SUMMARY OF EPISODE 7: CNN CHICAGOLAND

On April 17, 2014, CNN broadcast another episode in its continuing Chicagoland series. On the surface, the episode dealt with guns and gun violence. But, the episode wasn’t about guns. It was about poverty, gangs, and psychopaths running amok in Chicago’s poorer sections, and about criminals creating a living hell for residents. Still, CNN tried, unsuccessfully, to deflect attention away from the cause of crime and violence – violent criminals – and to direct attention to an inanimate object, the gun. The episode was repetitious. CNN shot the same scene at least three times: a crime evidence room filled with guns from floor to ceiling. CNN shifted focus tediously from prison to high school, to neighborhood. The message: guns are plentiful, criminal laws are weak, and psychopaths commit mayhem at will. A news reporter asked Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy, whether McCarthy shouldn’t ask aid from the National Guard or Highway Patrol to restore order. The Police Superintendent dismissed the idea, asserting the City needed stronger criminal laws. Decidedly so, but, too, McCarthy had no intention of ceding control of his domain to outsiders. He made the point tacitly. What’s the point of this episode of Chicagoland? Violent criminals shouldn’t have access to guns and their punishment should be swift and sure. No kidding! CNN made that point in the first five minutes. It felt obliged to repeat the point for a solid hour. It retreated from script to film fun-loving, law-abiding Fenger High School students happily dancing at their Homecoming. They have a right to enjoy life too. No argument there.[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.

RESPONSE TO NY TIMES ARTICLE, “A DEADLINE FOR GRANDFATHERED WEAPONS” (APRIL, 14, 2014)

The Arbalest Quarrel responds to an op-ed appearing in The New York Times on April 14, 2014. The link to the NY Times Article is here: www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/opinion/grandfathered weapons.Governor Cuomo signed the “SAFE Act” into law on January 15, 2015. The NY Times strongly suggests he did so in response to the Newtown, Connecticut tragedy. That’s true. But, it’s also true the Governor exploited a tragedy for political gain and to further the antigun agenda. The NY Times fails to mention that important fact.The “SAFE Act” is restrictive. It includes a ban on many semiautomatic firearms. Any gun defined as an “assault weapon” under the “SAFE Act” is an illegal firearm in New York. The “SAFE Act” broadened the meaning of “assault weapon.” But, the words have no technical merit. Neither the Military nor the firearms industry recognizes or uses the expression. The expression "assault weapon" is a legal fiction, nothing more.Do polls show “that most New Yorkers support the law,” as the NY Times says? That’s doubtful. The NY Times fails to cite any poll to support the finding in its op-ed. The NY Times also says: “those who already owned such weapons could keep them if they agreed to register the guns with the State Police by midnight Tuesday.” The NY Times adds: registration shouldn’t be a “big deal.” But, contrary to the NY Times assertion, the “SAFE Act” is a “big deal” to New York firearms’ owners. And registration is a “big deal” for several reasons.First, why does the State require registration? New York firearms laws are inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment speaks of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” And, the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case, District of Columbia versus Heller, so held. In New York “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is not a right at all. It's a privilege. In New York the Second Amendment's guarantee to American citizens is nonexistent. New York law trumps the United States Constitution. Strange!Second, firearms license fees are costly. They may cost up to $340. At the moment, a firearms’ owner does not incur an extra fee to register an “assault weapon,” as the NY Times correctly says. But, who knows? Gun owners may incur a fee in the future.  Nothing in the "SAFE Act" prohibits "grandfathered gun" fees.Third, the NY Times says registering an “assault weapon” is “straightforward.” Perhaps. But, why should a New York gun owner have to register his “assault weapon” at all? To get a handgun license all New York gun owners must register those weapons.  And, in New York City, firearms owners must register their rifles and shotguns as well. So, “assault weapon” registration often equals reregistration. Why must a gun owner register the same gun twice? Governor Cuomo doesn't offer an explanation. And the NY Times doesn't ask the question. Why not?Fourth, the NY Times says, “those who already owned such weapons could keep them if they agreed to register the guns with State Police by midnight Tuesday.” This suggests a contract between the New York gun owner and the State. If so, what does the New York gun owner get in return for "executing this contract" with the State? The answer is, “nothing.” There's no "meeting of the minds." The “assault weapons” owner has to register the weapon or face its loss. It's that simple. The New York gun owner is not agreeing to anything. He's certainly not agreeing to something new in exchange for registration of his "assault weapon." The New York gun owner did not have to register his "assault weapon" prior to enactment of the "SAFE Act." So, why must he do so now? What has changed? Answer: nothing, really -- only that the "SAFE Act" requires registration. Why? Who knows? Once again, the Governor doesn't say; and the NY Times doesn't ask. So, the New York gun owner has to do something he didn't have to do before. He must register his weapon. Failure to do so is fatal. The NY Times says a gun owner will lose the “assault weapon” for failure to register it timely. What, then, has the New York gun owner gained through this "agreement?" Answer: "nothing." And, if the gun owner does nothing, he loses something.  What does the gun owner lose if he does nothing?" He loses his personal property: his "assault weapon." May the New York gun owner lose more? Possibly. He may lose everything, namely every weapon he owns. How? Let’s look at the applicable laws.Section 48, Subdivision 16-A(C) of the “SAFE Act” says: “A person who knowingly fails to apply to register such weapon as required by this Section, within one year of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this Paragraph shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and such person who unknowingly fails to validly register such weapon within such one year period shall be given a warning by an appropriate law enforcement authority about such failure and given thirty days in which to apply to register such weapon or to surrender it. A failure to apply or surrender such weapon within such thirty day period shall result in such weapon being removed by an appropriate law enforcement authority and declared a nuisance.”The “SAFE Act” says a gun owner who knowingly fails to register an “assault weapon” timely is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and will lose that weapon. This suggests the gun owner will still keep his firearms licenses and other non-assault weapons he happens to own. That’s probably false. The firearm’s owner who knowingly fails to timely register his “assault weapon” stands to lose much more. Section 265.01-b of the Penal Code says, “a person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm when he or she: (1) possesses any firearm or; (2) lawfully possesses a firearm prior to the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this section subject to the registration requirements of subdivision sixteen-a of section 400.00 of this chapter and knowingly fails to register such firearm pursuant to such subdivision. Criminal possession of a firearm is a class E felony.”Subdivision 16-a of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code discusses the requirements for registration of firearms in New York. The New York gun owner must be mindful of Sections 265 et. seq. and 400 et. seq. of the Penal Code. The NY Times fails to mention them. The "SAFE Act" does not stand alone. The New York gun owner must be mindful of all State firearms' laws.  And he must be mindful, too, of all applicable County and municipal firearms codes and regulations.Section 48, Subdivision 16-A(C) of the “SAFE Act” may refer to the same weapons the gun owner must register under Subdivision 16-a of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code. If so, then Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 may kick in. Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code says "no license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true." The next line of Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code says, "no license shall be issued or renewed except for an applicant . . . (c) who has not been convicted anywhere of a felony or a serious offense."   Yes, a person who knowingly fails to register an “assault weapon” under Section 48, Subdivision 16-A(C) of the “SAFE Act” shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. But, more importantly, he may also be guilty of a Class E felony under Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the State Penal Code. Keep in mind: Section 48, Subdivision 16-A(C) of the “SAFE Act” and Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the State Penal Code may or may not be coextensive.  Even so, a Class A Misdemeanor is a "serious offense." So, is it wise to take a chance? Clearly, if a gun owner violates Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the Penal Code, he will lose his firearms licenses. And, once he loses his licenses, he will lose his firearms: all of them. And he may lose them forever. So, the "Arbalest Quarrel" advises the New York firearms' owner to register his "assault weapons." In a court of law civil disobedience is not a recognized defense to violation of NY SAFE. The charges for violating Section 48, Subdivision 16-A(C) of the “SAFE Act” and Subdivision 1(c) of Section 400.00 of the State Penal Code are serious. True Americans are on your side, but the State's charges against you are personal ones. Likely, you'll be fighting those charges alone. Consider time and expense to defend against them.Anger and resentment over the “SAFE Act” among law-abiding firearms owners is understandable. The Act does nothing to prevent violent crime with firearms. Its thrust isn’t criminals. Its thrust is law-abiding gun owners. The “SAFE Act” not only invites civil disobedience, it revels in it. That’s what the Governor and the Act’s sponsors and proponents in the New York Legislature apparently want. Failure to comply with the “SAFE Act” gives the Governor both the excuse and impetus to revoke firearms licenses and confiscate guns en masse.Unfortunately, the “SAFE Act,” isn’t the last New York antigun measure; it’s the forerunner to more antigun laws. The antigun zealots' endgame is a total gun ban in the State. The antigun zealots won't be content until private citizens' are shorn of their guns -- by force if necessary. To dismiss that idea out-of-hand is naïve.[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.

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

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

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

NY SAFE: REGISTERING "ASSAULT WEAPONS"

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

SUMMARY

In my previous post I laid out the NYSAFE Act definitions of ‘assault weapon,’ and I showed how they work. I pointed out that you should think of “assault weapons” as categories, not gun types. NYSAFE mentions four major categories of “assault weapons” and not three: one for rifles, one for pistols and two for shotguns. I also pointed out two more categories that I call quasi-categories. The two quasi-categories are important. They are important to New York firearms owners who have firearms NYSAFE defines as “assault weapons.” Firearms owners who lawfully have firearms that NYSAFE calls “assault weapons” now have to register those weapons. I discuss the two quasi-categories of assault weapons in this post. I then discuss registration. Let’s begin.

THE TWO QUASI-CATEGORIES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

Two categories of assault weapon appear in Section 37 of NYSAFE and aren't commonly discussed. But they are important. They are legitimate categories. They appear in Section 37 of NYSAFE. And they look like "assault weapon categories" but they seem redundant. So I call them quasi-categories. I’ll first give you the language of the Act. I’ll second, discuss these two quasi-categories.

SECTION 37(E) (QUASI-CATEGORY FIVE): RIFLES, PISTOLS AND SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (e) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265.00 of this Chapter as added by chapter one hundred eighty-nine of the laws of two thousand and otherwise lawfully possessed pursuant to such Chapter of the laws of two thousand prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four.”

SECTION 37(F) (QUASI-CATEGORY SIX): RIFLES, PISTOLS AND SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in paragraph (A), (B) or (C) of this subdivision, possessed prior to the date of enactment of the Chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.”

WHAT DO THESE QUASI-CATEGORIES SAY?

They tell New York owners they have guns now banned under NYSAFE. Section 37(E) refers to firearms laws of 2000 that classified certain firearms as assault weapons – weapons that New Yorkers lawfully had before September 14, 1994. And Section 37(F) refers to NYSAFE. NYSAFE creates new definitions for assault weapons. Section 37(F) says those weapons New Yorkers lawfully had before 2013 are banned firearms. Other Sections of NYSAFE place checks on their continued use. Section 37 (H) of NYSAFE restricts the transfer of assault weapons. And Section 48 of NYSAFE, Subdivision 16, lays out the steps for keeping them.

WHAT DO THESE QUASI-CATEGORIES MEAN?

Sections 37 (E) and (F) of NYSAFE are “grandfather” or “exemption” sections. Since “assault weapons” are illegal, New York residents can no longer lawfully get them. New York residents who had them before the firearms laws of 2000 or before the firearms laws of 2013 -- NYSAFE -- are subject to constraints to keep or transfer them.I have discussed firearms transfers in an earlier post. I'll have more to say about transfers in a later post. But, for now, let’s look at Section 48 of NYSAFE. Section 48 talks, in part, about registration of “assault weapons.”

REGISTRATION OF “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

Section 48 Subdivisions 16-A and 16-B of NYSAFE are codified in Section 400 of the Penal Code of New York. These are the registration Subdivisions of Section 48 of NYSAFE you need to know. I first give you the express language of Subdivisions 16-A and 16-B. I then explain important parts.

SUBDIVISION 16-A HAS THREE SUBSECTIONS.

