restrictive gun legislation in various jurisdictions across the Country. Antigun Legislators in Congress had hoped the NY Safe Act, operating in the vanguard for federal legislation, banning so-called “assault weapons” and so-called "high capacity magazines," would pave the way for such federal legislation. Recall that the Majority Speaker of the House—at the time, Harry Reid (D-Nevada)—would not allow Senator Dianne Feinstein’s notorious bill, the"Assault Weapons Ban of 2013," introduced in January 2013, on the heels of the NY Safe Act, to come up for a vote on the Floor of the Senate. Dianne Feinstein was furious, but could do nothing to change Senator Reid’s mind. Reid realized that he did not have the votes. But, had Dianne Feinstein’s bill been enacted, it would have banned, nationally, 150 semiautomatic weapons, along with magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Now that a Republican Majority holds both Houses of Congress, the possibility of federal antigun legislation is, thankfully, dead and buried. So efforts of antigun politicians and groups have now been redirected toward exacting a toll on the Second Amendment through enactment of semiautomatic weapon bans and "LCM" bans piecemeal across the Country--which, time-wise, is a lengthy, drawn-out process, but one which antigun groups and their friends in Congress and in State Legislatures and in the mainstream media are grudgingly accepting.One way to throw a wrench in the efforts of antigun groups is for Republicans to use their Majority position to enact National handgun carry reciprocity legislation. A second way is for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the Kolbe case and to reverse the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Both sequence of events can occur in tandem if both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have the will to proceed to assert the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as the framers of our Constitution fully intended.The latest example of a State sponsored semiautomatic gun ban--and one operating as a suppurating sore on the Second Amendment--is Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—an Act that can potentially impact States beyond Maryland—namely, and specifically, those within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Circuit. Those States in the ambit of the Federal Fourth Circuit, apart from Maryland, include North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Governments of each of those States may impose the same bans on possession of similar semiautomatic weapons and on so-called “LCMs,” knowing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has already given its blessing on such onerous gun laws that may be enacted in the States of that Circuit.

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND'S HORRIBLE, DISASTROUS, ERRONEOUS DECISION PAVED THE WAY FOR THE DECISION OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, EN BANC, THAT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT, FINDING MARYLAND'S FIREARM SAFETY ACT NOT TO OFFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ALTHOUGH THE DECISION STANDS IN CLEAR, ABJECT CONTRAVENTION TO U.S. SUPREME COURT REASONING AND LAW.

The U.S. District Court of Maryland handed down a decision favorable to the Government of Maryland. On the Second Amendment issue the Court said, inter alia: “the evidence demonstrates that the banned weapons pose a threat to law enforcement and public safety because of a combination of features of which the ability to penetrate soft body armor is just one [citation omitted]. Once finding that the ban will sufficiently further the government's substantial interests in protecting public safety and preventing crime—including murders of police officers—to pass intermediate scrutiny, the court cannot question the legislature's judgment that the Firearm Safety Act was the appropriate balance of various interests when compared to other possible regulations.” Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768, 796 (D.C. Md. 2014). The U.S. District Court applied “intermediate scrutiny.” having applied that standard of review, would there be --could there be--any doubt as to the outcome? None, of course. The Court concluded, saying, “In sum, the defendants have met their burden to demonstrate a reasonable fit between the Firearm Safety Act and the government’s substantial interests in protecting public safety and reducing the negative effects of firearm-related crime. Accordingly,  the Act does not violate the Second Amendment. Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d at 797.But how did the U.S. District Court come to apply intermediate scrutiny in Kolbe? Through what tortuous legal and logical reasoning did the U.S. District Court of Maryland come to believe that intermediate scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review to be used to test the constitutionality of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act—an Act that banned outright any firearm the State Government of Maryland sought, arbitrarily, to place within the domain of firearms that the State defined as 'assault weapons;' and an Act that banned outright magazines for those weapons that happen to hold a number of rounds that the Government arbitrarily deemed to be illegal for the average law-abiding American residing in Maryland to own and possess?We deconstruct the U.S. District Court’s reasoning in the next article of this continuing series.______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS THE ANSWER TO INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

