"SMART GUNS" FOR GUN OWNERS: A NEW MONITORING DEVICE!

Let’s shed a tear for Belinda Padilla. Belinda is unhappy, perhaps even frightened. Belinda’s unhappiness is understandable; her fear, not undeserved. Who’s Belinda Padilla? Why is she unhappy? Why, perhaps, is she frightened? Read on.Belinda works for a German arms Company, Armatix, GmbH. Its product: “smart guns.” A visitor to the Armatix website sees an “x-ray” shot of a space age “ray” gun set against a purple and black backdrop. The Company’s slogan is: “21st Century Gun Safety.” The NY Times ran an April 28th story on Belinda Padilla and Armatix GmbH, “‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of Gun Lobby.” www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-gun-lobby.The Times refers to Padilla as a “fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the Company’s fledging American division.” Padilla looks like a movie star. She is brash and beautiful: a femme fatale. Padilla’s association with Armatix and its “smart gun” doesn’t appear accidental. The Company hopes the public will draw the appropriate connection between Padilla and its “smart gun:” space age gun is racy and sexy! Nothing new there. Automobile and motorcycle manufacturers have juxtaposed good-looking women and machines for years. Image is everything, but an image may hide a multitude of sins. So it is with the Armatix “smart guns.” The “smart gun” isn’t really a gun at all. Guns are mechanical devices. The "smart gun" is a personal computer posing as a gun. Both smart phones and smart guns are subject to infiltration, hacking, tracking, and control from remote locations. Likely, antigun zealots hope Americans will latch onto the damn thing and, in time, replace their gun collections, with “smart guns.” Not surprisingly, the Obama administration promotes the new technology.  But many Americans don't, namely, and particularly, those who support the Second Amendment and -- for that matter -- those who support the Fourth Amendment as well. The public has contacted Padilla directly and has told her in no uncertain terms what they think of Armatix; what they think of the smart gun; and, what they think of her.  The responses are not encouraging for Armatix, for Bedilla, or for the smart gun. The American public gave all three the cold shoulder and for good reason. The NY Times doesn't understand why. It blames the NRA. But, blaming the NRA is nothing more than a convenient crutch.The NY Times says “guns with owner-recognition technology remain shut out of the market today.” The NY Times blames the “gun lobby” – code for the NRA. But, proponents of the Bill of Rights don’t need to take a cue from the NRA. The “smart gun” is a deathtrap for the unwary. It’s another electronic tracking device, like the smart phone. Not surprisingly, guns with owner-recognition technology, like the Armatix smart gun, remain shut out of the market, as the NY Times article notes. And Belinda? She is persona non grata in the firearms community. It’s not the steep price – $1,800.00 – that disturbs and angers the buying public. It’s the technology itself.Consider: since the Snowden leaks, Americans know – and don’t have to guess – the Federal Government is mind-mapping Americans. A Government report commissioned by the Obama Administration admitted the need for “broader legal protection for email and other digital content.” See, the May 2nd Wall Street Journal article, “New Data Protections Are Needed, Report Says.” “The report says Americans now inhabit a world of ‘near ubiquitous’ data collection,’ as they live their lives on-line, and the cost of storing those digital trails shrinks drastically. They post on social networks, transmit their locations from their smartphones, place sensors in the home and trackers on their bodies.” wsj.com/news/new data protections. The Armatix smart gun, unlike an ordinary mechanical firearm, is an electronic device and can readily suffer malfunction. Sure, reliability is an issue. But that’s a technical matter, although important. But, the “smart gun” raises troubling privacy questions. Recall our earlier remark: it’s less a weapon and more a personal computer. Given revelations concerning NSA snooping we have a few questions for Armatix. One, can the gun register location? Two, can it track total rounds fired? And, most importantly, can the Government shut the thing down remotely? The Armatix smart gun is a personal computer, posing as a gun with a built-in “bug” in it. So, who would want it? Will the Federal Government foist such devices on us? Will such devices be the only “firearms” law-abiding Americans can buy?Be careful of new-fangled devices. The Armatix smart gun and others like it are the proverbial “solution in search of a problem.” The NY Times cites manufacturers as saying they’re beneficial. “These new technologies could prevent suicides, accidental shootings and the deaths of police officers whose guns are wrested away in a struggle.” But wait a second. How would these technologies prevent suicides and accidents if the lawful owner uses the firearm? Isn’t the owner supposed to be able to use the weapon? If so, Are the manufacturers suggesting someone can turn the device off remotely? And, imagine the wonderment and fear of one who attempts to defend his or her life with the "smart gun" during a moment of crisis -- but the Government turned the damn thing off and didn't bother to notify the owner that the thing wasn't operational. And, concerning the last assertion, let’s ask a police officer his greater concern: someone wresting a weapon from him or a malfunctioning gun? Then, too, if a police officer can't control his own weapon, what does that say of the officer's abilities? His superiors would probably want to have a little chat with him. The manufacturers assertions in support of their "smart" devices are unbelievably lame.  If the examples the NY Times cites are the best the manufacturers can muster, the manufacturers don't merit being in business.Some things aren’t always what they seem. Beneath the façade of a comely woman may lurk a Gorgon; and inside a supposed technological marvel may dwell a Trojan horse.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