“Registration. (A) An owner of a weapon defined in paragraph (E) or (F) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265 of this Chapter, possessed before the date of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, must make an application to register such weapon with the superintendent of the State Police, in the manner provided by the Superintendent, or by amending a license issued pursuant to this Section within one year of the effective date of this subdivision except any weapon defined under subparagraph (VI) of paragraph (G) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265.00 of this Chapter transferred into the State may be registered at any time provided such weapons are registered within thirty days of their transfer into the State. Registration information shall include the registrant’s name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number and description of each weapon being registered. A registration of any weapon defined under subparagraph (VI) of paragraph (G) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF Section 265.00 or a feeding device as defined under subdivision twenty-three of Section 265.00 of this Chapter shall be transferable, provided that the seller notifies the State Police within seventy-two hours of the transfer and the buyer provides the State Police with information sufficient to constitute a registration under this Section. Such registration shall not be valid if such registrant is prohibited or becomes prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to State or Federal Law. The Superintendent shall determine whether such registrant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or Federal Law. Such check shall be limited to determining whether the factors in 18 USC 922 (G) apply or whether a registrant has been convicted of a serious offense as defined in subdivision Sixteen-B of Section 265.00 of this Chapter, so as to prohibit such registrant from possessing a firearm and whether a report has been issued pursuant to Section 9.46 of the Mental Hygiene Law. All registrants shall recertify to the Division of State Police every five years thereafter. Failure to recertify shall result in a revocation of such registration.” “(B) The Superintendent of State Police shall create and maintain an internet website to educate the public as to which semiautomatic rifle, semiautomatic shotgun or semiautomatic pistol or weapon that are illegal as a result of the enactment of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand and thirteen which added this paragraph, as well as such assault weapons which are illegal pursuant to Article two hundred sixty five of this Chapter. Such website shall contain information to assist the public in recognizing the relevant features proscribed by such Article two hundred sixty-five, as well, as which make and model of weapons that require registration.” “(C) A person who knowingly fails to apply to register such weapon as required by this Section, within one year of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this Paragraph shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and such person who unknowingly fails to validly register such weapon within such one year period shall be given a warning by an appropriate law enforcement authority about such failure and given thirty days in which to apply to register such weapon or to surrender it. A failure to apply or surrender such weapon within such thirty day period shall result in such weapon being removed by an appropriate law enforcement authority and declared a nuisance.”

SUBDIVISION 16-B HAS NO SUBSECTIONS.

Subdivision 16-B says: “The Cost of the software, programming and interface required to transmit any record that must be electronically transmitted by the dealer or licensing officer to the Division of State Police pursuant to this Chapter shall be borne by the State.”

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Let’s examine the Law.To keep an “assault weapon” you must register it. But first decide if it’s an “assault weapon.” In my previous post, I gave you tests for examining your firearms. If you aren’t sure, err on the side of caution. Register it.I’ll assume here you’ve examined your firearms. If you don’t have “assault weapons,” you needn’t worry. Section 48, Subdivision 16 of NYSAFE applies only to “assault weapons.” Assuming you have “assault weapons,” Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (A) says in part: “An owner of a weapon defined in paragraph (E) or (F) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265 of this Chapter, possessed before the date of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, must make an application to register such weapon with the Superintendent of the State Police, in the manner provided by the Superintendent.”This Subdivision passed on April 15, 2013, so you have until April 15, 2014 to “make application to register such weapon.” Forms are available on line, or you can contact the Superintendent of State Police at: “New York State Police, Pistol Permit Bureau, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22, Albany, New York 12226-2252.” Keep in mind, the State Police alone handles this. Registration is the responsibility of the Superintendent of State Police because NYSAFE says so. Don’t go to any other New York Police Department to register your "assault weapons."

SUPPOSE YOU FAIL TO TIMELY REGISTER YOUR ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Subdivision 16 of NYSAFE applies only to “assault weapons.” Assuming you have “assault weapons,” Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (C) says: “A person who knowingly fails to apply to register such weapon as required by this Section, within one year of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this Paragraph shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and such person who unknowingly fails to validly register such weapon within such one year period shall be given a warning by an appropriate law enforcement authority about such failure and given thirty days in which to apply to register such weapon or to surrender it. A failure to apply or surrender such weapon within such thirty day period shall result in such weapon being removed by an appropriate law enforcement authority and declared a nuisance.” If you “knowingly” fail to timely “register such weapon or surrender it,” “you shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.” NYSAFE says you’ll lose that weapon. But, you’ll likely lose more. You’ll lose your pistol license and long arm permit. That means you’ll lose all your firearms if you knowingly fail to register your assault weapons.

DO NOT IGNORE “ASSAULT WEAPON” REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS!

In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n vs. Cuomo, 2013 WL 6909955 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) the Federal Court ruled essentially for Defendant Cuomo, for the validity of NYSAFE. The Court found “the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.” Unless the Plaintiff-Appellant can get a reversal of the District Court’s decision on appeal or the New York State Legislature repeals the Act, NYSAFE is valid law. Don’t ignore NYSAFE!

A QUESTION ABOUT SECTION 48 SUBDIVISION 16-A (B) OF NYSAFE

Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (B) of NYSAFE says in part: “The Superintendent of State Police shall create and maintain an internet website to educate the public as to which semiautomatic rifle, semiautomatic shotgun or semiautomatic pistol or weapon that are illegal as a result of the enactment of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand and thirteen which added this paragraph, as well as such assault weapons which are illegal pursuant to Article two hundred sixty five of this Chapter.” As I have mentioned in an earlier post, Section 37(D) of NYSAFE says that revolving cylinder shotguns are “assault weapons.”  Revolving cylinder shotguns are not semiautomatics.  Section 37 of NYSAFE clearly calls some non-semiautomatic firearms “assault weapons.” If you have a revolving cylinder shotgun, it isn’t a semiautomatic. But, Section 37 of NYSAFE says it is an “assault weapon.” So, Subdivision 16-A (B) of Section 48 of NYSAFE isn’t consistent with Section 37 of NYSAFE because Subdivision 16-A (B) suggests that semiautomatics alone may be “assault weapons.” And that's wrong. Various parts of NYSAFE are vague, ambiguous and internally inconsistent. So be careful![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

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

NY SAFE: "ASSAULT WEAPON" DEFINITIONS

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

CAPSULE SUMMARY

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

GETTING A HANDLE ON "ASSAULT WEAPON" IN NYSAFE.

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

CATEGORIES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

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

THE DEFINITIONS OF 'ASSAULT WEAPON' IN NYSAFE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

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

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

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

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

NY SAFE: LOOKING AT THE "ASSAULT WEAPON"

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

CAPSULE SUMMARY

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

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

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

DOES THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” EXIST?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXAMINING YOUR FIREARMS: SIX STEPS

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

GOING FORWARD

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

NYSAFE: Cuomo's Website Misleads Public

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

Summary

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

A Look At Governor Cuomo’s NYSAFE Website.

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

NYSAFE Weakens the Second Amendment.

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

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

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

What is Missing from NYSAFE?

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

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

“Brady” Antigun Group Tries Once Again to Dupe the American Public with New Campaign to Expand Background Checks

The antigun mob recognizes defeat even as it vows to “finish the job to expand effective Brady background checks.”This past Friday, February 28, 2014, Dan Gross, President of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” kicked off another disturbingly familiar and familiarly distasteful campaign to destroy the Second Amendment: this one, so Dan Gross states, marks the 20th Anniversary of the “Brady Bill.” Gross stood at the podium at the U.S. Capital Visitor Center, looking morally smug, cultivating a practiced air of quiet self-confidence. His hair was carefully coiffed, his suit finely tailored. A political action button was affixed to the lapel of his jacket. The button read: “Finish the Job.” The usual “props” stood behind Gross: police “brass” in full regalia, stone-faced and humorless. No doubt they were invited to the news gathering to lend critical weight to the entire inane proceeding. Civilians, pensive and shy, stood just off camera. House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat, California, Chair of the “House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force” and cosponsor of HR 1565, the “Enhanced Background Check” Bill, appeared at the CSPAN newscast, seemingly magically, just moments before each was scheduled to speak – their presence, like that of the police “brass, a naked attempt to give weight to the entire ignoble show.After Gross delivered the opening salvo, the civilians marched to the podium one by one, struggling to maintain composure, hesitantly, plaintively talking through the microphone. Clutching photographs of deceased family members, they related personal tales of woe. Their intent was plain and unapologetically emotive: to spread their personal misery around for the Public at large to experience. Their message was clear and terse: lunatics and psychopathic criminals use guns to kill innocent people. No kidding! Lunatics and psychopaths also use knives and hatchets and anything else available to create mayhem, including their hands and feet. Dan Gross praised these people for having the “courage” to step forward. But, was it courage that motivated these people to step forward or was it a phone call or personal visit from “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?” These antigun groups are shameless. They see in these sad souls a useful political trick – “Appeal to Sympathy” – to motivate the American Public to their un-American cause.This new campaign, calling for enhanced background checks, was noticeably restrained, almost melancholic, unsure of itself: this time, no flamboyant rhetoric about getting rid of guns;” no boisterous, holier-than-thou outrage directed at the NRA; no overt attack on Americans who support the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Is this a new approach of the antigun coalitions? A new tactic? Talk was deliberate and measured. The antigun groups remembered, apparently full well, suffering spectacularly stunning, truly abysmal defeats. Dianne Feinstein’s 2013 “Assault Weapons” Bill was political farce – a dismal, absurd failure. Also, in 2013, two Colorado State representatives, strong supporters of gun control in the State were unceremoniously tossed out of the State Legislature – “tarred and feathered” – victims of a successful recall drive. Is the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” demonstrating less ambition? Is the new focus of the antigun groups decidedly narrower? Does the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” seek merely to push through enhanced background checks and nothing more, as both it and their political allies in Congress claim? Is it also true that “enhanced background checks” would not negatively impact Americans’ right to keep and bear arms? Don’t believe any of it.Taking the podium, Representative Mike Thompson made the obligatory and, at once, deceptive remark that the "Enhanced Background Check Bill" protects Second Amendment rights because it does not take away a citizen’s guns. So, Congressman Thompson, let me ask you: “if an antigun Bill does not, on its face, take away a citizen’s guns, this means the Bill preserves the Second Amendment?” Clearly, the Congressman is being less than forthright with the American Public.Take a look at the formal title of the Bill (HR 1565): “the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013.” Politicians love to “tag” their Bills with names that are the antithesis of the intention behind them. There is nothing about this antigun legislation that is remotely protective of the Second Amendment. Do politicians hire public relations firms to deliberately invent names for pieces of legislation that sound innocuous or palatable to the Public, in a fraudulent attempt to hide an illicit purpose? Apparently so. Look at what HR 1565 really does: namely, amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to reauthorize for three years, FY2014-FY2017, the grant program for improvements to the criminal history record system. The Bill paves the way for universal firearms registration. The Bill is inconsistent with the framers’ intent in drafting the Second Amendment. For, why would the framers draft language in the Constitution that serves at once to check the power of the Federal Government and its standing army if that very Government could use a universal registry to confiscate the weapons of its citizens, and, in so doing, neutralize the power its citizens might have over it? Would not such a Government with its vast powers eventually do just that to consolidate ultimate control over its citizens? If the Federal Government knows what guns a citizen has, the Federal Government could readily and easily confiscate those very guns. When seen in this light the true horror of HR 1565 is evident. Moreover, it not only infringes the Second Amendment, it infringes the Fourth Amendment as well. The Bill is inconsistent with the “Bill of Rights” and should be vigorously assailed. The “Brady Campaign” and similar antigun groups exhibit a false face to the public.Spokespersons for these groups talk frankly of their wish to protect citizens from gun violence. Yet, the underlying intent of the drafters of restrictive gun legislation is far from benign. An ominous cloud hangs over all such legislation. Overtly, Congressional proponents of antigun legislation and the antigun coalitions whom they tow behind them, talk only about a desire to curb crimes committed with guns. They talk only about the desire to curb gun violence. The true motive is not reflected in or revealed in the remarks of proponents of antigun measures. Their real goal, though, is to negate the power – the only real power – the American citizenry might hope to wield against an overbearing, overreaching Federal Government and its standing army. So, don’t be deceived.The antigun groups and their allies in Congress keep trying to dupe the American Public. It hasn’t worked before. It won’t work this time.________________________________

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

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

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

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

Piers Morgan and CNN Have Both Learned a Lesson: Don’t Tread On the Second Amendment!

