JUSTICE: FOR OR AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT? A COMMENTARY ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S NOMINEE FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND

JUSTICE GARLAND: A REPLACEMENT FOR JUSTICE SCALIA? NOW, IF ONE DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS; OR NEVER IF ONE CARES ABOUT AMERICA’S BILL OF RIGHTS!

PART 1

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SHORT LIST FOR JUSTICE ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: FIRST, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN; THEN KAGAN; AND NOW, GARLAND

Now that President Obama has nominated a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, a few pertinent questions arise. What will the Senate do? What ought the Senate do? And, most importantly, what do we, the American people, know about the individual Obama has nominated to replace a respected – indeed, a revered – Supreme Court Justice, a man whose shoes cannot easily be filled, Justice Antonin Scalia.Before we get to the third question, let us respond briefly to the first two. The U.S. Constitution sets forth the authority of the U.S. President to nominate an individual to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Constitution does so with a most important caveat. Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth, in pertinent part that the President, “. . . shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the supreme Court.”Many news sources are turning this matter into a major spectacle – castigating the U.S. Senate for allegedly dragging its feet in handling this nomination. But, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. Senate to do anything. It need not proffer its advice and consent; and, if it does not, then the appointment cannot be made. In this instance the U.S. Senate has good reason not to proffer its advice and consent.The appointment of a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is not to be taken lightly. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is for life. A poor decision can undermine the rights and liberties of all Americans. A poor decision can weaken our Republic. The Court’s decisions mold and shape our institutions and impact the life of every American citizen for decades. So, in a very real sense, A U.S. Supreme Court Justice wields  more power than the President of the United States. Would President Obama’s nominee truly faithfully support and defend the Constitution of the United States?President Barack Obama has, to date, nominated two Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and the U.S. Senate has confirmed them. They are Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, two liberal-wing Justices. No one can reasonably contest the sufficiency of the legal and judicial experience of these two Justices; nor can anyone reasonably contest the intellectual acumen of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. In most cases, Americans may reasonably assume that the individuals, nominated by the United States President and subsequently confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, do have the necessary intellectual gifts, necessary moral stature and character, and necessary experience to serve as Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. But is that enough?Many news sources suggest that the academic credentials of a nominee, along with that nominee’s intellectual capacity, and along with the breadth and depth of that nominee’s judicial and legal experiences, and, along with that nominee’s necessary moral bearing, stature and character are all the factors the U.S. Senate need consider to support confirmation of a nominee to the highest Court in the Land. But are satisfaction of those factors enough. Are those factors, alone, sufficient to support confirmation of a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court? The answer is a resounding, “no.” For, before the United States Senate confirms a nominee, the U.S. Senate should definitely take a close look at the prior judicial decisions of a particular nominee if that nominee had happened to serve in a judicial capacity on a lower court prior to his nomination. Such is no less true of Judge Merrick Garland in the event the U.S. Senate does consider the President’s nominee at all.The U.S. Senate must ask, and the American public has a right to know, whether a given nominee – if he or she is to ascend to the position of Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court – is truly likely to render decisions faithful to the U.S. Constitution and, in particular, whether that nominee would render decisions supportive of an American citizen’s fundamental rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights. The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, presided by Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican Iowa, obviously has its doubts in the present instance and, rightfully so, and this would account for the Committee’s reluctance to consider President Obama’s nominee – his third –  especially since Obama will soon be leaving Office and a Republican Party candidate for U.S. President may very well be taking his place.Republican Senators are asking and we must ask as well: what do Americans really know about President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland? What is Judge Garland’s position on the Bill of Rights? Is he a strong proponent of individual Rights and Liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights, or isn’t he?Each Justice, who presently sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, certainly has a definite idea how he or she construes the Bill of Rights. A few construe the Bill of Rights literally and narrowly, giving particular weight to our founders’ view of it. On this view a U.S. Supreme Court Justice would ascribe to the idea that our founding founders believed that, regardless of the current fashion of any particular age, the import and purport of our fundamental rights and liberties remain constant from one generation to the next. They are not to be tampered with. Justice Scalia certainly fell into this camp. Other Justices tend to consider fundamental rights and liberties of Americans apropos of conditions as they exist in American society and in the world today. Those Justices happen to think our Bill of Rights is malleable; that it is subject to change in accordance with popular opinion vis-à-vis political mandates. They have a decided predilection for legislating from the Bench. The Bill of Rights, though, has nothing to do with one’s being comfortable with it or with particular Amendments within it. The Bill of Rights is what it is. It is not a thing to be toyed with. It is not to be subjugated or changed, along with popular culture. The Bill of Rights defines clearly and explicitly what rights and liberties we, as Americans, are entitled to exercise as a free people, living in a free Republic.The point here is that a particular philosophy, regarding the Bill of Rights, has considerable impact on how a Justice ultimately will decide a case. An opinion by a simple majority of Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court affects us all. It affects America’s institutions. It affects the very nature of and continued existence of our Nation, as conceived by the founding fathers.So, contrary to what the left, reporting through a compliant media,  maintains, the question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with extends well beyond a nominee’s native ability, intellectual gifts, judicial and legal experience, and moral bearing and character. The question the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary must wrestle with is subtle and complex. As it pertains to President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, the question goes to the manner in which Judge Garland perceives the Bill of Rights. For, the manner in which Judge Garland perceives our fundamental rights and liberties will color his perception of the cases that come before him. Does he tend to view our fundamental rights and liberties as Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor do – as transitory, ephemeral and infinitely malleable? Or, does Judge Garland view our fundamental rights and liberties in the same vein as Justices Alito and Thomas do, and as Justice Scalia did? Or, perhaps, Judge Garland’s perception of our fundamental rights and liberties fall somewhere in the middle, commensurate with the views of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.As the Wall Street Journal reports, Judge Garland says, “Fidelity to the Constitution has been the cornerstone of my professional life.” Well, one would certainly expect as much. But, that really doesn't take us anywhere. That assertion doesn’t tell us anything about how Judge Garland would really decide a case involving Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties.Each current Justice would certainly assert “fidelity to the Constitution,” and that Justice would honestly believe the assertion. The assertion is little more than a platitude. But, within the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights speaks squarely to the fundamental rights and liberties of the people. In any one case before the U.S. Supreme Court, those rights and liberties will be strengthened or weakened by the Majority on the Court.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Of the specific Rights and Liberties expressed in the first Eight Amendments – all critical to a Free Republic – none of those Rights and Liberties speak more loudly to the unique character of the United States than does our Second Amendment. In no other Constitution of any other Nation on the face of this Earth does there exist any Right boldly setting forth: “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Yes, a few nations do permit the citizenry to keep and bear arms but in every such case that “right” is not really a right at all because the purported “right” emanates from government. It does not reside in the people. The “right” expressed is more in the nature of a grant by a nation’s government, or a license, or a privilege.But, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution operates as a right in the purest sense – preexistent in each individual. If there exists any doubt about that, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, in the seminal case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), laid that doubt to rest.What the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should really be asking, assuming it decides to consider the matter of Judge Merrick Garland’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court – or not, as consistent with its prerogative under Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution – is this: would Judge Garland if he were to gain the U.S. Supreme Court, tend to weaken or strengthen our Bill of Rights? We can use the Second Amendment as a good example here. How might we explicate this? Just so: would the Heller case have been decided differently if – in a parallel world – Justice Garland had worn the robes of Justice Scalia?Do we have any clues? Well, we have two important clues. The first involves the case Parker vs. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).Important Note: the Parker case is the seminal Second Amendment Heller case. The Parker case was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

ANALYSIS OF THE PARKER CASE

The Appellants, Parker and others, are residents of the District of Columbia. They wanted to carry their handguns in their own homes for self-defense, but the District of Columbia prohibits anyone from having an operable handgun in the home for the purposes of immediate self-defense. The Appellants brought action against the District of Columbia, claiming that the D.C. code violated their Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sided with the Appellee government, District of Columbia, finding that the D.C. code did not violate Appellants Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because, according to the U.S. District Court, the “right to bear arms” only accrues to one who serves in a militia.Appellants, residents of the District of Columbia, appealed. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed with the lower Court. Reversing the U.S. District Court’s decision, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dealt squarely with the issue as to the meaning of and impact of the prefatory and operative portions of the Second Amendment and whether, on the one hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is an individual right, as Appellant, District of Columbia residents maintain, or whether, on the other hand, “the right to keep and bear arms” is a collective right that applies only to those who serve in a militia, as the Appellee, District of Columbia had argues.In finding for the Appellant residents, against the District of Columbia, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia pointed out that the wording of the operative clause also indicates that “the right to keep and bear arms” was not created by government, but rather preserved by it. The United States Circuit Court of Appeals specifically rejected the Appellee District of Columbia’s claim that the phrase, “keep and bear arms” has only a military purpose related to the “militia.” Two of the three Judges on the Circuit Court sided with the Appellants in the case and thereupon reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court.The losing party in the Parker case, namely the District of Columbia, then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for reconsideration, asking the United States Court of Appeals to hear the case en banc. What this means is that the Appellee District Columbia petitioned to have the entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hear the case.Keep in mind that, although Judge Garland serves as Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, there are several U.S. Circuit Court Judges. Generally, a panel of three Circuit Court Judges hears a case on appeal from the lower District Court.Judge Garland did not sit on the three-man panel in the Parker case. We are not, though, left merely to speculate as to how he might have ruled in Parker had he served as one of the three original Judges who heard the case. We do have an inkling as to how Judge Garland would have ruled, and therein rests one reason, at least, why the U.S. Senate, on behalf of the American people and on behalf of the well-being of Americans’ Bill of Rights, has no desire to so much as contemplate the nomination, during the remaining months of Obama’s term as U.S. President.Likely, Judge Garland would have ruled against the Appellant D.C. residents and for the District of Columbia in Parker. We know this because of a further action involving the Parker case that transpired before the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, renamed, District of Columbia vs. Heller.Now, no party, in any jurisdiction, can insist, as a matter of right, to have an entire United States Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its own decision. A United States Circuit Court of Appeals will do so only if a majority of the Court’s Judges agree to reconsider the decision, in which case the entirety of the Court will rehear the case – that is to say – the Court will hear the case, en banc.There are ten Judges on the D.C. Circuit. Only four of those ten agreed to hear the Parker case en banc. Notably, Judge Garland was one of those four Judges. The case is Parker vs. District of Columbia, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029 (D.C. Cir. 2007).We really do not need to spend an inordinate amount of time speculating as to why Judge Garland had sought to have the Parker case reheard by all ten United States Circuit Court of Appeals judges. Yes, Judge Garland may have thought – as some news sources infer – that the Second Amendment issue was important enough to warrant a hearing by the entire Court, so that all of the Judges could weigh in. After all, the Parker case dealt directly and squarely with the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, likely, there was more to Judge Garland’s desire to have an en banc hearing of the case. And it is just this: if Judge Merrick Garland really feels strongly about Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, as had Justice Scalia, it is likely that Judge Garland would have voted with the majority of the Court. That means he would have voted against taking up the Second Amendment issue again in an en banc hearing of the case. For, what more could be gained through an en banc hearing of the case? The majority opinion, which supported Appellants’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, was clear, and cogent, and unequivocal.  Moreover, a vote in favor of an en banc hearing would, quite probably, invite a reversal of the decision by the three member United States Circuit Court of Appeals panel. A true advocate for the Second Amendment would never have voted in favor of a rehearing. Tactically, it would make no sense. Appellants, District of Columbia residents had already won. The case should have stopped there.Be that as it may, the Appellant, District of Columbia, having failed to secure a rehearing of the Parker case by the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia thereupon petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, agreed to hear the case. Parker vs. District of Columbia was renamed District of Columbia vs. Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the Majority, affirmed the decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a narrow margin: 5 to 4.Granted, while it is not absolutely clear that Judge Garland would not have voted with the Majority in Heller, had he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that he voted for en banc review of Parker, as a Judge sitting on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, strongly suggests an unhappiness with and uneasiness with the panel's decision -- 2 to 1 in favor of Appellant District of Columbia residents -- a decision clearly supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms; hence, we may reasonably conclude a general  reluctance on the part of Judge Garland to view the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms generally favorably and expansively. Imagine, then, Judge Garland's decision in Heller, had he sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Would he not have sided with the liberal-wing in that case? And, if so, would not the Heller case have been decided differently? Would not the Heller case reflect the reasoning of the U.S. District Court in Parker, rather than the decision of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in that case -- a U.S. District Court decision specifically undermining rather than strengthening the right of the people to keep and bear arms?A second and, perhaps, even stronger clue suggesting that Judge Garland is not likely to be a strong proponent of the Second Amendment -- and, indeed, someone who is likely to eviscerate the Second Amendment rather than strengthen it -- is evidenced from a perusal of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia’s decision in NRA vs. Reno, 216 F.3d 2000 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Judge Garland did have a hand in that decision and, while the case does not deal directly with the meaning of language in the Second Amendment, the case does deal with matters impacting the Second Amendment, and negatively impacting the Fourth Amendment as well.In Part 2 of this article, we will explicate the NRA case for you and explain why, more likely than not, Judge Garland is not a proponent of the Second Amendment -- not by a long shot -- and that, for this reason alone, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary should not consider Obama’s appointment of Judge Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, as an Associate Justice.To be continued. . . .[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE ANTIGUN MOVEMENT

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

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

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

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

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

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

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

DONALD TRUMP: A DISCUSSION ON THE CANDIDATE'S STAYING POWER

What Character Traits Are Most Critical In Assessing A Person's Fitness For High Public Office?

