CLEVELAND’S MAYOR BELIEVES OHIO’S GUN LAWS ARE TOO LAX. HE WANTS TO MAKE HIS OWN.

PART 1

The antigun groups and their political allies in Congress and in State Legislatures across the Country are continually coming up with new strategies to undermine the Second Amendment. Among them is this one: ignore laws you don’t like. Of all the strategies they employ to undermine the Second Amendment, this one, perhaps, is the most disturbing. Why? For this reason: the United States is a Country that is ruled by laws, not men. At least it is supposed to be. Once the “Rule of Law” is cast aside, despotism takes over. Case in point: The City of Cleveland is at war with the Ohio Legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court. The City of Cleveland does not like Ohio’s concealed carry law. The City of Cleveland does not like the Supreme Court’s ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. So, what does the City of Cleveland do? The City pretends that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller doesn’t apply to the City. The City of Cleveland pretends that, notwithstanding Ohio’s concealed carry law, the City may enact restrictive gun ordinances that undercut the State Legislature’s enactments.In the Editorial Section of the July 20th edition of The Plain Dealer – Cleveland’s mouthpiece for the antigun movement and for the City’s Mayor, Frank Jackson – there is a piece titled, “Provocative Cleveland legislation addresses local firearms violence.” This particular article – so the editorial board tells us – is part of the board’s “Smoking Gun series.” The purpose of the series is to keep a running tally of gun deaths, to quantify the impact of gun violence throughout the county, so the editorial board says. Well, isn’t that nice? It’s critical for the newspaper’s readers to know that a psychopath or lunatic murdered a person with a gun. But, how many homicides were attributed to some other means? The editorial board doesn’t say. Nor does the editorial board of The Plain Dealer tally the number of lives saved through the presence of a gun. The editorial board stresses one set of statistics to the exclusion of others. So, the newspaper has an agenda, and that agenda isn’t one focused on preserving America’s Second Amendment. The newspaper, though, would deny that.In response to one reader’s sarcastic comment as to how the cesspool of Cleveland might be cleaned up, the newspaper points to the current Mayor’s list of “provocative” but supposed “necessary package of legislation.”“The proposed ordinances would:• Require felons who committed crimes with firearms to register with the city Department of Public Safety. • Require the safe and secure storage of firearms away from minors and prohibit the acquisition of more than one firearm within a 90-day period. • Prohibit the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated. • Prohibit carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. • Prohibit possession of a BB gun, pellet gun, knife, brass knuckles or sword in a public place. • Prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm without reporting it to the police. • Prohibit destroying the serial number and other identifiers on a weapon. • Prohibit the sale of facsimile firearms. • Prohibit the sale or possession of slingshots and pea shooters. • Prohibit the possession or use of stench bombs.”After reciting this inane list of hoped for City ordinances, The Plain Dealer adds, “these common-sense recommendations do not violate the Second Amendment yet they have already triggered a backlash from activists.” Oh really!You might wonder at the audacity of the destroyers of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms to sanctify their strategy of destruction, with the ludicrous meme – “common-sense recommendations” – and the ever obligatory tagline, “but of course we do not intend to violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” – as if in the mere saying – it is so. Better it would be were the editorial board simply to keep its mouth shut. For, it is bad enough to work to destroy our Bill of Rights. But, it’s insulting to do so with a smile, rehashing the same tiresome lines, dictated by the puppet masters who treat the American Public as if it were a collection of dunderheads.Let’s take a look at these so-called common-sense recommendations. There are issues, some obvious, some, perhaps, less so, but they are all troublesome.Require felons who committed crimes with firearms to register with the city Department of Public Safety.1) So such felons are to be treated like sex offenders. 2) Suppose present gun violation infractions are rewritten and then upgraded to felonies. Do you see a problem? We do. Suddenly, any otherwise law-abiding citizen who commits an infraction with a gun has now committed a felony and is required to register with the Department of Public Safety for life. That person’s life shall become a living hell, hounded by the Department, and demoted to the status of a second-class citizen for life. 3) The costs of keeping tabs on these “felons” would be enormous and record-keeping would be an administrative nightmare.Require the safe and secure storage of firearms away from minors and prohibit the acquisition of more than one firearm within a 90-day period.1) Doesn’t this sound like the NY SAFE Act? 2) Safe and secure storage of firearms is a matter of common sense and doesn’t require a “Big Brother” to monitor one’s actions. 3) How would the City know the manner in which a person secures firearms other than by violating the Fourth Amendment Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and inspecting his or her house or place of business? Would this City Ordinance entail mandatory police inspections, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment? Probably. Might this not lead to the requirement to purchase gun locks and/or safes? Undoubtedly. And, if so, where would this all end? Perhaps, gun owners would be required to take out special insurance. But, then, just owning and possessing a firearm could become a very expensive proposition, making the ownership and possession of guns cost-prohibitive for many. And, the City would certainly like for that to happen. 4) Why must firearms acquisitions be limited to one every 90 days? This is completely arbitrary. Unless the City had reason to suspect a particular person was a gun runner, there is no reason to arbitrarily limit acquisition of firearms to any particular number. 5) Limiting firearms acquisitions interferes with business. But, perhaps that, too, is the City’s objective.Prohibit the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated.1) Straightforwardly, no one should be using a firearm if he isn’t in control of his faculties. Still, this is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.15. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, prohibiting the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated? Prohibit carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. 1) This is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.125. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, specifically setting forth the requirements for carrying a handgun concealed? 2) Of course, the proposed ordinance uses the term ‘weapon,’ rather than ‘handgun’ or ‘firearm.’ Is the Mayor of Cleveland proposing that carrying a pocket knife should require a permit?Prohibit possession of a BB gun, pellet gun, knife, brass knuckles or sword in a public place.1) Seriously? The issue really goes to criminal intent. For example, if I carry a baseball bat with the intent to commit a crime, I have already violated a State Statute. So, in that regard, this is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.24(A), says, “No person shall possess or have under the person’s control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with the purpose to use it criminally.” 2) So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, and, in fact, is much more meaningful than a proposed City Ordinance that arbitrarily singles out particular items, the carrying of which is ipso facto criminal conduct?Prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm without reporting it to the police.1) SHADES OF NY SAFE! 2) A gun that I rightfully possess and own is my private property. Within certain restraints, I should be able to do with a gun what I please. Now, in accordance with State Law, I cannot knowingly sell or give a gun to a felon, since felons cannot own or possess firearms. And, I would be breaking State Law were I to do so. And, I certainly would be remiss were I to knowingly give a gun to a lunatic or a moron. But, why should I have to notify the police of a transfer of a gun to another rational person who isn’t a felon? Under what legal or logical rationale can the City justifiably designate the Police as a "BIG BROTHER" over a law-abiding citizen?3) The administrative costs would likely be considerable. 4) Ohio, unlike New York, and a few other jurisdictions, does not license ownership and possession of firearms. Possession of firearms in Ohio is a Right, not a Privilege. If this proposition becomes a City ordinance, Cleveland would be treading a slippery slope toward firearms licensing and registration. This, of course, is what the Mayor of Cleveland and other antigun zealots undoubtedly want.5)Perhaps, most importantly, and, as noted in point “2” above, Ohio State Law already presently prohibits the transfer of a firearm to specific individuals, most notably, felons. Ohio State Law Section 2923.20(A)(1) sets forth, “No person shall: Recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to any person prohibited by section 2923.13 {person under disability} or 2923.15 {intoxicated person} of the Revised Code from acquiring or using any firearm, or recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any dangerous ordnance to any person prohibited by section 2923.13, 2923.15, or 2923.17 of the Revised Code from acquiring or using any dangerous ordnance.” Mayor Jackson’s proposed ordinance adds a requirement that transcends State Law, and THAT, the City isn’t permitted to do, as we shall explain in the second part of this Article.Prohibit destroying the serial number and other identifiers on a weapon.1) This is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.201. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, prohibiting the destruction of a firearm’s serial number or other identification.Prohibit the sale of facsimile firearms.1) Really? 2) What is considered a facsimile firearm? A toy cap pistol that may superficially look like a single action revolver? Would this mean that squirt guns become illegal in Cleveland? If so, is the Mayor countenancing that youngsters should not play with toy guns? So, what constitutes a facsimile? Is the Mayor referring to a true replica of a firearm? If so, even New York, with its draconian firearms laws, does allow possession of replica firearms and defines them with particularity. Is there something else going on here?Prohibit the sale or possession of slingshots and pea shooters.1) Honestly? 2) How about prohibiting the sale of baseball bats, or requiring the licensing for their purchase? How about prohibiting the sale of boomerangs and Frisbee flying disks? How about prohibiting the sale of “peas” or any pea shaped/sized object. After all these things might be ammo for pea shooters!Prohibit the possession or use of stench bombs.1) Stench bombs? Really?2) The State of Ohio already prohibits the possession of dangerous ordnance, such as dynamite, unless a party falls under a specific exemption. The prohibition is codified in Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.17. Stench bombs are not classified as dangerous ordnance by the State. If the City of Cleveland intends to so classify stench bombs as deadly ordinance, then it is redefining State Law to include an item in that category that the Ohio State Legislature has specifically not included. And, if the City of Cleveland does not intend to classify stench bombs as dangerous ordnance, then what is the rationale for prohibiting such things at all? Moreover, if the City of Cleveland can legally prohibit a citizen from possessing any item the City wishes, then any and every conceivable object is fair game for prohibition. The Ohio State Legislature itself would not go so far as to give itself the power to ban anything and everything at the slightest whim. Yet, the City of Cleveland would have the audacity to do just that.Beyond the obvious arguments to be drawn against each one of these proposed City of Cleveland ordinances, there is another and more pressing argument to be made and it is one that cuts across the very idea of implementing a City ordinance impacting weapons generally and firearms specifically, anywhere in Ohio. It has to do with the manner in which laws operate in Ohio. The Mayor, apparently, either doesn’t care or hasn’t a clue how the gun laws governing the State of Ohio operate.In the next Article, to be posted shortly, we lay out why the Mayor’s proposed weapons’ ordinances are dead in the water even prior to an attempt to implement them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

MICROSTAMPING: WHAT IS IT? DOES IT WORK? WHY HAVE IT?

UPDATE:

In lieu of posting a separate Article to update information pertaining to microstamping technology as applied to firearms and, more particularly, as applied to a crucial component of guns, namely, firing pins, we have added pertinent information to the present Article. The additional information, included in this update, is highlighted in red, as seen here as well in this "update" paragraph and in the "erratum" paragraph immediately below, to distinguish it from original content. We did this to make the additional content readily discernible from the previously posted content. Visitors to our site who have previously read our Article on microstamping technology may wish to skip immediately to the additional content, set forth below, toward the end of the Article.

ERRATUM:

We inadvertently referred to “12” flaws or problems or issues with existent microstamping technology as applied to firearms, but we actually mentioned "11." The additional content in this Article includes a twelfth issue.