Piers Morgan and CNN Have Both Learned a Lesson: Don’t Tread On the Second Amendment!CNN Talk Show Host, Piers Morgan, is going home. Morgan’s viewers, the common men and women of America, have spoken. They had enough of this self-righteous, arrogant proponent of gun control. They have tuned him out and rightly so.To ridicule America’s sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, as Morgan has done, is to ridicule the American people: who we are, our very nature as Americans. Morgan’s behavior toward the Second Amendment is unacceptable and unforgiveable. CNN should have dumped Morgan long ago.Poor ratings spell disaster for a talk show host. Morgan does understand this. As reported by the New York Times, Morgan said, “Look, I am a British guy debating American cultural issues, including guns, which has been very polarizing, and there is no doubt that there are many in the audience who are tired of me banging on about it.” Yes, Morgan, practically everyone is tired of you “banging on about” this, that and the other.Morgan would have done well to study American History, before taking on a job at CNN. And he might have started his studies with the American Revolution. Perhaps he would have handled himself with a bit more humility and a trifle more discretion before giving his audience presumptuous lessons on American Constitutional Law. But at least Morgan is leaving intact. How would America’s founders have received Morgan’s utterances? Would they have simply tuned him out as modern Americans do, or would they have given him a crash course on real gun control from the business end of a musket?Of course CNN is not the innocent lamb in all this. After all, CNN hired the guy. And CNN is not exactly a proponent of America’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This might explain why the station allowed Morgan to rant as long as he had and as stridently as he had. CNN liked Morgan’s rants, but did not like the loss of viewers. At the end of the day ratings, after all, are what count. Morgan’s had plummeted. That is unacceptable.CNN itself would do well to learn from this. Consider it an object lesson. If viewers can tune out a single program, they can also tune out an entire TV network.But, for Morgan, let us wish him a pleasant voyage home. Perhaps one day we’ll see you at the foxhunt, Piers. But be mindful of the shotgun. You shot yourself in one foot. Don’t shoot yourself in the other. “Tally-ho!”[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. 

Should Americans Be Able To Carry A Concealed Handgun?

Arbalest Quarrel Wants To Know What You Think: Should the average law-abiding American citizen be permitted to carry a handgun concealed?

[vc_single_image image="2057" css_animation_delay="100" img_link_target="_self"] [vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Download the flyer here.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

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

The Basic Facts in the Ferguson Case

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

Many Questions Loom

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

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

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

Hypocrisy in Politics

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

Is The Arbalest Quarrel Being Vindictive?

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

NYSAFE is Gun Confiscation.

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

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

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

The Public is Tired of Lies.

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

Unwelcome Attention and Embarrassment!

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

Lies and Betrayal

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

What the Arbalest Quarrel Wants.

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

Your Help is Sorely Needed

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

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

Truth And Hypocrisy: 'Bill Of Rights' Betrayal

Quid Est Veritas? (What Is Truth?)

The Search for truth, like the search for knowledge, is a unique trait of human beings. Knowledge and Truth are intertwined. Two thousand years ago the question – what is truth? – came up in a dialogue.“Pilate therefore said unto him, ‘Art thou a king then?’ Jesus answered, ‘Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.’ Pilate saith unto him, ‘What is truth?’ And when he had said this he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, ‘I find in him no fault at all.’” John 18:37-38 ~ King James Version.Some commentators suggest Pilate posed the question in jest – even mockingly. Others believe Pilate took Jesus at his word.Still, whether light-hearted, rhetorical, or heartfelt, the question has haunted philosophers for centuries. A specific area of philosophy is devoted to it: epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge: how we know; how we distinguish truth from falsity. So, we ask and ponder: what is truth?The search for truth is an eternal search. We as “sentient beings” immerse ourselves in it. As children in grade school we begin to acquire it. As adults we thirst for it. Physicists confront it. Language experts contend with it. Philosophers deconstruct it. Advertisers of goods and services trifle with it. The intelligence community manipulates it. Politicians mask it. News commentators adorn it. It becomes amorphous. We do not easily gain it. Once grasped, it slips away. It “illudes” and eludes us.The Mainstream Media bombards the Public daily with a barrage of half-truths and untruths and quasi truths. When caught, politicians admit to ‘mistakes in judgment.’ But if the speaker intends to assert a false statement, then let us call the falsehood a lie. ‘For a lie it is.’ We need not cloak the word ‘lie’ or soften it. A lie isn’t merely an ‘evasion.’ A lie isn’t merely a ‘falsehood.’ A lie isn’t merely an equivocation.’ A lie isn’t merely a half truth or ‘quasi truth’ or ‘pseudo truth’ or ‘untruth’ or – least of all – a ‘mistake in judgment.’ There is no mistake in telling a lie.A lie is a deliberate and callous and calculated act of deception. A deceiver is a liar. We should not mince words. We should not forbear hurting a liar’s feelings. After all, the liar intends to harm us – the receivers of his lies. The liar intends to affect our thoughts, emotions and actions for the liar’s nefarious ends.But, what is truth?One theory of truth holds a true statement must adhere – ‘correspond’ – to a fact. The statement, ‘it is raining outside’ is true if the statement corresponds to the fact: ‘it is raining outside.’ If the statement doesn’t correspond to the fact, the statement is false. “Simple enough,” you say. But consider moral imperatives. You should do this! You ought not to do that? Does truth apply to moral imperatives?The notion of 'truth' is both simple and straightforward and eternally baffling and complex. In political banter “truth” is anything but simple. Consider the notion of ‘time.’A boy asks his father, “What is time?” The father answers the boy: “It is a quarter past one.” The boy, visibly annoyed with the father corrects his father. “No,” says the boy. “I did not ask you for the time. I asked you: what is time?” The father clearly baffled struggles to recall bits and scraps of arcane knowledge he once learned in College. Frustrated, he says: “You can study the fourth dimension once you enter Princeton. Until then take a look at the clock; the clock provides all you need to know about time.”The notion of 'truth' can be equally daunting: at once disarmingly simple and decidedly complex. It helps to consider the presenter’s motivation behind a pronouncement.Unlike the notion of ‘time’ that affects us subtly but inexorably, the notion of ‘truth’ impinges harshly and constantly on our consciousness. The American citizen wages a constant battle with the Nation’s political leaders for the “truth.” The citizen rightly demands the truth. The Nation’s leaders wrongly deny the citizen access to the truth.The American citizen yearns for "the truth" as did Pilate. Pilate had no reason to disbelieve Jesus even if Pilate expressed puzzlement over "the truth." But the American citizen suspects something amiss as he listens to State and National leaders and to Government bureaucrats. They dispense a never-ending stream of lies and superficial nonsense. Liars deliver their lies fervently or dispassionately as dictated by the “puppet masters” who control them. And they dispense their lies like opiates to dull the senses of the masses. Despite the daily dose of flummery most Americans still yearn for “the truth.”I once happened across a book titled, “In Defense of Hypocrisy.” The author is Jeremy Lott. The book is still available should you wish to buy it. I do not recommend it. But if you come across it at your local library you still will do well to read it.Let me explain. I thought the book was satire. I thought Lott intended to mock those who practice hypocrisy. I was wrong. Oddly, Lott was serious in his defense of it. And he had much to say about it – his accounts perplexing at best; dubious and devious at worst.So, what does the word ‘hypocrisy’ mean? Contrary to Lott’s pronouncements and allusions and beguilements, the word ‘hypocrisy’ refers to a certain vile behavior. ‘Hypocrisy’ is a Greek word. What is hypocrisy? This: a person promotes a thought he knows is false but passes off the falsehood as true. That is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a sin. To the ancient Greeks hypocrisy was a cardinal sin. But understand: the sin does not rest in the untruthful statement itself. The sin rests with the speaker’s intent in uttering it. The teller intends to pass off as true something he knows in his heart and mind is false. The teller intends to deceive the receiver of the falsehood. The intentional untrue statement is the sin. The intentional untrue statement is the hypocrisy. Another word for hypocrisy is ‘lie.’ So, a hypocrite is a liar.Jeremy Lott argues, artfully, hypocrisy is not always a vice. He is an “apologist” for politicians who lie to Americans. Politicians lie to promote policies and positions contrary to the interests of the citizenry. Politicians disrespect the Public they claim to represent. Too many disrespect the Constitution they swear to defend.One need only substitute the word ‘lie’ or ‘liar’ in each instance where the term ‘hypocrite’ or ‘hypocrisy’ appears in Jeremy Lott’s book and his seeming persuasive argument in defense of hypocrisy evaporates. His argument in defense of hypocrisy is “sophistry.” The word ‘sophistry,’ like ‘hypocrisy,’ is a Greek word. Sophistry is the eloquent expression of falsehoods.We at the Arbalest Quarrel wish to make clear to you an important point: There is no cunning in the Arbalest Quarrel. We intend to hit you with the blunt truth. At times – if we cannot offer proof for our assertions we will so tell you. We will tell you an assertion is a “speculation” if not clear from context. Understand: “Speculations” are not necessarily falsehoods. Indeed speculations are often true statements. Well-reasoned speculations are extrapolations from what we know. Speculations placed in the Arbalest Quarrel are “extrapolations” from our own studies and constant reflection.Still: some speculations may be false. But speculations are not deliberate falsehoods. There is no intent to deceive in the mere offering of speculations. So speculations are not lies. They are not hypocrisies. Speculations are simply unproved statements. They may be true with evidence to support their truth.The Arbalest Quarrel will not avoid offering speculations on lies and liars. Those who lie hardly wish to make their aims known. For they wish to deceive. A liar lies to deceive. We seek to highlight the results of deceit. If we suspect deceit, we will inform you.We do not avoid speculating about the deceit of those whom we believe practice it merely because evidence of deceit is, at the moment, lacking. And in our own web posts we do not ever present as true something we know to be false. So we do not present, nor do we promote, lies. We are not liars. We are not hypocrites. We do not deceive. We detest hypocrisy and deception. And we detest those who make a practice of hypocrisy and deception.We detest those who lie to the American public. We detest those who twist vices into virtues. We will call liars out on their lies. The ancient Greeks – who coined the term – detested hypocrisy and they detested hypocrites. And we – unlike Jeremy Lott – do not and will not ever offer an apology for its practice. Hypocrisy is detestable behavior. Hypocrisy has been detestable behavior. Hypocrisy shall forever remain detestable behavior. Those who practice hypocrisy are detestable. Those who heap lies on the American public are contemptible.  Hypocrisy can never be ethically or rationally condoned. Jeremy Lott would disagree with these assertions. We disagree with Jeremy Lott.So, unlike Jeremy Lott we do not apologize for hypocritical behavior. We will never apologize for hypocritical conduct on the part of anyone, much less praise it. We will not go through pedantic turns to rationalize hypocrisy in modern conversation. No excuse for hypocrisy exists or has existed or ever can exist.The Arbalest Quarrel does not agree with “apologists” for hypocrites. The Arbalest Quarrel does not sanction the practice of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Opposite of truth. Hypocrisy is antithetical to the Arbalest Quarrel’s manner of operation and to its very reason for being. Our ‘raison d’etre’ is to express “truth.”Let us talk now about “truth” in the form of our sacred Bill Of Rights. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and inviolate. Our Bill Of Rights exists for all time. The Bill Of Rights is carved in stone. And so long as the Bill Of Rights is adhered to, the United States shall remain a Republic – a Republic in fact not merely in name.The Founders of our Republic were no fools. They knew that change would come about through time. They also knew that human nature does not change. Villains sought to exert power over others in our Founders’ time. Villains seek to exert power over us in our time.The Second Amendment is a robust protector of the other Nine Amendments that together comprise our sacred Bill Of Rights.The Bill Of Rights forbids, in express and clear and coherent language, Federal Government intrusion on individual liberties. Those who seek to exert control over our lives obviously have no interest in securing and preserving our liberties. They have no interest in securing and preserving our Bill Of Rights. Outright lies are excuses for evading the categorical imperative of the Bill Of Rights. So: let this be a warning to those who wish to take apart the Bill Of Rights: Do not trample on Americans’ sacred liberties!It is an outrage to deny our Nation’s sacred truth. But it is a mortal sin to betray our Nation’s sacred truth, embodied in our inviolate Bill Of Rights.We may forgive those who through innocence or through fear or through ignorance deny our sacred Bill Of Rights as Jesus forgave his Disciples their temporary denial of him. But, those who would betray our sacred Bill Of Rights, take warning! The American people will not suffer you among us. Those who would betray our sacred Bill Of Rights are not Americans. To betray our Bill Of Rights is to betray the People – who we are – our soul as Americans.The Bill Of Rights is a codification of natural rights. The Bill Of Rights represents a sacred promise between the Federal Government and the People:  that the Federal Government will never tread on the Sacred Rights of the American people, embodied in the Bill Of Rights. The Government must respect and adhere to the Sacred Rights set forth in the Bill Of Rights. But, we know the Government no longer does so.The People created the Government. The Federal Government exists for the benefit of the People. The People do not exist for the Government’s benefit; nor does the Government exist to benefit a privileged few. Nor have the People requested – nor do the People need – the Government’s protection. Consider how far removed we are from the Republic that our Founders envisioned. Consider that it is not the Government that serves at the pleasure of the People. It is now the People that serve at the pleasure of  and behest of the Government. The Government now determines what is in the People's interest -- what is best for the People.President Ronald Reagan made the pertinent point: “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” To wish for Government protection is to invite Government abuse. The “People” neither need nor desire protection from themselves.Ponder the words expressed here. Be mindful of the sinister betrayal of our Bill Of Rights. This betrayal destroys our Nation’s Soul. This betrayal is well underway. Once lost, America’s soul is lost forever. And with that loss goes truth._____________________________