Apart from a recent surge by Ben Carson in the latest Iowa poll, Donald Trump has been, from the inception, the Republican front runner – the man to beat – and he continues to hold a strong lead over most of the other Republican candidates, who seek the Office of U.S. President. This hard, incontrovertible fact comes as a surprise to Washington’s centrist Republican politicians and to the shadowy, ruthless power brokers who control them – those who intend to maintain an iron grip on and stranglehold over our Government. But surprise among those centrists and power brokers has now transformed into something more: concern, dismay, even shock over the staying power of Donald Trump.These international socialist forces, neoliberal Globalists, and other sinister, shadowy, secretive groups, both within the U.S. and outside it, who seek, ultimately, to destroy our Free Republic, our Nation State, and our “Bill of Rights,” cannot understand why Donald Trump continues to be such a formidable Republican candidate – the one to beat. The super PACs have infused the Bush candidacy with a war chest of $100 million. Yet, Jeb Bush, the darling of the “power elite” cannot – unlike that other darling of the “power elite,” Hillary Clinton – gain even a modicum of traction among the rank and file Republican voters. Clinton, for her part, with strong help from a subservient news media, can, apparently, pull the wool over the eyes of those members of the public who look to Big Government to protect them and who buy into Clinton’s nonsensical and vacuous sound bites and slogans. Most Americans, though, are not taken in by the insidious, incessant drone of misinformation, disinformation, and non-information that fills the airwaves and that is spread through other mainstream media controlled news sources. This of course upsets the Bush clan.In a front-page article published in the October 25, 2015 Sunday edition of The New York Times, in an article titled, "Bush at 91: Irritated and Invigorated by '16' Race," "George Bush (Senior) “is straining to understand an election season that has, for his son (Jeb) and the Republican Party, lurched sharply and stunningly off script and he is often bewildered by what he sees.” In other words, the centrist forces, in both political Parties, that control politics in America – of which the Bush clan is certainly a part -- cannot understand that, with all the money at their disposal and with clear control of the mainstream media, the average American citizen dares to question the collective wisdom of the so-called “elites” who seek, forever, to dictate how we, the “Hoi Polloi,” should think. That we, conservative Republicans within the “Hoi Polloi,” would dare to go “off script” is not only incomprehensible to Bush and his kind; it is heresy. But, the public has had enough of the Clinton and Bush puppets of the international socialists and neoliberal Globalists who are wresting control from the American people and who are, now attempting – through “phase two” – to destroy the very reality of our unique Constitution and, thus, of our Nation State that is molded from it.But what, in all of this, are we to make of Donald Trump? He is, of course, extremely wealthy, extremely powerful, and, clearly enough, extremely ambitious. But, what does the public really know about him? Can the public really trust him? Is he not a “power broker,” of a sort, himself? And, if so, what is different about him? What is his agenda? Is he a proponent of the status-quo, too, or does he truly intend to “shake things up.” As President, would Donald Trump defend our Republic and the foundation of it, our “Bill of Rights?” Or would he work to destroy our Free Republic and trample our “Bill of Rights” just as President Barack Obama is doing – and as Jeb Bush or, worse, Hillary Clinton, would undoubtedly continue to do were either one of them to gain the Office of President? Jeb Bush is difficult to read and this may very well be by design. But, most Americans can see through the pretense projected by Hillary Clinton. Her incessant dishonesty, deceitfulness, condescending attitude toward the American public, her lack of integrity, her mendacity – all of it smacks one in the face. But, then, is Donald Trump wearing a mask, too – albeit one that cannot so easily be discerned? How can we get a handle on Donald Trump’s real motivations? Is he as “authentic” as he seems? Would he truly work toward implementing the policies he lays out, as many Republican voters would like to see?Fortunately, one expert in the field of political propaganda provides the key to unlocking the truth about the candidate, Donald Trump. And he provides the public with a novel, and keen perspective on Trump. Dr. Brian Anse Patrick is a professor of communication at the University of Toledo, in Toledo, Ohio. He teaches undergraduate and graduate level courses in research methods, group communication and propaganda. Dr. Patrick holds a Ph.D. in Communication Research from the University of Michigan. He is a fervent supporter of America’s “Bill of Rights” and, a fervent supporter, in particular, of America’s Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Dr. Patrick is a nationally recognized expert on American Gun Culture, and is a frequent speaker at events and symposia. He is also a prolific writer. Dr. Patrick has published several books, many dealing directly with the manner in which antigun forces utilize propaganda to undermine Americans’ gun rights.In a recent article, appearing on Dr. Patrick’s website, titled, “Aristotle on Trump: The Phenomenon of ‘The Donald,’” Dr. Patrick points out that individuals who are extremely wealthy and powerful, such as Donald Trump, represent a specific “character type” that was known to and dissected by one of the greatest of the ancient Greek philosophers, Aristotle, over a thousand years ago. Dr. Patrick adds the interesting point that Aristotle would know Donald Trump very well. For, Aristotle has seen that “type” in the Greece of his day. Donald Trump, as Dr. Patrick explains, as dissected by Aristotle, exudes the venial traits of any other extremely wealthy and powerful individual: arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence. Such people existed during the time of Aristotle, and such people certainly exist today in our own society.It is clear enough that the mainstream media is doing its best to emphasize those venial characteristics of Trump even as that media downplays the existence of those very same traits in other candidates, including – and especially – Hillary Clinton and, to a lesser extent – at least as observed – in Jeb Bush. The mainstream media is casting Donald Trump as a villain and suggesting that he, rather than Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, cannot be trusted. But, what it is that the public should be zeroing in on, when rating and deciphering the nature of a candidate for high Public Office, as Dr. Patrick cogently points out – extrapolating from the works of Aristotle – is the inner moral “ethos.” The measure of a person is that person’s “ethos.”The word, ‘ethos’ refers to the moral fiber – the character of a person. Dr. Patrick points out, as Aristotle had reasoned, that a person can display the venial traits of arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence and still possess a strong moral fiber. So, is Donald Trump a good man? Is he virtuous? How can the American public, know? Well, in today’s political climate, the quality of being virtuous is tenuous at best, and, if it exists at all in a person, especially a politician, it is one merely of degree. But, the measure of one’s virtue is something that the public – especially the American public – should be most concerned about. The American public should attempt to discern the character of each candidate who seeks high Public Office. And this transcends the relative importance of so-called, “experience” – assuming you can rationally accept the claims of the mainstream media that Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have “experience” – of a beneficial kind, if at all. If a person lacks a strong moral “ethos,” then that person lacks, in the first instance, the most basic trait, a necessary quality for holding high Public Office. For, the existence of a strong moral “ethos” is a condition precedent to holding high Public Office. Regardless of whatever other qualifications a person might have – depth and breadth of experience, for example – counts for naught if that person lacks a strong moral compass.In that regard, even the most jejune among us knows that Hillary Clinton is completely unvirtuous, and altogether immoral. She completely lacks any semblance of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s institutions, its culture, its history, and its Constitution. And it is those failings – her lack of a strong moral “ethos” – rather than her arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence, venial though those character flaws be – that make her unfit to hold any Public Office, let alone the highest Office of the Land. It is Clinton’s lack of a guiding moral “ethos” that should be of most concern to American voters. Now, several of the Republican candidates are adept at holding their own arrogance, insolence, and self-indulgence in check. Jeb Bush and the other Republican candidates are certainly -- to some extent at least, consistent with Aristotle's understanding of politicians -- arrogant, insolent, and self-indulgent -- even if as they tend to mask those traits when "operating" in front of the masses. But, apropos of the major character flaws in those candidates -- flaws that count the most – dishonesty, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of any genuine concern for the safeguarding of America’s unique institutions and for the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution – in a word, the lack of “ethos” – it is this lack of a guiding “ethos” – the lack of a moral compass – that should be of paramount concern to Republicans and, for that matter, of paramount concern to all Americans when assessing the character of a candidate who would deign to lead this Country.Donald Trump does speak his mind. He is not the most tactful of speakers. And that is an understatement, to be sure. But, he can be forgiven that, even as the mainstream media tends to emphasize his apparent insouciance, that is to say, his apparent lack of regard for how he happens to project himself to his audience, the American people. However, there is one thing Trump is not. He is not a liar – although all too many politicians, unfortunately, are.  And, that ability of politicians to lie – indeed, that very desire to lie – unashamedly, convincingly – that capacity for lying constantly, incessantly, without remorse – is a thing absolutely unforgivable. No American should forgive anyone – no American should ever forgive anyone – who claims to serve in our name, who happens to be an inveterate liar and hypocrite. As Saint Thomas Aquinas made amply clear: “As a matter of honor, one man owes it to another to manifest The Truth.” If a person lies to another person, the liar manifests his clear lack of respect for that other person – his contempt for that person. Nothing is clearer than the fact that Hillary Clinton has naked contempt for the American people – a contempt that is palpable, insufferable, hurtful in the extreme, and therefore altogether unacceptable in one who aims to secure the highest Office of the Land.Clinton is a hypocrite. Trump is not. Trump inculcates a moral compass – a moral “ethos.” Clinton most certainly does not. How do we know this? We know this less by what Trump says and more by what the mainstream media, at the behest of the centrists -- of both political Parties -- who are fighting essentially for the status quo -- say about him. Clearly, the Party centrists -- whether Republican or Democrat -- and their vehicle for dissemination of information, the mainstream media, both detest Trump. The Republican centrists say he is ruining the Republican Party – “their” Party. And the Democrats simply think he is "out of touch" with the majority of Americans. Clinton pokes fun at Trump. But, the real clown -- a dangerous one at that -- is Clinton, herself. If Clinton suggests that Trump is foolish, then she is making that claim of the American people, whom she clearly denigrates through every outrageous, disingenuous, and vacuous statement she makes. Yet, both Clinton and Bush claim to speak for the American people. And the mainstream media perpetrates and perpetuates the illusion. But, to maintain the illusion that these candidates for high Political Office -- these Party centrists -- speak for the American public, it is important that the polls reflect the illusion. But, the polls do not! So, the centrists may very well manipulate the poll results or do away with them altogether. They are intent, at all costs, to push a Bush or a Clinton in the “White House.” But, what of Trump? Well, he is a brawler. There's no doubt about that. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing today. He is waking the American people up. Carson realizes this and is adopting Trump's own tactics to sound more like Trump – to be more like him. Carson realizes that, to gain the Public's trust, he must appear authentic -- but more, he must be authentic. So, whether you agree with Trump’s stated policy positions or not – whether you are troubled by his brusqueness, his arrogance, his insolence, his self-indulgence, his self-aggrandizement – the venial traits that Aristotle noted as traits peculiar to the fabulously wealthy and powerful – you should look past all that; for those character traits are not critical character flaws. Indeed, virtually all politicians exhibit them. But, lack of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, and insensitivity to our unique heritage and to our Constitution – these are grave character flaws. Any individual who exhibits them is unworthy of holding high Public Office or, for that matter, of holding any Public Office. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump does not lie to the American people. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t equivocate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t obfuscate. Clinton does and has. Trump doesn’t meander. Clinton does and has. And, it is Donald Trump’s honesty, his heartfelt expression of concern for the safeguarding of our culture, our heritage, our history, our “Bill of Rights,” that the public is most drawn to. The so-called “elite” don’t understand this. And many in the mainstream media don’t understand this either. All too many members of Congress, and the Globalists, and the socialist internationalists, and the sitting President, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton – all these individuals who lack high ideals – who lack any moral principal, who lack a guiding moral “ethos,” a moral compass – not surprisingly – cannot grasp this – are, in fact, altogether incapable of fathoming this.So, the next time you hear a candidate talk – you should listen – really listen – to what that person actually says -- listen to the content. Do not get side-tracked by incidentals. Do not get side-tracked by the venial traits. And, do not become mesmerized by the magic show – the smoke and mirrors extravaganza that the mainstream media puts on for you, to distract you from what is really important. You don’t need, nor should you rely on, any talk show host, or news commentator, or advert, to tell you how to think, or what to think, or how to vote. You can do all that very well, and much better, for yourself.To learn more about how the media circus uses propaganda to attack our sacred Second Amendment, we encourage our readers to take a look at  and peruse perceptive articles on Dr. Brian Anse Patrick’s website: http://riseofantimedia.blogspot.com.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

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

A GUN AT RISK: THE CRIMINAL’S ADVANTAGE

INTRODUCTORY THESIS

We begin this article with three statements.ONE: The life, safety, and well-being of every law-abiding American citizen are sacrosanct and inviolate. TWO: The best means of securing one’s life, safety and well-being against assault is by having immediate access to a firearm. THREE: Since a firearm provides a law-abiding American citizen with the best means available to protect his or her life, safety, and well-being, that person ought to be able to have immediate access to his or her personal, lawfully owned firearm at all times and in all places for the stated purpose of securing that person’s life, safety, and well-being, consistent with the inalienable right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and consistent with the holdings of United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case. The first statement is a subjective assessment, grounded on the notion of the sanctity of each and every law-abiding American citizen as a unique, rational, discerning, and responsible individual in his or her own right. This assessment is taken as self-evident, true, sans need of justification, vindication, or independent proof. Antigun proponents would not likely deny the import of it, but, their “hive” mentality and “swarm behavior” ethos invariably betray their clear aversion to it. The second statement is a testable hypothesis. Antigun proponents may deny the truth of it or otherwise deny the singular importance of it, but, time after time, it has been shown to be demonstrably true. The third statement is a normative prescription, a statement asserting appropriate, correct moral conduct. It is a statement that no antigun proponent will ascribe to because antigun proponents denigrate firearms and, as well, denigrate those members of the law-abiding American public that wish to exercise their inalienable right as clearly and cogently expressed in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The notion that only small, select, special groups of people within the Country, such as police officers, ought to be allowed access to the best means available to secure their own life, safety, and well-being is unconscionable. We ask that you keep these three statements in mind as we run through the following four scenarios.