On January 3, 2017, Richard Hudson, (R-NC), introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (115 H.R. 38) in the House of Representatives. This Bill, if enacted would allow an individual “who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.” What is the status of this bill? It languishes in Committee. Nothing is being done on it, but momentum is building across the Country to compel Congress to take action. Antigun politicians are angered and frightened that national concealed handgun carry will become a reality. In response, they create unsound, bogus arguments directed to containing the very possibility of it. Case in point: Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, according to an article by Mark Moore, appearing in the June 25, 2017 edition of the New York Post, titled, “DA: I am sure ISIS supports concealed carry reciprocity bill, asserts, ludicrously, that national concealed handgun carry will play into the hands of Islamic terrorists. This is merely a new twist on the favorite tired line of antigun groups—that this Nation has a gun problem—as if to suggest that guns, inanimate objects, are responsible for criminal violence. That idea is not only false, it is imbecilic. Sentient beings are responsible for violence, and it is those beings who engineer violence who are to be constrained, not the implements the perpetrators use to promote and do violence.Of course, as we have seen, most notably, in Europe, but also here at home, Islamic terrorists don’t demonstrate a preference toward any one implement when destroying lives: bombs, knives, axes, gasoline, even trucks and automobiles as well as firearms are used--and often several of these implements in one horrific act of violence have been used--by Islamic terrorists, and with devastating effect against innocent civilians--and against soldiers and against police officers as well.Why are guns singled out as the cause célèbre of violent deeds? The emphasis on guns plays into the tiresome raison d’etre of antigun groups: "get rid of guns," so they say, "and all will be right with the world." That is utter nonsense, of course, but the theme plays out in the remonstrations of politicians and as echoed in the choruses of pundits and journalists of the mainstream media through endless, insufferable iterations—an incessant cacophony of meaningless sound bites.Violent crime is a sad fact of life, but its impact can be minimized. In fact, the impact of violent crime can be and has been minimized by arming, not by disarming the American public, and the impact of violent crime can be further minimized through strict enforcement of criminal penalties against those who inflict pain and suffering on innocent Americans. The latest incarnation of violent crime, international Islamic terrorism, is a special species of violent crime, to be sure, a species of crime that must, of course, be dealt with, and must be dealt with at the highest Government levels.In the U.S., the threat posed by international Islamic terrorism is being dealt with sensibly, rationally, and directly, by the U.S. President, Donald Trump. An armed American citizenry can certainly aid the U.S. President in his efforts.Courts in the Ninth Circuit though disagree. Not content merely to disarm the American public—inhibiting Americans from exercising their natural right of self-defense with the best means available—a firearm—the Courts of the Ninth Circuit have attempted to throw a wrench into the President’s efforts as well—opining, wrongly, that individuals, non-citizens, who reside outside of this Country, have rights secured under the Bill of Rights and that, in effect, the rights of these non-citizens apparently transcend the security of this Nation and the security of its people. Non-citizens residing outside our Country, though, have no rights or liberties under our Bill of Rights and the concerns of non-citizens residing outside our Country do not transcend—will never transcend—the needs and security of the citizens of our own Nation.The U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, 2017 decision is consistent with that principle. The high Court essentially stayed the preliminary injunctions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, opining that the preliminary injunctions were valid only to the extent that a refugee could establish a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 4266. Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, concurred in part and dissented in part in the unanimous decision of the high Court. In his dissent Justice Thomas stated that he, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, would have granted a full stay of the preliminary injunctions. Justice Thomas stated in pertinent part:"The Government has satisfied the standard for issuing a stay pending certiorari. We have, of course, decided to grant certiorari. . . . And I agree with the Court’s implicit conclusion that the Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed. The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.” Finally, weighing the Government’s interest in preserving national security against the hardships caused to respondents by temporary denials of entry into the country, the balance of the equities favors the Government. I would thus grant the Government’s applications for a stay in their entirety."Clearly, the best defense against international Islamic terrorism and the first-line of defense for our Nation is found in an armed citizenry. To paraphrase a statement of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the best deterrent against a “bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”  That may seem like a trite slogan, but, time and time again, it has been proved true.The natural right of self-defense should never be restricted and must never be trivialized. Unfortunately, those who hold an irrational hostility toward gun ownership and toward gun possession by the law-abiding citizenry will continue their efforts to constrain the natural right of self-defense. But, they are losing. They are left flailing about, trying to drum up support for their doomed cause: namely, destruction of our Nation’s sacred Second Amendment. The bizarre, irrational statements of antigun proponents, like those of the Manhattan DA, Cy Vance, aptly illustrate the extent of their desperation.The Arbalest Quarrel is a strong supporter of National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation. We provide a strong case for it in our continuing series: “A ROAD TRIP WITH A GUN.” You will find those articles and much more right here, on this website.________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