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

NYSAFE Advocate Breaks Law: Brings Loaded Gun Into Elementary School

According to breaking news reports, Dwayne Ferguson, a 52 year-old, father of three, and well-known gun control advocate, was arrested on February 6, 2014 for carrying a gun into the Harvey Austin Elementary School, in Buffalo New York.Ferguson lobbied for passage of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s NYSAFE Act. The New York State Legislature enacted NYSAFE in January 2013 ostensibly in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The shooting occurred in December 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut.Among the restrictive firearms provisions in NYSAFE, “criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds is a Class E felony.”Ferguson reportedly told a local TV station he frequently carries a gun, has a permit for it, and didn’t realize he had a gun on him when he went to the school. A friend of Ferguson, Rev. James E. Giles, said, “I’m sure Dwayne went into the School not thinking he had the gun on him.” But Kevin Brinkworth, the District’s Chief of Police, said, “I don’t know why he had it [the gun] on him.”According to further news accounts, Ferguson appeared in Court and pleaded not-guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a weapon. The prosecutor requested that bail be set at $10,000. The presiding Judge released Ferguson on his own recognizance. Ferguson was ordered to surrender all of his guns.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Here’s What I Think:

If news accounts are true, Mr. Ferguson is a hypocrite. A person cannot both claim to be a pacifist and carry a loaded weapon. A true advocate for non-violence and peace would find gun ownership immoral. Such a person would disapprove of all forms of aggression, including the use of defensive force against a violent attack. I, therefore, must question why Mr. Ferguson would apply for a pistol license in the first place. Why would he possess a gun and carry it loaded on a regular basis while advocating for non-violence and peace. Then too, I find it odd that he would lobby for stricter gun control laws, and walk into a school filled with children with a concealed gun. This is deceitful. That’s what I think.“Publius”see also: AmmoLand Article | Re: FergusonWhat do you think? We would like to know. Write us at info@arbalestquarrel.com

Transferring Firearms To Private Parties: What New Yorker's Need To Know

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

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In this post and the one that follows I discuss firearms transfers in New York. Exercising your sacred Second Amendment right merely to possess firearms in New York is no easy matter. Transferring a firearm to another is no easier. You have to know New York firearms laws: where to find them; what they mean; how they work; whom they impact.

NO END TO RESTRICTIVE FIREARMS LAWS

The NYSAFE Act provides new wrinkles to many laws that have operated in New York for years. The laws governing firearms transfers in New York are highly detailed and frustratingly complex. And locating all of them is a chore. You will not find them in one place. They are spread out over several legal sources. Some of the laws apply to all transfer situations. Many of them apply to particular transfer situations.Assembling the laws is like piecing together a large and complex jigsaw puzzle. But, once you have completed the puzzle you aren’t done. You have to figure out what the puzzle means. I will provide you with a few clues.

HOW WE WILL APPROACH THE MATTER

In this post and the one following I will piece together the New York firearms laws pertaining to transfers. I will try to create a coherent pattern for you. I will cite the laws and tell you what they mean and how they work and operate in practice.Together we will look at some of the more important firearms transfer laws and apply them to a few typical situations. I caution you at the start. This is not going to be an easy exercise or fun. This is not a game. Understanding the restrictive firearms laws of New York – where they are, what they mean, how they interact with and relate to each other – takes effort and time and patience. But understanding the laws you must. For, if you fail in this task, you have much to lose. You will lose your pistol license and long arm firearms permit. And that means you will lose your firearms. On top of that, you may face misdemeanor charges and possibly even felony charges. And, if that happens, you will never be able to possess a firearm lawfully in New York again. Indeed, you may not be able to possess a firearm lawfully in any other State. And that would be a sin. My job here is to prevent that from happening to you. Let’s get started.

WHAT YOU ARE UP AGAINST

If you are a New York resident, you know obtaining a firearm lawfully is no easy task. You may not also know but should know disposing of a firearm lawfully is no easy task either. Can you just give one firearm to the family member as you wish, sell a second firearm to a private party, unrelated to you, and be done with the matter? Hardly! You might think, “why not?” After all, my firearms are my personal property. But are they?We will take a look at the notion of private property in connection with firearms in a later Article. The notion of private property is a pillar of our economic system. The right to keep and bear arms is a pillar of our political and social and legal systems. The right to own and possess firearms is the linchpin of our political and social and legal and economic systems – but not, apparently, in New York.If you wish to purchase a handgun lawfully in New York, you need a license to do so. If you wish to transfer a handgun lawfully in New York, you need a license to do so. In New York City and in various other jurisdictions within the State of New York, you also need a long arm permit to lawfully purchase a rifle or shotgun. Whoever controls the licensing of firearms controls the possession of them. New York controls the issuance of firearms licenses and permits. So, logically, New York controls the ownership and possession and transference of firearms.That in a nutshell is how New York strangles the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. And that, in a nutshell, is how New York prohibits the free exercise of your sacred right to keep and bear arms. New York’s firearms laws operate in direct and defiant contravention to the meaning and purport of the Second Amendment. How that came to be we shall leave for another day.

POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN NEW YORK IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT.

Once again, to obtain a firearm lawfully in New York is not an easy matter. To transfer a firearm to another is not any easier. Obtaining firearms, maintaining ownership and possession of them, and participating in the transfer of them are rigorously controlled exercises in New York. Why is that? For a simple reason: New York considers the possession of firearms to be a privilege, not a right. That basic idea – simple and presumptuous and monstrous in the assertion – is a “fact of life” in New York. Many New York residents do not worry over it. But the idea that firearms ownership and possession is a privilege rather than a right has ripple effects across New York firearms law.Codified in Statute, echoed in New York Court decisions, cemented in the New York resident’s consciousness, the regulation of firearms is a loathsome and ponderous and costly enterprise. It is also the hallmark of the Police State.Is that in store for the rest of us? Governor Cuomo hopes so. “President” Cuomo would make it so. New York has some of the most restrictive and complicated and lengthy set of firearms laws in the Country. Governor Cuomo does not deny that. Quite the contrary! He revels in the fact of it. He says as much. Take a look at his website. He says: “The Safe Act . . . imposes the toughest weapons ban in the country.” If you are unhappy with this, the Governor has an answer for you: you should leave the State. Various news sources have pointed to an odd comment the Governor recently made. He said, among other things, “pro-assault weapons . . . have no place in the State of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Oh, really?

OUR RESPONSE TO GOVERNOR CUOMO

We, unlike Governor Cuomo, do not see a benefit to NYSAFE. It is a travesty. And the body of New York firearms laws operates essentially as a deception. But, I am not going to rail against New York’s restrictive “gun laws” in this post. That serves no useful purpose. That does nothing to help you understand and cope with New York’s loathsome and cumbersome firearms laws.But I will say this: New York’s firearms laws are unconstitutional. They are inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. You know this. What you may not know is that New York’s restrictive firearms laws are inconsistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions as well. But until the New York State Courts or the Federal Courts strike down these unconstitutional laws or the New York State Legislature repeals them, we are stuck with them, and so, must deal with them. I have made a similar point in my first Article, posted in September of last year. And I stand by the point made.You do not ignore a problematic law. You learn how it works. It exists. So you operate within it so long as it exists, if only to do so grudgingly. You undercut an unconstitutional law through the legislative or judicial process. That is what you must do. That is not what I alone am able to do for you. Rather, in this post I discuss the lawful disposing of firearms in New York. I will deal with this matter frankly and, hopefully, clearly for you.

WHAT IS THE FORMULA FOR TRANSFERRING FIREARMS IN NEW YORK?

You would like to have the formula for this. And I would like to give that formula to you. But I can’t. There isn’t one. So, I cannot supply you with one. And, look as you might, you won’t find one. An easy to understand, straightforward formula does not exist. Different situations call for different procedures. Such an undertaking is massive. I would have to write a book to even try.Why is this so? New York’s firearms laws are difficult to fathom. They are a tangled mess. This might be by accident – given the sheer number of them – but more likely this is by cold and calculated design.Part of the problem is that New York’s firearms laws do not show up in one place. They are spread out over several legal source materials. Consider gun transfers. Our first task is to locate the laws we need. Once we find them – no easy task in itself– we need, second, to understand what they say. That too is often difficult as many of the laws are vague, inconsistent, ambiguous or incoherent. And, once we have found the applicable laws, assembled them, translated them into plain English, and figured out how each of them works and relates to the other, we must then apply them to the specific situation.If you get this wrong, the transfer is unlawful. And the matter doesn’t stop there. For your troubles, you risk revocation of your pistol license and long arm firearms permit. And then you risk the loss of your firearms. And you may face misdemeanor charges and possibly felony charges as well.This of course what the “antigun” politicians and “antigun” fanatics want. This is what they would like to see. They would like you to make a mistake. Why is that? The reason is this: the confiscation of your firearms means one less American has access to his or her firearms. And the Second Amendment is thereby undermined. So too the concept of private property rights is undermined.

THE LAWS GOVERNING THE LAWFUL DISPOSING OF FIREARMS IN NEW YORK PREDATE NYSAFE AND THOSE LAWS ARE VALID.

The difficulty transferring firearms from one person to another predates NYSAFE. NYSAFE simply adds new wrinkles to an already rigorous and tedious and laborious task. To get this right you have to first ask the right questions. Once you pose the right questions, you must search the law for the right answers. Do you wish to transfer a firearm to a family member or to a non-family private person? Does the person live in New York or reside outside the State?If the person lives in New York, where in New York does he or she live? Does that person reside in New York City or outside New York City? What kind of firearm do you wish to transfer? Is the firearm a handgun or a long arm? Is the firearm defined as an “assault weapon?” Or is it merely an “ordinary” weapon?Before you transfer a firearm you must ask these questions and others. You must clarify what firearm you wish to transfer, whom you wish to transfer the firearm to, know where that person resides; and you must know the status of that person – whether the person to whom you wish to transfer a firearm is allowed, under the applicable laws, to possess a firearm at all.You must clarify the entirety of the transfer situation posed before you take steps to make the actual transfer of a firearm. So, once you have posed the necessary questions concerning the nature of the firearms transaction you wish to make, you must be able to answer those questions frankly and fully and honestly. And there is a good reason for this.The procedures for transferring a firearm lawfully differ from one situation to another. If you apply the wrong procedure, you will mess up. That is not what you want to do. But that is an easy thing to do.Finding your way around New York’s myriad firearms’ laws is like being trapped in a “Twilight Zone” episode. And if you happened to see some of those episodes, you know the stories often end badly for the protagonists. Similarly, for the firearms owner, New York is a strange – even eerie – place to live. The police departments are not friends of New York’s firearms’ owners. The police departments are less likely to assist you than call you out for a wrong transfer – and that is what you must guard against.To help you navigate through this kaleidoscopic nightmare we will look at a few typical situations. I will begin with several assumptions. These assumptions are responsive to the above questions and form the basis for the situations posed. We will look at the laws governing firearms transfers for those situations. We will apply those laws to the situations posed. As we proceed, you will see the procedures are highly detailed. Penalties for failing to adhere to the procedures are severe. Let’s begin.