SCENARIO ONE

A female New York City police officer “. . . who is 41 and has been on the force for 10 years, was taking an elevator down to a parking garage at Bronx Boulevard and 226th Street around 5 a.m., preparing to drive to her command, which is in northern Manhattan. She was carrying her gun in her purse. . . . As soon as she stepped out of the elevator, a man thought to be in his late teens or early 20s ripped a gold chain from around her neck and grabbed at her purse. He demanded her wallet. ‘She fought him, and they were going back and forth in a tug-of-war type of situation. . . .’” “The officer reached into her purse to try to get the firearm, a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun . . . . But the man punched her in the face two or three times, causing her to lose control of the gun [but, actually] She never did have control of the gun [because it was in her purse, not on her person]. He stole it and fled on foot. . . .”For those of you who have kept abreast of the news, the above scenario, as quoted, describes an actual situation that occurred on Wednesday, July 15, 2015, as reported in The New York Times newspaper, under the title, “Off-Duty Police Officer Robbed of Gun After Attack.”The police officer, as reported, was physically injured and suffered the disgrace of having lost her handgun because she did not follow police protocol. That is to say, she did not have the handgun “on her person.” “The Patrol Guide, the Police Department’s voluminous policy manual, spells out the rules for how officers should ‘safeguard weapons at all times.’ Do not carry firearms in briefcases, handbags, fanny packs, hip packs, tote bags, knapsacks, paper bags or similar devices.’” The guide sets forth that a police officer is to “‘carry firearms, on the person, in an appropriate holster specifically designed to afford maximum protection against loss of weapon.’” The reason for this is clear: “Never losing your gun is among the most basic obligations of police work. . . .” NY Times, “Off-Duty Police Officer Robbed of Gun After Attack.”The scenario played out for you here as a real-life drama aptly illustrates the reason for the New York Police Department’s “Patrol Guide” policy and places the rationale for it in high relief. Had the police officer, in the above scenario, complied with Police Department patrol guide policy, by keeping her weapon in an appropriate holster on her person, she likely would not have been injured by her assailant. Moreover, she would have been in the best position to retain possession of her weapon.

SCENARIO TWO

In this scenario, the police officer complies with New York City Police Department policy. The officer wears her weapon on her person in an appropriate holster. As before, once the police officer walks from the elevator out into the parking garage, the assailant is waiting for her. The assailant rips the gold chain from around the officer’s neck and grabs at the officer’s purse. But this time the officer does not fight to retain control over it. She doesn’t have to because her weapon isn’t in her purse; it’s in an appropriate holster on her person, where it belongs. So, once the assailant grabs her purse, the officer immediately lets go of it and reaches for her weapon that is in her holster – the weapon that is where it’s supposed to be; the weapon that is immediately accessible to her; and a weapon that is in a place that offers maximum protection for retention against the possibility of theft, for the weapon is in the officer’s exclusive control.Now the assailant has a choice. He may comply with the officer’s order to cease his attack and submit to arrest or he can continue to attack the officer. If he continues his assault on the officer, the officer will have every right to shoot him, in self-defense if she feels, one, that her life is in danger and, two, that she can do nothing to alleviate that danger to her life, safety, and well-being other than to shoot her assailant. And, if the officer does shoot her assailant, the assailant may very well die. Whether the assailant dies or not, however, he will be incapacitated. The officer is likely to be commended for her action. She may very well receive a medal. Perhaps she will be promoted.But, in the previous scenario – the situation that actually occurred – the officer failed to adhere to Police Department policy. She did not protect her weapon. For her troubles, she received serious injury that landed her in a hospital. She suffered the loss of her weapon. Worse, she suffered the disgrace of loss of her weapon to a criminal, her assailant. And, to add to her woes she now faces the prospect of possible disciplinary action.Consider, now, two more scenarios. In these last two scenarios we will assume the sequence of events is essentially the same as set forth in Scenarios One and Two but with an important wrinkle. The party who is assaulted isn’t an active duty female police officer, but an average, law-abiding American female citizen, and resident of New York City.

SCENARIO THREE

We will assume, further, that this female American citizen and resident of New York City, holds a valid New York City handgun license. The license she has been issued is a restricted “Premises License.” She is on her way to a gun range for shooting practice, and her semiautomatic handgun is tucked away in a locked handgun container, unloaded. She carries two ammunition magazines in a separate container – her purse. Her purse is slung over her left shoulder. She carries the handgun container in her right hand. She wears a gold chain around her neck. She gets off the elevator, walks into the parking garage, and is immediately accosted by a male assailant. He tears the gold chain from around her neck and then demands the wallet that is in her purse. She gives the assailant her purse. The assailant notices the small case that she holds in her right hand and he demands that she give up the case to him as well.The assailant may or may not know that the case holds a real handgun although the case is a typical small gun case that the party in this scenario purchased from a licensed dealer at the time she had purchased her handgun; and the case is specifically designed to hold a handgun. Our citizen does not wish to part with the gun case for obvious reasons. And she refuses to do so. The assailant thereupon grabs the case. Our citizen and the assailant both grapple for possession of it. The assailant punches our citizen in the face. She cannot hold onto the case. The assailant runs away with a gun case carrying a semiautomatic handgun, along with a purse holding two ammunition magazines that contain cartridges. At the hospital, where our citizen and New York City resident is being treated for her injuries, she informs the police that her assailant has stolen more than a purse, containing her cosmetics and a wallet filled with cash. The assailant has stolen much more. He has stolen her handgun, along with two ammunition magazines. Once our New York City resident is sufficiently able to communicate with the License Division’s Incident Section, she informs the Incident Section of the loss of her handgun and ammunition magazines. She subsequently suffers the suspension of her handgun license, pending the outcome of an investigation into the incident. She wants to obtain reinstatement of her Premises License quickly so that she may purchase a new handgun for the purpose of personal protection on her premises. But, the License Division’s investigation of the incident move’s ahead at a snail’s pace. It may take the License Division six months or one year to conclude its investigation of the incident. It may take even longer. The New York Police Department’s License Division is not bound by time constraints. Our American citizen and New York City resident may never see reinstatement of her Premises License. And, if that is the case, she will not be able, lawfully, to purchase another handgun from a licensed dealer of firearms because she requires a valid New York City handgun license to do so. The License Division has complete discretion in this matter.

SCENARIO FOUR

In this scenario our citizen and New York City resident, who holds a valid “Premises License” leaves her apartment suite, carrying her handgun, loaded, in a holster, concealed on her person. The holster isdesigned for the semiautomatic handgun she owns and possesses. She walks out of the elevator into the parking garage. She is accosted by an assailant. He tears the gold chain from around her neck and demands her wallet. She refuses to relinquish her purse that contains her wallet. The assailant thereupon grabs her purse. She fights to protect her purse. The assailant punches her in the face. She releases her purse. The assailant continues to assault her. She feels at this very moment that her life is in imminent danger. She sees no one around her in the parking garage that might run to her assistance, and she sees no way to retreat from the physical assault. She firmly believes the assailant intends to kill her. She thereupon removes her handgun from the holster and fires two rounds into the assailant’s chest, killing him. At the hospital, where our citizen and New York City resident is being treated for serious injuries as a result of the assault, she is unable to promptly notify the License Division’s Incident Section of the discharging of her handgun and the circumstances related to the discharging of the handgun. But, she does relate the circumstances of the discharging of her handgun to the police officer whom she first comes into contact with at the hospital. That police officer, on her behalf, due to the inability to immediately notify the License Division’s Incident Section of the incident, herself, relays the incident to the License Division’s Incident Section. Upon her release from the hospital later in the day our citizen, in this scenario, surrenders her handgun and all other firearms she happens to own and possess, as directed, to the License Division. Our citizen and New York City resident is arrested and charged with the crimes of unlicensed concealed carry of a firearm and unjustified use of deadly force because, in accordance with the limitations imposed on her handgun license, she was unjustified to have a handgun on her person. She is arraigned and fingerprinted. Her “Premise License” is revoked.The ultimate disposition of the case will be determined by the City Prosecutor. One thing, however, is certain. The prospect of reinstatement of this citizen’s “Premises License” is, at best, dim. If she ever does undertake reinstatement of the handgun license, she should know that the process of reinstatement will take substantial time, will require no little effort on her part, and will come at substantial financial cost in terms of legal fees.

ANALYSIS

Obviously, what is good for the goose is not also good for the gander. For, while the New York City Police Department “Patrol Guide” sets forth clearly and concisely the manner in which New York City police officers should carry their handguns – namely, on the person and in an appropriate holster specifically designed to afford maximum protection against loss of weapon” – the Rules of the City of New York, that apply to virtually everyone else, set forth quite different requirements.38 RCNY §5-01 sets forth several categories of handgun licenses for civilians. One category is the “Premises License,” for residence or business. This is considered a “restricted” license. For an American citizen and resident of New York City who holds a restricted “Premises License,” 38 RCNY §5-01 says “This license permits the transporting of an unloaded handgun directly to and from an authorized small arms range/shooting club, secured unloaded in a locked container. Ammunition shall be carried separately.” That licensee cannot lawfully carry a handgun, concealed in a holster. What this means is that New York City does not permit the holder of a “Premises License” to utilize his or her handgun for self-defense. That person must not carry the firearm outside of the licensee’s residence or business at all. Again, the firearm must be transported, unloaded in a locked container. But, as we have just seen, if a New York City police officer carried a handgun in such a manner, that officer would be doing so contrary to Departmental policy. For, to carry a handgun in such a manner does not provide maximum protection against theft, apart from being absolutely useless to the officer in the event of assault on officer’s person.Why, then, would New York Rules absolutely prohibit the carrying of a firearm in a holster on one’s person for most civilians who are issued handgun licenses when they are out in public? Does the carrying of a handgun in a locked container provide the licensee with any more protection against theft? Hardly! If a criminal is able to grab hold of the locked case, he will find a way to open it, and he will gain unlawful access to the gun that rests inside it. Indeed, why should the City of New York promulgate rules establishing a confusing, irrational set of distinctive requirements and restrictions for a plethora of handgun license types, anyway?Consider, too, the carrying of a handgun – on the streets of New York City or in a subway – in a case specifically designed for transportation of a handgun alerts a would-be thief to the fact that the container does contain a real handgun. The licensee who carries a firearm in such a manner might just as well carry a plaque as well, proclaiming to the world that the licensee is transporting a firearm. Who would disagree with the soundness of that assertion? Does not use of a handgun container, to stow a handgun while out in public, invite the theft of that handgun? The NYPD thinks so! The NYPD has said so, in its “Patrol Guide.” Moreover, why should a firearm’s licensee’s natural right of self-defense be compromised through constraints placed on the use of the best means available to secure it – a firearm? Why must the law-abiding American citizen and New York City resident suffer the imposition of limitations on the right to secure his or her life, safety, and well-being within the confines of his or her particular residence or place of business?Understand, the New York City License Division will not issue any kind of firearm’s license to a person unless that person meets stringent standards as established by the State of New York. Those standards are set forth in NY CLS Penal Code §400.00. Yet, the City of New York establishes a ludicrous hierarchy of licenses, notwithstanding that a person meets the requirements for issuance of a handgun license at all. And, while a holder of a so-called “Premises License” can, transport a handgun in public, on occasion – namely and particularly when going to and from a target range – and, then, only unloaded in a locked container, thereby positively inviting theft of the handgun and, at one and same time, denying one the use of the handgun for self-defense.The New York Police Department would agree – indeed, must agree – that the probability of loss or theft of a gun transported in public in a container of any sort – especially a “locked container” – increases exponentially for anyone – police officer or civilian. Clearly, it is not the preferred way to safeguard the weapon for a police officer. Why, then, would transportation of a handgun in a locked container be the preferred way – in fact, the only lawful way – for most other law-abiding American citizens and New York City residents to tote a handgun in public – that is to say – for most other law-abiding citizens and residents of New York City who happen not to be New York police officers or New York peace officers, or federal agents or who, otherwise, do not belong to another special class, such as courtroom judges, to whom unrestricted licenses are routinely issued? Why would the average law-abiding American citizen and New York resident be required to transport a gun in a locked container, when in public, that – as the NYPD has reasonably concluded – practically begs to be stolen when it is the case that police officers, for their part, would face a disciplinary hearing for doing the very same thing?The drafters of New York City’s firearms’ Rules, either through design or oversight, invite the loss or theft of a firearm. They deny a law-abiding citizen and resident of the City of New York the best means available both to secure the firearm from theft and to protect that person’s life with it.

AND WHAT HAPPENS IF LOSS OR THEFT OF A FIREARM DOES OCCUR?

Suppose loss or theft of a firearm does occur. Under 38 RCNY §5-22(b)(1), “the licensee shall make an immediate report to the License Division-Incident Section, telephone #(212) 374-5538, 5539, and to the precinct where the incident occurred." Failure to do so will, in accordance with 38 RCNY §5-22(a)(15), result in suspension or revocation of the license.

NEW YORK FIREARMS’ LAWS ARE ILLUSTRATIVE OF DUPLICITY, HYPOCRISY, AND IRRATIONALITY

So, where does that leave us? We are left with a double-standard in the matter of firearms ownership and possession. There is a standard that exists for some law-abiding American citizens such as police officers and there is a standard that exists for average law-abiding American citizens – the hoi polloi – those members of society who are not police officers or who are not members of any other special class. There is clearly a double standard at work here in New York City, and, by extension, in much of the State. And a peculiar schizophrenia exists in the manner in which firearm ownership and possession are perceived and handled by this or that class of society. We see evidence of a police officer facing possible disciplinary charges for loss of a handgun to a criminal assailant because she failed to keep the handgun in a holster on her person – where she would have immediate access to it – maximizing both the protection of the weapon and that of herself. Contrariwise, we see a probable situation where a law-abiding American citizen and resident of the City of New York faces possible criminal charges precisely because that person kept a handgun in an appropriate holster on that person, thus maximizing both the protection of the weapon and that of self. But, because the nature of that person’s license does not permit the carrying of a weapon on the person, that person faces revocation of his or her handgun license, the loss of all firearms in that party’s possession, and likely imposition of criminal charges, as well.In a “Police State,” where all civilians are looked upon as potential adversaries and “potential problems,” it makes sense that possession of firearms would be strictly controlled. In a “Free Republic,” though, no such schism exists between the police and other special classes on the one hand and the “proles” – that is to say – everyone else on the other hand. In a Free Republic that distinction should not be tenable at all. That it has become so, this says much about the direction this Country has taken.