OVERVIEW

Let’s take a look at two voices on the subject of microstamping as applied to firearms – always keeping in mind the possible impact of this technology on Americans' Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear arms. Here’s one from the antigun crowd: “A technology called ‘microstamping’ has made comprehensive ballistic identification a reality. Microstamping . . . enables police to trace a gun without ever physically recovering it. A traced firearm is a valuable lead in a criminal investigation, because investigators can then connect that weapon to its first purchaser, who may become either a suspect or a source of information helpful to the investigation.” Source:  http://csgv.org/issues/microstamping/And here, in part, is what the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) says about microstamping: “An independent, peer reviewed, study published in the professional scholarly journal for forensic firearms examiners proved that the concept of microstamping is unreliable and does not function as the patent holder claims. It can be easily defeated in mere seconds using common household tools or criminals could simply switch the engraved firing pin to a readily available unmarked spare part, thereby circumventing the process.” Source: http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/microstamping.cfmWe have two conflicting statements concerning microstamping:  one extolling the virtue of it and the other pointing emphatically to the failure of it. So, who’s right? Hint: it isn’t the statement from the antigun crowd. So, how does the antigun crowd get it wrong? To get a handle on this, we’ll take a close look at what legal scholars say. Expert views on matters of law aren’t colored by slogans, by emotional rhetoric or by simplistic, shameful, and ludicrous sound bites – all of which are the mainstays of news commentators and news analysts, politicians and their toadies, of antigun zealots of all stripes, including, inter alia, internationalists and billionaire elites, New World Order cabals bent on dismembering the Second Amendment, and, of course, frightened, ill-informed,  "low information" Americans who look to Government for their solace and for their protection and for solutions to all their needs and problems, whether perceived or real.

TO GET A GOOD GRASP OF MICROSTAMPING BEYOND THE  HOOPLA WE WILL DEAL WITH THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

One, the nature of microstamping; two, whether microstamping is in fact a reliable forensic science tool in firearms identification; and three, how mainstream media extols the virtues of microstamping technology – using propaganda in lieu of sound reasoning – in a naked, shameful bid to sell that technology to the American public. In dealing with the above issues let’s ignore, for now, the fanfare and hysteria generated over microstamping. The salient question is: what does the legal community have to say about microstamping?  So, let’s look at the academic literature on the subject.

ISSUE ONE: WHAT IS MICROSTAMPING REALLY AND WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO ACCOMPLISH?

Before considering whether microstamping works, we need to get a precise handle on what microstamping, in fact, is. Vocalizations from the antigun crowd, cries and exhortations from allied members in Congress and in State Legislatures across the Country, and simplistic chants from the mainstream news media are -- all of them -- hardly credible sources of information an American citizen can safely rely on. We must dig a little deeper to get the true story. Let’s begin. From what can be gathered, there isn’t, to date, a lot of legal literature on the subject of microstamping technology as applied to firearms. And that, in itself, is telling. Still, legal literature that happens to be available is forthright and complete in explanation. One legal scholar Dorothy Kenney, provides a comprehensive, accurate explication of the technology, devoid of emotional rhetoric. She says, “Firearm Microstamping is a new technology invented by Todd Lizotte that can imprint serial numbers on spent ammunition casings by utilizing a solid-state ultraviolet laser to machine an array of microscopic characters onto the tip of a firearm’s firing pin. Similar to ballistic fingerprinting, it allegedly helps police identify what firearm might have been used in a crime. Microstamping uses precision equipment to remove microscopic amounts of metal from the tip of the firing pin. When a firearm trigger is pulled, there is no guarantee of one single identifiable mark on the bullet.  What the microstamp technology does is place intentional codes linked to the serial number of a firearm by using an optimized laser micromachining process. The basic theory behind the technology is that a firearm’s firing pin or other internal parts could bear microscopic codes unique to the firearm that could imprint the codes on fired cartridge cases. The codes then contain information like the gun’s make, model and serial number. This acts much like a fingerprint on the bullet. If the gun is then used in any crime, this allows law enforcement officials to enter the found shell casing codes into a database to determine not only the manufacturer of the gun, but even the licensed dealer who sold it, and ultimately the owner. The goal is to provide an improved piece of trace evidence for forensic investigators, so that they can track a firearm without having to recover it.” Dorothy Kenney, Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012).Now, concentrate on the author’s use of the term, ‘allegedly’ as it appears in the citation. The term, ‘alleged,’ means ‘questionably true’ or ‘supposedly true.’ Those expressions do not mean ‘true beyond doubt,’ which is what the antigun crowd and their allies in Congress and in the mainstream media would have you believe, falsely, about microstamp technology. Once again, the author, Kenney, says: “it {that is to say, microstamping technology} allegedly helps police identify what firearm might have been used in a crime. So, what can we infer from Dorothy Kenney’s article about what the technology actually is? We can infer from Dorothy Kenney’s Article that microstamping is a firearms identification technology using toolmarks to link a cartridge with the firearm that it was fired from.But what is a toolmark? We need to get a handle on the notion of toolmark to appreciate whether microstamping technology is worth the apparent benefit as exalted by the antigun crowd through its sounding board, the mainstream news media. So, to get a handle on toolmarks, let’s take a look at what two other legal scholars have to say. “Toolmarks are created when a hard object (generally, a tool) impacts a relatively softer object. In the case of modern firearms and ammunition, those marks are generated in the incredibly quick and inherently violent steps of the firing process. The firing pin jabs into the metal at the base of the ammunition cartridge - the soft brass of the circular primer cup in common centerfire ammunition or the cartridge brass of the outer rim of the cartridge in rimfire ammunition - causing a chemical primer mixture to ignite. In turn, this ignition causes the propellant or powder to burn, resulting in a rapid and intense buildup of gas pressure that slams the cartridge walls against the internal surfaces of the firearm (particularly the breech face against which the base of the cartridge is impressed and from which the firing pin protrudes). The gas pressure also unseats the bullet from the cartridge and propels it outward through the barrel of the gun, the bullet scraping against and gripping the rifling grooves that are typically carved in gun barrels to impart a spin (and added stability in flight) to the bullet. Additional marks are created at the extractor or ejector mechanism, cycling a spent cartridge from the chamber and allowing a new cartridge to enter. There are several levels of hierarchy associated with the attributes of ballistics evidence exhibits. High-level class characteristics include gun caliber, shape of firing pin, number of lands and grooves, etc. These can be used to quickly screen out exhibits that could not have been fired from the same gun. At the other end, there are individual characteristics associated with a gun, such as the fine striations on a bullet’s surface or peculiar microscopic textures in the firing pin impression. There are also intermediate characteristics such as marks that arise from specific manufacturing techniques or flaws. These induce similar patterns on ballistics evidence even though they originated from different sources.” Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010). The authors of the Fordham Urban Law Journal Article point out that, absent microstamping, attempts to match a particular firearm either to the toolmarks on a cartridge casing or on a bullet are difficult.The authors tell us that “the development of an objective, statistical basis for firearms identification is challenging due to the multiple sources of randomness present when a gun is fired. Shots from even the same gun are not fired under the same exact conditions. Ammunition, wear and cleanliness of firearms parts, burning of propellant particles and the resulting gas pressure, etc., can vary across firings. Therefore, an examiner’s assessment of the toolmarks and the decision on a match comes down to a subjective determination based on intuition and experience.” Thus, the goal of forensic examination – "the creation of a match between a casing or bullet to generate an investigative link from ballistics evidence to point of sale of the weapon or ammunition used in a crime” – is difficult because it is "a subjective determination." Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010).Did you grasp that? What it is that forensic specialists attempt to do in their investigation of a crime involving use of a firearm is to match a casing or bullet to a weapon that is used in a crime. We can conclude from this that standard forensics testing is difficult, and ultimately fallible, because it is ultimately a subjective process. But, then, is microstamping an improvement over standard methods of ballistics identification? Is microstamping the answer to the problem of ballistics identification? Those questions get us to the nub of the issue concerning ballistics identification as to whether microstamping is worthy of adoption by the firearms industry -- specifically as to whether microstamping would really be of help to forensics specialists who are engaged in ballistics identification. If so, that question is still one that is separate and apart from the important question concerning the associated costs that must be borne by the firearms manufacturers who are forced to adopt microstamping in the manufacturing process; for that would require the retooling of an entire industry.But, getting back to the methodology of microstamping, this is what the two authors of the Fordham Urban law Journal have to say about it, in relation to standard methods of ballistic testing: “But, suppose an unalterable and unique marking might be placed on a part of a firearm so that any cartridge fired from it could be rapidly traced back to the point of sale by reading the etched marking. A distinct advantage of microstamping is that the marks could be examined at a crime scene using equipment no more sophisticated than a magnifying glass, vastly simplifying and expediting the process of developing investigative leads. Microstamping, if feasible and practical, would have the advantage of imposing uniqueness as a characteristic of ballistics evidence, substituting known and fixed markings for microscopically fine individualizing characteristics that result from random processes in manufacture and weapon firing.” But, would it? The authors of the Fordham Urban Law Journal have their reservations.Concentrate on the authors' qualification of microstamping technology through their use of the phrase, "if feasible and practical," as that phrase appears in the law journal article. The authors said, "microstamping, if feasible and practical, would have the advantage of imposing uniqueness as a characteristic of ballistics evidence. . . ." Now, let us, for a moment, go back to what the first legal scholar, Dorothy Kenney, says about microstamping, for she, too, expresses immediate reservations as to the usefulness of microstamping to forensics examiners as a ballistics identification methodology. But, she has a different take on the nature of microstamping. She says, “The primary difference between the traditional toolmark identification methods and the intentional microstamping is that the latter is geared more towards extracting information rather than a matching methodology.” Here we have some disagreement among legal scholars from the get-go as to what microstamping even is. They all provide an accurate and comprehensive account of microstamping technology, but one scholar says that microstamping is really an extraction of information technology, rather than a technology that involves the use of "matching" a cartridge to a gun. The other two scholars seem to be saying that microstamping is in fact just that -- a "matching" ballistics technology" precisely because it involves the use of toolmarks: "the firing pin jabs into the metal at the base of the ammunition cartridge."   Granted, the disagreement between these legal scholars may be due to semantics. Still, that semantic disparity bespeaks the ultimate complexity underlying forensics testing, which is as much an art as a science, regardless of the technology employed. What we really need to concentrate on now is the ultimate pressing issue, and that is: whether or to what extent microstamping ought to be employed at all by weapons manufacturers. For, if microstamping technology does offer decided advantages over existing ballistics identification methodologies, then why shouldn’t microstamping technology be employed?Microstamping may sound plausible, useful, and preferable to existing ballistics testing. At least that is what the antigun crowd and its allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures would likely have you believe if you were to pointedly ask them -- assuming they understand what ballistics methodology even means. Be that as it may, legal experts do have serious reservations about and concerns over microstamping technology. And those reservations and concerns are wholly apart from one critical matter: enactment of such restrictive firearms legislation, requiring firearms manufacturers to adopt microstamping technology in the firearms production process, would likely create a technological nightmare for the firearms industry. But so what? Certainly, the antigun crowd doesn’t care about that. And the antigun crowd’s allies in the U.S. Congress and in the State Legislatures obviously don’t care. For, if legislators did care, they would carefully consider the ramifications -- all the ramifications -- pertaining to adoption of such technology. But, the question for us, who do care about those ramifications, is: do these legal scholars conclude  from their critical assessment of microstamping technology, that such technology – which might in theory look good, regardless of what it really is – would in fact work in practice? And, a corollary to that question is: even if microstamping technology does work in practice -- even if only marginally better than traditional ballistics identification methods -- does that consideration override other problems that invariably arise through adoption of the technology?  For, if in fact the technology doesn’t work in practice and/or causes a myriad of other serious, associated problems if adopted, then there is no logical reason to use it – to mandate implementation of microstamping by firearms manufacturers in the manufacturing process.So, what do these legal scholars conclude? Well, the bottom line is that the authors of these respective academic journal articles uniformly reject the idea that microstamping, as a forensic tool, is an improvement over present ballistics examination. The rub – as the two authors of the Fordham Law Journal article point out, as does the author of the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal – is that, while microstamping sounds like a great approach to forensics firearms testing in theory -- that is to say -- from a purely theoretical technological standpoint, it isn’t feasible or practical -- and that means it does not offer any advantage over standard ballistics identification methodology in actual practice.  In fact, in many ways, microstamping technology is decidedly worse than standard ballistics identification methodology. And this takes us now to the second issue.