OUR ASSUMPTIONS

I will assume you are a New York City resident and have both a valid pistol license and valid long arm permit. I will assume further you have several pistols and long arms in your collection. I will further assume you purchased all firearms lawfully and some of those firearms are defined as assault weapons under NYSAFE. If you purchased firearms defined as ‘assault weapons,’ this means that you are in possession of weapons that you purchased lawfully prior to enactment of NYSAFE. Weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ can no longer be acquired lawfully in New York. I will assume you wish to make several firearms transfers and that you wish to transfer firearms to four individuals. Three individuals reside, like you, in New York City. One person resides out of State. I will assume you also wish to make a bequest of firearms in your last will and testament.And let us say three of the private persons to whom you wish to transfer firearms are unrelated to you and the remaining person to whom you wish to transfer a firearm is a family member. I will also assume for the purpose of this study that the family member, although a resident of New York City, does not live with you. And I will assume further that one of the NYC residents, other than a family member, to whom you wish to transfer a firearm, is an active duty N.Y.P.D. police officer. And I will assume the second NYC resident to whom you wish to transfer a firearm is a private individual. I will further assume the fourth individual to whom you wish to transfer a firearm is a friend who lives out of State. And I will assume that two of the New York City residents – the family member and the private person, unrelated to you – both have valid firearms licenses and permits as you do.I will also assume, as is true, the third New York City resident, the active duty police officer, does not need a valid pistol license or long arm permit to possess a firearm. State law does not require an active duty police officer – a public employee – to secure a firearms license to possess firearms. He has a badge. That’s enough. But all private New York State residents, other than police officers or peace officers, require a pistol license to possess handguns. And in New York City and in a few New York Counties, a rifle and shotgun – long arm – permit is required as well.Now, apart from the firearms you wish to dispose of during your lifetime, let’s assume lastly you wish to bequeath, to various members of your family, through your last will and testament, your remaining firearms.These then are the assumptions. These assumptions frame the firearms transfer situations that form the basis of our discussion and case study that follows.The basic fact patterns boil down to this: One: you wish to sell a shotgun to a private citizen in New York City who is not related to you. Two: you wish to give one revolver handgun and one rifle to a New York City family member who does not reside with you. The rifle is defined as an ‘assault weapon’ under NYSAFE; the revolver handgun is not. Three: you wish to sell one handgun – a semiautomatic pistol – to an active duty N.Y.P.D. police officer. Four: you wish to sell a rifle, defined as an assault weapon in the NYSAFE Act, to a friend who lives out of State. Five: you wish to bequeath all remaining firearms in your collection to family members. Some of those firearms you wish to bequeath to family members are defined as ‘assault weapons’ and some are not.

A WORD ABOUT “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

If you wish to transfer a firearm defined in NYSAFE as an “assault weapon,” you must be particularly careful. I have said much about “assault weapons” in previous posts and will have more to say about “assault weapons” both in this and future posts. The salient point I wish to make about firearms defined as ‘assault weapons’ is this: The “assault weapon” is a political construct and a legal fiction, created for one purpose and one purpose only: to separate you from your firearms. It is the fuel that feeds the engine of firearms restrictions and firearms confiscation.Understand: firearms legislation – whether in New York or any other jurisdiction – rests upon the notion that Americans should not have possession of firearms, period. Unconstitutional, restrictive firearms laws operate more effectively through outright bans of firearms than through laws governing the possession, ownership and use of them.We have seen this before. Consider an American’s possession of fully automatic or selective fire weapons. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding citizen have the right to possess a submachine gun or an assault rifle? My question is serious, not frivolous or rhetorical.So, once again: Why shouldn’t a law-abiding citizen have the right to possess a submachine gun or an assault rifle? The question doesn’t even arise in public discourse. There is no public debate on it. Indeed the mere thought of a law-abiding American citizen possessing a fully automatic or selective-fire weapon is considered an anathema – beyond the pale of rational discourse.But why is that? Certainly the Second Amendment does not constrain your possession of a submachine gun or an assault rifle. They are personal, hand-held weapons. Your possession of them is consistent with and flows directly from the Second Amendment. You do not present an inherent danger to self or others in the mere possession of them. So, why can’t you own and possess them?You cannot own or possess a submachine gun or an assault rifle because those in power do not wish for you to have them. And there is no debate. “That is that.” Case closed! You, as well, have probably not bothered to consider your right to own selective fire or fully automatic weapons. And the reason is plain. As decades have passed since Federal and State law prohibited access to such firearms by the average American citizen, Americans have grown accustomed to the loss of them.A similar strategy is underway for a slew of weapons that, until recently, the law-abiding New York resident could possess. Such, then, is the strategy behind use of the words, ‘assault weapons’ as well. And such is the strategy behind restrictive firearms laws, restraining and constraining possession of firearms to which the appellation “assault weapons” is affixed.Firearms designated, “assault weapons,” will soon be as scarce as those referred to as “machine guns.” That, at any rate, is the hope of “antigun” politicians and other “antigun” fanatics. The “antigun” groups hope the Public will grow accustomed to the loss of such weapons. And, as fewer Americans have access to them, the discussion over one’s right to possess them will become more sporadic and finally cease. Years later, debate over one’s right to possess “assault weapons” will seem as aberrant and irrational as a debate over possession of “machine guns” may seem among many individuals today. That is the hope of the “antigun” groups and their allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures across the Country.Today, the “antigun” fanatics and their political allies compare firearms designated ‘assault weapons’ to the submachine guns and assault rifles that preceded them – guns that must be banned. And, once those firearms are banned, the “antigun” politicians and “antigun” groups will work to ban other firearms. These groups — although loathe to admit it on the airwaves — wish to ban all firearms. They certainly denigrate firearms. Thus, they seek to designate all firearms, ‘assault weapons.’ Perhaps they will come up with another expression to describe double action and single action revolver handguns they next wish to ban.These “antigun” groups and allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures across the Country hope the very notion of firearms will be viewed an anachronism, like hoop skirts and buggy whips. As Americans grow accustomed to the loss of firearms of any sort, the debate over one’s right to possess firearms will, as well, become incongruous and moot. At that point, the Second Amendment will have been effectively repealed.What, then, are we to make of “assault weapons?” Answer: nothing really. No universal definition exists for the expression. But, for our purpose here, “assault weapons” are whatever NYSAFE says they are. The nature of the firearm is not changed thereby. But a law can change our relation to it — must change our relation to it. And that is the insidious nature of New York’s firearms laws. The laws compel New York firearms’ owners to turn upon themselves. And for what? For having the audacity to invoke their Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms? The entire argument of weapons’ possession generally and possession of “assault weapons” particularly has little if anything to do with “public safety.” That is nothing more than a dodge. Rather, when all is said and done, the “antigun” zealot is merely harping on a personal aesthetic concern, not a meaningful societal one.Under NYSAFE the range of firearms falling into the orbit of “assault weapons” has broadened. At the moment New York firearms laws are targeting semiautomatic pistols and rifles and – although you may not be aware of it – revolving cylinder shotguns as well. The drafters of NYSAFE wish to make “assault weapons” obsolete in New York.And the range of pistols and rifles and shotguns deemed assault weapons in New York will grow. Note: I did not use the word ‘may.’ I used the word, ‘will,’ for a reason. I did so for a good reason.If NYSAFE and the Penal Laws underlying NYSAFE are not repealed, further firearms will be included in the orbit of assault weapons – banned firearms – and the erosion of our Second Amendment rights will continue unabated. That will come to pass. That is a goal of “antigun” politicians and “antigun” zealots around the Country. That is what they want: to ban possession of firearms outright. Exceptions will be stated with particularity in law and those exceptions will be narrowly drawn. They will include the police and military and certain wealthy and powerful and prominent individuals considered “elite.” The firearms laws will deem such groups and individuals trustworthy by the State. Contrariwise, the law will construe the “average” American citizen as untrustworthy, potentially dangerous – mere rabble and unworthy of possessing firearms.The law “will look down” upon the average American citizen much as the Roman patrician “looked down upon” the Roman plebian. Restrictive firearms laws are grounded on the idea the average American cannot be trusted. The State assumes the role of protective parent and operates on the precept the State must be protected from the Public and the Public must be protected from “Itself.” That is truly an anathema. That is contrary to the very concept of a Republic. Should we not have a public debate?Keep in mind: the phrase ‘assault weapons’ is equivalent in meaning to the phrase ‘illegal guns’ or ‘illegal weapons’ or ‘banned guns’ or ‘banned weapons.’ Governor Cuomo and the other “antigun” zealots prefer to use the phrase ‘assault weapons’ rather than the phrase ‘banned guns’ or ‘illegal guns’ or ‘banned weapons’ or ‘illegal weapons.’There is a reason for this. By using the phrase ‘assault weapon’ instead of the phrases ‘banned gun’ or ‘illegal gun’ or ‘banned weapon’ or ‘illegal weapon,’ Governor Cuomo focuses attention on the purported safety issue of firearms restriction rather than on the bald infringement of a Constitutional Right. Apparently he believes he can get the public on board with the phrase, ‘assault weapons.’ Were he to use the phrases ‘banned guns,’ or ‘illegal guns’ or ‘banned weapons’ or ‘illegal weapons,’ he focuses direct and awkward attention on his real aim: to take firearms out of circulation and out of the hands of the Public. Safety concerns are then tangential to the true aim, assuming safety concerns are the Governor’s “real” motivation at all for banning “assault weapons.”The primary goal of the Governor and the “antigun zealots” in the State Legislature and around the Country and internationally is to separate the American public from their guns.” But that will not play well. So talk is directed to purported “safety issues” instead. This is done to confuse the Public and to defuse righteous anger toward the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But is the public truly fooled? “Assault weapons” are illegal weapons in New York. They are “banned guns.” Now, suppose the State Legislature enacted a law to criminalize possession of “banned guns” that the owner had acquired lawfully. That would be an example of an “ex post facto” law. Ex post facto laws are illegal. You cannot criminalize a New York resident’s possession of a “banned gun” in the present he had acquired lawfully in the past. So the State Legislature and the Governor considered another tack: mandate a new and repressive registration scheme for those who insist on keeping such “assault weapons.”Now the Governor points to the ease of re-registering the firearms designated as “assault weapons.” What no one bothers to discuss though is why these firearms have to be re-registered at all. The Superintendent of State Police knows who has these weapons in New York and, so, knows they were properly and lawfully registered at the time of acquisition. So why do those weapons have to be re-registered as “assault weapons” now? Answer: they have to be re-registered to make life difficult for the New York resident who wishes to keep them. If the Governor has another rationale for the re-registration of firearms lawfully obtained in the past that he now calls, “assault weapons,” I, for one, would like to hear it.As the number of firearms deemed “assault weapons” grows, the New York firearms owner who had acquired them lawfully will find more difficulty in keeping them and more difficulty in transferring them to another. Transferring a firearm designated under NYSAFE an “assault weapon” is strictly regulated in New York. And we will get into that. But my point is this: as more weapons fall under the rubric, “assault weapons,” there will be fewer of them. So, over time there will be fewer weapons available to the Public. Eventually revolver handguns and “high power” hunting rifles will be illegal too. They will be considered oddities in the same vein as assault rifles and submachine guns.

SO: HOW DO I LAWFULLY TRANSFER MY FIREARMS?