CONCLUSION

Recall our three opening statements:ONE: The life, safety, and well-being of every law-abiding American citizen are sacrosanct and inviolate. TWO: The best means of securing one’s life, safety and well-being against assault is by having immediate access to a firearm. THREE: Since a firearm provides a law-abiding American citizen with the best means available to protect his or her life, safety, and well-being, that person ought to be able to have immediate access to his or her personal, lawfully owned firearm at all times and in all places for the stated purpose of securing that person’s life, safety, and well-being, consistent with the inalienable right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and consistent with the holdings of United States Supreme Court in the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case. New York’s disregard for the sanctity of individuals is reflected in New York’s convoluted firearms’ laws. And that disregard for the sanctity of individuals is on the grandest display in New York City. When New York City Rules are compared to New York Police Department patrol policy, the duplicity, hypocrisy, irrationality, and inconsistency are on grand display.A handgun can effectively protect an individual’s life. And the best way to safeguard a handgun from theft and, at one and the same time, secure one’s life, safety, and well-being with it, is for one to wear it in an appropriate holster, on one’s person. The NYPD certainly knows this. Indeed, the NYPD clearly asserted this in The New York Times July 15, 2015 article.Unfortunately, except for a small select group of individuals, namely police officers and a few – very few – law-abiding American citizens who are issued unrestricted “Business Carry” licenses, or who otherwise belong to another select, special class, such as New York judges, New York does not recognize the sanctity of the law-abiding American citizen. Thus, New York firearms’ laws reflect the notion that not every law-abiding American citizen life is sacrosanct and inviolate. This follows from the proposition that the vast majority of law-abiding New York residents and American citizens are denied the inalienable right to defend their lives with the best means available for doing so: a firearm. This doesn’t seem to be a concern for some people. The question is: Does it concern you?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

A ROADTRIP WITH A GUN: THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL STATE RECIPROCITY

PART ONE: THE LEGAL AND MORAL BASES FOR UNIVERSAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES

PERSONAL SURVIVAL IS THE STRONGEST OF ALL HUMAN IMPULSES

PREMISE: The law-abiding American citizen ought to be able to carry, concealed, a handgun in whatever State, within the United States, that the law-abiding American citizen happens to travel to, and within any one of the Territories of the United States that the law-abiding American citizen happens to visit, to best secure that American citizen's personal safety.Survival is a basic instinct of every living organism. The impulse to survive is biological and absolute. And, for man, the desire to survive is also a moral imperative. A threat to one’s survival activates the “fight or flight” response. If a person cannot reasonably flee from a threat to his or her survival, that person must, and will, and ought to fight for his or her survival. And, if one must fight, no better protection exists than that provided by a firearm.Many Americans were brought up with firearms. They were taught how to use a firearm properly and safely. They are comfortable with firearms. Other Americans are not. And that is fine. Those people who do not feel comfortable possessing firearms need not do so. No one requires that they do so. Firearms’ owners do not impose their will on others. But, by the same token, those Americans who are not comfortable possessing firearms should not prevent other Americans who wish to possess firearms from doing so. Americans who demonstrate antipathy toward firearms should not and, under our system of laws, cannot and therefore must not prevent or ever try to prevent a law-abiding American citizen from possessing a firearm if that American citizen chooses to do so. Americans who have a personal aversion to firearms and who express their dismay toward and even disdain for firearms possession and ownership should not be permitted to impose their will on gun owners. But they often do, or otherwise attempt to do so.The Founders of our Republic recognized a person’s right to protect his or her life. That right is embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Since the right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a natural right, the Constitution does not create the right but simply exemplifies it – has etched it in stone – through codification of that right in our Nation’s Bill of Rights. And, for those Americans who happen to doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid that doubt to rest with its decision in the 2008 Heller case. The Court made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to be used for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense.Now, since the Bill of Rights traditionally applied to the Federal Government, the question arose whether the Heller case also applies to the States. That question, too, was laid to rest in the 2010 McDonald case. The Supreme Court ruled that the individual right of self-defense applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Unfortunately, many States undermine the clear import of these two U.S. Supreme Court cases by keeping in place restrictive and oppressive firearms’ laws and by focusing their efforts in creating ever more restrictive and oppressive firearms' laws to confound and frustrate gun owners.To overcome obstacles posed by myriad, inconsistent firearms' laws, some State Legislatures have created a mechanism by which a resident, who holds a valid concealed handgun carry permit or license as issued in one State, may legally carry a handgun in another State without fear of arrest. This mechanism is known as “reciprocity.”

HOW DOES STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY WORK AND HOW PREVALENT IS STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY?

State “concealed handgun carry” reciprocity is not difficult to understand. It works much like State motor vehicle license reciprocity. As every motorist knows, so long as a person holds a valid driver’s license as issued in the person’s State of residency, that person may lawfully drive a motor vehicle into and through any other State. State reciprocity of driver’s licenses frees a person from having to carry multiple State drivers’ licenses and relieves a person from the burden and the cost of having to apply for them and being forced, periodically, to renew a slew of them.The remarkable thing here is that we need to have this discussion about State concealed handgun license reciprocity at all since the right of each law-abiding American citizen to keep and bear arms is clearly expressed in the Second Amendment. You might think, then, that concealed handgun license reciprocity already exists. In fact, some Americans believe, reasonably enough, that possession of a concealed handgun carry license, issued in one State, does enable the law-abiding American citizen to lawfully carry his handgun concealed in every other State. After all, unlike driving a motor vehicle on public roadways, possession of firearms is a right existing in the individual, not merely a privilege bestowed on an individual by government. But, if you believe that State concealed handgun carry reciprocity exists among all the States by simple virtue of your possessing a valid concealed handgun carry permit or license issued by one of the States, you would be wrong. And more than a few American citizens have paid a steep price for harboring that mistaken belief.Now, the U.S. Constitution does not mandate the issuance of driver’s licenses to motorists. Yet, if a State does issue a driver’s license to a motorist, every other State will recognize the validity of that license. Certainly no State would wish to inconvenience a motorist by requiring a motorist to hold that State’s own validly issued driver’s license.Imagine the nightmare that would ensue if every State required a motorist to hold a valid driver’s license issued by that State, just for the privilege of driving into and through the State. But that fictional situation is analogous to a very real situation that exists for the holder of a valid concealed handgun carry license. Evidently, many States do not mind “inconveniencing” an American who seeks nothing more than to exercise the natural right of self-defense, as implied in and manifest in the Second Amendment, even as those States would not think of inconveniencing a non-resident motorist.Presently, 18 States do recognize the validity of unrestricted concealed handgun carry licenses issued by other States. Most States, unfortunately, do not. Recognition of unrestricted concealed handgun carry license reciprocity by all the States would help eliminate the problem of inconsistent gun laws existent between and among the States and, too, relieve a law-abiding American from the burden of acquiring  and holding multiple concealed handgun licenses. This would do much to safeguard the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Universal unrestricted concealed handgun license reciprocity among the States would overcome a host of obstacles to Americans' exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

WHY ARE MANY STATES RELUCTANT TO GRANT RECIPROCITY?

We do not, at present, see universal unrestricted concealed handgun license reciprocity because antigun legislatures in many States do not respect the Second Amendment. Those State legislatures deliberately place obstacles in their own resident citizen’s path to gun ownership and possession, and so, not surprisingly, they refuse to provide for State concealed handgun license reciprocity to non-resident American citizens. But their arguments for doing so are weak. Let’s look at a few of the arguments that antigun proponents assert against implementation of universal unrestricted concealed handgun license reciprocity.Antigun proponents who reside in States that have very restrictive gun laws, such as New York, New Jersey and California, to name a few, argue, first, that draconian gun laws are necessary because of the existence of high crime areas in those States. Various areas in some States are high crime areas. But, guns aren’t responsible for crime that exists. Individuals who commit the crimes are to blame for any crime that exists in those areas. Moreover, the incidence of high crime areas in some States as the apparent impetus for restrictive gun laws is a “straw man” created by antigun proponents as a makeweight and evasion because one’s right of self-defense exists wherever one happens to find himself, in any State of the Union. The U.S. Constitution applies to the entire Nation, not to distinctive parts of it. So, one’s right of self-defense, as tacit in the Second Amendment, exists throughout the Country, irrespective of the incidence of crime in any one part of the Country. No one can reasonably argue against the truth of the assertion that the firearm is the single best means available to one for self-defense. Moreover, the law-abiding American citizen’s tacit right to defend his or her life is not a function of – is never a function of – where that person happens to live or work, or where that American happens to travel to, within the United States. Application of the Second Amendment is not limited to specific areas or zones within the United States. In fact, one may also reasonably rebut the antigun proponent’s position here by sensibly pointing out that the need for a firearm to protect one’s life is that much greater for a person who resides in or works in or happens to find himself or herself in a high crime area than is the case for a person who resides in or works in or simply happens to be in an area that is essentially devoid of crime.Antigun proponents argue, second, that State reciprocity would conflict with a State’s exercise of its own police powers. The rejoinder is that State reciprocity for holders of valid unrestricted concealed handgun carry licenses does not impinge on the manner in which a State regulates its police agencies. State reciprocity simply involves recognition of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and serves, as well, to carry out the U.S. Supreme Court’s intention as expressed in the holdings of Heller and McDonald, which, together, stand as a testament to that sacred right.Antigun proponents argue, third, that State reciprocity isn’t necessary because Americans don’t need to bring their firearms to other States. They will say that those Americans who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right are at most simply inconvenienced if they have to keep their firearms at home when they travel to other States. This argument may be easily disposed of because a governmental constraint on the exercise of a fundamental right can never be defended on the ground that the constraint operates merely as a mild or temporary inconvenience to one’s enjoyment of that right. For, even if one were to assume the assertion to be true, which it certainly is not, constraints on a fundamental right are not to be and cannot ever be casually, perfunctorily, and summarily dismissed. Moreover, from a common-sense perspective, to require one to forsake one’s right to defend his or her life with, feasibly, the best means available – a handgun, bar none – demonstrates a cavalier attitude toward if not complete disdain for the sanctity of the individual American citizen’s health, safety, and well-being.Such constraints also demonstrate an abuse of power on the part of States that enact draconian firearms’ laws. Such laws operate as an unconstitutional and unconscionable restraint on one’s exercise of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the perfectly rational, and legitimate, and critical purpose of self-defense, as clearly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Fourth, the antigun proponents’ clincher is that, if a person really wants to possess firearms in more than one State, that person can simply apply for a firearm’s license in that State. But, this argument is, as well, unsound for the obvious reason that obtaining gun permits in other States is a costly process from the standpoint of time, and money, and energy. The task of first obtaining and subsequently renewing multiple gun licenses and permits issued in a multitude of States is mind-numbingly complicated and extremely burdensome. Just imagine how expensive, complicated, and burdensome it would be for a motorist to have to obtain a separate driver’s license for each State he or she happened to drive to or through and the difficulties inherent in constantly being required to renew those licenses. Even so, the requirements for obtaining a State driver’s license more often than not pale in comparison to the difficulties that beset a person who seeks to obtain even one validly issued State concealed handgun license. And the concealed handgun carry license renewal process isn’t any easier. For example, the date of renewal of a State driver’s license generally falls on a motorist’s birthday. But States do not coordinate renewal of firearm licenses. Renewal dates can fall on virtually any day of the year. A harried businessman, for example, is often required to revise a busy and critical business schedule to accommodate licensing renewal schedules that require the licensee’s physical presence in each jurisdiction in which a concealed handgun carry license is renewed.  To truly understand just how complicated and burdensome it is for an American who wishes nothing more than to exercise his Second Amendment right as that person travels across the Country on business we have provided an example: a road trip. What makes this example all the more illustrative, significant, and forceful is that it is not fictitious. It is the real deal. What follows is a tale of what one person has had to put up with for several years and what that person must continually put up with as he navigates the sheer number and complexity of State firearms’ laws in existence today, as he seeks to secure initially or renew a multitude of firearms’ licenses in multiple jurisdictions.

ONE BUSINESSMAN’S STORY:

This is the personal story of a law-abiding American citizen and resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. The story is true.This individual has applied for and has been granted a Nassau County pistol license. As a businessman in the City of New York, he also applied for and was issued a New York City business carry pistol license, which is valid throughout the State of New York. He owns a house in Maine, and he does business in Maine. He also does business in each of the remaining five New England States: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Our businessman’s excursions often take him through each of these States. And each State has its own unique set of handgun licensing requirements. The sole exception is Vermont. This New England State does not require a permit to carry a firearm concealed so long as the carrying of a firearm is for a lawful purpose.Our businessman must comply with and has complied with the firearm licensing requirements of each State. The acquisition of and maintenance of a plethora of State firearms’ licenses translate into an inordinate amount of time, money, and effort spent by this individual just for “the privilege” of lawfully carrying a handgun in his car on his person through each one of several States, for self-defense, as he conducts business away from his main base of business operations in New York.

QUESTIONS WE POSE TO THOSE STATES THAT DO NOT WISH TO RECOGNIZE UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

Why should our businessman be so burdened with the need to acquire multiple, essentially duplicative firearms licenses from each jurisdiction when he simply wishes to exercise his fundamental right of self-defense in every jurisdiction? Why should the fundamental right to keep and bear arms be reduced to mere privilege? Why won’t all of the States recognize and accept one valid, current unrestricted concealed pistol carry license issued by any one of them? Since this businessman’s New York driver’s license is recognized in all 50 States, why won’t all of the States recognize and accept a concealed carry pistol license issued to this businessman by New York City, under the laws of the State of New York? Why must our businessman carry a plethora of State issued pistol licenses, when one alone ought to be sufficient?The important point to consider as we undertake this exercise is that this American citizen and businessman is not alone. Anyone, similarly situated, has to go through the ordeal of first obtaining and then continually renewing one’s firearms’ licenses and permits, in a multitude of States; and many American citizens presently do so.