NY SAFE: ON DETACHABLE MAGAZINES

RECAP

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

CONFUSING TREATMENT OF “DETACHABLE MAGAZINE”

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

AN EXAMPLE

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

AN INCONSISTENCY

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

AN ABSURDITY

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

WRAP-UP

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

STRATEGIES FOR DESTRUCTION: HOW ANTIGUN GROUPS SUBVERT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

There are many strategies antigun zealots use to undermine the Second Amendment. Let’s take a look at a few of them.One way is through enactment of Federal and State Statutes. At the moment we have hundreds. The antigun zealots push for more. They try to hoodwink the public. To do so, they bide their time until a calamity occurs. Then they pounce, exploiting personal misfortune shamelessly. The tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut gave the zealots a grand opening. They took it. They attacked gun ownership directly and tried to ban many firearms under the fiction of “assault weapons.” Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California, tried to push through an ambitious assault weapons ban following the Newtown incident. She did this successfully once before. She and her colleagues in the Senate passed the first assault weapons ban, dubbed “AWB,” two decades ago, in 1994. It wasn’t as strong as she wanted. Former Democratic President Clinton signed it. And the Nation bore it for 10 years. Fortunately, the “AWB” had a sunset provision. It expired in 2004. Congress didn’t renew it. Fast-forward 9 years. A lunatic decides to shoot young school children. The incident provided the antigun groups with the ammunition they sought to resurrect the “AWB.” This time Dianne Feinstein pulled out all stops. She wanted a bold “assault weapons” ban. This new bill, modeled on NY SAFE, failed miserably. NY SAFE is a State Statute. New York residents can thank Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the State Legislature for it. If Feinstein’s 2013 bill had passed, the Nation would have suffered New York’s fate. Antigun groups learned something from Feinstein’s embarrassing failure. They learned that banning guns outright doesn’t work on the National stage. And most States won’t follow New York’s example. Colorado tried and two Legislators lost their heads over it. So, the antigun crowd tried a different tack: deception and pretense. Don’t go after guns directly. Attack the Second Amendment around the edges.The tactic now is background checks. This isn’t new. Shortly after signing the assault weapons ban in 1994, President Clinton signed into law another restrictive gun measure: a background checks law. It’s referred to as the “Brady Law.” Despite the hoopla and fanfare, it’s a dud as an anticrime measure. Prosecutions don’t exist. The “Brady Law” is a step toward universal gun registration. That’s its silent but true purpose. On its 20-year anniversary “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” kicked off its latest campaign: “enhanced” background checks. We discuss this in our March 2nd blog post. Take a look. By seemingly retreating from its goal to ban all guns in this Country, The Brady Campaign hopes to blindside the public. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also calling for background checks. And other antigun groups are following suit.Antigun zealots use various catchphrases with this new push for background checks. They include: “common-sense gun laws we all can live with,” “reasonable gun regulations,” “a sensible middle ground,” and similar claptrap. As the annual NRA meeting got underway in Indianapolis last week, the antigun group, “Mom’s Demand Action” held their “Stroller Jam” in the City, adding their own slogan to the mix: “it’s time for gun sense in America.” So, we see a new strategy among the antigun zealots. This latest incremental assault on the Second Amendment isn’t direct. The antigun zealots have shied away from talk of gun bans – at least for the moment. They attack the Second Amendment “obliquely” through statutes that thwart