This is the ultimate question. And the correct answer depends upon the nature of the transfer you wish to make.One correct answer exists for each situation as do many more incorrect answers. More to the point: you will find one right answer for each unique transfer situation and many wrong answers for each unique transfer situation. So, you must know all aspects of the transfer. That means you must know exactly what kind of firearms transfer you wish to make; to whom you wish to make the transfer; whether the transferee is qualified to possess the particular firearm; and the location of the transferee.You must then pull out the appropriate New York firearms laws from the large kettle of existing firearms laws. And, lastly, you must apply the correct laws to the particular situation and in the right order – sequentially, as New York law demands.If you falter at any point along the way, the transfer cannot lawfully take place. And for all your effort to effectuate a transfer, you face the revocation of your license and permit, the confiscation of your firearms, and the possible imposition of civil or criminal sanctions.If you fail to understand New York law, you will be “in the kettle.” You won’t be able to transfer your firearms. That is certain. And that will be the least of your worries as you may face misdemeanor or even felony charges as well.Although certain requirements cut across all firearms transfers, the actual procedures differ from situation to situation. But, before we get to a discussion of typical firearms transfer situations, I need to draw your attention to a point I made in an earlier Article.In my first Article, posted in September last year, I told you what the NYSAFE Act is. I said: “The NYSAFE Act is a set of laws, not one law, but many laws. It is a grab bag of laws, wrapped into one thing.” This is an important point. Think of NYSAFE as a large vat holding newly minted restrictive firearms laws. These newly minted laws are given Section headings in NYSAFE. The laws are codified in a much larger – colossal – container: “The Consolidated Laws of New York.” The Laws compiled in NYSAFE are sprinkled here and there in various Sections of the “Consolidated Laws of New York.”And restrictive firearms laws show up in other “vats” or “containers.” New York City, for example, has enacted restrictive firearms laws. And those laws, too, are spread over a number of legal sources: the New York City Administrative Code; the New York City Municipal Code; the Rules of the City of New York; and the City Charter.The primary scope of this post is firearms transfers. We find NYSAFE does talk a little about transfers; but not enough; not nearly enough. NYSAFE is a stepping stone. But it is only a stepping stone. There are many other stepping stones.Consider NYSAFE the first stepping stone. But to fully understand firearms transfers you must venture beyond NYSAFE. You must look to New York laws that predate NYSAFE. And the laws we need to look at are found all over the place.You will also need to become familiar with certain terminology. Take the word, ‘transfer.’ The word appears several times in the NYSAFE Act. But, you will not find a definition for the word ‘transfer’ in NYSAFE. We need to look at the New York State Penal law for a definition. Section 265.00 of the State Penal Law does not define the specific word, ‘transfer.’ Rather New York’s Penal Law drops the word ‘transfer’ into a more general word: ‘dispose of.’ And State Penal Law does define the word, ‘dispose of.’ The word, “‘dispose of,’ means “to dispose of, give, give away, lease-loan, keep for sale, offer for sale, sell, transfer and otherwise dispose of.’”So, now we know the word, ‘transfer,’ is included in the more general word phrase, ‘dispose of.’Here’s another important point: New York law does not discuss your reason for “disposing of” your firearms.” The New York State Legislature that drafted New York’s restrictive firearms laws does not care about your reason for transferring your firearms. So, New York State Statutes do not govern your reason for disposing of your firearms. Whom you wish to transfer your firearms to and the manner in which you go about transferring your firearms is a concern of Governor Cuomo and New York law. Your reason for doing so is not.Suppose you wish merely to rid yourself of your firearms. Suppose you wish simply to give your firearms to the Superintendent of State Police and be done with them. Both he and Governor Cuomo would be delighted “to dispose” of your firearms for you. Disposing of your firearms by turning them over to the Superintendent of State Police is not difficult. And that is not surprising. The Governor and the drafters of New York’s restrictive firearms laws want to make it easy for you to destroy your firearms. No complicated procedures; nothing to fuss over. Disposing of them in that way truly means “getting rid” of your firearms. The firearms would likely be melted down. And that would be a sin. But at least Governor Cuomo and the Superintendent of State Police and the drafters of NYSAFE and of the other firearms laws would be happy.I presume though you wish to avoid the destruction of your firearms. So, “dispose of,” for you, does not mean ‘get rid of’ or “destroy.”But here we run into traps and snares. I will point to those traps and snares. I will show you what you are up against. You have an inkling of that already. We will continue to look at important Sections of New York Law: both State Law and New York City Law. And we will touch briefly on Sections of the State Constitution as well. I will cite and translate those Sections for you. We will look at words and their meanings. There are steps you must take. Together we will work through the example situations I provided for you.But I must address one more matter before we proceed. And that has to do with an important distinction between firearms and the ammunition you use with them. This post concerns the transfer of firearms between parties, only. I am not talking about the transfer of ammunition here. While you may think it reasonable to provide a “transferee” with ammunition along with the firearm you wish to transfer to him, don’t do it. Let me be blunt. Don’t even think about doing it! Let me say that again. Do not attempt to transfer ammunition! You cannot lawfully do so unless you are a “seller of ammunition.” And, I will assume here that you are not a seller of ammunition.The expression, ‘seller of ammunition,’ is a ‘legal term of art.’ A ‘legal term of art’ is an expression defined in law. The expression, ‘seller of ammunition’ is defined in New York law. So ‘seller of ammunition’ is a legal term of art.Be advised: Only a “seller of ammunition” can sell ammunition. The expression, ‘seller of ammunition’ is defined in Section 39 of NYSAFE. Section 39 of NYSAFE is codified in Subdivision 24 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code. The phrase ‘seller of ammunition’ means: ‘any person, firm, partnership, corporation or company who engages in the business of purchasing, selling or keeping ammunition.’How a “seller of ammunition” can do that is explained in Section 50 of NYSAFE. Once again, I assume you, the reader, are not a “seller of ammunition.” So, that Section does not apply to you and does not concern us here. This post is limited to a discussion of firearms transfers, not transfers of ammunition by “sellers of ammunition.” Let’s continue.Be aware too: you cannot lawfully “dispose of” a loaded firearm. So: do not try to transfer a “loaded firearm” to anyone, ever! You cannot lawfully do so.The expression, “loaded firearm” is defined in Subdivision 15 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Law of New York. It means: ‘any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge such firearm.’A loaded firearm cannot be lawfully transferred. So, before transferring a firearm make certain – absolutely certain – it contains no ammunition.Let’s now get to the nitty-gritty.As I said, whom you transfer a firearm to and the manner you go about it are two matters of critical importance. Your reason for doing so is not.How you go through the process of lawfully transferring a firearm is not easy to master. We will need to look at many legal sources in order to get this right. And, keep in mind: if you wish to transfer a firearm that NYSAFE designates an “assault weapon,” certain laws come into play and special requirements must be met before you can do so – assuming you can do so lawfully at all. The kinds of parties to whom you can transfer an “assault weapon” are very few in number. And the manner in which you can lawfully proceed with the transfer of an “assault weapon” must be adhered to in minute detail. You may thank the drafters of the NYSAFE Act and Governor Cuomo for that.Apart from NYSAFE and other Sections of State law, we will take a look at the State Constitution. And, as I mentioned earlier, we will take a look at the New York City Administrative Code and the New York City Municipal Code. And we will take a look at the Rules of the City of New York and at the New York City Charter.In this exercise I draw your attention to two words you should familiarize yourself with: ‘transferor’ and ‘transferee.’ The “transferor” is the person who transfers the firearm to another. And he does this by selling it or exchanging it or otherwise disposing of it in some manner. And as you learned, the notion of “transferring a firearm” is very broad. And the “transferee” is, logically, the party who takes possession of the firearm.The “transferee” is the party who receives the firearm. And he receives a firearm often as a gift or through a sale or exchange. As for the nature of the transfer, I will use words such as ‘transfer’ and ‘sale’ and ‘dispose of’ interchangeably.And remember: under New York law, your reason for “disposing of” a firearm is unimportant. New York law is not concerned about that. New York law deals only with the manner of transfer, not your reason for doing it. To make a lawful transfer, you, the transferor, must keep in mind five basic and critical questions: Who is the transferee? Where does the transferee live? What kind of firearm do I wish to transfer to that transferee? Is the transferee qualified to possess a firearm at all? And, lastly, assuming the transferee is qualified to possess firearms, is the transferee qualified to accept the particular type of firearm I wish to transfer to him? After I have asked and answered these five questions, we then ask and do our best to answer: How do I proceed with the lawful transfer of the firearm so I am in compliance with the transfer laws of New York?Let us now take a look at a few key provisions of State law.We will look at Section 17 of NYSAFE first. Think of Section 17 as the key “Transfer Provision.” It is titled: “PRIVATE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.”That Section of NYSAFE is codified in ARTICLE 39-DDD of the General Business Law. This is a brand new part of New York State law.The first paragraph of Section 17 says this: “In addition to any other requirements pursuant to state and federal law, all sales, exchanges or disposals of firearms, rifles or shotguns shall be conducted in accordance with this section unless such sale, exchange or disposal is conducted by a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or a licensed dealer, . . . when such sale, exchange or disposal is conducted pursuant to that person’s federal firearms license or such sale, exchange or disposal is between members of an immediate family. For purposes of this section, immediate family shall mean spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children.”

SO: WHAT DOES THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 17 MEAN?

Section 17 makes plain all firearms transfers “shall be conducted in accordance with this Section.” And that is so “unless” the transferee falls within certain exceptions. And those exceptions are set forth with particularity in Section 17.Note: the first line of Section 17 also says that this Section is “in addition to any other requirements pursuant to State and Federal law.” So we know that before making a transfer, there are other Statutory Sections of State and possibly Federal Law we must look at.As mentioned, Section 17 also provides certain exemptions. This means that, for certain persons or other legal entities, Section 17 does not apply.

DOES SECTION 17 APPLY TO YOU?

The answer to that question: “it depends.” Remember what I said: whom you transfer a firearm to and how you go about it are critical matters. Why you choose to do so is irrelevant.Let’s get another matter out of the way. I will assume you are not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer or licensed dealer and that you do not have a federal firearms license. For these sample situation exercises, you are a private citizen and resident of New York and do not have any license other than a valid New York pistol license and New York City rifle and shotgun permit. So your ability to possess firearms and to transfer them are immediately very limited in scope.This takes us to our basic questions: Who is the transferee? Where does the transferee live? What kind of firearm do I wish to transfer to that transferee? Is the transferee qualified to possess a firearm at all and, if so, is the transferee qualified to accept the specific firearm I wish to transfer to him?Now go back to the example situations I laid out for you. You desire to transfer firearms to one family member and to three individuals, who are unrelated to you, two of whom live, like you, in New York City, and one of whom lives out of State. Of the two parties unrelated to you who live in New York City, one of the parties, unrelated to you, to whom you wish to transfer a firearm, is a public employee and active duty N.Y.P.D. police officer. The other party, unrelated to you, to whom you wish to transfer a firearm, is a private citizen. The third person to whom you wish to transfer a firearm is a private person who lives out of State. Section 17 says the Section does not apply to family members. But we have to be careful as to the meaning of ‘family member’ in the context of Section 17 of NYSAFE.

WHO ARE FAMILY MEMBERS UNDER SECTION 17?

Section 17 says family members are “spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children.” So, even though aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews are family members in the ordinary sense of the expression, they are not considered family members for the purpose of and within the meaning of Section 17.They are not “immediate family.” So we know Section 17 applies to some but not to all family members. It does not apply to “immediate family members” as defined in Section 17. It does apply to individuals who are not immediate family members. So: Section 17 does apply to all family members who are not “immediate family.”Be careful, too, not to read into a Statute something not there. The inverse is true too. Don’t presume to exclude something that the Statute logically implies even if not expressly stated. In the context of Section 17 do not assume the Statute is directed to New York residents only. For example, our fact situation includes a transfer of a firearm to a person, unrelated to you, who lives out of State. The language of the Statute does not suggest a limitation in its application to certain New York residents only. A prospective out of State transferee who is not immediate family does fall within the purview of Section 17. So you must comply with the provisions of Section 17 for that individual.Now, suppose the out of State transferee is a member of your “immediate family” as the expression “immediate family” Section 17 of NYSAFE. If that were true, then Section 17 of NYSAFE does not apply. Remember the residence of the transferee is not a factor in the application of Section 17 of NYSAFE to a transferee. The relationship of the transferee to the transferor is a factor. In other words the relationship of the transferee to you, the transferor is decisive of the applicability of Section 17; the jurisdiction of the transferee – where the transferee lives – is not.And Section 17 also applies to private persons unrelated to you unless, as set forth in Section 17, a person or other legal entity falls under another exception. Those other exceptions do not, at the moment, concern us here.The first paragraph of Section 17 is then an “exemption” or “exception” provision.So, what does that mean?Once again, Section 17 means just this: if you wish to give one of your firearms to an “immediate family member,” Section 17 does not apply. An immediate family member is “exempted” from the application of Section 17. If, however, you wish to transfer a firearm to a person who is not an “immediate family member” – whether this transfer is a gift or a sale or an exchange – Section 17 does apply, unless that transferee falls under another exception. Keep in mind, too: where the transferee resides – within New York or outside the State – is not a factor that comes into play. So, whether a transferee resides within New York or outside the State is not determinate of Section 17.But, what about active duty police officers who are not immediate family members? Does Section 17 apply to firearms transfers made to active duty police officers who are not immediate family members? We will get to that question once I discuss the transfer of a firearm to the active duty N.Y.P.D. police officer in our fact pattern for that situation. But first we have to take a look at what Section 17 tells us to do. For that, we have to look at the second paragraph of Section 17.The second paragraph of Section 17 of NYSAFE tells us this: “before any sale, exchange or disposal pursuant to this article, a national instant criminal background check must be completed by a dealer who consents to conduct such check. . . .”The second paragraph of Section 17 says that, before you can transfer a firearm to a person, who is not a member of your “immediate family” or who is otherwise exempted from application of Section 17, a “National Instant Criminal Background Check” must be completed of that person. So, generally, if you wish to sell a firearm to a person or simply give a firearm to a person, that person must first undergo the instant criminal background check. So, does the “National Instant Criminal Background Check” apply to immediate family members as well? Once again, the answer is, “No!”If you wish to transfer a firearm to an immediate family member as defined – whether by gift or sale or exchange – the family member is exempted from the instant criminal background check provision. A member of your immediate family does not have to go through a criminal background check. Everyone else does – whether that person resides in New York or outside the State unless the transferee falls under another exemption.Now assuming an instant criminal background check is required, how do we go about doing that? Section 17 of NYSAFE tells us what we have to do. The second paragraph of Section 17 sets forth in full: “before any sale, exchange or disposal pursuant to this article, a National Instant Criminal Background Check must be completed by a dealer who consents to conduct such check, and upon completion of such background check, shall complete a document, the form of which shall be approved by the superintendent of state police, that identifies and confirms that such check was performed.”Let us look at two more paragraphs of Section 17 before proceeding with our fact situations. The fourth paragraph of Section 17 of NYSAFE is a companion paragraph to the third. It says: “A dealer may require that any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section be subject to a fee of not to exceed ten dollars per transaction.”The sixth paragraph of Section 17 is an enforcement provision. The sixth paragraph says: “any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a class a misdemeanor punishable as provided for in the penal law.”This takes us to our first case study: the transfer of a revolver handgun and assault weapon rifle to a family member who lives in NYC.So, let’s say you wish to transfer a revolver handgun in your firearms collection and you wish to transfer a rifle, defined as an assault weapon under NYSAFE, to a family member who resides in NYC but who does not live with you. Can you make the transfer of both of those firearms? Does New York law permit you to make the transfer of one of the firearms but not the other? Or does New York law forbid the transfer of both firearms? Let’s see.Let us consider a few scenarios within this fact situation. Let us suppose you wish to transfer these firearms to an adult son who has a valid pistol license and a valid rifle and shotgun permit. We now know you do not have to proceed with an instant criminal background check on him. He is an “immediate family” member. So we are spared the Section 17 requirement of conducting an instant criminal background check on him. Now suppose you did not know that and went to a licensed firearms’ dealer and requested an instant background check. And assume that the firearms dealer did undertake a background check on your son and found no record. What then? Well, the law does not say you cannot proceed with an instant background check where none is required. So you just did something you need not have done. You broke no laws and will suffer no consequence. There is nothing in: Section 17 to preclude having an instant criminal background check performed where none is required.So, what is the next step?NYSAFE does not provide us with a specific set of procedures. Section 17 of NYSAFE says only that you must comply with other State and federal laws. Well, under State Law, you must be careful whom you transfer a firearm to. New York maintains a general prohibition on the possession of firearms absent a license.The requirement for licensing is set forth in New York State Penal Law Sections 265.01 through 265.04 and Section 265.20. And, Section 400.00 of the New York State Penal Law is the exclusive statutory authority for the licensing of firearms in the State.These Statutory Sections together establish that no one in New York can lawfully possess a firearm absent a license to possess unless that person falls within a specific firearms licensing requirement exemption. By logical implication these Statutory Sections proscribe — that is to say forbid – the transfer of a firearm to a person who does not have a valid license unless the person is exempted by State Statute from the licensing requirement.Now, we have posited in our fact situation that the transferee, your son, an immediate family member, does have a valid pistol license and a valid rifle and shotgun permit. So we know State law does not prohibit your son from possessing firearms. But, before we look at the procedures governing a lawful transfer of firearms – in this instance, a revolver handgun and a rifle that is designated an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE – we need to look at whether applicable New York law allows or forbids the transfer of one or both of the specific types of firearms to your son.Let’s look at this firearms transfer situation more closely. Again, you, the transferor, and your son, the transferee, both have valid pistol licenses and long arm permits.