CONCLUSION

To truly appreciate the difficult hoops a person must jump through merely to exercise one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for personal protection, we invite you to join us, along with this businessman, on his business road trip.Our businessman will be carrying in his car and on his person a Smith & Wesson, .38 caliber, “Bodyguard” revolver for the purpose of self-protection. He will also be carrying a batch of validly issued concealed handgun carry licenses issued by multiple jurisdictions. What we ask ourselves is this: What did this businessman have to go through to obtain these licenses? What does he continually have to go through to maintain and therefore retain these licenses? We will look at the handgun licensing procedures of several jurisdictions so you will get a good idea just how complicated, and convoluted, and expensive, and time-consuming, and physically and mentally taxing on an individual the entire process is.In our next article we will begin with a discussion of the handgun licensing procedures in Nassau County, NY; the handgun licensing procedures in New York City, NY; and the handgun licensing procedures in the State of Maine.In subsequent articles we will take a look at the licensing procedures of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire. Our businessman has been issued valid pistol licenses in each of these States. These licenses were not easy to obtain, nor are they easy to retain. Our businessman has complied with all State laws and regulations for acquiring State business carry pistol licenses and he continually complies with all laws and regulations pertaining to license renewals in each of these States.When we have completed our tour of the multi-State handgun licensing procedure schemas that our businessman has gone through and continues to go through just to be permitted “the luxury” to preserve his life as he conducts business in multiple jurisdictions, you will come to appreciate just how fragile our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms really is; how stubborn States can be; how bloated State firearms’ laws have become; and, how unmanageable the acquisition of and retention of a plethora of multi-State firearms’ licenses truly is.We trust that, at the conclusion of this comprehensive exercise, you will truly understand the need for  universal unrestricted State concealed handgun carry license reciprocity. Traveling across State lines on business, or for pleasure, should not create an either/or situation for the law-abiding American citizen -- should certainly not create an either/or situation for the American citizen and businessman in our true-life example. But, at the moment, that is what we have; that is what this law-abiding American citizen and businessman faces. He must either forego the acquisition of a multiplicity of concealed handgun carry licenses for each State in which he does business, thereby saving time, and money, and energy but at the cost of relinquishing his right of self-defense; or he must jump through hoops to first acquire and then constantly renew a plethora of concealed handgun carry licenses that serve best to protect his life, but at the cost of time, money, and energy necessary to acquire the licenses initially and then to retain them through time. Which one of these two options should he choose? Which one of these two options would you choose? More to the point, why should a law-abiding American citizen have to choose one or the other option at all. Why should you have to make a choice. Why should you be compelled to find yourself in a situation like this in the first place? Why must this law-abiding American citizen and businessman be compelled to deal with this dilemma at all in view of the Second Amendment imperative. Why should you be compelled to deal with this dilemma? But for the reluctance of most States to provide for the implementation of universal unrestricted State concealed handgun carry license reciprocity, this dilemma would be obviated. It would not exist. A law-abiding American citizen would not have to choose between securing his or her life and well-being but at the cost of  undergoing a multitude of time-consuming, extraordinarily arduous, repetitious, and invariably wasteful processes on the one hand, or, on the other, being compelled to relinquish his or her right of self-defense by foregoing the acquisition of the best means available to secure it -- a handgun.To be continued. . . .[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GUNS, PLANES, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

By now, all who keep abreast of the news are well aware of the tragedy that befell Germanwings Flight 9525, last month.The co-pilot of that airplane deliberately flew the passenger plane into a mountain, killing himself and everyone else on board. The public can only speculate as to the thought processes of the killer, Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of that Germanwings flight. But, as to one matter, the public need not speculate. Andreas Lubitz suffered from severe depression and should not have been flying an airplane at all, least of all a commercial aircraft, carrying 150 passengers and crew members.Major newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, have reported that officials of Deutsche Lufthansa AG, a prominent commercial airline and parent Company of Germanwings, knew about Lubitz’s mental health condition, and allowed him to pilot Flight 9525 anyway. That error in judgment, on the part of Lufthanza officials, that failure to take responsibility, is the root cause of the tragedy.Unfortunately, the failure to take responsibility is all too often the root cause of many tragedies that would otherwise never occur.Recall the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December of 2012. A very disturbed young man, Adam Lanza, killed over two dozen people, 20 of whom were children, as reported by the New York Times. Lanza then turned the gun on himself. Police investigators encountered an additional victim at Lanza’s home. Adam Lanza had also shot his mother. He did not own the guns he used in the shootings. Those belonged to Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy.Nancy Lanza, who knew or should have known of her son’s psychosis, ought to have secured her firearms. She had not.As with the recent airplane tragedy, a failure to take responsibility was the root cause of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Neither one need have occurred.Yet, in the case of Sandy Hook, the antigun groups wasted no time in calling for new bans on guns.There are no similar calls for bans on use of large commercial airplanes. Of course such a ban, in the latter case, would essentially mark the end of the airline industry. Such action would also put hundreds of thousands of people, around the world – those who work directly or indirectly in the commercial airline industry – out of work.But, apart from pragmatic realities, it is foolish to blame the entire commercial airline industry, much less the unconscious machine itself – the airplane – for the actions of one sentient, albeit deeply disturbed young man. It is also foolish to blame the entire commercial airline industry for the irresponsible behavior of those airline officials who, through their inaction, allowed a disturbed pilot to take control of an aircraft, thereby permitting the tragedy to occur.Parallels certainly may be drawn between the Lufthansa incident and the Sandy Hook incident. But, while no bans are contemplated against the continued use of commercial aircraft, antigun groups argue vociferously for further bans on guns. The public is continually and wearily subject to the same bleat: “get rid of the guns!” No mention is made though – not a squeak – over personal responsibility. Nancy Lanza saw a problem. She chose to ignore it. That negligence on her part allowed her mentally disturbed son to gain access to her firearms. The ensuing tragedy was predictable.Similarly, Lufthansa officials knew or should have known that one of its pilots, Andreas Lubitz, was mentally unbalanced.  But it looked the other way, allowing a mentally unstable individual to pilot a commercial airplane. As with the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, the catastrophe that befell Germanwings Flight 9525 was also predictable.If people act irresponsibly, the proper course of action is to deal with those individuals alone.In Nancy Lanza’s case, her own irresponsible behavior was the proximate cause of her own death and those, tragically, of many innocent people.In the case of Germanwings flight 9525, the cause of the tragedy falls squarely upon the shoulders of the Lufthansa officials: their failure to take immediate action to prevent a pilot, whom they knew or should have known to be unfit to pilot an aircraft, from flying.Still, just as it would be imbecilic to blame an entire industry for the actions of a few airline company officials who fail to monitor the physical and mental health of their pilots, it is altogether inappropriate to chastise an entire population of responsible gun owners for the actions of the few who behave irresponsibly with their guns. Obviously, it is ludicrous to ground entire fleets of aircraft because of the irresponsible actions of those who can prevent a tragedy from happening, but don’t. It is equally foolish to impose wholesale bans on firearms: punishing millions of responsible gun owners for the irresponsible actions of a few.What should be done?The answer in both cases is the same: calling not for overbearing, thuggish Government regulation and control over everyone and everything, but placing blame where blame properly lies, and dealing with it there.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

HOW DID THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT BECOME LAW? LET’S ASK THE “THREE MEN IN A ROOM?

A new scandal has hit Albany, New York – a big one!  The arrest of the powerful New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, by the FBI, on Friday, January 23, 2015, has sent shock waves across the State, most likely affecting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Administration. The arrest of Sheldon Silver on corruption charges has less to do with Silver than it does for the way legislation affecting the rights and liberties of over 20 million New Yorkers has been and continues to be compromised by an elite group of elected officials – the “three men in a room” – Governor Cuomo, Assembly Speaker Silver, and the State Senate leader – whom the Governor has jokingly referred to as “the three amigos.” An overview of the Complaint filed in federal court, on January 21, 2015, bears this point out. It provides a disturbing picture of how business has been conducted in Albany for many, many years. The Complaint says in pertinent part: “Sheldon Silver, the defendant, has engaged in and continues to engage in a secret and corrupt scheme to deprive the citizens of the State of New York of his honest services, and to extort individuals and entities under color of official right, as an elected legislator and as Speaker of the New York State Assembly.”The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York’s filing of felony corruption charges against Silver may cause Governor Cuomo to distance himself from the Assembly Speaker. Cuomo’s own actions cast a bright and disturbing light on Cuomo as well.On July 2, 2013 Cuomo created the Moreland Commission. Its purpose was twofold: to root out the very corruption the Complaint alleges Silver must now answer for and provide better governance for the residents of the State of New York. The Moreland Commission had the potential to be a good thing for New York State residents and it appears to be a bad thing for Silver.U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who filed the criminal case against Sheldon Silver on January 21, 2015, had testified before the Moreland Commission more than one year earlier. On September 17, 2013, Bharara pledged “the cooperation and assistance of [his] office with the Commission’s vitally important work.” He added, “Fighting public corruption has been a top priority for [Bharara] for a long while. . . .”Many of New York’s elite Legislators railed against the Commission and sued to have it disbanded. In their own filing, those Legislators argued the Commission’s actions trampled the Legislators’ Constitutional Rights. Imagine that.Less than one year after forming the Commission, Cuomo said, on March 29, 2014, he was disbanding it. On April 3, 2014 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District sent a letter to the Commission. In it Bharara said he was taking possession of the Commission’s case files. He questioned whether the Governor was abandoning his commitment to fight public corruption. Cuomo, for his part, was petulant. According to a story published in Crain’s Insider on April 24, 2014, Cuomo told Crain’s: “‘It’s not a legal question. It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow.’” His power seems omnipotent.The concentration of power in New York has been, for many years, in the hands of a Triarchy, reminiscent of the First and Second Triumvirates that ruled ancient Rome. This modern Triarchy consists of the Governor, the Assembly Speaker, and the State Senate Leader. It has worked in secret, under cloak of darkness, without accountability. These three individuals seem to answer only to themselves as if they do not have to account to the public and do not have to account for their actions.Did these “three amigos” engineer the New York Safe Act and thrust it down the throats of New York residents and gun owners sans debate? It certainly seems so.News accounts report that Silver has temporarily stepped down as Assembly Speaker. However, in light of the serious criminal corruption charges the U.S. Attorney has brought against the Assembly Speaker, we question the wisdom of allowing Silver to continue to serve in the New York Assembly at all during the pendency of the case against him.There is another pressing issue that must be addressed. Since the propriety of the actions of “the three amigos” is in question, we feel the New York public has the right – in fact, the duty – to insist on a probe of how the New York Safe Act was drafted; how it was enacted; and, to what extent, if any, the creators of it knew or had good reason to know that enactment of the Act might undermine New York residents’ Constitutional Rights.If corruption is uncovered any step of the way, then the Safe Act should be repealed in its entirety.Despite the fact that some New York residents exhibit animosity toward guns and gun possession, elected officials, including and especially New York Legislators and the Governor, must operate with transparency and fairness on behalf of their constituencies.Any legislation – especially far-reaching legislation, such as the New York Safe Act, that negatively impacts not only one’s Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms, but one’s Fifth Amendment private property interest in those firearms, and one’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights – must be discussed in the light of day, before enactment. The New York Safe Act wasn’t enacted protecting these Rights. The impetus for it and passage of it all took place in secretive session, out of the public view. Why? The “three amigos” must explain their actions.How was the New York Safe Act pushed through the Legislature so quickly? How were these individuals able to get away with this? Did the “three amigos” honestly think they were acting on behalf of the New York public for the benefit of the public, as the mainstream media portrayed them? Or were they merely furthering a private agenda, using the power of their respective Office to systematically deprive millions of New York residents and gun owners of their Rights and Liberties under both the U.S. Constitution and the New York State Constitution? Did political ambitions motivate these individuals? If so, how? These are serious questions. And they deserve serious consideration. The public demands answers. The public demands accountability. New York residents and citizens must speak up. The damage to the Public’s Constitutional Rights and Liberties must be undone. The time to act is now.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ARBALEST QUARREL’S TAKE ON THE MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

For the first time in eight years Republicans have taken control of both Houses of Congress. This is no accident. The American public has had enough of Barack Obama. This glib, smooth-talking “used car” salesman can’t convince the public to purchase any more of his wrecks.In the next two years the Republicans can do much to set the Country on a corrective path, paving the way for a Republican in the White House. Through a concerted effort Republicans can rein in the Executive and can make Congress functional.This does not mean the Republicans are required to do everything; but they can’t sit idly by doing nothing, merely arguing that they do much by prohibiting Obama from doing anything. That won’t work anymore. The public won’t stand for that. The public will accept no more excuses. They will no longer buy sugar-coated lies.The results of this mid-term election are a wake-up call to Republicans. If the Republicans sit idly by for the next two years, Americans may very well see another Democrat – a Clinton at that – in the White House. Hillary Clinton feels cheated. She feels that she, not Obama, should have sat in the Oval Office these past six years. But, the puppet masters ordained Obama should rule in her stead. But now the puppet masters have given Clinton the green light. For most Americans the salient concern is that she might just make it to the White House.And don’t doubt for a moment Clinton won’t run for Office; that Clinton won’t be the Democratic Party’s candidate of choice; that Clinton won’t have a real shot at the Presidency in 2016.Although coyly disengaged from the subject of her candidacy, Hillary Clinton is quietly whipping her believers into frenzy. The lemmings support Clinton and no one else. Clinton is chomping at the bit. She lusts for the Oval Office. And many Americans – all too many – want her in the White House. She knows this and is counting on their active support.And what will Obama do in the interim? He will “ruff” a low trump card. His low trump card is his audacity.Any middle school student knows or should know we have a tripartite system of Government, based on a clear separation of powers:The Legislature shall make the laws and the President shall faithfully execute the laws, and the Judiciary, a U.S. Supreme Court, shall interpret the laws.This is the Separation of Powers Doctrine. And it exists for a reason: to preclude usurpation of all powers by one individual or one group. Usurpation of power, whether by one individual or a few, leads invariably to oligarchy or monarchy – tyranny. We are moving inexorably in that direction.Obama is obviously disdainful of Congress and of the U.S. Constitution. He wishes to accumulate legislative powers and executive powers in one Branch of Government: the Executive Branch. Is there proof of this?Consider the touchy subject of immigration. Obama has made plain his intention to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Under our Constitution he can’t do that. He says he’ll do that anyway. What does this mean?The President will do whatever he wants to do but will refrain from doing whatever he wants to do if Congress does what the President wants Congress to do.And, what does that mean?Obama wants immigration reform. So he compels Congress to act to provide him with that reform.Congress, though, doesn’t work at the behest of the Executive Branch. And the Executive Branch cannot legally assume the role of the Legislature unto itself. That constitutes a clear breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine, and is inconsistent with the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.Understand, Congress need not act on immigration matters at all. Congress determines what laws to enact. Moreover, Congress decides what matters it deals with. These are not prerogatives of the President.The President can’t act as if he were the Legislature. He says that he can. He says he can take action by executive fiat. He says immigration reform is the right thing to do. Obama says lots of things. But his saying this, that, or the other does not make it so.The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what laws Congress must pass. The President has no authority under our Constitution to dictate what policy issues Congress must consider. And the President has no authority under our Constitution to make law in lieu of Congress by Executive fiat simply because Congress fails to act.Obama demonstrates an incredible arrogance even to suggest America must have immigration reform. He thrusts his notion of morality on the entire Nation. Obama argues a lawful right to act, if Congress doesn’t. This he bases, ostensibly, on his own ethical belief system. But normative prescriptions don’t, ipso facto, provide a legitimate legal basis for action under the U.S. Constitution. Unilateral action based on a moral claim, however lofty, is, ultimately, clearly, unlawful, and conceivably constitutes an impeachable offense.Although the Republican Congress has much to do, it need not take on work the American public doesn’t want or truly need. It should deal with pressing matters, not unimportant ones. It must avoid being side-tracked by petty impulses and political posturing by the President.Several matters that Congress might reasonably consider spending time on these next two years include, inter alia, these:

• Encouraging economic growth and jobs for Americans
• Reining in the Executive Branch of Government
• Countering Obamacare
• Simplifying the tax code
• Developing coherent foreign policy objectives
• Reducing fraud and waste in Government
• Requiring accountability of the Federal Reserve
• Preventing Executive Branch encroachment on State rights and prerogatives.
• Repairing deteriorating infrastructure
• Protecting America from external biological and ideological threats
• Securing our borders
• Taking steps against foreign nations and foreign transnational conglomerates insinuating themselves into the political, social, economic, financial, and legal affairs of the United States.