ISSUE TWO: SO, IS MICROSTAMPING OF FIREARMS A RELIABLE FORENSIC TOOL?

No it isn’t. And, we aren’t looking at just one minor problem with the technology. There are a slew of major problems connected with the technology. Let's take a look at them. This is what Dorothy Kenney says in her Article Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012):(1) “Microstamping has repeatedly failed tests. Results of {a UC Davis} study were consistent with earlier tests published by the Association of Firearms and Tool Marks Examiners. Firearm examiner George Krivosta, of the Suffolk County, N.Y. crime lab, found that the vast majority of Microstamped characters in the alphanumeric serial number could not be read on any of the expended cartridge cases generated and examined." However, one of the greatest flaws that the two studies revealed was that the Microstamp codes were easily removed. Firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute with household tools.” So, if the serial numbers cannot often easily be read or, if criminals can, in any event, easily get around microstamping technology, then there is no point to the technology’s adoption.(2) “Additionally, most gun crimes cannot be solved by micro-stamping, or simply do not require micro-stamping to be solved. Most gun crimes do not involve shots being fired, thus there are no cartridge cases for police to recover. Notwithstanding TV shows that portray crime-solving as impossible without high-technology, most crimes can be solved by traditional means. For example, of murders in which the victim-offender relationship is known, most involve family members, friends, and other acquaintances.” This makes a critical point. Technology is often not needed. In such cases, technology may often overshoot the mark. To adopt new, and expensive, technology for its own sake when it doesn’t offer an improvement over existing technology or over simpler non-technological ways of accomplishing a particular task is foolhardy. Its adoption creates unnecessary complexity. After all, technology is supposed to provide a service. If that service isn’t needed because an existing methodology works just fine, then there is no rational purpose for adopting such new technology.(3) “Most criminals also obtain guns through unregulated channels. According to the BATFE, 88% of crime guns are acquired through unregulated channels, and the average time between a crime gun’s acquisition and its recovery by police is 10.8 years. There is also a very real risk that Microstamp technology would lead to gun thefts if legally purchased guns could link a criminal to a computerized system. It is argued that this technology would lead to an increase in black market sales of firearms.” And, if so, this would create both a headache for innocent owners of semiautomatic handguns that are stolen, and for the police, as the police are led on a wild goose chase, chasing after innocent firearms owners whose stolen guns end up being used in crimes. And innocent gun owners, for their part, would be caught up in a dragnet, forced to defend themselves against a crime they did not commit or would be otherwise forced to defend themselves against a trumped up charge of gross negligence for having lost a firearm in the first place. Again, if a new technology, such as microstamping, doesn’t offer any benefit to forensic police work, no reason exists for its implementation.(4) “One of the biggest dangers is the possibility that anyone could collect Microstamped shell casings from firing ranges and plant them at the scene of a crime. This ultimately could lead to a false arrest or implicate an innocent person in criminal activity.” “Innocent people can be framed or implicated.” This is a corollary of “(3)” above, where innocent citizens are hounded by the police for crimes they did not commit. Thus, criminals would make fools of both the police and of innocent law-abiding Americans. This suggests that microstamping is not just irrelevant to ballistics science, but is actually an impediment to police investigation of crimes committed with guns.(5) It’s unlikely that microstamping technology would be admissible in court because of the difficulty of maintaining written documentation. Dorothy Kenney says, “maintaining a proper chain of custody’ involves producing and maintaining written documentation, which accompanies the evidence and provides an uninterrupted timeline showing the secure location of the evidence from the time it was discovered until the present time. . . . Maintaining this chain of custody helps to ensure that the evidence will not be contaminated or compromised in any way. If the proper chain of custody is not maintained and the chain is broken, it may provide a potential reason for such evidence to be inadmissible in court. Thus, even if Microstamping was mandated, it would have limited value, because there would be no way to ensure that the evidence was not compromised, rendering it ultimately inadmissible in court.” The U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ruled that scientific evidence produced at trial must be not only relevant but reliable.” “Since microstamping relies on toolmarks, the problem of presenting forensic evidence based on microstamping faces three challenges that at present cannot be overcome.” Kenney says,“. . . the challenges to forensic firearms and toolmark identifications have been that (1) the individual characteristics of toolmarks are comprised of non-unique marks, (2) subclass characteristics shared by more than one tool may be confused with individual characteristics unique to one and only one tool, and (3) the individual characteristics of the marks made by a particular tool change over time.” So, if issues of admissibility of microstamping evidence commonly arise, then the usefulness of the technology is dubious even if it is theoretically sound. So why have it? This is another critical consideration. If the conclusion of forensic examiners, based on use of microstamping technology, is doubtful, and if, then, such forensic expert testimony is inadmissible in a court of law, use of microstamp technology collapses in upon itself like a house of cards. The use of the technology is both pointless and worthless.(6) As with any scientific theory, to be valid and therefore useful, the theory has to be subject to independent verification. The theory behind microstamping technology is no different. “This means that other examiners must be able to repeat the work and come to the same conclusions. Therefore, the data that we gather should provide a well-defined ‘roadmap’ as to what experiments we performed to answer the question(s) posed, what data was gathered, and a clear demonstration of the evidence from which we supported our conclusion(s). This mechanism of communication among scientists is a substantial part of the process of verification.  Thus far, the results that Microstamp technology manufacturers claim to have attained have neither been duplicated nor verified.” Additionally, “Scientific knowledge must be more than a mere belief; it must be fact or theory grounded in methods or procedures of science. Because this new technology has not been thoroughly peer reviewed, the rate of error is so high, and there is no general acceptance among the scientific community, a judicial inquiry should bar admission of it as evidence. This runs in direct conflict with California’s new law requiring that all new models of semiautomatic pistols sold in the state be engraved with the Intentional Microstamp laser codes.” So, if independent verification of field tests is what microstamp technology lacks, there is no logical basis for forensic specialists to adopt it. And, if that is so, then there is no rational basis for State Legislatures to enact laws, requiring gun manufacturers to spend exorbitant sums of money to retool machines to fabricate guns, and there is no rational reason for the consumer to have to expend extra dollars to purchase semiautomatic weapons, incorporating the technology. In fact, to date, there are no credible estimates of the real cost of implementing microstamp technology either to firearms or, if extended, to that of ammunition. Further, were State Legislatures to mandate use of microstamp technology for the millions of firearms already manufactured, the additional expenses incurred by firearms manufacturers and by the consumer would be astronomical. Moreover, the logistics of handling such a massive undertaking would be unimaginably complex.(7) At the time of the publication of Kenney’s law journal article, California’s microstamp technology law was in effect and had been in effect, thanks – or no thanks – to then Governor Schwarzenegger’s having signed it into law in 2007. And, Kenney said, that, “while the Microstamp technology law is currently in effect in California, it is owned solely by a company called Identification Dynamics, LLC, which recently acquired the U.S. patent. However, the California legislature required the Attorney General to certify that the technology was available to more than one [gun] manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions before it could take effect. In essence, the requirement does not activate until Microstamping is outside of patent protection but the manufacturing company has a patent on it that runs until approximately 2023. Thus far, this certification requirement has not been satisfied so the legislation is practically nonfunctioning.” Be that as it may, on May 17, 2013, Rochelle C. East, the Chief Deputy Attorney General did certify, under California Penal Code Section 31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A), that very technology. The Chief Deputy Attorney General, Rochelle, said in important part: “The California Department of Justice has conducted a review of the known available patent restrictions applicable to the microscopic-imprinting technology described in §31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A). Based on this review, the department certifies that, as of May 17, 2013, this technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions.” The certification has not, to the best of the Arbalest Quarrel’s knowledge and belief, been challenged; and we believe it should be. The public should have access to the facts and to the legal reasoning the Chief Deputy Attorney General relied on to support her certification of microstamp technology. A blanket statement in lieu of supporting arguments is suspect. Apparently, New York is relying on the certification report that the Chief Deputy Attorney General of California published, as New York drafts its own legislation, mandating adoption of microstamping technology in its own State.(8) One law scholar, David Muradyan, in “Review Of Selected 2007 California Legislation: Penal: Firearm Microstamping: A Bullet with a Name On It, 39 McGeorge L. Rev. 616 (2008), is clearly enamored with microstamping technology, but, even he admits it falls short in a few critical respects. He notes, for example, without taking exception to the conclusion that: “According to experts, this technology would cost manufacturers somewhere between fifty cents and eight dollars per gun to implement.” Actually, the associated costs are completely unknown. State Legislatures as with the U.S. Congress often jump the gun. They act upon an event or a perceived event without properly considering the consequences of their action which, in many instances, as we have seen – and not just in respect to the matter of enactment of restrictive gun legislation – creates unanticipated and very real negative consequences. The antigun crowd is flippant in its suggestion that adoption of microstamping technology would have a minimal negative economic impact on the manufacturing of firearms. How would they know? From what hat does the antigun crowd pull a rabbit?(9) David Muradyan states: “Some opponents of the law even suggested that manufacturers would stop selling new semiautomatic handguns in California. In fact. . . at least one manufacturer has stopped firearm sales in California.”  Smith & Wesson has stopped or will stop selling its semiautomatic handguns in California, and Sturm Ruger has or will follow suit. And it is likely that other firearms maufacturers, too, will refrain from selling semiautomatic handguns in California.Muradyan, apparently, does not, appropriately, see this as a positive development although antigun zealots would, most likely, and, clearly, inappropriately, disagree with that conclusion. Actually, California’s microstamping law has a tremendous negative impact on free market capitalism, on the right of law-abiding Californians to freely exercise their Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and, indeed, on the very notions of American culture, heritage and National integrity. We see our Nation’s unity slowly, inexorably, methodically, and irrevocably warped by restrictive gun measures that have little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence – regardless of the propaganda that is pumped out by the mainstream news media urging the public to think otherwise. This new law has everything to do with destroying the fabric of American conscience – of the American psyche – of laying waste to the idea of the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.