gun ownership, but don’t ban guns outright. If successful, the antigun zealots will target guns and gun possession directly. That’s their endgame.Another way antigun zealots attack our sacred Second Amendment is through the device of international pacts and treaties. Only the U.S. President can use this device but we know President Obama is open to antigun measures. After all, Obama’s an antigun zealot. Last September Secretary of State John Kerry signed, for President Obama, an international arms trade treaty, called the “ATT.” On the surface this Treaty aims to control the multibillion dollar illicit arms trade. But, it also impacts domestic weapons transactions. Apart from the United States, none of the signatory Countries has a Constitution embodying the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Treaty is inconsistent with that right. Proponents of the “ATT” deny this of course. But, the “ATT’s” negative impact on the “right to keep and bear arms” is clear. If I buy an imported gun, I must register it. So, the Treaty trumps the U.S. Constitution. Now Congress hasn’t yet approved the “ATT” and likely won’t. Will Obama enforce the “ATT” anyway? Can he?There’s been no public debate on the “ATT.” The mainstream media doesn’t talk about it. And it's troubling that a President may sidestep Congress on critical matters – those that impact our sacred “Bill of Rights.” Consider too: President Obama has other instrumentalities at his disposal to defeat the Second Amendment, including “signing statements” and “executive orders.” These instrumentalities thwart Congress and the People. In fact, Obama has threatened to use executive orders if Congress fails to pass new, restrictive gun laws. This is a naked power grab.A third way antigun zealots may attack the Second Amendment is the most direct and involves either rewriting the Second Amendment or repealing it outright. Of course, outright repeal won’t happen – at least for now. Outright repeal is a blatant act and would signal the end of the United States as a Republic. Such a move would invite rebellion.Suppose someone were to redraft the Second Amendment. Consider what this means. Retired United States Supreme Justice John Paul Stevens aims to do just that. In his recently published book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Justice Stevens, suggests a change. His redraft of the Second Amendment is this: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.” His rewrite turns the Second Amendment on its head. The fundamental “right of the individual to keep and bear arms,” as embodied in the independent clause of the original, is lost. In Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment, emphasis is on ‘militia.’ How he defines the word is anyone’s guess. Does ‘militia’ mean ‘national guard?’ Well, the U.S. President can call a State’s National Guard into federal service. The Second Amendment in its original form is a check on the Federal Government’s power. The early idea of ‘militia’ and the modern notion of ‘National Guard’ aren’t the same. Stevens’ proposed revision destroys the Second Amendment right as our Founders imagined.Suppose ‘militia’ refers to a State’s police forces. Well, a State may exercise its police powers. That’s an inherent State privilege. So, Stevens’ redraft adds nothing to a State’s exercise of its own police powers. But on another interpretation Stevens’ redraft destroys a State’s police powers if such power draws from the Federal Government. If so, police powers do not rest in the States. They rest solely in the Federal Government.But, on any interpretation of Stevens’ redraft “the right to keep and bear arms” is no longer a right of the “People.” That point’s clear. Also, Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment sets the foundation for a conflict between Government and the “People.” On balance Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment is worse than outright repeal, disastrous as outright repeal is.We can only ponder. What’s Stevens’ agenda? Who's he serving? But this we know. Stevens cares little for our most sacred Right! His like-minded fellow travelers would agree with him on that.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