CONNECTICUT HANDGUN LICENSING LAWS AND PROCEDURES: COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

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

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE: THE APPLICATION PACKET

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

SUBPART FIVE

COMPLETING THE APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

In the previous segment of the ROAD TRIP series, we commenced a detailed analysis of the application process for obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. Mr. Wright, an American citizen and successful businessman has applied for several handgun carry licenses. He has done this because he conducts business in several jurisdictions and he carries with him substantial business assets when he travels to and through various States. He is a tempting target for thieves. Mr. Wright knows that the best defense against assault, when he is on the road, is through possession of handgun. Mr. Wright is thoroughly trained in the safe handling of a handgun and he has had special training in the use of a handgun for self-defense in critical life-threatening situations.We laid out for you, in the previous segment, SUBPART FOUR, all the documents the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police provides in the information and application packet. In this segment, SUBPART FIVE, we take a close look at the formal “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION." This Application is four pages in length—two pages folded over, in dark blue heavy stock paper. The first page lays out the instructions. There are three columns: one, “Instructions for State Pistol Permits,” (which applies to residents of Connecticut); two, “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits;” and, three, “Instructions for Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Pistols or Revolvers and/or Eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.”As we are following the procedures for completing applications for handgun licenses that Mr. Wright—a law-abiding U.S. citizen and successful businessman who we use as our example in this exercise—followed, we see Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security consultant, reviewing the application. Since Mr. Wright is a non-resident, Mr. Wright first checks off the box for a “Non-Resident State Pistol Permit.” Turning the page, Mr. Wright fills out the usual information requested—which he has done many times before, when completing applications for handgun licenses as issued in other jurisdictions. He sets forth his complete name, date of birth, vital statistics, namely, sex, height, and weight, race and sex.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE UNDERGONE SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY OR WHO WISH TO CLASSIFY THEMSELVES AS TRANSGENDER AND WHO IDENTIFY WITH A SEX OTHER THAN THEIR BIOLOGICAL (BIRTH) SEX.

Given changing societal norms, matters that have, for decades, never been an issue but that are slowly manifesting as new issues in employment, in schools in the military and in government, generally may create conundrums for applicants.It goes without saying that those parties authorized to prosecute applications for firearms’ licenses and permits are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, national origin, and that likely includes sexual orientation. Now, the matter of sex identification is a complex subject. Much legislation and litigation is or will be ongoing for some time to come. So, prior to specific legislation and Court rulings on the matter of sex, how should a person who, say, was born a man, but who identifies as a woman, complete an application for a firearm’s license or permit, when that person is instructed to set forth sex?For those who have not undergone sex reassignment, one should check the box that refers to their sex at birth—namely, their biological sex. Even for those who have undergone sex reassignment, it is probably best to indicate one’s sex at birth. Remember, the purpose here is to obtain a handgun license. Do not attempt to get into a philosophical fight with the firearms’ licensing official. You will lose. Nor should you leave the entry pertaining to sex, blank. The licensing official will assume that you had simply forgotten to enter your sex and this will delay prosecution of one’s handgun license. That goes for the issue of one’s race. A person may not wish to check off the appropriate box. There are six categories for race, and they include a category for “unknown.” Do not refrain from checking off at least one box on the application form. For, once again, if you leave this category blank, that will only delay prosecution of the application.If there is any doubt as to the appropriate course of action, you should contact a licensed attorney.For, Mr. Wright, the completion of this section on vital statistics was simple enough to complete. Mr. Wright is male, and white. He completed the entry for his height, weight, date of birth, place of birth and Country of Citizenship. Mr. Wright is a citizen of the United States.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT LEGAL RESIDENTS OF THIS COUNTRY.

For those individuals who do not reside in this Country legally, do not attempt to complete this application. The licensing official will deny your application. If you do reside in this Country legally, there is a box on the application form requiring you to set forth your “alien registration number.”

RESIDENTIAL AND MAILING ADDRESS AND EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

In this section of the Application, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requires applicants to provide residential address—which includes addresses for the last seven years, from the date of the application, if the applicant has changed residences, and a mailing address (if different from residential address). Note, if residential address and mailing address are different, this may cause the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer to flag the application.The applicant must also provide the name, address, and telephone number of one’s employer. If the applicant has had several employers, then the applicant must list the name, address, and telephone number of each employer that that applicant worked for during the last seven years. Be specific and do not refrain from listing every employer.Mr. Wright, for his part, is self-employed and has been self-employed for many years. So, Mr. Wright listed his Company as employer, the address of his main business offices, and his business phone number.

"PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION”