(10) Muradyan also asserts, “in addition, opponents argued that criminals could alter a firearm with a microstamping feature by removing, defacing, or replacing the firing pin.  {The California microstamping law} however, requires etching to occur in at least two different places inside the pistol, which presumably would make it more difficult for a criminal to alter. Further, according to supporters, ‘firing pins equipped with microstamping technology would be difficult to alter as they are nearly as hard as diamonds.’ Therefore, even if criminals were to successfully file the pin down, it would effectively prevent the gun from firing. However, at least one independent peer-reviewed study from a professional society of firearm examiners found that microstamp markings could be removed without rendering the firearm inoperable. This is a major flaw with microstamping technology that the legal expert, Dorothy Kenney, makes as well, as noted, supra. Once again, she says, and emphatically, ". . . one of the greatest flaws that the two studies {that she looked at} revealed was that the Microstamp codes were easily removed. Firing pins were removed in minutes, and serial numbers were obliterated in less than a minute with household tools.”What we can reasonably conclude from the comments of these two legal experts is this: if the technology is flawed from the get-go or, if criminals can easily get around microstamping technology even if it were otherwise to have some advantages over traditional ballistics forensic methodologies, then why have it? There is no point to the technology’s adoption. Granted, legal experts are not in complete agreement whether microstamp technology can be defeated. The issue whether a firing pin can be “filed down” making the weapon inoperable is not conclusive. But the fact that controversy does exist ought to give one pause. For, if microstamping technology can be defeated -- and experts do agree that this is not unlikely -- then the justification for mandating its use on the ground that it is an innovative tool for the investigation of gun-related crimes loses all semblance of meaning. One gathers from Muradyan’s point that, at the very least, much more testing of the efficacy of the microstamping process should be undertaken, to ascertain whether the technology can be defeated, before laws mandating its adoption by gun manufacturers are enacted. But the legal scholar, Kenney, has no doubt at all about that. She makes abundantly clear, on the basis of her investigations, that microstamping can be defeated, as she so states. And one thing we can all rest assured about, and it is this: criminals will definitely attempt to defeat microstamping technology. Many criminals are very industrious and highly intelligent. No one should lose sight of that. To believe otherwise is to embark on the road of dangerous complacency. For, if (1) microstamping technology can be defeated, then, (2) there are criminals who are capable of defeating that technology, and, (3) criminals will defeat microstamping  technology. Of that, there can be no doubt at all. And, in the absence of any absolute guarantee by those who seek to require implementation of that technology that such microstamping technology cannot be defeated, this, then, is certainly reason enough to preclude adoption of it.11) Lastly, Muradyan points out that, “according to the co-inventor of the technology, the reason that {the microstamping study} produced poor results and that markings {were} not fully legible was because the {microstamping study} did not use a more sophisticated method to read the markings known as, ‘Scanning Electron Microscopy.’” But, consider: if sophisticated scanning techniques are required, then the impetus to use microstamping, with the attendant compliance hell that it creates for firearms manufacturers, is lost and, in fact, it becomes self-defeating. For, as noted by the legal scholars, Nair and Rolf, if it works at all, then theoretically at least “a distinct advantage of microstamping{would be} that the marks could be examined at a crime scene using equipment no more sophisticated than a magnifying glass, vastly simplifying and expediting the process of developing investigative leads.” See, Daniel L. Cork, Vijayan N. Nair, and John E. Rolph, Some Forensic Aspects Of Ballistic Imaging, 38 Fordham Urb. L.J. 473 (2010).If the “marks” cannot be readily examined at a crime scene, as readily admitted by a co-inventor of the microstamping technology, then a presumptive key advantage of the technology for use in forensic science is lost. And, of course, the singular danger is that the police may ultimately be drawn to an innocent gun owner, if shell casings are “planted” at the scene of a crime, anyway. So, then, why use such technology? Answer: there’s no rational reason at all to do so. "So, one of the unintended consequences of ballistic fingerprinting should be an increase in the value of revolvers with disparate implications for the black, gray, and legitimate markets. Revolver technology is older than pistol technology. The older portion of the handgun inventory is dominated by revolvers. Revolvers dominate the subcategory of early-inventory, no-paper handguns because there are more older revolvers than older pistols and more of them were sold before the 1968 Gun Control Act established nominal recording of sales by serial number. Ballistic fingerprinting will increase the gray-and black-market values of these revolvers." "However, these early-inventory revolvers have another characteristic that might produce positive consequences. Many of them are chambered in smaller calibers, and thus potentially less lethal than many modern guns. For example, the antiquated .32 caliber cartridge makes up a substantial share of early-inventory revolvers. Many police agencies used the .32 before upgrading to the .38 Special revolver, which itself was replaced by more modern, ballistically superior sidearms. So while ballistic fingerprinting may have limited value as a crime solving tool, it might produce marginal extra-design benefits by creating black market preferences for early-inventory, lower-powered handguns.” But, contrary, to this last remark, a substantial number of relatively small but high powered caliber revolvers (.357 caliber) or large bore (.45 or .50 caliber) revolvers presently exist or are otherwise manufactured on a regular basis. So, Muradyan's last comment is of dubious value in support of adoption of microstamping technology.(12) Furthermore, apropos of the dubious value of microstamping technology in light of the existence of revolver handguns, even assuming arguendo (1) that microstamping technology were demonstrably superior to existent technology, and (2) that defeating the technology where implemented on newly manufactured firearms were difficult, the fact remains that criminals need not use such firearms that incorporate such technology. This point is made poignantly clear by Nicholas J. Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University Law School, in his “Article & Essay: Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem,” 43 Wake Forest L. Rev. 837 (Winter 2008). Professor Johnson emphasizes that, “The technology only works for pistols - i.e., semi-automatic handguns that eject a spent shell casing when fired. It is irrelevant for revolvers where the spent cartridges remain in the cylinder until manually ejected. More than this, it only applies to the new pistols that enter the market each year in the handful of jurisdictions that have these laws. But even if it were a national program and captured all the new pistols (though none of the revolvers), it would only involve a small fraction of the full inventory. If layered with new requirements that all existing pistols had to be brought in for an official firing and collection of the spent case for the database, the scheme should encounter the same defiance impulses that fuel resistance to registration and confiscation. As explained in the discussion of registration, one impact of Heller should be to reduce the impulse to defy this type of measure, at least among the general population. Unfortunately, the target population, the class of criminal actors, will have very high incentives to obtain remainder guns withheld from the database, or replace the pistol’s barrel, or obliterate the microstamp, or change the firing pin contour or simply replace it.” Johnson's arguments, alone, ought be sufficient to silence anyone who thinks microstamping technology should be added to the ballistics testing repertoire. For, even assuming that microstamping technology were the sine qua non of modern ballistics technology – a technology that cannot be defeated in the firearms in which it were employed – which, as we have shown, isn’t the case at all – the technology can easily be defeated through the simple expedient of utilizing handguns that simply make no use of it. The millions of handguns presently on the market make no use of it, whether they are semiautomatic handguns or revolver handguns, and no sensible gun owner would freely hand over his handguns for modification of the firing pins to make use of it, in the absence of laws that require such modification of existing handguns. Secondly, even if the microstamping of firing pins of all prospectively manufactured handguns were required – revolvers as well as pistols – the technology is, once again, useless  and therefore pointless for revolvers, as made abundantly clear by Professor Johnson, because -- as anyone who has any familiarity with firearms knows -- revolvers do not eject cartridge casings. Thus, microstamping technology will never replace standard ballistic testing methodologies presently used by forensics experts. This simple matter-of-fact irremediable flaw inherent in microstamping technology is, apparently, lost on the mainstream news media that constantly sings, grandiosely, about the wonders of the "new" technology, conveniently overlooking its most obvious failing.Perhaps most odd, though, is the fact that, as the antigun groups work to classify more and more semiautomatic handguns under the category of “assault weapons” –  making ownership and possession of more and more semiautomatic pistols unlawful, in a naked, unapologetic attempt to reduce the types of handguns available to the public – more members of the public who wish to buy a handgun will only be able to buy a revolver. Further, killers may be more inclined to use a high-powered .357 caliber revolver or a big bore .45 or even .50 caliber caliber revolver, rather than a semiautomatic, to commit murder, in any event. So, far from being a panacea for present-day fallibilities in ballistics testing, the utility of microstamping is reduced essentially to a nullity. So, why have it? When faced with these irrefutable facts, detailing the flaws of microstamping technology, antigun groups will undoubtedly still argue forcefully for adoption of the technology.  They will likely either offhandedly gloss over or altogether ignore the logical arguments that come to bear against adoption of the technology and that point irrevocably to the uselessness of the technology, or they will simply regurgitate general and meaningless slogans about how any antigun measure is a good measure for society.  Clearly, microstamping technology has so many problems and issues, that, to say it isn’t as yet ready for adoption -- if, indeed, it ever would be -- is an understatement. As a tool of forensic science, it is of dubious worth. The attendant costs to firearms manufacturers who must retool machinery to accommodate microstamping is likely to be exorbitant. The logistics of implementation is a nightmare. The negative impact on the law-abiding, innocent gun owner caught in a web of misidentification is all too likely. The admissibility of expert testimony predicated upon microstamping, in a court of law, is doubtful. And, the mere use of a revolver handgun that doesn't eject spent shell casings, in lieu of a semiautomatic handgun that does, defeats microstamping technology outright, and therefore renders the technology absolutely useless for forensic ballistics work. So, balancing costs and benefits of the technology, the benefits to be derived from adoption of microstamping technology in the manufacture of firearms come up abysmally short, if there are benefits to be derived from its adoption at all.