In the next two years, Republicans must make headway to protect the fabric of American society. That will help secure our free Republic. That will go a long way to appease a rightfully angry public.Unfortunately, there are already disturbing signs from some centrist Republican Senators that, when dealing with Obama, compromise and conciliation will be the strategies employed. Confrontation is the strategy centrist Senators will reserve for their own Tea Party base. They intend to keep the base in line. Should that occur, these centrist Republicans will certainly tear the GOP wide open, and they may very well hand the White House over to Hillary Clinton in 2016. [separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IS GUN VIOLENCE A MORE PRESSING ISSUE THAN EBOLA? SOME WOULD HAVE YOU THINK SO.

The other day, Alternet, a weblog devoted to progressive and liberal commentary, posted an article by Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration. The article is titled, “Robert Reich: Why I’m Worried About America.” The Article also appears on Reich’s website under a different title, “Getting a Grip on Ebola.” Reich is a prolific writer and orator, and he’s influential in left-wing circles.In his post Reich says he’s not concerned about an Ebola outbreak in this Country. His tacit claim is he’s worried about the public’s response to it. He says, in part:“We have to get a grip. Ebola is not a crisis in the United States. One person has died and two people are infected with his body fluids. The real crisis is the hysteria over Ebola that’s being fed by media outlets seeking sensationalism and politicians posturing for the midterm elections. That hysteria is causing us to lose our heads. . . . More people are killed by stray bullets every day in America than have been killed by Ebola here. . . . Instead, we bicker. For the last eight months, Republicans have been blocking confirmation of a Surgeon General. Why? Because the President’s nominee voiced support for expanded background checks for gun purchases, and the National Rifle Association objected. We’ve got to get our priorities straight.”Reich’s article is straightforward, but simplistic. He’s written it obviously at the behest of the Obama Administration. Reich has considerable credentials. Obama apparently believes that Reich, among other prolific writers and thinkers, will calm the rising tide calling for Government action to stem Ebola in the U.S. To date Obama's reaction toward an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. is disturbingly casual. His administration has done nothing constructive to thwart an Ebola epidemic in this Country. He argues that we must deal with Ebola in Africa, not in the U.S. That's absurd! And Obama, through writers such as Reich, is obviously trying to change the subject -- diverting attention to gun violence. Why is that?The American public shouldn't allow its attention to be diverted to inconsequential matters. The Obama Administration's handling of Ebola in this Country is, to date, abysmal. If Ebola gets out of hand in this Country, one-third of the population can be wiped out. Ebola is an existential threat. Gun violence isn't. It doesn't come close. Let's deal with Ebola!The fault lies squarely with the Obama Administration. Does the American public have reason to fear a full-fledged Ebola outbreak in the U.S.? Yes! Let’s take a look at the fallacies in Reich’s post.

REICH SAYS “EBOLA IS NOT A CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES.”

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ‘crisis as “a situation that has reached a critical phase.” The implication of Reich’s remark is: we should not fear what has not yet occurred; that such fear is unwarranted. But, the public fears the Government’s ineptitude in dealing with Ebola. That ineptitude is ample. So, the public’s concern over Government ineptitude alone warrants the fear response. The Government, for its part, we should note, appears more concerned over the public’s reaction to an Ebola pandemic – civil insurrection because of the Government’s failure to protect the public – than over an Ebola pandemic.Reich may have been approached by the Administration to help quell rising fear in the Nation. Is fear over Ebola warranted? If not, is Reich suggesting the public must wait for a crisis to occur before fear is warranted? But why must the public wait for a crisis to occur? The presence of fear before a crisis prompts a person to action. The public is fearful of Ebola and rightfully so. Ebola is fearsome; it's a particularly horrifying disease. Appropriate and swift action serves to prevent crises. The public wants Obama to act. Obama sits back. He does nothing.Obama is altogether lackadaisical toward an Ebola outbreak in this Country. If a crisis must occur before the Obama Administration reacts to it, such action will be too late. Perhaps, it is already too late.And perhaps an Ebola crisis has already occurred. Consider: how many instances of Ebola constitute a crisis? One? Two? Three? A dozen? Two dozen? One hundred? One thousand? One Million? Ten Million? And, from just one case of Ebola, how quickly may that number jump to one thousand, and then to one million?Consider: Thomas Duncan, a citizen of an Ebola Hot Zone, Liberia, flew to the U.S. and walked through the gate. He broke no law. He was lawfully permitted entry. Obama said lockdowns of our airports would be counterproductive. Counterproductive? How? Counterproductive for whom? For Africans? May we  suggest that Obama exhibit a little more concern for the welfare of Americans and a little less concern over the welfare of Africans.Clearly, had airport security turned Thomas Duncan away, he would not have transmitted the disease to innocent Americans in this Country. That is fact, not conjecture. And having failed that, had Obama at least ordered Duncan returned immediately to his own Country, Liberia, and not permitted him to remain in the U.S., after he was positively tested for the Ebola disease, tragedy would have been averted -- while not for Duncan, certainly for others. Two American nurses, who treated Duncan at a hospital unequipped to deal with biosafety level 4 pathogens, who are suffering horribly, fighting desperately to survive, would today be alive and well had Duncan been immediately flown back to his Country or otherwise been taken to a biosafety level 4 facility in the U.S. for treatment. Neither action occurred. Other Americans, whom Duncan had come into contact with, both inside the hospital where he was treated, and outside it, may already be harboring the Ebola virus. And those Americans may be passing Ebola on to still more Americans.The newspapers tell us no American has died from the disease, as yet. Be that as it may, one person as reported, Duncan, has died from Ebola on American soil. That has never happened before. It has happened now. Obama says he has no “philosophical objection” to closing the airports to travelers from or residents of West Africa. But, still he refuses to do so. And he refuses to close our Southern border and our ports. Obama's bizarre actions and inaction toward Ebola amount to error upon error, compounded, or worse, reckless indifference to the welfare of Americans.The Wall Street Journal reports that Rwanda, an Eastern African Nation, where Ebola has not occurred, has closed entry to all travelers coming from Western African Hot Zones and carefully monitors all travelers in Rwanda who come from other Countries where Ebola has manifested, including the United States. But, Residents of Hot Zones in West Africa are freely admitted entry into this Country. Why is that? Why does Obama consistently allow this? Why is he unperturbed by the fact that this policy -- his policy -- has introduced Ebola into America and allows further transmitters of the disease direct and easy entry into the Country?It seems the Rwandan Government shows more concern for its own people than the Obama Administration does for Americans.Reich’s rejoinder to Americans' legitimate concern over Ebola curiously follows the trajectory charted by the Obama Administration.The premise of the argument is dubious:“The most important thing we can do to prevent Ebola from ever becoming a crisis in the United States is to help Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, where 10,000 new cases could crop up weekly unless the spread of the virus is slowed soon.   Isolating these poor nations would only make their situation worse. Does anyone seriously believe we could quarantine hundreds of thousands of infected people a continent away who are infecting others?The truth is quite the opposite. If the disease is allowed to spread in these places, the entire world could be imperiled.”So, we don't curtail entry of West Africans into the U.S. because that would otherwise, in some inexplicable way, make their situation worse and would not make our situation better? And, we help West Africans by doing what exactly? Sending thousands of American troops -- non-health care workers, who know nothing about hemorrhagic fever -- to West Africa in order to do what exactly? Contract the disease themselves?Do you recall a similar argument energetically put forth by both the Bush and Obama Administrations: “If we don’t fight them over there (the “Islamic Radicals”), we’ll have to fight them here.” The antecedent of that conditional statement is false. More than that, it’s ridiculous. Just imagine a ragtag group of Islamists invading our shores in an armada of tugboats.What have we gotten for our troubles? We are embroiled in conflicts “over there” – conflicts ongoing, conceivably forever; trillions of dollars spent on wars the public never wanted and certainly doesn’t need; thousands of Americans dead; tens of thousands more injured; a vacuum in Iraq, precipitated by our invasion of it and ouster of Saddam Hussein; and, now, unrest spilling into other areas in the Middle East. Let's extrapolate from this.If we don’t fight Ebola over there, so Reich says, we’ll have to fight it here. That means we commit – and have committed – thousands of troops “over there” (West Africa) to set up pup tents. Not improbably, many of those troops will bring back something the public doesn’t want and certainly doesn’t need: Ebola!What, then, should Americans do in order to protect themselves from this horrific scourge?The best course of action for us is to let Ebola burn itself out in Africa. This isn’t to suggest Ebola cases won’t crop up in the U.S. But we don’t have to help the pathogen along as the Government is doing by keeping the airport hubs, and ports, and Southern border of our Country open. So far, we know that Ebola exists in the U.S. precisely because we did allow a West African from a Hot Zone, Liberia, entry into this Country. So we must curtail that practice immediately. Doing so, we will certainly drastically reduce the number of new Ebola transmitters access to our land and our people. But, so long as Obama allows individuals from African hot zones entry into the United States, those individuals will continue to haul their deadly cargo with them -- inside them. If the Government disagrees with this assessment, then let’s have an open and frank debate about it. But, the Government doesn’t want an open and frank debate. So, we don’t have that debate.If the U.S. does suffer an Ebola epidemic -- and as the days go by, the reality of such a horror becomes more likely -- the American public shouldn't let Obama off the hook. We know what he'll say: "locking down the airports, and ports, and borders wouldn't have stopped Ebola from reaching our shores anyway." Our response: "Really, Mr. President? Might you not be wrong! Perhaps Ebola would've been averted. Now, we will never know. And, if Ebola couldn't have been averted, we wouldn't have faulted you for at least trying. But you never did try to avert Ebola. That is unforgivable. You didn't care enough to try. And that makes all the difference."REICH SAYS, “MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY STRAY BULLETS EVERY DAY IN AMERICA THAN HAVE BEEN KILLED BY EBOLA HERE.”Well, Robert, give Ebola a little time.Robert Reich is committing the “apples/oranges” fallacy. This fallacy involves the incomparability of two things. To analogize gun accidents and gun homicides to viral epidemics presumes that the yardsticks for measuring the two are the same. They aren’t. Quite simply, if an Ebola epidemic breaks out in this Country, tens of millions of Americans will fall sick in a relatively short span of time, and 80% to 90% of them will likely die horrific deaths in the absence of a vaccine to prevent the disease or a drug to cure it. At present, neither exists. Our health care system will surely crumble. Apart from the staggering loss of life in this Country and unimaginable suffering, the cost to the economy would be colossal, easily amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars.The antigun crowd’s concern over guns is senseless, indeed, essentially meaningless, when one compares gun violence to the horror of an Ebola pandemic.Yes, to date, only one person – that we know about, Duncan – has died on American soil from Ebola. If there are others, the Government isn’t saying, and the mainstream media isn’t reporting them. Two others – that we presently know about – have contracted the disease from Duncan. One more case has just been reported in the news, as this article goes to post: a physician in New York City has contracted Ebola. How?Viral epidemics grow at an astounding rate, exponentially, and move at an extraordinarily quick pace. They easily spiral out of control. And, New York City has an extremely large, concentrated population. So, should New York City residents worry? Should Americans, wherever they are located in this Country, worry?

DOES THE NEED FOR GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS TRUMP GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO STOP EBOLA?

Reich says, “We’ve got to get our priorities straight.” In other words “expanded background checks for gun purchases” takes precedence over locking down our borders to curb Ebola, according to Reich. Some Americans might disagree with that assessment.

SUPPOSE AN EBOLA EPIDEMIC BREAKS OUT IN THIS COUNTRY.

If Ebola breaks out in this Country, the Government will likely institute martial law. That means the Government will curtail civil liberties to get a jump on insurrection. Insurrection will be the Government’s main concern, just as it was in the wake of “Katrina.” Concern for life will be secondary. Once Ebola burns itself out, curtailment of rights and liberties will remain, forever. Of that you can be certain.As one such proponent for autocracy, Rahm Emmanuel, said, “you don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid." One such important thing that might be done in the event of an Ebola epidemic is the dismantling of a particularly troublesome portion of the United States Constitution: the Bill of Rights. Crises for some always have a silver lining.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

RETURNING SOLDIERS ARE NOT DAMAGED GOODS. WHY, THEN, DOES THE ANTIGUN CROWD TREAT VETERANS AS IF THEY ARE?