Every section of the Application is critical. But, some sections raise red flags. This is one of those sections. This section of the application requires the applicant to indicate whether he or she has had an application for a firearm’s permit “denied,” “suspended,” “revoked,” from any jurisdiction. Mr. Wright has several firearms’ permits and licenses issued by appropriate licensing authority from multiple States and, as required, from various jurisdictions within a State—as is the case with the State of New York, as Mr. Wright has handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing authority for New York City and for Nassau County, Long Island, New York. Mr. Wright has never had a firearm’s license permit, denied, suspended, or revoked and he checks off the appropriate box to indicate that fact.For those individuals who have applied for a firearm’s permit or license and a permit or license has been denied, suspended, or revoked, you must indicate that fact and give the particulars, by identifying the jurisdiction that denied, suspended, or revoked the application, the date of denial, suspension, or revocation, and the reason for the denial, suspension, or revocation.DO NOT LIE! And, do not refrain from indicating a denial, suspension, or revocation, that you might have, for that is tantamount to lying on the application. While admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation does raise a red flag, this does not constitute an automatic denial of your application. Lying does. You will find that The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police unforgiving of outright lies. On the other hand admitting a denial, suspension, or revocation of a handgun license does not mean that you will not receive a permit. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police is mindful that, in some jurisdictions, securing a handgun license or permit is very difficult and that this is due to the fact that some jurisdictions are “MAY ISSUE,” not “SHALL ISSUE,” where a person seeks to secure a handgun carry license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut is certainly mindful that denial of a handgun carry permit or license may not be due to a “disability”—such as a felony arrest record—but simply due to the fact that a person does not meet the stringent requirements for obtaining a handgun carry license. Now, even though Connecticut is, itself considered a “MAY ISSUE” State for handgun carry permits, the issuance of a handgun carry permit is, for qualified individuals, much less stringent than is the case in a jurisdiction such as New York City. For, in Connecticut, the stated reason of “SELF DEFENSE” constitutes good and sufficient cause for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified person. In New York City, on the other hand, “SELF DEFENSE,” as a stated reason for issuance of a handgun carry license is patently insufficient.If an individual’s application for a firearm has been denied due to “DISABILITY” that individual must indicate that fact. If an individual’s firearm’s license or permit has been suspended or revoked after issuance, the date of suspension or revocation and the reason therefor must also be stated. Once again, DO NOT LIE AND DO NOT REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING EACH AND VERY OCCURRENCE OF A DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATION OF A FIREARM’S LICENSE OR PERMIT! Be advised, too, that the Connecticut Application makes reference in this Section of the Application to “FIREARMS.” So don’t try to be cute and suppose that, if one had applied, in another jurisdiction for a long gun—that is to say, a rifle or shotgun—and that person has been denied issuance of a permit or license for a long gun—a person may refrain from mentioning that fact simply because he or she is applying, in Connecticut, for a handgun license. The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police has used the term, ‘Firearm,’ for a reason, when it asks an individual to indicate whether that person’s application for a license or permit, in any jurisdiction, has been denied, suspended or revoked. If the Special Licensing Unit had indicated an interest in determining whether an individual’s application for a pistol or revolver had ever been denied, suspended, or revoked, it would have made specific reference to the denial, suspension, or revocation of one’s pistol or revolver license or permit. The use of the general term, ‘FIREARM,’ here is meant to be all-inclusive.

MEDICAL HISTORY, CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND MILITARY HISTORY

The third page of “THE PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” is the most critical section, for it is the true “RED FLAG” portion of the Application.In the “MEDICAL SECTION” of the Application, the applicant for a Connecticut handgun carry permit must check the appropriate for each of the following:

CONFINEMENT TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS BY ORDER OF A PROBATE COURT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been confined in a hospital for mental illness in the past sixty (60) months by order of a Probate Court?” There is a check box for “yes” and for “no.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no” as he has never been confined to a hospital for mental illness by order of a Probate Court. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THE QUESTION PERTAINS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS AS INVOLUNTARILY COMMITMENTS REQUIRE AN ORDER OF COURT. NO ONE CAN BE LAWFULLY CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL AGAINST HIS OR HER WISHES ABSENT AN ORDER FROM A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.

DISCHARGED FROM CUSTODY HAVING BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL DEFECT

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been discharged from custody within the past twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of a mental disease or defect.”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as the question asked is inapplicable to him. He has never been charged with a crime and, so, has never been in the position of having been found guilty of a crime where a court might have found him not guilty by reason of a mental disease or defect. Mr. Wright now proceeds to the next section of the Application.

VOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you been voluntarily admitted to a hospital for mental illness within the past six (6) months for reason other than solely for alcohol or drug dependence?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the box, “no,” as he has never had reason to voluntarily commit himself to a hospital for mental illness or, for that matter, for any reason, relating to mental illness, or for alcohol or drug issues. The question asked is inapplicable to him. Mr. Wright then proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: THIS QUESTION, UNLIKE THE FIRST QUESTION, REFERS TO A VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTARILY ADMITS HIM OR HERSELF TO A HOSPITAL FOR TREATMENT FOR A MENTAL ILLNESS OR FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG ISSUE RELATED TO OR UNRELATED TO AN UNDERLYING MENTAL ILLNESS.If the applicant has voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for treatment for alcohol dependency or for dependency on drugs, whether those drugs be illegal or through lawful prescription, but the treatment does not entail “mental illness,” then the applicant can reasonably check the corresponding check box, “no.” This is tricky, though. If the applicant voluntarily commits himself to a hospital, within the six months preceding the date of application for a Connecticut, handgun carry permit, for treatment of an alcohol and/or drug related problem, the applicant may also be treated for a mental condition as alcohol and/or drug related problems may subsume a mental condition. If there is doubt about this, the applicant who has voluntarily committed himself or herself to a hospital for alcohol and/or drug related problems within the last six months should take a look at his or her medical record to ascertain whether the record indicates a mental disorder as it is incumbent on the applicant to be certain what his or her medical record says.“NOTICE: “DESPP HEREIN NOTIFIES THE APPLICANT THAT, PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 29-28 THROUGH 29-30b, DESSP WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONFINED TO A HOSPITAL FOR PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITIES WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIXTY (60) MONTHS BY ORDER OF PROBATE COURT, OR IF THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A HOSPITAL FOR MENTAL ILLNESS WITH THE PAST SIX (6) MONTHS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SOLELY FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG DEPENDENCE.”This “NOTICE” is to alert the Applicant that, regardless how the Applicant answers the questions of this section, DESPP will contact the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. So, under no circumstances should the applicant think that, by lying on the application, the DESPP, will not find out whether an applicant has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a hospital for treatment. DESPP will also be contacting the FBI, to ascertain criminal record of the applicant if any and if an individual was found not guilty of a crime due to mental illness or mental defect, that is likely to be in the FBI data bases as well.