ISSUE THREE: MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S SUPPORT OF MICROSTAMPING TECHNOLOGY IS IRRATIONAL

When all is said and done, it becomes clear that the antigun crowd isn’t interested in whether microstamping technology actually helps to solve gun crimes or, for that matter, whether the technology even works in theory. The antigun crowd is simply interested in creating headaches for both firearms manufacturers and for the American public. And the antigun crowd will succeed on that score in any jurisdiction where microstamping legislation is enacted. Now, even assuming arguendo that microstamping of firearms and ammunition does provide some forensic benefits over standard ballistics identification methodology -- which in fact it doesn't -- the mere adoption of microstamping technology is not and was never designed to be a mechanism to prevent gun violence. That fact seems to have been lost on those Legislators and on mainstream media journalists who advocate for it.The problem of gun violence falls squarely on the psychopaths and lunatics who themselves are the cause of it. Solving crimes after the fact -- which is all that microstamping technology does, if implemented, and, in fact, is all that microstamping technology, as with all ballistics identification, methodology, was ever designed to do -- does not serve to detract from commission of crimes before the fact. And, compelling manufacturers to expend monies retooling machines for an unproven technology and requiring purchasers to spend additional sums of money to satisfy some will-o-the-wisp aspirations of antigun fanatics, is absolutely asinine. The mainstream media is but a useful tool of the Anti-American antigun crowd and its allies in Congress and in the State Legislatures – coughing up imbecilic slogans and rationalizations, and asides that are devoid of content, meaning and validity in order, merely and, indeed, solely to further a political and ideological agenda.Honest debate must precede enactment of microstamping legislation and – indeed – of any restrictive gun legislation. But, the antigun crowd isn’t interested in debate. And, it isn’t interested in listening to reason. It has directed its efforts to one singular, limited objective: remove all guns from the hands of civilian American citizens. It will resort to chicanery and lies, to accomplish that singular objective, always tugging at emotions, never informing the public with truth. Microstamping is but one more deceptive trick in the antigun crowd’s arsenal. And the mainstream news media isn’t interested in telling Americans the truth about the antigun crowd’s singular objective. Quite the contrary; the mainstream media is in on the secret and it is actively involved in spreading lies. It is interested in manipulating the news; not simply reporting it.Unsurprisingly the American public is deeply perplexed, as it plaintively asks: “What is true? “What is fiction?” “What is real?” “What is fantasy?” In the end the public gives up attempting to sort truth from fiction, reality from fantasy. The public doesn’t know anymore, which is understandable. But, worse, many members of the public don't care. That however is unconscionable. For, what is at stake is no less than the loss of our sacred liberties. The puppet masters know this, and that, of course is, their goal. Guns in the hands of the American citizenry do not fit into their plans. For, nothing is deemed more dangerous to the puppet masters than the thought of an American citizen who cares about his sacred Rights and – more – has the means to secure them.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.          

GEE, IF YOU’RE GOING TO COMMIT MURDER, PLEASE USE A GUN!

This from the NY Times: “The parents of the first three victims of Elliot O. Rodger’s murderous rampage [re: the Santa Barbara killings on May 23, 2014] said they were frustrated by the authorities handling of the case. . . . It was not clear how the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death [all young men, not women]. In a joint interview, the parents told The Washington Post that they had visited the crime scene and had seen no blood on the walls or ceiling. The police had removed a 6-by-5 foot piece of carpeting in one bedroom, and a swath of vinyl flooring around the toilet had been cut out. They said the limited amount of material removed from the apartment suggested the killings had been confined to a small space. They criticized the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s department for not telling them how it believed the killings had been carried out, and said they were angered by public health and legal systems that they said valued the rights of the mentally ill, including Mr. Rodger, over those who may become their victims.” New York Times, “Inquiry Vexes Parents of 3 Slain in Spree.”The Article appeared on page 15 of the Sunday, June 22, 2014 edition of the N.Y. Times. What’s immediately evident, given a description of the knifing attack that killed three men, is that a knife is as useful a killing implement as a gun in the hands of a person who’s set on doing violence to another – in this case, to three others, all other men. That point, although evident to any sensible person, isn’t evident to the N.Y. Times. The paper demonstrates incredulity that “the slight Mr. Rodger, 22, was able to over-power the three, who were stabbed to death.” So, we are to assume the New York Times would not have any reason to doubt Mr. Rodger’s ability to snuff the life out of the three young men had he done the proper thing and used a gun on them as he had on the young women whom next he killed. That would have made good copy for the paper and would certainly be consistent with the fanciful world the paper has created for its readers: (1) guns alone are the main vehicle of and hallmark of violence in America; (2) it is easy to kill with a gun, but not so easy to kill with any other object; (3) if a person is going on a killing rampage, it is best that he do so using a gun, for otherwise, how can the public be duped into going along with a complete gun ban if any other object can be utilized to kill another just as easily; and (4) killers have a decided preference for guns. Unfortunately, for the NY Times and the antigun zealots, Elliot Rodger didn’t go along with the game plan. Apparently, he wasn’t aware of the four axioms of antigun logic. Perhaps Rodger didn’t want to show he was prejudiced in his choice of killing implements. Be that as it may, the three young men Rodger killed with a knife, in lieu of a gun, are just as dead. No doubt the New York Times would’ve loved to interview both Rodger and his male victims to get a handle on just how the slight Elliot O. Rodger was able to kill three men in close quarters, with but a knife.The last sentence of the N.Y. Times Article makes an important point although you might miss it at first glance: “Sheriff Bill Brown [of the Santa Barbara County sheriff’s department] has said the three men were stabbed repeatedly with sharp objects and [he] called the crime scene ‘pretty horrific.’”  Did you catch it? Probably not; and that’s understandable – because what you missed wasn’t there to be found. It was a point that the New York Times never fails to make when reporting on horrific gun violence. But, nonetheless, the newspaper did fail to make the point here. For, curiously absent from that last sentence of the NY Times Article and – indeed – what is curiously and notably absent from the entirety of that June 22^nd New York Times news article, is any remonstration against the horrors of knives and the need to get knives out of the hands of civilians. Obviously, the New York Times didn’t choose to dwell on the lethality of knives. The New York Times didn’t, in fact, choose to make anything of it. The New York Times wished decidedly and decisively, to avoid any discussion about it. The New York Times isn't interested in curbing ownership and possession of knives. The New York Times is interested in curbing ownership and possession of guns.The N.Y. Times, like any other mainstream newspaper, often distorts facts when writing about horrendous events – namely and particularly, when writing about horrific events involving the misuse of firearms. But, this June 22^nd Times article also shows that a mainstream newspaper can, when it so chooses, refrain from distorting facts. You can see, from a perusal of the June 22^nd article, that the newspaper happened not to interject opinions – if indeed the newspaper had any – about knives and the use of knives to commit violent acts, apart from the Times singularly odd statement pertaining to its incredulity about a slight man killing three other men with a knife. Mainstream newspapers and their outlets – as a rule, though – aren’t interested in stating facts and permitting the public to draw its own conclusions from unbiased, unfiltered reporting of the facts. These newspapers all too often feel a need to shape public opinion and to direct it or redirect it to a desired end – at odds with the public’s own best interests. So, what are we getting at here? Just this:The New York Times, like other mainstream newspapers has an agenda. And, that agenda isn't one focused on knives and the misuse of knives -- at least at this point in time. It's an agenda that's focused squarely on guns and their use and misuse -- indeed, on the mere fact of the gun's existence. So, when a horrific act occurs through misuse of an implement other than the misuse of a gun, the horrific act of violence only serves to deflect criticism away from the single-minded pursuit of the antigun crowd and of its allies in the U.S. Congress and in the State Legislatures and in the mainstream media who wish first and foremost to ban guns -- all guns -- from the hands of the civilian citizenry. Moreover, when a horrific act occurs through use of an implement other than a gun, the public becomes aware that the entire issue of violence in society isn't, rationally, one that is properly centered around guns -- which are but inanimate objects devoid of sentience -- but, rather, the issue of violence in society is one  that, rationally and properly, is centered on the perpetrators of the violence, namely, the individuals who perpetrate the violence:  criminal psychopaths and psychotics. Thus, the answer to violence in society must perforce begin and end by dealing with the root cause of that violence, namely, the individual perpetrator of it, and not with the object or objects the perpetrator happens to use to effectuate that violence, be that object a gun, knife, club or any other object.  So, suppose Elliot O. Rodger hadn’t used a knife in any of the attacks. Imagine if you will that Elliot O. Rodger had killed all his victims with a gun. Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times Article would have plainly and succinctly set forth the anguish of the parents of the three men Elliot Rodger had murdered, without also addressing the matter of the implement used in the horrific attack and the need to regulate the ownership and possession of that destructive implement by civilians? Do you honestly think the N.Y. Times would so easily dismiss the use of a gun by Rodger – that the paper would be content merely to set forth the fact of the murders, perhaps referring to use of a gun in the murders and leave the matter at that, without drawing upon antigun sentiment and interjecting comments about the evils of guns? Of course not. The N.Y. Times would talk about the evils of guns in order to foment public outrage toward guns, rather than toward the perpetrator of the violent act or acts, as if to suggest that the existence of evil were a property of the object -- the gun -- rather than of the individual who committed the horrific act.  And, that's absolutely absurd. But, the N.Y Times is less interested on focusing attention on the individual who commits the horrific act and more interested on focusing attention on the object the perpetrator uses to commit the horrific act when the object is a gun. At that point the newspaper at once digresses from reporting the facts pertaining to the horrific act, and propagandizes about the supposed evils attendant to guns. And that misuse of reporting bespeaks an agenda and a wish that, if a horrific act occurs, it's best the object utilized be a gun, rather than any other object. For then the horrific act becomes a useful statistic -- one that might be used by antigun groups to support a call for a ban on gun ownership and possession. If, however, an object other than a gun -- such as a knife -- is used by a perpetrator of a horrific act, the use of such a non-gun object to commit a horrific act only dilutes the argument against guns as sources of evil. For such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from guns. And, in fact, such act of violence tends to divert one's attention away from any implement used in the commission of a violent act -- whether the object is a gun, knife, club or any other inanimate object and compels -- truly forces -- one to look deep and hard at the individual perpetrator of violence -- at the perpetrator's incongruous rationalizations for committing a horrific act of violence, which is where one's attention ought to be focused and should have been focused all along. That focus should not be directed on the implement of violence. For to place such focus and emphasis on an implement -- such as a gun -- rather than on the individual serves to minimize, to diminish, the individual's personal and sole responsibility and accountability for his actions. The individual who commits the horrific act with a gun becomes, then, not the central participant, but, rather, the abettor of the criminal act. And the object used to commit the crime -- the object used to perpetrate the horrific act -- the gun -- becomes, itself, the salient and principal participant in the criminal act. It is as if the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers wish, then, "to jail" the miscreant gun, arguing that we, the American public, should agree to do just that and that we, the American public, may be able to do just that -- through the device of a total ban on civilian ownership and possession of guns. Such, of course, is not an action the N.Y. Times and other similar mainstream newspapers would wish to see realized -- at least at this moment in time -- for knives.So it is that, in the June 22nd N.Y. Times article, we see that the focus of the article was not on the evil of knives, as objects used in the commission of violent acts. The focus was on the perpetrator of the horrific act, Elliot O. Rodger. And the focus was on the Santa Barbara County sheriff's department that had the responsibility to investigate the triple murder of the three young men. And the focus was on the parents of the three young men who Rodger murdered. And the focus of the N.Y. Times article was on the parents' legitimate concern over the thoroughness of the investigation and on the failure of the legal and mental health systems that had failed to properly deal with an obviously very ill individual, Elliot O. Rodger. What the focus of the N.Y. Times article was not on were knives; nor should the focus of the N.Y. Times article have been on knives -- inanimate, non-sentient objects. The June 22nd article simply stuck to the facts. And, that’s all the N.Y. Times did in the June 22^nd article – simply report the use of a knife by Rodger, to murder three men and to assert the anguish of the families who lost their loved ones. The N.Y. Times did not go into a tirade over the evil of knives. The N.Y. Times did not use the incident to call for regulations on knife possession and ownership. But, if Rodger had killed the young men with a gun, as he had the young women, then, most certainly, the N.Y. Times would’ve written a polemic on the evil of guns and would’ve argued long and hard, in that article, how those young men would most certainly not have died but for the presence of guns in American society. And, while such polemic might be posited in the op-ed section of the newspaper, the N.Y. Times would, invariably, place its opinions in the news section of the paper, wrongly suggesting to its readership that its views about guns aren't mere opinions at all -- but are hard, cold facts. We know the N.Y. Times myriad opinions about guns are invariably wrong. But, to proclaim opinions -- false beliefs -- to be hard, cold facts is ethically wrong and duplicitous -- deceptive in the extreme.The New York Times, as with all mainstream newspapers, no longer leaves opinions to the op-ed section of their respective papers, but constantly interjects opinions in the news sections of the papers. So, gun related murders require some discussion of the need to regulate guns. Gun related murders require some discussion of the so-called “gun lobby” and of gun manufacturers and of the need for so-called “common-sense gun laws.” But, you’d have to search long and hard – and it’s unlikely you’d meet with success – to find mainstream news media stories calling for “common-sense knife laws” or “knife laws we can live with” or the need to curb the “knife lobby” or the need to place restraints on knife manufacturers, whenever a lunatic or psychopathic gang member or your “run of the mill” homicidal killer murders an innocent person with a knife. Clearly, mainstream newspapers like the N.Y. Times aren't interested in curbing knife ownership and possession. Those newspapers are interested in curbing gun ownership and possession. And, by expressing their personal wishes as to what ought to be done about gun ownership and possession in the news sections of their respective papers, they wrongly associate personal beliefs and wishes with facts. That journalistic practice must end!Mainstream news organizations demonstrate callousness – or – perhaps it’s more appropriate to say, schizophrenia – when it comes to reporting stories involving violence. If the violent act involves anything other than the use of guns, the news story is confined to a discussion of the perpetrator and his victims and the events surrounding the violent act.  However, if the violent act involves the use of a firearm, then, a distinct matter – one altogether unrelated to the people involved and time, place and circumstances of the crime – is added to the mix.  It is one that invokes morality, philosophy, psychology and the politics of gun ownership and possession. The newspaper’s purpose and focus changes: from one limited to reporting the news to one attempting to make news – by shaping public opinion and driving public action. And, there is a phrase used to describe such newspapers that aim to provoke the public. It’s called “yellow journalism.”Yellow journalism was much in vogue in the 19^th Century. A relic of time, it has been used in the 20^th Century, and it has become a veritable art form in the 21^st. And it is indeed used with masterful success by mainstream newspapers, including the N.Y. Times. In stooping to politicking and provocation the newspaper discredits itself and discredits, as well, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For, the paper misuses the very power the Founders gave to it – that is to say – the very power the Founders gave to the Press: the unfettered, fundamental right to inform the Public.The founders perceived the Press as critical to the wellbeing of our Republic. The Press wasn’t to be relegated to the status of tool of those with a secret agenda – one embracing the very destruction of that Republic. But, to function as a tool of others who have a secret agenda, the N.Y. Times appears, most unfortunately, to be perfectly content.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NRA FREEDOM: JOIN IT!