SO: CAN YOU TRANSFER ONE OR BOTH OF THE FIREARMS TO YOUR SON?

In this case study you want to transfer two firearms to your son, an immediate family member: a revolver handgun and a rifle that NYSAFE defines as an ‘assault weapon.’ Can you transfer both weapons to your son? Let’s see.Nothing in New York State law prohibits the transferring of the revolver handgun to your son. You both have valid pistol licenses and both of you can lawfully possess a handgun in New York. So, the transfer of the revolver handgun to your son can take place.If the only question remaining were how to effectuate the transfer of the revolver handgun, we could then proceed to look at the applicable laws detailing the actual transfer of the handgun.But, in this fact pattern, you want to transfer the rifle to your son as well – a firearm designated an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE. So, can you also transfer the rifle that NYSAFE designates an assault weapon to an immediate family member?Now, you are permitted to retain possession of the weapon because you purchased it lawfully prior to enactment of the NYSAFE Act. The question we need to answer is whether you are permitted under the firearms laws of New York to transfer the weapon, now designated an illegal “assault weapon,” to your son.Well we can muddle over this all we want. But, we cannot assume that a weapon you lawfully purchased at one point in time is, ipso facto, transferable to anyone else at another point in time even if you seek only to transfer the weapon to your son, who, like you, also has a valid New York City rifle and shotgun permit.What we have to do is take a look at NYSAFE. Does the NYSAFE Act permit the transfer of an assault weapon lawfully acquired prior to enactment of NYSAFE? Suppose the answer is generally, “no.” If so, does NYSAFE provide an exception? Would a transfer of an “assault weapon” to an immediate family constitute one permissible exception to the general rule against assault weapon purchases and transfers in New York?Well, after review of the applicable law, we run into a snag.NYSAFE sets forth clear limitations in the lawful transferring of the rifle – an “assault weapon.” Although you, the transferor, can continue to keep the weapon because you purchased it lawfully prior to enactment of NYSAFE – so long as you properly register the firearm as an assault weapon – you are prohibited from transferring it to anyone in New York subject to very narrow exceptions. And those exceptions do not include the transfer of an “assault weapon” to a family member, even a close – “immediate” – family member. Here’s why.The answer is found in paragraph H of Section 37 of NYSAFE. This paragraph is codified in Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code of New York. It reads in full: “any weapon defined in paragraph (E) or (F) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York State or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class a misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.”This Section of the New York State Penal Code is directed, in part, to specific individuals who had purchased firearms, defined under Section 37 of the NYSAFE Act as ‘assault weapons.”Paragraphs E and F of Section 37 of the NYSAFE Act” are “grandfather provisions.” This means firearms that are now illegal to acquire and to own and to possess in New York – namely as of the date of enactment of the NYSAFE Act – can still be legally owned and possessed by those who happened to acquire them lawfully prior to enactment of NYSAFE. These paragraphs are directed, then, solely to individuals who lawfully obtained firearms prior to enactment of NYSAFE.Paragraph H of Section 37 of the NYSAFE Act also sets forth with particularity the parties to whom such weapons may be lawfully transferred.Paragraph H of Section 37 explains – among other things – how one may lawfully dispose of those weapons and to whom. We learn that the parties to whom we can transfer “assault weapons” are narrowly circumscribed. They include persons out of State and specific parties within New York and that’s all. Is an immediate family member who resides in New York one of the parties to whom you can transfer your “assault weapon?” Let’s see.One critical clause of paragraph H of says, “‘assault weapons’ may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons. . . .” We ask, who are such purchasers?NYSAFE doesn’t provide us with an answer. But we can find the answer through diligent research of other New York laws.The answer is found in a couple Sections of the Penal Law of the State of New York and in a couple of Sections of Municipal Code of the City of New York. We turn first to paragraph 9 of Section 265.00 of the New York State Penal Law for guidance. This Section of the Penal law describes the “dealer in firearms.” A “‘dealer in firearms’ means any person, firm, partnership, corporation or company who engages in the business of purchasing, selling, keeping for sale, loaning, leasing, or in any manner disposing of, any assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device, pistol or revolver.” Now a “dealer in firearms” requires a special license to transact business in firearms in New York. But we need not go further into scrutinizing those, Statutory Sections or in scrutinizing comparable, Federal Law.We know that the transferor of the “assault weapon” may lawfully transfer an “assault weapon” to a licensed “dealer in firearms.”The expression “dealer in firearms” is also defined in Section 10-301 of the New York City Administrative Code.Who else, within the confines of New York, can we transfer “assault weapons” to – apart from a “dealer in firearms” and apart from the State Superintendent of Police or his designee, for destruction of the weapon or for use of the weapon by the Superintendent’s personnel? We see we can transfer an assault weapon to a “gunsmith.”We turn to paragraph 8 of Section 265.00 of the New York State Penal Law. This Section of the Penal law describes and defines the “gunsmith.” A “‘gunsmith’ means any person, firm, partnership, corporation or company who engages in the business of repairing, altering, assembling, manufacturing, cleaning, polishing, engraving or trueing, or who performs any mechanical operation on, any firearm, large capacity ammunition feeding device or machine-gun.”The term ‘gunsmith’ is also defined in Section 10-301 of the New York City Administrative Code.The definition of ‘gunsmith’ as defined in Section 10-301 of the New York City Administrative Code is similar to the definition of ‘gunsmith’ as defined in the New York State Penal Law.Section 10-301 of the New York City Administrative Code says a ‘gunsmith’ is “Any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or company who engages in the business of repairing, altering, assembling, manufacturing, cleaning, polishing, engraving, or trueing, or who in the course of such business performs any mechanical operation on any rifle, shotgun, firearm, assault weapon or machine gun.”Now, both a “gunsmith” and a “dealer in firearms” must be properly licensed to engage in those respective businesses. We turn once again to Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code. Paragraph 1 of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code sets forth in critical part that, “No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.” Paragraph 2 of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Code sets forth in critical part that, “A license for ‘gunsmith’ or ‘dealer in firearms’ shall be issued to engage in such business.”Of note, Section 400.00 of the New York Penal law that establishes the licensing requirements for the “gunsmith” and for the “dealer in firearms” also establishes the licensing requirements for mere possession of firearms by the average, law-abiding New York resident.Now going back to our fact pattern, you, the transferor wish to transfer a rifle, designated as an “assault weapon” to your son, the transferee, who holds a valid pistol license and a valid rifle and shotgun permit. The problem is your son does not also hold a license as a “dealer in firearms” or a license as a “gunsmith.”So, what does this mean? Answer: What this means is that you, the transferor cannot lawfully transfer the “assault weapon” to your son, the transferee.But, suppose, you, the transferor make the transfer of the “assault weapon” to your son, the transferee, anyway. What then? Well, paragraph 10 of Section 265.10 of the Penal Law says in pertinent part: “Any person who disposes of any machinegun, assault weapon, large capacity ammunition feeding device or firearm silencer is guilty of a class D felony.”That means you will be charged with a felony and, if convicted, you will not only have your own pistol license and long arm permit revoked, you will lose all your firearms. And you will never again be allowed to possess firearms lawfully in New York. And, with a felony conviction, you would most likely not be permitted to lawfully possess firearms in any other State as well.So: do not ever make an unlawful transfer of firearms.You must be ever mindful whom in New York you wish to transfer an “assault weapon” to even if that transfer is to a close family member.Once again: if you proceed with an unlawful transfer of an “assault weapon,” you will lose more than your pistol license and long arm permit and you will lose more than your firearms. You will face a felony charge. And, if convicted, you will never again be able to possess firearms lawfully in New York. And you likely will be unable to lawfully possess firearms in any other jurisdiction.And keep in mind too: there is a presumption that disposal of any firearm in New York is unlawful: unless that disposal is made to or by a gunsmith or a dealer licensed in firearms or is otherwise permitted – within very narrow limits. Paragraph 16 of Section 400 of the Penal Law makes this point abundantly clear. “No person shall, except as otherwise authorized pursuant to law, dispose of any firearm: unless he is licensed as a gunsmith or dealer in firearms.”

SO WHAT DO WE KNOW AT THIS POINT CONCERNING OUR FIRST FACT PATTERN?

We know the transferor can transfer only one of his firearms to his son: the transferor’s revolver handgun. And we know the transferor cannot transfer his rifle, designated an ‘assault weapon,’ to his son, the transferee. The transferor has only four lawful options: one, keeping the assault weapon; two, transferring the assault weapon to a licensed firearms dealer or licensed gunsmith; three, transferring the weapon to a person out of State; or four, surrendering the weapon to the Superintendent of State police or his designee, for destruction or for reassignment of the weapon to police personnel. And that’s it!

WHAT DO WE HAVE YET TO LEARN BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE REVOLVER HANDGUN?

Well, we still do not know how to go about the actual transfer of the revolver handgun to the transferee: the immediate family member. State law does not help us. So where do we turn? Since both the transferor and transferee in this case study reside in New York City and since each has a valid pistol license and long arm permit that allows for possession of rifles and shotguns, we turn to New York City law for guidance. But why do we turn to New York City law at all. Answer: Section 2 of Article 9 of the State Constitution gives New York City certain enumerated powers. Section 2 of Article 9 of the State Constitution is the “home rule” Section. The Local Government of New York City has the legal authority to adopt and amend laws relating to the “. . . protection, conduct, order and safety . . . of persons or property therein.” The promulgation of firearms regulations fall within the scope of “protection, conduct, order and safety.” So, under Section 2 of Article 9 of the State Constitution the Local Government has the authority to adopt and amend laws related to the licensing and disposition of firearms so long as those laws are not inconsistent with State Statute.

SO, HOW DO WE PROCEED WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE REVOLVER HANDGUN?