PRIOR ARREST RECORD

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been ARRESTED for any crime in any jurisdiction?”Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.For those individuals who do have an arrest record and therefore must check off the box, “yes,” the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police instructs the applicant to list all arrests, indicating charges, locations, dates of arrest and dispositions.“NOTICE: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE GBEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO C.G.S. §§ 46-b-146, 54-142a. IF YOUR CRIMINAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO ONE OF THESE STATUTES, YOU MAY SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED. CRIMINAL RECORDS THAT MAY BE ERASES ARE RECORDS PERTAINING TO A FINDING OF DELINQUENCY OR THAT A CHILDE WAS A MEMBER OF A FAMILY WITH SERVICE NEEDS (C.G.S. 46b-146), AN ADJUDICATION AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (C.G.S. 54-76o), A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR NOLLED, A CRIMINAL CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PERSON HAS BEEN FOUND NOT GUILTY, OR A CONVICTION FOR WHICH THE PERSONA RECEIVED AN ABSOLUTE PARDON (C.G.S. 54-142a).”“WITH REGARD TO CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION ARISING FROM JURISDICTIONS OTHER THAN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ARREST, CRIMINAL CHARGE OR CONVICTION, THE RECORDS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ERASED PURSUANT TO THE LAW OF THE OTHE RJURISDCITION. ADDITIONALLY, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ARREST ARISING FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION IF YOU ARE PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW OF THAT JURISDICTION TO SWEAR UNDER OATH THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN ARRESTED.”The Section pertaining to criminal history too, gets tricky. The applicant with an arrest record must, of course, be completely honest. Failure to admit an arrest record when required to do so, will not likely fool the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. And, even if a handgun carry license should issue because a mistake was made, don’t think that you have “pulled the wool over the eyes” of the Licensing Official. For, at some point the truth will come out. You will lose your firearms; you will lose your handgun carry permit; and you will face federal prosecution and possibly State prosecution as well on the ground of unlawful possession of firearms contrary to law because of disability. On the other hand, whether you can properly check the corresponding check box, “no,” regarding ARREST RECORD, notwithstanding that you DO have an arrest record, this comes down to whether you fall within an exception as noted above. READ THE "NOTICE" CAREFULLY. The safest course of action for those applicants who do have an arrest record, whether or not it is apparent that the applicant falls within an exception to acknowledging the arrest record on the application, is to contact a licensed attorney before completing and sending in the application packet. That will prevent a multitude of sins if you make an error, intentionally or not, in filling out this section of the Application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit. For mistakes in accurate reporting have negative ramifications, not only in Connecticut, but in any other jurisdiction where a person is considering applying for a handgun carry permit or license.

CONVICTION OF A CRIME

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Have you ever been CONVICTED under the laws of this state, federal law or the laws of another jurisdiction?"Mr. Wright truthfully checks the appropriate check box, “no,” and proceeds to the next section of the Application.NOTE: TO THOSE APPLICANTS FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME EITHER IN CONNECTICUT, OR IN ANOTHER STATE, OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, THAT APPLICANT MUST LIST ALL CONVICTIONS, INCLUDING, CHARGES, LOCATION , DATE OF ARREST, AND DISPOSITION.THE APPLICANT MUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION TRUTHFULLY, AND MUST PROVIDE COMPLETE ANSWERS. THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT WILL OBTAIN RECORDS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE APPLICANT RESPONDS, BUT THE LICENSING OFFICIAL IS LOOKING FIRST AND FOREMOST FOR VERACITY ON THE PART OF APPLICANTS FOR HANDGUN CARRY PERMITS. IF AN APPLICANT IS LIAR, THAT ALONE IS GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF ONE’S APPLICATION, FOR LYING ON THIS APPLICATION CONSTITUTES OVERT ADMISSION OF BAD CHARACTER, AND INDICATION THAT SUCH A PERSON SHOULD NOT BE IN POSSESSION OF FIREARMS.

PROBATION, PAROLE, OR WORK RELEASE

Other than arrest or conviction of a crime, or concomitant with arrest or conviction of a crime, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Are you currently on probation, parole, work release, in an alcohol and/or drug treatment program or other pre-trial diversionary program or currently released on personal recognizance, a written promise to appear or a bail bond for a pending court case?"Mr. Wright responds, truthfully, answering, “no,” by checking the appropriate check box and proceeds to the next section of the application.NOTE: THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING UNIT DOES NOT ASK FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION AS SET FORTH IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, NAMELY, CHARGES, LOCATION OF COURT, AND SPECIFIC DISPOSITION. THE QUESTION APPEARS MORE OPEN-ENDED, PARTLY, PERHAPS, BECAUSE PROBATION, PAROLE, WORK RELEASE, AND OTHER COURT ORDERS, RESPECTING SPECIFICALLY DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT ,REQUIRE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPECIFY DETAILS OF CONVICTION AND ARREST IN THE PRIOR SECTIONS AND HAVING TO REPEAT THOSE IS REDUNDANT.

PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND RESTRAINING ORDERS

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Within the past five (5) years, have you been the subject of a Protective Order or Restraining Order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, regardless of the outcome or result of any related criminal case?”Mr. Wright truthfully answered, “no” to this question, checking off the appropriate box on the Application. He then proceeded to the next question.NOTE: ONCE AGAIN, THE FIREARMS AND SPECIAL LICENSING DIVISION ISN’T INSTRUCTING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, BUT MERELY FACT OF IT AND, IF AN ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, THEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SET FORTH, ON THE APPLICATION, THE COURT THAT ISSUED THE ORDER.

MILITARY HISTORY

The Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police asks:“Were you ever a member of the Armed Forces of the United States?” And, if so, the Applicant is requested to provide a copy of the applicant’s “DD-214”—the Discharge Documents.Mr. Wright was never a member for the Armed Forces, so he truthfully, responds by checking the appropriate checkbox, “no,” and he proceeds to the next section of the application.If the applicant were a member of the Armed Forces, the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police pointedly asks:“Were you ever discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a less than Honorable Discharge?” The Applicant must respond with either, “yes,” or, “no,” checking off the appropriate check box.

AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS

The “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” doesn’t state, but an individual applying for a pistol permit in Connecticut—or in any other jurisdiction for that matter, should be advised that, under FEDERAL LAW, specified grounds exist that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. That means the Firearms and Special Licensing Division of the Division of State Police cannot and will not issue a handgun carry permit to anyone who is not permitted under federal law—wholly apart from the requirements of Connecticut Law—from possessing a firearm. Under Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part I (Crimes), Chapter 44 (Firearms) of the Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d):“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1)  is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;(2)  is a fugitive from justice;(3)  is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));(4)  has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;(5)  who, being an alien—(A)  is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B)  except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (26));(6) [who] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;(7)  who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;(8)  is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—(A)  was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and(B) (i)  includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or(ii)  by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or(9)  has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”If you fall under any one or more of the above categories, then do not apply for a Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Save your money. The Firearms and Special Licensing Division will deny you a permit to carry and you may be subject to federal and State criminal penalties for attempting to gain possession of a firearm by lying on the application. Worse, if you lie on the application and a permit is issued to you, and through the issuance of a permit you obtain a firearm, you are now in criminal possession of a firearm and subject to immediate arrest. AND, Be advised that, if a handgun permit is erroneously issued to you, because you lied on the Application, the DESPP will eventually become aware of the error. Don’t think that you will be able to fool the DESPP—that no further investigation won’t be done specifically to spot errors on an application. Further, suppose you are truthful in answering each question on the Application and yet you are under a disability that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit Officer fails to spot, still, under federal law if you are not permitted lawfully to own a firearm, then the mere assertion you told the truth when completing the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION and that it is the fault of the DESPP in issuing you a handgun carry permit will not protect you from criminal liability. For, intent to be truthful is not a defense to the litany of disqualifications of Title 18. If a person isn’t permitted under federal and/or State law from possessing a firearm, then the fact that he or she has been issued a firearm’s license or permit erroneously will not provide one with a defense to the discharge of unlawful possession of a firearm.

PROOF OF TRAINING

On page 4, the last page of the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION, the applicant must attach a copy of his or her handgun training certificate, setting forth the agency that offered the training and issued the certificate, along with the Instructor’s name and ID Number.Mr. Wright made a copy of his Certificate and completed the application with the information requested.

DECLARATION

The Applicant must attest that the information he has provided in the PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION is truthful and that the Applicant understands that an untruthful statement will void the Application. This DECLARATION is UNDER OATH. So, the Applicant must swear before a Notary Public and the Notary Public must duly notarize the Application.Mr. Wright duly signed his name and swore, before the Notary Public, that the contents of the Application that he completed were truthful. Mr. Wright and his attorney and professional security expert then made sure that the Application packet contained all documents that the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESPP required, that all portions of the Application that Mr. Wright had to complete were in fact answered, and that the Application packet contained Mr. Wright’s personal checks to cover the processing of his Application.Mr. Wright waited a few weeks. His attorney checked with the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit, regularly, to make sure, first, that the Licensing Unit did receive the Application, and subsequently, that Mr. Wright’s Application was complete and, lastly, that the Application was being prosecuted.Mr. Wright was eventually contacted by the Firearms and Special Licensing Unit of the Division of State Police. Mr. Wright was required to travel to Connecticut to receive his Connecticut Pistol Permit.