Some time ago the Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece – an expose that appeared in the May 24th-25th Weekend Review Section, titled “Duty and Pity.” The WSJ author, Phil Klay, wrote “. . . there is something deeply unsettling about the way we so often choose to think about those who served.” Klay says that we choose to pity our returning soldiers. But, as he adds, “pity sidesteps complexity in favor of narratives that we’re comfortable with, reducing the nuances of a person’s experience to a sound bite.” Klay points out that something sinister is going on here. And, what it is feeds into the goal of antigun groups and their allied politicians who, as we know, seek to separate Americans from their guns. “This insistence on treating veterans as objects of pity plays out in our national dialogue . . . whether it is Bill Maher saying on his April 4 HBO show, ‘Anytime you send anyone to war, they come back a little crazy,’ or a Washington Times article about PTSD claiming that, ‘Roughly 2.6 million veterans who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from PTSD-type symptoms.’ That is roughly the total number of veterans who served, which suggests that the report thought there might be a 100% saturation rate of PTSD among veterans.” Now, let us extrapolate from this.The antigun crowd and much of the mainstream media treat returning soldiers as “broken” and as “ticking time bombs,” even as they “pity” them and seek to treat them all for PTSD. “Pity places the focus on what’s wrong with veterans. But for veterans looking at the society that sent them to war, it may not feel like they’re the ones with the most serious problem.” Indeed, the mainstream media takes potshots at veterans every chance it gets. “As Sgt. Dakota Meyer, a young Marine and PTSD sufferer who was awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in Afghanistan, explained after the Fort Hood shooting, ‘PTSD does not put you in the mindset to go out and kill innocent people. . . . The media label this shooting PTSD, but if what that man did is PTSD, then I don’t have it.’” And, “Kristen Rouse, a veteran and blogger who was struck by another article alerting fearful readers to ZIP Codes that have large numbers of veterans with PTSD, wrote that the article treated a PTSD database ‘like a sex offender registry.’ A recent opinion piece in the New York Times even tried to link combat trauma with membership in the Ku Klux Klan. If vets are truly ‘broken,’ . . . there is no telling what they might do.”The Wall Street Journal adds, “this perspective is more than a little bizarre. Veterans rank among our most engaged, productive citizens.” For example, “in New York, the contributions being made by veterans couldn’t have been more apparent than after Hurricane Sandy. When the city failed to coordinate relief efforts in the Rockaways, the veteran-led relief group Team Rubicon filled the leadership gap . . . to map conditions and coordinate efforts to help people stranded in the storm. Veterans are used to creating order in chaotic environments – just the sort of people a city in a crisis needs.”The May 24th-25th Wall Street Journal article sets the record straight on the issue of PTSD, but, it did not follow through on the invidious, and scurrilous attack on American soldiers by the antigun crowd and its allied politicians. For the antigun crowd seeks to deny to an entire group – consisting of those Americans who should be treated as our most honored citizens – the right guaranteed to all Americans under the Second Amendment. This effort isn’t only ironic, it’s diabolical. The antigun crowd and allied politicians treat the entirety of returning soldiers as damaged goods – potential psychotic killers. In so doing, our most treasured citizens are denied the right to exercise their inalienable right under the Bill of Rights: to hold and to keep firearms.In particular, Senator Dianne Feinstein and others of her bent, clearly see PTSD as a convenient device to preclude an entire population of Americans – veterans – from possessing guns. This is but one more tactic in the antigun politicians’ arsenal to dismember and thus defeat the Second Amendment. Of all Americans, Senator Feinstein dares to target – oddly enough – the very last group of Americans whom one would ever wish to deny the right to keep and bear arms. This is a travesty.So, we send young Americans off to war to fight and possibly to die and Senator Dianne Feinstein and others like her dare to treat those who return as broken – damaged goods. She says in effect that our veterans cannot be trusted with firearms once they return to their Country. She says, in effect, that, for the good of the collective and for the good of the returning soldiers themselves, we must deny our veterans their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Senator Feinstein thus treats our First Class Citizens like Third Class Citizens, behind illegal Mexicans and Central Americans. One would expect Hillary Clinton, who has committed use of U.S. military in all Middle East adventures to date, to do much the same were she to become the next U.S. President.Ah, dulce bellum inexpertis (“War is sweet to those who have never fought”).[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.________________________________________

GUNS, KNIVES, AND OCCAM’S DANGEROUS RAZOR

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

“EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY”: BLOOMBERG’S BLUEPRINT FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Michael Bloomberg has a slick new website for his antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety.” The NY Times provides a link to it in an April 25th Article by Jeremy Peters, “Republican Resigns From Bloomberg Gun Safety Group.”  Jeremy Peters has written extensively about Bloomberg's antigun agenda these last several days and the Arbalest Quarrel has critiqued them. This is our latest critique, dealing with Peters' Article that may be found here: republican resigns from Bloomberg gun safety group. For a visual on Bloomberg's "Everytown" group website, click the link: everytown.org. The website’s development and build must have cost Bloomberg a bundle. But, he can afford it. One of the site’s webpages uses hypnotic patterns of lines and shapes. These grab your attention. The webpage is a kaleidoscope of fade-ins and fade-outs. Suggestive propaganda devices loom and bloom. The logo itself is a wondrous example of advertising genius. The visitor sees a stylized American Flag. The stripes’ colors are an unusual turquoise and pale red. Bloomberg knows he can spend his dollars wisely or fruitlessly. He's pulled all the stops with his "Everytown" website. The site sets forth a single theme and focus: guns cause crime; guns hurt people; so let's get rid of the guns. And it's a subterfuge. Bloomberg’s main targets are the NRA and legislators who support the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” A photograph of individuals, young and old of both sexes, dominates fully one-half the site’s home page, above the fold. The expressions of these dupes -- Bloomberg's props -- are virtually and curiously identical. The countenances are grim, slightly sad. The photographer must have taken several photo shots to get it right. A caption appears below the photograph, just below the fold, in upper and lower case letters: “NOT OUR WORDS: Survivors of Gun Violence Take on the Gun Lobby.”The same message percolates through the site, taking different forms. But the Group’s principal aim appears on the “WHO WE ARE” link. It boils down to this: defeat the Gun Lobby – a/k/a the NRA. The “Everytown” group conveys through words and graphics the idea that it seeks to protect communities and that the “gun lobby” doesn’t. It says, “change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.” The site makes no reference to the Second Amendment. Nor does the site bother to mention how guns in the hands of the right people -- law-abiding citizens -- do save lives and have saved lives. You will notice a subliminal message in the photograph that dominates the home page of the "Everytown for Gun Safety" website.The photograph's basic message is that Americans are victims and must play the role of victims. The photograph says, "you don't have to depend on your own survival skills and you shouldn't have to depend on your own survival skills." It says, "you don't need a gun for protection." It says, "if no one has a gun, then, violent acts won't occur." It says, "trust the police; they will safeguard your life and that of your family." It says, the Government will protect you." It says, "place your faith in 'Everytown;' I, Michael Bloomberg, have the expertise, intelligence, foresight, and clout to make the best decisions for you when it comes to your personal safety and the safety of your loved ones!" By the way, the term ‘everytown,’ first appeared in a science fiction story by the writer, H.G. Wells. The story’s title is: “The Shape of Things to Come.” Wells, an Englishman and socialist, was a prolific writer of social commentary in the first half of the twentieth century. He’s better known for his science fiction. Popular stories like “The Time Machine” and “The War of the Worlds” often come to mind when the name H.G. Wells crops up. A lesser known work, “The Shape of Things to Come,” is about a monolithic technological power waging war on backward tribes of people living in a place called, Everytown. The term has become part of our vernacular, suggestive of the average community. And clearly Bloomberg wishes to convey the impression that his “Everytown” represents the average American community. But, if the Everytown antigun group is so wonderful and has the best interests of Americans at heart, why would Tom Ridge, Homeland Security secretary under President George W. Bush, wish to resign from its Board? But why did Ridge join the Board in the first place? The NY Times Article doesn’t address that question. What we do learn is that Ridge resigned unexpectedly. Ridge purportedly told the Group he couldn’t keep his commitment. He gives his reason in the NY Times Article. “‘When I signed on as an adviser to Everytown, I looked forward to a thoughtful and provocative discussion about the toll gun violence takes on Americans. . . . After consultation with Everytown, I have decided that I am uncomfortable with their expected electoral work.’” The Times continues: “Mr. Bloomberg said last week that he would work to defeat Republicans and Democrats alike who opposed gun control. He said his goal was to build a group formidable enough to take on the National Rifle Association.” That assertion may hint at Ridge’s concern. But Ridge must certainly have known this. We ask, "what more did Ridge learn about “Everytown” that made him so uneasy? What, in fact, did Ridge learn that troubled him about Bloomberg’s strategies? Did Bloomberg fail to keep Ridge informed of Bloomberg's antigun tactics and strategies that -- once implemented -- would serve to fracture the very fabric of our Bill of Rights and of our society?We may wish to consider these questions in the broader context of Bloomberg’s personal ambitions and in the context of his power to manipulate Congress and the mainstream media. And we must not dismiss out of hand the possibility Bloomberg may be in league with other powerful interests, both foreign and domestic, who seek to undermine the United States Constitution in general and the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in particular. The expressed concern over gun violence is almost certainly a subterfuge, a sleight of hand – messaging directed to the American public that cloaks a more sinister aim. And Ridge may have deciphered that aim and wanted nothing to do with it. Granted: this is speculation, but Bloomberg’s one-dimensional, simplistic messaging rings hollow and opens the door to serious speculation over his personal motives and secretive goals.True, Bloomberg may want, on a simplistic level, to curb gun violence.  But who doesn’t? That registers easily on the public conscience. And the mainstream media assists him in the endeavor. So, he is able to hide behind the plausibility of it. And, we may debate him on the causes of it. Unfortunately, Bloomberg doesn’t wish to debate the causes of criminal gun violence. That, likely, is not his salient concern. And the mainstream media doesn’t demand it of him. He simply wishes to feed the public Pablum. And the mainstream media is a willing participant and abettor in that strategy. We are supposed to accept on faith that Bloomberg has the Nation’s best interests at heart. I won’t buy it, and you shouldn’t either. For, the penultimate goal is gun confiscation. The criminal element will continue to buy guns on the black market, and the law-abiding American citizen will be shut out. And, the ultimate goal -- the endgame -- is de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. Actual repeal of the Second Amendment is unnecessary if the law-abiding American citizen simply can't buy guns lawfully. And, once the Second Amendment falls, the other nine Amendments will topple easily. If discussion of criminal gun violence is, then, merely a makeweight, what does Bloomberg have in store for our Second Amendment, if not its ruin? What does Bloomberg have in store for the citizenry of this Country? “Everytown’s” silence on these matters is deafening.Again, we must consider the true cause of Ridge’s sudden departure from the “Everytown” Board. But that requires a look at tactics. If Bloomberg plans to use “dirty tricks” to remove from public office or deny public office to proponents of the Second Amendment, then the public must take note. Consider. Suppose I wish to run for political office at the local, State or Federal level. I am a fervent defender of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The NRA may support my bid or not. If it does so, fine. If, not, I don’t care. Possible NRA support isn’t my motivation. My fervent promise to my constituents and to the American people at large is to preserve the integrity of the Bill of Rights – all of them. I don’t pick and choose among them. If the “Everytown” group attempts to defeat me, is it because I profess to like gun violence? That’s ridiculous. And, no reasonable group would or should support my bid for office then. But, if I am a fervent supporter of the Second Amendment does the problem rest with my political philosophy or does it rest with the philosophy of the group that would seek my ruin because I support the Second Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms? If the Second Amendment is incompatible with the presence of public safety, let’s have that debate. But, the proposition isn’t axiomatic. And, given the Amendment’s importance to our heritage, culture and history, that debate is essential. But, no one call’s for that debate. Bloomberg’s position is crystal clear: the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with gun violence; the Second Amendment is incompatible with public safety and order. So, one must go. And, for Bloomberg and other antigun proponents, it is, then, the Second Amendment that must go. But, we have no proof of incompatibility between public safety and order on the one hand and a strong Second Amendment on the other. And, even if that were the case, do we, ipso facto, without further thought of even more serious repercussions for the American citizenry, dismember a portion of our sacred Rights? Suppose there’s a way to promote consistency – a way to resolve the dilemma if, in fact, it exists? What might that involve? Give hardened gang members and criminals who commit crimes with guns mandatory life sentences! Eliminate murderers one way or another -- draconian as that sounds! Deport non-citizen gang members to their Country of origin! And, for those gang members who are U.S. citizens, we can banish them from the United States, for life! But we don’t have that discussion. Why don’t we have that discussion? Why can’t we have that discussion? Perhaps this is due to the fact that the real concern of the puppet masters who pull the strings of the various antigun groups isn't the violence upon society caused by criminal elements and lunatics, but, rather, the mere power a law-abiding American citizenry wields through its ownership and possession of guns. Now, this isn't to suggest that any regulation of guns is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. For, a basic tenet of Constitutional law is that even a fundamental right isn’t absolute. But instituting restrictive gun laws willy-nilly, one upon another, more and more, unceasingly, unendingly, at every turn -- using as the pretext -- the action of this or that criminal psychopath or raging lunatic -- all serve a clearly, decidedly, decisively, illegitimate goal: namely, de facto dissolution of the Second Amendment -- merely to get rid of it. That cannot and should not be condoned in a free republic that claims to be one ruled by laws, and not by men -- and certainly not by secretive cabals. What do these observations boil down to? This! We have to understand that Bloomberg’s true goal is, likely, de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Of course that won’t curb criminal use of guns and concomitant gun violence.  Criminals in fact will be emboldened, once they know the public is unarmed. That is probable -- more than probable -- certain. But, even assuming, arguendo, that gun violence did diminish if we took every gun from every law-abiding American citizen, what then? Just this: we may reasonably opine that such reduction of gun violence is, at best, only tangentially related to the real goal of the antigun groups and Bloomberg – unstated as it is: the destruction of the Second Amendment. The destruction of the Second Amendment entails the disassembling of the Bill of Rights. One must be clear about that.What can we reasonably conclude, then, is Bloomberg’s real concern? Is it truly criminal gun violence? If so, we can easily deal with that.  Suppose we could convince Bloomberg that mass confiscation of firearms wouldn't reduce gun violence in a statistically significant manner -- what then? If Bloomberg still insisted on disarming the law-abiding American public, what might that mean? Wouldn't that mean Bloomberg's concern has little if anything to do with gun violence? And, if so, wouldn't that, in turn, mean Bloomberg's real concern -- his salient concern -- is an armed citizenry whose continued existence serves to check the power of an overreaching, overarching Federal Government and its standing army? Wasn't that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment -- to check the power of an overreaching, overarching Federal Government?  Didn't the Founders intend to place the Federal Government on notice that the ultimate power rests with the People? Doesn't the Second Amendment serve as a sacred agreement between the Federal Government and the People, forbidding the Federal Government to amass all power for itself and reminding the Federal Government, as well, that the Government exists at the pleasure of the People and is subservient to the People -- that the People do not exist at the pleasure of the Government and that the People are not subservient to it? Does Bloomberg seek, through his Everytown antigun group, to modify or rescind that sacred agreement between the Federal Government and the People? And does Bloomberg's concern extend, as well, to an armed citizenry whose continued existence might serve to check the influence of the transnational and supranational business and banking interests that seek to subordinate our Constitution to the dictates of international pacts and treaties? The Founders of our Nation may not have addressed that issue directly, but certainly they did consider -- in their time -- and did discuss and did frown on any arrangement that might undercut the legal supremacy of the United States Constitution. They would just as certainly frown on such arrangement that serves to undercut the legal supremacy of the United States Constitution today. We have not, to date, had this discussion. It’s high time we did.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

DOES A SINISTER AGENDA LURK BEHIND BLOOMBERG’S $50 MILLION PLAN TO CURB GUN VIOLENCE?