THE BILL OF RIGHTS: IT’S YOUR BIRTHRIGHT! THE NRA PRESERVES IT! THE ANTIGUN CROWD WOULD STRIP YOU OF IT! WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT IT?If you were to ask the average American what the NRA is, you would likely receive, in reply, any one or more of several short descriptive phrases depending on the person’s political bent. Among them might include: defender of the Second Amendment; gun lobby; gun “nuts;” protectors of America’s liberties; shills for the gun manufacturers; cowboys; True American Patriots; Republican benefactors. As with any long-standing, financially powerful entity – whether a company, government agency, political organization, religious or educational institution, to name a few – will have its fair share of supporters and detractors. So it is with the NRA. And, as with any large, successful enterprise, myth and misunderstandings exist concerning it. It is our belief that many of the critics of NRA quite literally don’t know what they are talking about; for, when questioned, they appear generally to know nothing about the organization, its methods, or its goals.So, what is the truth about the NRA and what is myth? Let’s take a look. 

NRA AS ORGANIZATION

Among the true statements, we can start with these:  The National Rifle Association of America – NRA as it is typically known – is a citizen’s organization, a not-for-profit voluntary association that has been around for quite a while. It had its start in 1871, well over one hundred years ago. The NRA was created by two Union officers, Gen. George Wingate and Col. William C. Church. The officers formed the NRA to improve the marksmanship of American troops and to create a renewable pool of expert marksmen for the training of future citizen-troopers – certainly a worthy endeavor – that had been of observably low quality during the Civil War. Through the intervening years the NRA’s original purpose and goal – to improve marksmanship of union soldiers – expanded well beyond the intent of its framers, to embrace a host of worthy activities and functions, including: training and promoting shooting sports among the youth of America; certifying range and safety officers for police and military training; creating programs for the training of law enforcement and hunters; and instituting programs for the training of civilians in the safe and proper use of firearms.  Literally millions of citizens have received training in these programs – all this, apart from the NRA’s creation of specific programs for the training and certification of the police and military.  Moreover, the NRA remains a huge educational institution, delivering “Eddie Eagle” safety training to millions of school age children.

NRA AS DEFENDER OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

NRA also defends citizens’ rights. NRA, like the NAACP and similar voluntary citizens associations, provides legal defense funds’ services in crucial cases, to correct injustice and to battle overreaches of the law and overreaches by regulatory agencies. NRA has, in the past, teamed up with the NAACP and ACLU to fight discriminatory regulations that barred legally qualified and upstanding citizens from owning guns – regulations that barred gun ownership and possession by those legally qualified citizens who lived in public housing. NRA also conducts annual seminars for practicing attorneys to keep them up to date on firearms laws and to provide litigation techniques for those attorneys who litigate.

MYTHS ABOUT NRA

Myths abound about NRA as an organization, and they are especially prominent among academic and so-called “elite” journalists – those who are connected with large newspapers and with other major news outlets.  One salient myth revolves around the idea that NRA is THE “Gun Lobby.” This suggests NRA is a sinister, secretive organization that operates merely as an arm for gun manufacturers.  In truth, there is nothing sinister or secretive about it and it isn't an arm of the gun manufacturers. NRA is, rather, a voluntary citizens’ group focused on firearms rights. It is one of many citizens groups focused on firearms rights. How does it differ from other such groups? NRA is merely the oldest and largest among voluntary citizens’ groups focused on firearms rights. It has currently more than five million members who pay dues to belong to NRA. In contrast, academic experts estimate that all of the American antigun groups combined have no more than about 150,000 members total. Consider, too, NAACP, at its height – during the civil rights era of the 1960s – had no more than one million members. Today NAACP has substantially fewer members.  This places things in perspective.But, is NRA shrinking, retreating or otherwise suffering defeat? This is another myth perpetrated by mainstream media. In fact, during a period of time, from about 1968-1970, as American “elites” attempted to impose top-down severe, European-style gun control laws on the American public, NRA has grown from about one million members to its present status: five million dues paying members. This present growth in membership in NRA is occurring at a time when, curiously, membership in voluntary associations – and volunteerism, generally – has declined. Thus, the growth of NRA is indicative of an unprecedented mass mobilization of well-informed citizens, and yet, “elite” newspapers and other “elite” media sources cheer-lead NRA defeat. How can the disparity between fact and false reporting of fact be reconciled? Well, quantitative scientific content analysis of “elite” newspaper coverage of NRA shows that “elite” media were entirely unaware of this growth. Do these reporters live in a different world from that of the rest of us? They certainly seem to be more interested in reporting what they wish to be true than in reporting what is in fact true. Interestingly, the more negative coverage NRA has received the more its membership has grown, as confirmed by the dissertation study of one of the authors (NRA and the Media, Arktos, 2013, Brian Anse Patrick).  “Elite” media have been and continue to be out of touch with reality when it comes to NRA and American Gun Culture generally.  The “elite” media attempts, wrongly, to project a picture of the world it prefers to see rather than describing the world as it is. This is inconsistent with the ethics of journalism and suggests that “elite” media is utilizing propaganda to mold public opinion in a particular direction.  In so doing, “elite” media disparages the very concept of “freedom of the press,” as embraced by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It becomes, instead, a tool of control for those who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights.A corollary to the major myth that NRA is merely an arm of gun manufacturers (the firearms industry) is that the NRA receives all its funding from the firearms industry and, too, that NRA is run by the firearms industry. This myth is fostered by and reinforced by – rather than dispelled by – the “elite” media.

NRA OPERATES TRANSPARENTLY

First, compared with the governance procedures established by other groups, NRA operates much more openly than other organizations and certainly more openly than the antigun groups that so vehemently attack it. And NRA utilizes a democratic process as opposed to an autocratic one. NRA’s numerous life members directly elect its 76-member board of directors. The Board then appoints its executives and functionaries. Contrariwise, antigun groups and some large member organizations, like the AARP, are actually run by small, relatively autocratic cabals. Antigun groups – ever railing against the NRA and insinuating that gun violence in this Country is due to the machinations of the NRA – as if the NRA is or rationally could be responsible for crime and for the criminals and lunatics that cause it – are duplicitous and hypocritical in the extreme. Where antigun groups irrationally call for more and more restrictive gun legislation, NRA calmly reiterates that we ought first to enforce the hundreds of laws we already have on the books. Where antigun groups rail that NRA outspends them, they fail to appreciate that the money NRA has in its coffers comes from the pockets of millions of hard working Americans – and not from secretive PACS or from the checkbooks of a few billionaires who, with the stroke of a pen, handily write checks for millions of dollars to keep these antigun groups afloat – gloating over the tens of millions of dollars they can spend, have spent, have available to spend and will continue to spend to push through ever more restrictive gun laws – until, by sheer weight of numbers – the Second Amendment topples of its own accord – and takes with it – the other nine Amendments as well. Where the NRA has the strength of its conviction – in the form of millions of active members who have a vested interest in preserving their sacred Rights under the Bill of Rights – the antigun groups have empty slogans, slick commercials, and highly paid image makers and media consultants, pressed into the service of Billionaire plutocrats whose real goal is control over the American public – not curbing gun violence. And where the NRA upholds the sanctity of the individual, the antigun groups argue the individual’s needs must ever be subservient to the greater good of the collective will.So, as the NRA derives its funds directly from membership dues and contributions, the complaints of antigun group executive officers’ complaints – as echoed by the “elite” media – of how unfair it is that NRA outspends the antigun groups – rings hollow. After all, NRA members outnumber members of these antigun groups on an order of more than 25 to 1. NRA has a true mass membership. Yet, all the while the public is fed the myth, through the “elite” media, that NRA’s membership is dwindling. And, this notion of a dwindling NRA membership is merely one more incoherent remark.Second, while the membership pool of NRA is deep and extensive, those of the antigun groups are shallow and illusory. Consider, for example, the antigun group, One Million Moms for Gun Control. The Group is essentially spectral – merely a website and media simulation, and those who run it are well hidden from public view.