NOTICE: APPEAL PROCESS FOR PERMITS

The final section of the Application provides the Applicant with the process for Appeal if his or her Application is denied. Further discussion of the appeals process.In the concluding segment of analysis of Connecticut handgun carry permit application procedures, Subpart Six, we discuss renewals. Although renewals are generally a relatively easy and painless process, they do take time and they do require more outlay of cash. Furthermore, each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewals. This causes a busy entrepreneur like Mr. Wright more than a little frustration. Renewals of handgun licenses must not be taken lightly. Missing a renewal date means that the license or permit holder will have to go through the entire ordeal of obtaining a permit again with the concomitant monetary outlays, aggravation, and delays in the processing of the application.National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation will go a very long way in streamlining the process of obtaining and renewing a handgun carry permit, as, if Congressional Legislation is drafted well, then the handgun holder of a valid handgun permit or license will only be required to have on his person, when carrying a handgun, just one valid handgun carry permit. That means, too, that the permit or license holder will only need to renew one handgun license and not several that many license holders must now carry—that Mr. Wright must, at present, hold.We conclude our discussion of Connecticut handgun licensing laws and procedures with the next installment of the Road Trip Series: Part Four, Subpart Six, a Postscript. We will then move to a detailed analysis of Massachusetts handgun licensing laws and procedures, as we continue the Road Trip Series of articles.____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE DECISION THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE RULE OF LAW

MARYLAND’S FIREARM SAFETY ACT: ATTACKING THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH THE VENEER OF PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

WHAT DOES THE RULE OF LAW REALLY MEAN?

KOLBE VS. HOGAN

PART NINE

Politicians love to pontificate, tirelessly, grandiosely, often meaninglessly. We hear them say that our Country is ruled by law, not by men, proclaiming, indefatigably, assiduously, pompously, but ingenuously, how important the rule of law is in a free Democratic Republic and how much importance they attach to the concept of the rule of law—that is to say, how much importance they attach to the concept of the rule of law over men as opposed to law ruled over by men.Yet, as with any overused expression—the rule of law phrase no less so than any other expression becomes trite, over worn. The phrase has been, through much misuse and overuse by politicians and political pundits and hacks, reduced to cliché with little if any real effect and efficacy behind it. It is recited with little thought and care as to its import. So, we should step back and ask what the phrase means as used in the sentence: our Country is a Nation ruled by law, not by men. What does that sentence as a proposition to live by—for the people to be governed by—really mean, were it in fact adhered to, rather than given mere lip service? It means just this: no person, regardless of position, wealth, status, or station, stands above our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our system of laws, our jurisprudential authority. That is the intent at any rate, lofty as that intent is, and so often disregarded.We, Americans, are supposed to be governed by laws, but laws and jurisprudential standards, consistent with the dictates of our Nation’s Constitution, sublimely overseen by our Nation’s Bill of Rights. That is as the framers of our Nation’s Constitution with its preeminent Bill of Rights intended. That is as the founders of a free Republic envisioned. That is as our Nation was always supposed to be. What happened to change this?Quietly, subtly, seemingly irrevocably we are sliding into the throes of tyranny, which, by definition, means a Nation ruled by men—by the dictates of men—not by law.