The Arbalest Quarrel took a look at a New York Times Section called “Room for Debate.” As the title suggests, it’s an opinion page. “In Room for Debate, The NY Times invites knowledgeable outside contributors to discuss news events and other timely issues. Reader comments are moderated Monday through Friday.” Three editors and a “researcher and fact checker” manage it. Catching our attention is a debate titled, “Toe to Toe with the NRA.”The NY Times gave a brief recitation of the topic debate. “Michael Bloomberg is planning to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide network of advocates to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence. What will this new campaign need to succeed? And what can gun control advocates learn from the gun lobby in terms of political strategy, messaging and grass-roots mobilization?”In the topic’s description the NY Times shows its bias. First, the topic outline suggests the NRA isn’t interested in curbing gun violence. That’s absurd. Second, the NY Times suggests, yet falsely, the NRA doesn’t represent the American public’s interest. That’s also absurd. The public has a personal interest in preserving its Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment secures the other nine. Third, the NY Times connects the two words, ‘lobby’ and NRA, suggesting lobbying is a disreputable practice. But, the NRA didn’t invent the practice. And the antigun zealots make use of it as does Bloomberg – the preeminent lobbyist. But, unlike Bloomberg who seeks to destroy the Second Amendment, the NRA wishes to preserve it. To work for the preservation of our sacred Bill of Rights is the highest calling of any American. Our Bill of Rights is the bedrock of our Nation’s culture, history and heritage. Of the first ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, it is the Second Amendment that constrains the Federal Government and its standing army.The Second Amendment represents a sacred trust that exists between the Federal Government and the People. The Second Amendment serves as a reminder. The Federal Government emanates “from the People” and exists “at the pleasure of the People.” We created it. We reserve the right to dismantle it. The Second Amendment makes the point clear. No other part of the U.S. Constitution makes that clear.The antigun zealots never discuss the Founders’ reason for carving the Second Amendment in stone. Indeed, they never mention it. They do not wish to debate that. They only talk about gun violence. But, curiously, the antigun zealots fail to talk about law-abiding citizens successfully defending themselves and their families with guns. They display an odd selective amnesia in their discussion of guns. For the antigun zealots the Second Amendment doesn’t exist. Guns do exist, but they wish they didn’t. Gun confiscation isn’t simply a priority of the antigun groups. It’s their raison d’etre. They think their cause is noble and their motives pure. But they’re dupes.There exists a sinister undercurrent. As the United States, Canada and Mexico drive toward a North American Union, modeled after the EU, a need will arise to amend our “Bill of Rights.” The architects of this plan – the “global elites” – seek to scrap the Second Amendment. They strive for uniformity. Mexico and Canada don’t have a Bill of Rights embodying the right of their people to keep and bear arms. A stated need to curb gun violence is nothing but propaganda laden messages filling the airwaves – a smokescreen. The antigun zealot rank and file buys it. The antigun zealot rank and file believes gun confiscation will promote peace and tranquility. It won’t.The billionaire “global elites” are instigators. Their principal goal – their true agenda – is both sinister and unholy: A North American Union. An armed American citizenry poses a threat to that goal. They fear and loathe it. So they seek to discredit the Second Amendment, to dismantle it. The Second Amendment is incompatible with the Surveillance State and a North American Union. They know it. So do we.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

UPDATE ON THE DWAYNE FERGUSON ANTIGUN ACTIVIST CASE

You may recall police arrested gun control activist Dwayne Ferguson last February for carrying a gun into a school building. The police confiscated the handgun at the scene. We discuss the background of the case in our posts of February 15 and 23. This updates those posts.The police brought Ferguson to Buffalo City Court. The Prosecutor arraigned Ferguson on two weapons charges: Penal Code Sections 265.03 and 265.01-a. The case is: People vs. Dwayne Ferguson. The case was initially brought in Buffalo City Court.  The criminal docket number in the Buffalo City Court is: #ER 002043F. The case was subsequently transferred to the Erie County Supreme Court. The criminal docket number in the Erie County Court is: #00235-2014.Some news accounts argue the Section 265.03 charge is the more serious one. But they’re both serious. A conviction on 265.01-a charge is dire. But, what do they say? Let’s take a look at the two charges.Let’s look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree when: (1) with intent to use the same unlawfully against another, such person: (a) possesses a machine-gun; or (b) possesses a loaded firearm; or (c) possesses a disguised gun; or (2) such person possesses five or more firearms; or (3) such person possesses any loaded firearm. . . . Criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is a class C felony.”We look at Penal Code Section 265.01-a second. “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes, of any school, college, or university, . . . . Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.”Now let’s take a closer look at these Statutes for the Ferguson case.We will look at New York Penal Code Section 265.03 first. We know Ferguson did not intend to use his handgun against another person. So, condition “1” of Section 265.03 is irrelevant. That leaves Penal Code Sections 265.03(2) or (3). Neither applies. I explain. We must look to Penal Code Section 265.20. This is an exemption provision Section in the New York Penal Code. Let’s take a look at Penal Code Section 265.20(a)(3). “Paragraph [h] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 and sections 265.01, 265.01-a, subdivision one of section 265.01-b, 265.02, 265.03, 265.04, 265.05, 265.10, 265.11, 265.12, 265.13, 265.15, 265.36, 265.37 and 270.05 shall not apply to: Possession of a pistol or revolver by a person to whom a license therefor has been issued as provided under section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter or possession of a weapon as defined in paragraph [e] or [f] of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this article which is registered pursuant to paragraph [a] of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter or is included on an amended license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of this chapter.” What does this mean?Dwayne Ferguson has a license to carry a handgun. So, even though Ferguson had a loaded firearm on him, New York Penal Code Section 265.03 doesn’t apply to him. Ferguson’s handgun license allows him to carry a loaded firearm. The City Prosecutor properly dismissed that charge. That leaves Penal Code Section 265.01-a. Again, let’s take a look at Section 265.01-a. “A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession a rifle, shotgun, or firearm in or upon a building or grounds, used for educational purposes. . . .” “Criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a class E felony.”Well, can Ferguson defeat this charge as a matter of law because he has a license to carry a firearm? The answer is, “no.” New York Penal Code Section 265.20(a)(3) exempts Ferguson from Penal Code Section 265.03 but it doesn’t exempt Ferguson from Penal Code Section 265.01-a. And no other provision of Penal Code Section 265.20 exempts Ferguson from Penal Code Section 265.01-a. Penal Code Section 265.01-a limits where a person, who otherwise has  a valid unrestricted New York handgun license, may carry a loaded firearm.Still, this doesn’t mean Ferguson has violated Section 265.01-a. A charge of violating a criminal Statute isn’t equivalent to a conviction. But, Section 265.01-a may have application if the underlying facts support the charge. On the other hand, Penal Code Section 265.03 does not apply because under no set of facts can Ferguson’s guilt rest. Since Ferguson has a valid New York handgun license, he can possess a firearm in New York.The New York Legislature originally classified criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds as a Class A Misdemeanor. With passage of NY SAFE, the Legislature upgraded the crime to a Class E felony. Ferguson supported NY SAFE. He may rue doing so.As the Section 265.01-a felony charge remains, the Buffalo City Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case and had to transfer it to the Erie County Supreme Court. The Erie Country Court gave the case a new docket number: #00235-2014. The case name remains the same. What happens? The First Assistant District Attorney of Erie County is representing the “people.” He may take one of two steps. He can wait for a response from Ferguson’s attorney. Ferguson may offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense if the District Attorney is agreeable to the offer. If the Defense doesn’t make an offer, the District Attorney will bring the matter to the Grand Jury. And, if the Defense makes an offer but the District Attorney refuses it, the case goes to the Grand Jury. We are watching a chess game. Ideally, for Ferguson the District Attorney will drop the Section 265.01-a. That won’t happen. So, will Ferguson plead guilty to a lesser charge? If the First Assistant District Attorney accepts Ferguson’s plea to a lesser charge, what might that mean? He likely won’t serve time for a first offense in any event. But, Ferguson doesn’t want to lose his handgun license. That’s Ferguson’s greatest concern. So, if Ferguson pleads guilty to a lesser charge, he wants assurances from the District Attorney he can keep his guns. If he doesn’t have that assurance, he may take his chances at trial. So, if a plea deal fails, the District Attorney will first bring the matter to the Erie County Grand Jury. If the Grand Jury indicts on the charge – and probably would – the case goes forward. If convicted, Ferguson will lose his firearm’s license and his guns – probably forever.Where’s Ferguson now? He’s free on bail. He posted $2,500.00. As a condition of bail, he had to sequester his guns. He had two. The police confiscated both: one during his arrest, the second, later, at his home.So, if the case goes forward, what must the District Attorney prove? There are two elements. One goes to possession. Did Ferguson bring a gun to a school? Clearly he did. The Police will testify Ferguson had a gun on him. The second element goes to Ferguson’s state of mind. Did Ferguson know he had a gun? Well, a person is presumed to know what he has on him. If Ferguson denies such knowledge, his rationality is questionable. So, Rev. Giles remark that Ferguson “went into the school not thinking he had a gun on him” -- if true -- hardly helps Ferguson. The District Attorney will likely have little problem getting a conviction on the Section 265.01-a charge if the case advances.No doubt Ferguson regrets the episode. He’s a hypocrite to be sure. And he would certainly regret the loss of his handgun license and his guns. But, then, he would be true to his cause. He could then truthfully say, if only bitterly: “no guns on me!” There’s justice to be sure. And there’s “poetic justice” too.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

BLOOMBERG’S $50 MILLION CHALLENGE: TO THE NRA OR TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Money can buy much: material comforts, financial security, and politicians, to name a few. But, can money buy our sacred “Bill of Rights?” New York’s past Mayor, billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg, aims to find out. An April 15, 2014 New York Times Article by Jeremy W. Peters, poses the question. The link to the NY Times Article is here: www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/bloomberg spends $50 million to challenge nra.The Article’s title, “Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A.,” suggests Bloomberg is challenging the NRA. But the Article’s title misinforms the public. Bloomberg isn’t targeting the NRA at all. He’s targeting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.Newspaper editors consider titles of Articles carefully. Suppose the Article’s title was, “Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the Bill of Rights?” Our guess is most readers would do a double take. For, if Bloomberg were to attack the inviolability of our most sacred document directly, readers would question his sanity. So, the NY Times couches Bloomberg’s true motive, spending $50 million dollars to destroy the Bill of Rights, in “safe” terms. This means Bloomberg isn’t attacking the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. He’s merely attacking an organization, the NRA. The Mainstream Media’s ability to manipulate American thought and opinion is thought-provoking. But the American public mustn’t fall prey to deception.Bloomberg wishes to use his “muscle” to create a Country mirroring his conception of reality. Bloomberg is astute enough, plainly, to realize dollars alone do not change opinion. But, he is blind to the futility of his cause. No sane person revels in violence. But, placing blame for violence on an inanimate object is absurd. Bloomberg targets guns rather than perpetrators of violence. Yet, he believes he can defeat the Second Amendment by “restructuring” the antigun groups he funds. He believes he will win Americans to his “cause” by stressing TV adverts less and “field operations” more. He thinks he can hoodwink the public by attacking the Second Amendment indirectly through the trick of “background checks” rather than outright “gun bans.” That hasn’t worked before. It won’t work now.Bloomberg’s war against the Second Amendment is base. For all the money he might spend, for all the media attention he can muster, he is waging an absurd war. The Second Amendment is an integral part of the Bill of Rights. So, Bloomberg is waging war against the “Bill of Rights” – his real foe. He can’t win that war. Michael Bloomberg fashions himself a King. King George III? If so, must Americans fight the American Revolutionary War a second time?Clearly, Bloomberg’s assault on the NRA is mere pretense. His true assault is on the Second Amendment. But, why is Bloomberg waging a war against America’s most sacred liberties? Whose secretive interests are in play? What’s the real agenda? We can speculate. But, the last sentence of the Article aptly shows the nerve of the man who seeks to bend humanity to his will. “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.” That’s right Michael. The Good Lord Above must kowtow to Billionaires with oversize egos too. Go right in![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.