NRA ISN’T A GUN LOBBY

But, is there any truth at all to the notion as bandied about by the antigun crowd and the “elite” media that NRA is a “Gun Lobby?” No. That’s a common misconception; nothing more than a fabrication of antigun groups that is trumpeted by the “elite” media. How is the term ‘Gun Lobby’ as applied to NRA a misconception? Let’s see. We must take a look at meaning of terms. Well, what is a ‘lobbyist?’ The term ‘lobbyist’ refers to someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.” Extrapolating from that definition, the term ‘lobby,’ is, then, a collection of lobbyists. The terms, ‘lobby’ and ‘lobbyist,’ are often used as words of disparagement. And, when used in that way – to disparage a person or group – the terminology does not define a group but dehumanizes a target population and makes that target population seem less deserving and sympathetic. So, instead of referring to NRA members as a “citizens association,” which is really what it is, the NRA becomes, instead, a non-human, cold, entity – a “lobby,” – which conveys, then, a host of negative connotations, all used to disparage the organization. Calling NRA a “Gun Lobby” – or “THE Gun Lobby” – is to disparage the NRA. This is a typical propaganda technique. The NRA is decidedly not a “lobby,” according to the conventional definition of the word.Yes, the NRA does engage in lobbying activities. But, then, so do other organizations, like the NAACP, AARP and, for that matter, the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” (formerly, “Handgun Control, Inc.”) and many other groups. But, NRA is not a lobby. Now, there are gun lobbies, but the NRA isn’t one of them, if as the antigun groups erroneously maintain, the NRA is a lobbying group for the firearms industry. But firearms manufacturers do organize as trade associations and those associations may operate in part as true “gun lobbies.” But those trade associations and their lobbying arms are not NRA. If one insists on referring to NRA as a lobby at all, then it would be fairer and decidedly more accurate to describe NRA as “the American citizen’s Bill of Rights lobby;” for, politically, NRA represents millions of American citizens in support of citizens’ Bill of Rights – and NRA does this often better than the Legislators who are elected to represent Americans. Even so, as we have shown, NRA does much more than lobby, even as such lobbying activities are for American citizens and even as such lobbying efforts are the most worthy of any lobbying an American organization might engage in – the preservation of our liberties, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

NRA EXERCISES ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Now, here’s a secret the editors and bureau chiefs at mainstream news publishers like New York Times and similar news organizations have yet to learn: the main reason NRA is so powerful is because of NRA’s principled application of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the defense of the Second.  NRA advances the case for the individual right, natural law meaning of the Second Amendment by the effective application of the social action schematic established by the First Amendment. Mainstream journalists who attack NRA – who see themselves as enshrined and elevated in the social hierarchy above those who write for weblogs – often using disparaging phrases like, “gossip mongers” and “tellers of tales” when referring to weblog writers – clearly see themselves as distinctly superior to other news writers, believing, apparently, that the word, ‘press,’ as it appears in the First Amendment, only applies to them. These mainstream news journalists don’t seem to note the irony in their remarks. For, it’s the weblogs that, all too often, provide real news; and it’s the mainstream media that fills the print medium and the airwaves with false news – mere propaganda – false news that aims to mold public thought and opinion rather than create a neutral platform upon which the American citizen might exercise his own critical faculties to discern the truth.And what are the First Amendment guarantees for Americans? The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to voluntarily associate, free of any system of beliefs established by government; the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to discuss, promote and publish their ideas; the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to peacefully petition government officials and representatives for needed change.  The Founders of our Republic did not intend for “the press” to function as a propaganda implement – an institution to be operated by a privileged few in order to gain control everyone else. But, this is what the “press” qua “mainstream media” has become – a mechanism of control.  This mechanism of control comprises a slew of mass media professionals, employed by plutocrats, who give these “professional journalists” one salient task: brainwash the American citizenry. And these “professional journalists” do so with impunity, in accordance with their masters’ dictates. That is most unfortunate. However, what is fortunate is that a person need not have a license to practice the craft of journalism. In that respect journalism is unlike the professions of law or medicine. And that truly is fortunate.Today, the twin freedoms: freedom of the press + freedom of speech give the People a voice – a voice that provides the People with a counterweight to the lies perpetrated by those that think “freedom of the press” applies only to an institution – an institution they control, an institution under the sway of a privileged few – a privileged few that seeks, through their control of the “press,” the means to amass ever more power and authority for themselves at the expense of the American citizenry. And, with that power, these privileged few seek to control the lives of the many.

NRA SAFEGUARDS OUR REPUBLIC

The role for voluntary associations such as NRA in the healthy democratic social order is therefore not only important, it is vital to the safeguarding of the Republic as envisioned by the Founders and as etched in stone in that Republic’s Bill of Rights. NRA is above all an informational node. It publishes magazines, hosts websites and webcasts news services that have millions of subscribers. It provides information to lawmakers and policymakers.  It dispenses educational information to students, citizens and firearm safety trainers. It targets information and makes it available where it will do the most good. It promotes meetings and democratic discussion, both in its national seminars, but also in it alliances and affiliations with numerous local and State associations. Without this sort of small and local group structure that allows immediate and small group discussion between equals – there is no effective democracy and our Republic falls. The historical roots of American Gun Culture and NRA go together seamlessly. They work so very well because they infuse the very power of democratic ideas, information, reasoned discussion and participation. The American citizenry is empowered to join in as true participants, not merely as passive observers of distant events, staged by “their betters” – the plutocrats in Washington.  This makes for a true democratic society. For, it is the American citizenry that sets the agenda – an agenda that serves the American citizenry’s interests. This paradigm is not only to be preferred, it is essential. For, if it is the plutocrats in Washington who set the agenda – then, the agenda envisioned will serve the interests of a few, and those interests do not extend to preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those interests do not extend to preserving the Bill of Rights at all. Those interests do not extend to maintaining a democratic Republic. Rather, that agenda is focused on negating all rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When it comes to Informational Democracy, NRA not only better serves the citizenry – as it is the American citizenry that has an essential role in and takes an active part in the functioning of the NRA – the NRA’s interests coincide with and embrace the very preservation of and strengthening of the Second Amendment upon which the other Nine Amendments remain secure. Knowledge is Power. The NRA provides the public with the truth concerning the American citizen’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. So, it stands to reason that the forces that seek to crush the U.S. Constitution would seek to undermine the ability of NRA to proffer truth to the American public.

WHY IS NRA THE FOCUS OF ATTACK?

NRA is a threat to the plutocrats because NRA exposes the plutocrats’ lies and their disruptive goals to the American people. Now the plutocrats who seek to control the American citizenry cannot – at least at this time – directly attack the NRA because an attack against NRA’s principals is an attack against the Bill of Rights.  They cannot overtly take umbrage with NRA’s assertion that NRA wishes to protect a sacred cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. So, what do they do? They attack the NRA not-so-obliquely through caustic remarks such as: the NRA only wants to sell guns; the NRA is against sensible gun control laws; the NRA lobbies on behalf of gun manufacturers and not on behalf of Americans; and the NRA isn’t serious about reducing gun violence in America. Implicit in these remarks, and others like them, is the notion that the NRA’s primary purpose and function – its modern day raison d’etre, is political influence and legislative action. If so, why is that?Now, it’s certainly true the NRA operates in the political arena, albeit that isn’t its only reason for its existence in the 21^st Century. But the NRA’s political operation isn’t something its members or officers had originally sought to do or wished to do. Rather, the NRA was reluctantly compelled to enter the political arena by groups that are themselves politically motivated and, in fact, have no reason to exist other than to defeat the Second Amendment and by extension – to defeat the greatest protector of the Second Amendment – the NRA.

THE MYRIAD THREADS OF NRA COME TOGETHER

If there is a central theme running through the myriad marksmanship and training programs offered and sponsored by the NRA, that theme is reflected in this assertion, as presented prominently on the NRA website: “The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. We’re proud defenders of history’s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.”

WHENCE THE ANTIGUN GROUPS?

Curiously, the antigun lobbies and PACS, unlike the NRA, which is well over one century old, are of recent vintage. One of the oldest, “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” is only 40 years old, as it proudly trumpets its 40^th Anniversary on its website. Another, “The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence” is scarcely 14 years old. “The Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence” is but one and one-half years old – a baby. And, another group, “the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence” that started in 1973, is 40 years old. Perhaps the most famous – or infamous organization – is “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence.” It started in 1974 as the “National Committee to Control Handguns.”One begins to see a curious theme here. Most of these antigun groups had their start in the 1970s. Was this just happenstance, or was there another hand at work here, mapping out strategies to undermine and destroy the Second Amendment? Furthermore, while these groups all claim that the greater threat to civility in this Country is the “Gun Lobby,” code for the NRA – as that is how these groups prefer to call the NRA, as we’ve seen – one can see as well that it’s the antigun groups themselves that, truly, are nothing more than lobbying arms and politically motivated action committees for the plutocrats. And that’s all they are. These groups, as fronts for cabals of powerful forces both within the Country and outside it, realize that, in order to undercut the Second Amendment, it is necessary to defeat the NRA. So, the NRA, on behalf of millions of Americans, who wish nothing more than to secure their rights under the Bill of Rights – and that means securing all Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment – was compelled, reluctantly, to enter the political arena – to become a political force – a considerable political force – to be reckoned with in its own right.

MYTH AND TRUTH PLAY OUT

So, on balance, we see truth and myth played out. The NRA’s goals are straightforward and virtuous: to preserve and protect the integrity of the Second Amendment. Contrariwise, the myriad antigun groups, springing up virtually at the same time – during the 1970s – have had and, today, continue to have, one goal: the destruction of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is their salient aim. That is their reason for being. And, in that singular disingenuous pursuit, they have operated as and they continue to operate as top-down propaganda campaigns, financed by plutocrats and ideologues.The one force that can and has stopped them is the NRA. These groups know it, and American citizens know it. The question is: who or what is behind these antigun groups? It is obvious that the stated purpose of these political groups – to prevent gun violence – is nothing more than a blind. We already have hundreds of so-called commonsense gun laws: laws banning felons, the violent and the mentally ill from possessing or purchasing guns. We also have background checks. But, the plutocrats, through their antigun front groups, constantly scream for more. Obviously, it isn’t violent crimes with guns that motivate these plutocrats, even if the dupes who do their bidding buy into the lies propagated.  Many of the anti-gunners seem to believe in absolute centralized governmental power, and that all rights do spring from and are distributed by government. This idea is an anathema to the founders of the Republic and inconsistent with the principles of Liberty as set in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights. These people believe it anyway. These people obviously have no use for the idea of natural inalienable rights. And the puppet masters who pull their strings want to pull yours as well.  They wish to dictate behavior for all Americans. And in that process, they want to destroy your Rights.