We now turn to Section 5-26 of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York. This Section of the City Rules provides detailed procedures and guidance for transferring a handgun from one person to another. Now, since, in our fact pattern, the transferor, who holds a valid pistol license, does not wish to make a sale of his revolver handgun but simply wishes to give the handgun to his son, the transferee, who also holds a valid pistol license, the transferor must first comply with particular New York City Rules before proceeding with the transfer. The rules for this transaction are detailed. They are as follows: “If the licensee wants to transfer her/his handgun(s) to another New York State/New York City license s/he also possesses s/he shall make a written request to the Division Head, License Division. The request shall include the following information: (1) The licensee’s name, address and telephone number. (2) The license number; make, model, calibre, and serial number of the handgun the licensee wishes transferred; and the number of the license to which the licensee wants to transfer the handgun.” (3) The licensee shall enclose copies of both licenses front and back. (4) The licensee shall receive a written response. If the request is approved, the licensee shall have to appear at the License Division with both licenses to process the transaction.”Note: nothing in the New York City Rules establishes a time frame for processing a “firearms transfer” request. Note also: The licensing official has virtually absolute discretion in approving or disapproving the transfer.And keep this in mind: “Any person lawfully in possession of a handgun who disposes of the same without first notifying the License Division in writing shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor” in accordance with the provisions of New York State Penal Law §265.10(7). And, pursuant to New York City Administrative Code §10-311(a), “it shall be unlawful for any person or business enterprise to dispose of any handgun which does not contain a safety locking device, defined as a design adaptation or attachable accessory that will prevent the use of the weapon by an unauthorized user. The following types of safety locking devices will be deemed to comply with this provision: a trigger lock, which prevents the pulling of the trigger without the use of a key; or a combination handle, which prevents the use of the weapon without the alignment of the combination tumblers; or a detachable or non-detachable locking device, composed primarily of steel or other metal of significant gauge to inhibit breaking, utilizing a metallic key or combination lock, rendering the weapon inoperable until the locking device is removed by an authorized person.” Note: “The license becomes invalid if the licensee sells the one and only handgun on her/his license. Should the licensee wish to sell it without canceling her/his license, s/he shall first follow the instructions to add a handgun.”When all is said in done – after you have complied perfectly with the laws governing transfer of firearms – the transfer may still fail. For the police licensing official has virtually absolute discretion to allow the transfer or deny the transfer. So the transfer can fail even if you comply with the laws governing the transfer of firearms, exactly.And, if you do not follow the transfer procedures to a “T,” you may lose your firearms license and rifle and shotgun permit. And, if you lose your license and permit, you will lose your firearms as well. And you will almost certainly face civil and, possibly, criminal sanctions too.There is much more to discuss on the subject of transfers. We have barely scratched the surface. But let’s stop here. Given the length of this post and the amount of material, there is much to digest. We will pick up the discussion in my next post. In that Article we will look at the legal requirements for transferring a firearm to a police officer. And we will look at the procedures for transferring an “assault weapon” to a person who resides out of State. Lastly, we will look at bequests of firearms. Stay tuned.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Copyright © 2013 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

Cuomo's NYSAFE Act And The Notion Of 'Assault Weapon'

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

NEW YORK’S ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment is under attack. The Second Amendment is under constant attack. The State of New York has taken the Nation’s lead in undermining the exercise of this fundamental right through enactment of the NYSAFE Act. But you would make a mistake to accept the NYSAFE Act as something new and novel in the history of restrictive firearms regulation. It isn’t new. The NYSAFE Act is an elaboration over the last set of harsh New York firearms control laws. Through incremental steps the New York State firearms’ control laws grow ever harsher. The systematic erosion of New York residents’ Second Amendment rights is underway and has been underway for decades. This erosion is slow and lumbering but relentless and enduring. NYSAFE Act is terrible. It exists. So, we must contend with it.

YOU CAN NO LONGER BUY ASSAULT WEAPONS LAWFULLY IN NEW YORK

Many New York political leaders do not want New York residents to have firearms. But they loathe assault weapons in the hands of citizens. With enactment of NYSAFE politicians place tight controls on assault weapons. Residents can no longer buy assault weapons lawfully in New York, nor readily transfer them.If you do not own an assault weapon and wish to buy an assault weapon in the future, you no longer can do so – not in New York. If you do own an assault weapon and wish to buy a second assault weapon, you no longer can do so – not in New York. If you now own an assault weapon and you wish to sell the weapon and later wish to buy another assault weapon, you cannot do so – not in New York. If you wish to sell an assault weapon or give the weapon away, then you must do so as the NYSAFE Act says. And, if you own an assault weapon and wish to keep the weapon – well – that is not easy because the Governor makes you jump through hoops. And, if you fail to do whatever you must to meet the new firearms control laws, you will be in trouble.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE

The purpose of this Article is to aid you in understanding the restrictive new firearms laws of New York: how they affect you; how they impact you and your firearms. No other website will provide you a more detailed and informative analysis of NYSAFE. You would need a licensed attorney to analyze the Act for you. His services are likely to be expensive.

WHY WE ARE DOING THIS

We see a need. We wish to fill that need. And we have faith in our cause: to preserve and protect our Bill of Rights. And, we see the especial need to preserve and protect our sacred right to keep and bear arms, embodied in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our goal is to wake you up, not anesthetize you; to educate you, not indoctrinate you; to develop your critical reasoning faculties; not clamp them down.

THE GOVERNOR’S TAKE ON NYSAFE

The Governor’s own treatment of NYSAFE is simplistic. Ours isn’t. What does the Governor say about NYSAFE? Take a look. Here’s the link: NYSAFE ACTVisually, the Governor’s site is impressive. The Governor has spared no expense on it. The site has stunning graphics and hosts many interactive tools. And the website displays the red, white and blue of the Nation’s flag. By draping the site around the Nation’s colors, the Governor wishes to ease concern over the NYSAFE Act. By draping the site around the Nation’s colors, the Governor is saying New York will protect the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. If you miss the Governor’s hint, he hits you with this: “The safe act protects law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms and does not restrict New Yorker’s ability to buy, sell, keep or use their firearms.” Oh?The Governor adds: “This website is a one-stop resource for New Yorkers to better understand how the NY SAFE Act does and does not affect you. Learn how you can keep you and your family safe.”I do not grasp how the NYSAFE Act can keep a person and his family safe. From what the site offers the statement strikes me as more vain hope than promise. But even if true, hidden in the assertion is the Governor’s naked conceit: token security at the expense of liberty. And the claim, a “one-stop resource,” is bold and boastful. The Governor, at best, holds a sincere but false belief. At worst, the Governor is deceiving you.The Governor’s “one-stop resource” lacks careful attention to detail our site provides. The Governor’s NYSAFE website simply lacks the academic rigor needed to grasp NYSAFE.Unlike the Governor’s take on the NYSAFE Act, I will not say or suggest NYSAFE is easy to understand. It isn’t. But you must know NYSAFE to prevent revocation of your pistol license and long arm permit. You must know NYSAFE to prevent confiscation of your “assault weapons.” You must know NYSAFE to preclude imposition of civil penalties and criminal sanctions. Because New York has expanded Firearms control laws through enactment of NYSAFE, you must know NYSAFE. I will explain it.In this post and several posts to follow I describe and explain the NYSAFE Act. I talk about and analyze several sections of the Act. The purpose here is to teach, not deceive; to inspire, not entertain; to protect the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, not betray that right.

WHY DO YOU DISCUSS THE NYSAFE ACT?

NYSAFE is the model for restrictive firearms legislation across the Country. Recent proposed or passed State and Federal firearms legislation mirror NYSAFE. To understand NYSAFE is to understand the political strategy of antigun groups and of allied politicians in Congress and State Legislatures across the Country.In this post I’ll give you a short background on NYSAFE and begin my discussion of the words, ‘assault weapons.’

WHEN WAS NYSAFE ENACTED?

The New York State Legislature passed the NYSAFE Act on January 14, 2013. Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the Act into law on January 15, 2013. He’s proud of it. He has, as mentioned, devoted an entire website to it. Proponents say NYSAFE is a commonsense Act and sets a good example for the Nation. I know better. So do you.

WHAT IS THE NYSAFE ACT?

The NYSAFE Act isn’t one law but a set of laws. The Act is a grab bag of laws, wrapped into one thing. The official title is: “the NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013 (Senate Bill 2230).” Often shortened to NYSAFE or the SAFE Act, the Act is a lengthy and confusing document, neither obvious in meaning nor workable in practice. And it cuts across the New York criminal procedure law, the family court act, the general business law, the mental hygiene law, the penal law and other laws. What the Act may do in making New York residents safer is open to debate. But in practice the Act creates confusion for firearms’ owners and difficulties for businesses. The Act creates headaches for the courts which must adjudicate the laws and headaches for public officials who must administer the laws. The Act places added burdens on firearms dealers and extra requirements on both the Superintendent of State Police and the Commissioner of Education. And the Act poses a moral quandary for mental health professionals who must resolve the laws with their ethical duty to their patients.

A WORD ABOUT ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’

There is much buzz about assault weapons. President Barack Obama talks about them. Vice President Joseph Biden talks about them. Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer talk about them. Governor Andrew Cuomo talks about them. Michael Bloomberg had talked about them and the new Mayor, Bill De Blasio, will talk about them.The President and other ‘gun control’ advocates call these firearms weapons of war. But the military uses few of these weapons in their present configuration and uses none of them, to my knowledge, in a ‘battlefield assault’ role. ‘Gun control’ advocates liken these weapons to selective-fire or full auto submachine guns even though assault weapons are not selective-fire or full auto submachine guns. ‘Gun control’ advocates suggest ‘assault weapon’ is a technical military expression. But the military doesn’t use it and never has used it. The military does use the expression, ‘assault rifle.’

ISN’T AN ASSAULT WEAPON AN ASSAULT RIFLE?

No! Do not confuse the expression ‘assault weapon’ with the expression ‘assault rifle.’ The expression ‘assault weapon’ is not equivalent in meaning to the expression ‘assault rifle.’ The expression, ‘assault rifle,’ unlike the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is a military expression. The words, ‘assault rifle,’ refer to a short, compact, selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges. To read more about this, see David P. Kopel’s excellent Article, “Rational Basis Analysis of ‘Assault Weapon’ Prohibition.” The link to the Article is here: guncite.com.Assault rifles are battlefield weapons. Assault weapons are not. But that does not prevent news commentators from referring to “assault weapons” as “military weapons.” Do not listen to those who tell you otherwise.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO OPINIONS. OPINIONS WILL TRIP YOU UP.

The opinions of news commentators are irrelevant and of no importance to the basic question: are any of your weapons “assault weapons?”

TURN TO THE NYSAFE ACT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ MEANS

The NYSAFE Act is where we make sense of – or at least try to make sense of – the expression ‘assault weapon.’The NYSAFE Act is ‘the law of the land’ and the law applies to you, the New York resident. So, to learn whether one or more of your weapons are assault weapons you must turn to the NYSAFE Act. Nothing else is important or relevant to the matter of your weapons -- nothing.

APPROACH THE ISSUE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AS AN ATTORNEY WOULD

Lawyers ignore the emotional outbursts of politicians, of news anchors, commentators and analysts, and of talk show hosts. You should ignore those emotional outbursts too.

RECAP

In this post I gave you general information about the NYSAFE Act. I talked briefly about the notion, ‘assault weapons.’ And I cautioned against equating ‘assault weapon’ with the military, ‘assault rifle.’ Military weaponry does not bear on our discussion.I said, too, we look to the NYSAFE Act for guidance. What the NYSAFE Act says about “assault weapons” is relevant and critical to our inquiry. I stressed that point. What the NYSAFE Act says about the words ‘assault weapon,’ is what counts. That alone is important. Opinions about “assault weapons” count for nothing. You must keep these points in mind. I will reiterate them throughout my discussion of the NYSAFE Act.In the posts that follow, I will continue my discussion of “assault weapons.” I will then lay out the categories of ‘assault weapon’ and focus on the definitions of ‘assault weapon.’ I will direct your attention to a couple of expressions that appear in the definitions: ‘semiautomatic’ and ‘detachable magazine.’ We will build an analytical framework. Once completed, we can examine any firearm and know if it is an “assault weapon” under NYSAFE. And we will discuss your obligations under NYSAFE in respect to it.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Copyright © 2013 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

Arbalest's Stephen D'Andrilli Addresses U.S. Gun Rights on 'INSIDE AMERICA'

[video type="youtube" id="G_8mU7kgoKk" autoplay="true"]Arbalest Group's co-founder, Stephen D'Andrilli, defends Second Amendment and 'Right to Bear Arms' on INSIDE AMERICA: Can the US Solve Its Gun Problem?