UPDATE ON THE DWAYNE FERGUSON ANTIGUN ACTIVIST CASE

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

BLOOMBERG'S ON THE RECORD: CONFISCATION OF ALL HANDGUNS

NY Times writer, Jeremy W. Peters, followed up his April 15, 2014 Article, “Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A.,” with an Article on April 16, titled, “An Ex-Mayor, in His Own Words.” www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/Bloomberg discusses gun control.In the April 16 Article Michael Bloomberg lays bare the extent of his rage against the Second Amendment. He says, “You have to be careful if there’s two issues you care about . . . what do you do? And I think you’ve got to pick your issue. In our case, my case, it’s guns. I care very much about immigration. But guns are the No. 1 thing. So I’ve got a senator who’s running for re-election. He’s terrible on guns but good on immigration. I’m going after him. That’s it.” After three consecutive mayoral terms, Bloomberg’s new reason for being is this: destroy the Second Amendment. Other concerns are secondary.In the April 15 NY Times Article Bloomberg gives us his strategy. It belies his true intent. “The strategy will focus not on sweeping federal restrictions to ban certain weapons, but instead will seek to expand the background check system for gun buyers both at the state and national levels.” Bloomberg is evasive. The strategy is stopgap. Bloomberg’s fanatical aim remains unchanged. He seeks to remove civilian access to firearms. This becomes clear in the April 16 NY Times Article. In that Article Bloomberg adds, “you can have a ban on assault weapons. But assault weapons kill 400 people a year. They get a lot of press. But its 400 vs. 31,000 with handguns.” “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” These statements hint at Bloomberg’s real intent: further confiscation of firearms.Bloomberg doesn’t cite authority to support his claims. But the assertions are still doubtful. Let us assume Bloomberg’s statistics are true. If Bloomberg is referring to homicides, he shouldn’t target guns, but, rather, criminal use of guns. Bloomberg doesn’t do that. He conflates issues. All antigun zealots do. Bloomberg does so because his goal is not to see a fall in crime. It’s gun confiscation. If both an armed public and bold criminal statutes are the best solution to a fall in crime, Bloomberg, likely, would still prefer gun confiscation to an to an armed public and bold criminal statutes. If so, the issue of gun violence is simply a “blind” to distract the public from the true issue: gun confiscation.Second, Bloomberg gives us a straw man argument to knock down. The argument may go like this: No sane, responsible person wishes to see an innocent child harmed. Dangerous items in homes are threats to children. Responsible parents do not keep dangerous items in their homes. Guns are by nature dangerous items. Since a sane, responsible parent doesn’t want to see a child harmed by guns, no rational and responsible parent would keep a gun in the house.The straw man is Bloomberg’s claim that gun owners with children are irrational and irresponsible. The idea is absurd but it goes to the central belief of all antigun zealots: gun owners are irrational, erratic and irresponsible. Of course, Bloomberg begs the question: is a law-abiding, adult who wishes to defend home and family with a firearm, irresponsible and irrational for wishing to do so? Bloomberg says, “of course.” He takes this as a given – true beyond need for proof. But, many items are potentially dangerous. Take a look at contents of a medicine cabinet, cutlery in the kitchen, power tools in the garage.Clearly, the precautions one takes with dangerous items are what’s important, not the items themselves. Keep in mind, Bloomberg wished to ban firearms that New York law defines as “assault weapons.” After all, he signed the NY SAFE Act into law. The NY SAFE Act’s signature feature is a ban on “assault weapons.” Next, Bloomberg aims to ban all handguns. That’s implied in his statement, “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” Had Bloomberg served a fourth Mayoral term, he likely would’ve banned handguns under NY SAFE. And he wouldn’t have stopped there. He aims to ban all guns. Will New York City’s current Mayor, Bill de Blasio extend NY SAFE? We’ll wait and see.Bloomberg’s handgun comment is odd and outrageous for a third reason. Bloomberg has the nerve to reassert the D.C. handgun ban the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Bloomberg condemns possession of handguns even for self-defense in one’s home. But, that assertion directly contradicts a key Supreme Court holding in Heller.The Supreme Court stated clearly: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Notably, the Supreme Court didn’t qualify those homeowners entitled to use firearms for self-defense: families with children versus families sans children. By arguing anew a ban on handguns Bloomberg is ignoring a principal holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s denying the rule of law, holding himself as a king, and deciding destiny for our Country.In fact, Bloomberg’s antigun agenda is more ambitious than that designed by District of Columbia politicians. For Bloomberg has not suggested banning handguns only in New York. So, Bloomberg’s goal of gun confiscation goes well beyond the total handgun ban the District of Columbia passed for itself. Clearly, Bloomberg won’t rest until he sees a total ban on firearms. His goal is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.Systematic rejection of our sacred “Bill of Rights” is, it seems, the endgame of Billionaire internationalists. For them, the United States Constitution is too old. The internationalists want to draft a new Constitution for us, absent a “Bill of Rights” – a Constitution for the “21st Century.” They want one compatible with their geopolitical and economic policies and objectives. The notion of individual liberties as set forth in our “Bill of Rights” does not fit with those policies and objectives. So, the billionaire internationalists want a constitution belittling our unique heritage – a Constitution homogenous with those of other Western Nations. I’m sure Bloomberg has some interesting ideas for us.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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.