HOW TYRANNY ARISES IN A FREE REPUBLIC

How may tyranny arise in a free Republic—in our free Republic?Tyranny arises in one of three ways. It arises, first, when our Legislative Branch drafts and enacts laws that subvert our Constitution or subvert our Bill of Rights. We see this, firsthand, through Congressional enactment of laws that undermine the searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and Congressional enactment of laws that whittle away at the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We see this also when laws designed to protect the integrity of our borders are not adhered to. How often do we hear by Congressional Democrats and by Congressional Centrist Republicans that the Nation’s immigration laws are broken—a scarcely disguised phrase that means we have millions of illegal immigrants in our Nation whom—some would argue—cannot feasibly, from a pragmatic standpoint, be returned to their native Countries or that—as others may argue— ought not, from some moral imperative, be returned to their native Countries; and, so, we should amend our immigration laws to allow these illegal immigrants to remain in our Country, providing all of them with amnesty and, eventually, with de facto, if not de jure, citizenship.Yet we ought to ask, before Congress either amends our present immigration laws or repeals the laws outright and rewrites the laws in full, how is it that we have eleven or twelve million illegal immigrants in our Nation? Where did they all come from? How did they happen to be here? It is not as if eleven or twelve million immigrants surreptitiously crept across our borders overnight. They came in dribs and drabs over decades. That would suggest that our present immigration laws are not broken at all and that they never were broken. It is simply that the federal Government never adequately, zealously enforced the laws we have. Similarly, it may be convenient and useful for some to say that we have a problem with gun violence and that we should curtail civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms. But, to account for gun violence, is the problem to be found in the millions of law-abiding civilian citizens who own and possess firearms or is it, rather, in the lack of enforcement of federal and State criminal laws that the problem of gun violence truly rests? Do we then ask of Congress that it enact further gun laws directed against the citizen civilian population? Would that really address the problem of gun violence that is the product of criminal misuse of firearms? Tyranny arises when Congress—the First Branch of Government—either fails to enforce the useful laws—those designed to preserve and strengthen our Nation’s values and traditions, and our rights and liberties—or enacts useless or bad laws—laws at odds with our values and traditions, and at odds with our sacred rights and liberties.Tyranny arises, second, when the Chief Executive of the Nation, the Second Branch of Government unilaterally undermines our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, occurring through executive edict and fiat, essentially subsuming the functions of the Legislative Branch, unconscionably into the Executive Branch. We saw this firsthand with Barack Obama’s misuse of executive directives, most glaringly, those directives weakening our immigration laws and those directives weakening the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and those directives aimed at weakening our moral codes.We would have seen this through the misuse of executive directives had Hillary Clinton assumed the Office of the U.S. President. Where a U.S. President ignores the laws enacted by Congress or where a U.S. President actively contravenes the laws of Congress, or where a U.S. President creates his or her own laws through edicts and directives adverse to the laws laid down by Congress, thereby becoming a law unto himself, this is tyranny. This means our Nation is ruled by men, not by law.In these two instances the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government often take their orders from powerful, secretive interests, desirous of supplanting the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the pursuit of personal nefarious interests at odds with the rule of law, at odds with the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and at odds with the rights and liberties and protections secured for the benefit of the American people under the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Thus, we would see our Country proceeding inexorably toward ruin. We would see our Country, as an independent, sovereign Nation and as a free Republic, in jeopardy.But, there is a third threat to our Nation’s continued existence as a free Republic and as an independent sovereign Nation, second to no other Nation.Tyranny arises, third, when our Judiciary--the third Branch of our Government—comprising our Federal Courts--go awry, ignoring its own case law precedent, peppering and lacing case decisions, not with the law as it exists, but with law as individual jurists would like that law to be, creating new “law” out of whole cloth—new law that undermines, rather than safeguards, our Bill of Rights—new law that supports a jurist’s personal philosophical convictions and beliefs—such personal philosophical convictions and beliefs that, taken to the extreme, disassemble our sacred rights and liberties—that, taken to the extreme, supplant our rights and liberties with artificial constructs, denigrating the very idea inherent in our legal system, namely that our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, reign supreme—second to those of no other nation, and no group of nations, and no international tribunals.The threat to our Nation—our Nation as a Free Republic, grounded in and overseen by our Bill of Rights, codifying natural law, our fundamental rights, supreme, emphatic—is most serious, most grievous, and most egregious when that threat derives from an overzealous, freewheeling Federal Judiciary, operating from a personal philosophical perspective, one at odds with the import and purport of our Nation’s Bill of Rights, one in contravention to clear case law precedent that promotes uniformity, consistency in our body of law.The threat posed by a federal judiciary that eschews case law precedent constitutes a serious breach and the most serious threat to our Nation and to the rule of law, for the federal Judiciary, as the Third Branch of our Government, as the interpreter of law, is the final bastion of “the rule of law.”If a federal judiciary forsakes its duty under the law, tyranny arises in the most devious way imaginable, for it is in the third Branch of Government—with its learned practitioners of the law—most adept at subverting the law if it so chooses—doing so secretly, within the interstices of complex terminology and argot—that the lay American public becomes hoodwinked, thinking that its rights and liberties are other than the way the public might think--less than they may have imagined--less than they really are. That is where the true subversion of the rule of law occurs.The Second Amendment case ((Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768 (D. Md. 2014); vacated and remanded, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016); rev’d en banc, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)), illustrates how far some federal courts will go to decide cases in contravention to United States Supreme Court precedent, doing so through dissimulation, through dissembling; and, in so doing, acting in league—whether conscious or not—with those unscrupulous interests in Congress and with those sanctimonious interests in the mainstream media, and with those hardened, confident, powerful, shadowy, ruthless interests behind the scene—to undermine our most sacred right—the right of the American people to keep and bear arms in their own defense, in defense of their families, and in defense of all American people— against tyranny.It is one thing for Courts to denigrate the sanctity of the Second Amendment through misapprehension of the law. It is quite another for Courts to denigrate the sanctity of the Second Amendment through deliberate misapplication of the law. Unconscious misapprehension of the law in judicial decision-making may be pardonable although its impact on the lives of Americans is harmed just the same, albeit contained. Deliberate misapplication of the law in judicial decision-making isn’t pardonable. It operates as a betrayal. That betrayal suffuses itself throughout the body of our Nation’s law, throughout the entirety of our system of law, throughout our jurisprudence, weakening the very heart of the Constitution—the Bill of Rights, negating the principle that we are a Nation ruled by law, not by men.Part Ten of the Arbalest Quarrel analysis of the disastrous Fourth Circuit Kolbe decision follows forthwith, where we begin our in-depth analysis of the lower U.S. District Court of Maryland that first decided Kolbe. We explain how the lower Federal Court contravened U.S. Supreme Court case precedent, rendering a decision wholly at odds with the holdings and reasoning of District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268 (2008).______________________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.