WHAT, THEN, MUST WE DO TO CURB THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

Most Americans understand the nature of this danger lurking in shadows, the nature of the danger hidden in the seemingly benign call for purported “commonsense gun laws” – laws that in their very mode of expression – in their very essence – do nothing but erode the citizen’s basic freedoms, independence, personal autonomy: erode the sanctity and inalienable right of each individual American to be individual.Americans must fight these false flag groups at every turn. There is power in information and in knowledge, and in a true civil society. The NRA is our best ally in that effort. The NRA is your best ally in that effort. Whether you have a gun in your possession or not is unimportant. And, it’s unimportant whether you care ever to purchase a gun. What is important – what is critical to the existence of our Democratic Republic – is the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights must be preserved – indeed strengthened – at every turn. The Bill of Rights consists of Ten Amendments. The NRA’s efforts preserve and protect all of them – not just the Second Amendment. And, your membership dollars is an investment in the preservation of the Bill of Rights – all ten of them. So, the next time you feel that one week’s worth of café lattes at Starbucks is more important to your personal well-being than the cost of an annual membership in the NRA, recall that thought as you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper that the Bill of Rights has been preempted by Federal Statute, International Pacts and Treaties, and Presidential Executive Orders and Signing Statements. Those café lattes will probably taste a tad bitter.Keep in mind, by giving NRA a few dollars you’re not doing NRA a favor. NRA is doing you a favor! America’s Bill of Rights is uniquely American. It’s your birthright. Don’t let anyone take your Birthright from you! Support the NRA! Join now![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Brian Anse Patrick, Ph.D., Professor, University of Toledo All Rights Reserved.

DWAYNE FERGUSON PLEADS GUILTY ON WEAPONS CHARGE. BUT WILL HE LOSE HIS "CARRY" LICENSE? WILL HE LOSE HIS HANDGUNS?

You may recall the Dwayne Ferguson case. But, for those of you who might have forgotten, we give you the following facts, as posted first in the Arbalest Quarrel on February 23, 2014: “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.”In a follow-up to our February 23, 2014 Article, posted on April 25, 2014, we gave you an in depth review of the laws affecting Ferguson as an attorney would view the matter: first, citing the charges brought against Ferguson together with the Court docket numbers and, second, we explained precisely what those two charges mean.There were two weapons’ charges brought against Dwayne Ferguson and there are two docket numbers as the two charges were initially filed in the Buffalo City Court; one charge was dropped and the case was waived to Erie County Supreme Court because of the severity of both charges, as both charges amounted to felonies, and either weapons’ count was beyond the jurisdiction of City Court:“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.”Here is a detailed account of the two weapons charges as filed against Ferguson: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 next. ‘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 firearm on him – and presumably a loaded firearm – Penal Code Section 265.03 doesn’t apply to him. Ferguson’s handgun license allows for him to carry a loaded firearm. The City Prosecutor properly dismissed the Section 265.03 charge. That left 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.’In the April 25 Article we left off, speculating what might happen to Dwayne Ferguson on the Section 265.01-a charge. We don’t need to speculate about this any longer. We now know. The Grand Jury was never convened. The First Assistant District Attorney didn’t need to convene a Grand Jury because Ferguson pleaded guilty to the Section 265.01-a weapons’ charge last week, Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in Erie County Supreme Court where he stood before Judge John Michalski. Now, you may rightly ask, why did Dwayne Ferguson plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge, rather than fighting the charge in Court?Well, we know the best case scenario for Ferguson would have been for the Erie Country First Assistant District Attorney, who prosecuted the case, to dismiss the charge against Ferguson. But that wasn’t going to happen. What then were Ferguson’s options? Actually, there was only one. Had he not pleaded out, the First Assistant District Attorney would have brought the matter before the Grand Jury. There was always the possibility the Grand Jury, when presented with the District Attorney’s evidence against Dwayne Ferguson, might have decided against indicting him. Granted, that possibility existed – slim though it was, virtually non-existent, really. But Ferguson might have taken a chance just the same, hoping the Grand Jury wouldn’t indict him: that would have ended the matter; the School gun charge against him would have been dropped; and, likely, Ferguson’s two handguns would have been returned him and it would be as if the matter had never had happened. But, if the Grand Jury did indict, then Ferguson would have had to face a trial – more likely a trial by jury, assuming Ferguson didn’t seek a bench trial instead, which would be foolhardy. But, Ferguson clearly had to ask himself, did he wish to go through a trial? If he decided to exercise his right to trial by jury, what, then? Well, it is likely a jury would find Ferguson guilty since the police found a gun on him in a school and would testify to that fact. So, it would be extremely difficult for Dwayne Ferguson to deny the facts at trial. Could Ferguson convince a jury otherwise? That's unlikely. Honestly, would a jury believe the police were either lying about finding a gun on Ferguson, or that the police were mistaken about the object that was found on him – a handgun? Still, the District Attorney had to prove one critical element of the Section 265.01-a charge – namely that Ferguson knew he had a gun on him when he entered the school building. But, since it is presumed that a person knows what he or she has on them, it would be difficult for Ferguson to deny he had knowledge that he had a gun on him. If he sought to do so, giving his own testimony, under oath, swearing he honestly didn’t know he had a gun on him, then that would certainly raise an issue involving Ferguson’s mental and emotional competency, namely, should Dwayne Ferguson be trusted with a firearm at all? Still, speculation concerning what might or mightn’t have transpired had the case gone to trial – while of some academic interest – if such were to happen again – is, in the instant case, all but moot. For, as we now know, Ferguson pleaded guilty. And, he decided to plead out for a very important reason – critical to his wish to eventually acquire his guns again. And, obviously, the reason Dwayne Ferguson decided to plead guilty was to gain the certainty that he wouldn’t have a felony conviction on his record. For, as you see, Ferguson pleaded guilty not to a Class E felony, but, rather, to a Class A Misdemeanor. As we had mentioned in an earlier post on the Arbalest Quarrel, prior to passage of NY SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was a Class A misdemeanor. With the enactment of SAFE, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds was increased to a Class E felony. Curiously and oddly and ironically, Ferguson was a strong supporter and advocate for the SAFE Act. Yet, he was spared the harshest penalty if convicted under it. As a condition of agreeing to plead guilty to the Section 265.01-a charge of possessing a weapon on school grounds, the Defense and the People agreed that Ferguson would receive the Class A misdemeanor penalty rather than the Class E felony penalty. Now, some readers may believe that Ferguson got off easy. But, keep in mind a few important points here: (1) Dwayne Ferguson had never been convicted of a serious crime before this odd mishap and first time offenders, generally, factoring in, of course, the nature of the crime, are often treated leniently by a Court; (2) the cost of a jury trial is expensive and the cost of prosecuting Ferguson must be borne by the tax payer although of course he must pay for his own defense; and a District Attorney must expend considerable time and resources to prepare for and prosecute a case that goes to trial; (3) Dwayne Ferguson is a hypocrite – no argument there – but hypocrisy – albeit reprehensible behavior to a good many of us – isn’t a crime in America, and, were it otherwise, our prisons would certainly be inundated – not least of all with politicians; and (4) for anyone who is treated like a V.I.P., such as Ferguson, the loss of his guns must vex Dwayne Ferguson to no end assuming, of course, Ferguson does in fact, lose possession of his firearms. But is that true? Will he suffer revocation of his ‘full carry’ handgun license and will Ferguson lose his handguns and forego their return to him indefinitely? If so, then why? And if not, then, why not? What, truly, does this all mean? Well, the Ferguson’s case isn’t over – only the conviction phase of it is. Dwayne Ferguson is scheduled to appear before Judge Michalski for sentencing on August 19^th. One of three things can transpire for Ferguson: one, Ferguson can be sentenced to prison, up to one year. That’s unlikely to happen since, once again, Ferguson hasn’t, to the best of our knowledge and belief, apart from the present matter – possessing a weapon on school grounds – ever been convicted of a serious crime; two, Ferguson can get probation for a specified period of time and that would spare him a stay in prison, but he would have to appear periodically before a probation officer, and that, too would not be particularly appealing to Ferguson; and three, the Judge can order a conditional discharge. This last judicial option would be the most favorable to Ferguson. For, in that event, Ferguson falls under the auspices of and control of the sentencing Court, not the probation office. Ferguson would probably be ordered to complete community service for a specified time, and the Court would be kept apprised of Ferguson’s conduct to assure itself that Ferguson is staying out of trouble. But, keep in mind, a conditional discharge doesn’t negate the crime for Ferguson. In order for Ferguson to be truly relieved of his criminal record, he would need to claim relief from disability; and he could do so at the sentencing, or he could do so at a later date, as a separate matter, before a different Judge in the Erie County Supreme Court.Now what does all this mean for the status of Ferguson’s guns and his ability to reclaim them from the police? Well, we first look to the Court itself to see what is required of it under Section 2 of the SAFE Act, as codified in Section of 380.96 of the N.Y. Criminal Procedure law, in respect to Ferguson’s license. The NY SAFE Act sets forth clearly, concisely and unmistakably: “Upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted, and the revocation of any license or registration issued pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law, the Judge pronouncing sentence shall demand surrender of any such license or registration and all firearms, shotguns and rifles. The failure to so demand surrender shall not effect the validity of any revocation pursuant to Article Four Hundred of the Penal Law.” So, since Ferguson has previously surrendered his firearms to the police, must the sentencing Judge order surrender of Ferguson’s pistol license under Section 380.96 of the Criminal Procedure law? Now this is a sticky wicket. A key phrase of Section 2 of the SAFE Act rests on the first clause, “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” Well, Ferguson’s guns were seized at the scene of the crime, but that isn’t what Section 2 of the NY SAFE Act means by “upon judgment of conviction of any offense which would require the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted.” For, the taking of Dwayne Ferguson’s guns by the police, on school grounds doesn’t, ipso facto, constitute conviction of any offense. Yes, Dwayne Ferguson was arrested at the scene, and, yes, police seized his handgun. And, yes, a second handgun was later turned over to the police. But, arrest doesn’t equal conviction. Conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law occurred after, on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, in the Erie County Supreme Court, when Dwayne Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge of knowingly possessing a weapon on school grounds. The question is whether judgment of conviction of that offense requires the seizure of firearms, shotguns or rifles from an individual so convicted. Well, let’s see. We must now turn to Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal law. And Subsection 11 of Section 400.00 of the N.Y. Penal law deals with both revocation and suspension of gun licenses. That Subsection sets forth in principal part: “The conviction of a licensee anywhere of a felony or serious offense shall operate as a revocation of the license. A license may be revoked or suspended as provided in Section 530.14 of the Criminal Procedure Law or Section Eight Hundred Forty-two-a of the Family Court Act.” Section 530.14 doesn’t apply to the instant case since it involves orders of protection. So, if the Court is required to revoke Dwayne Ferguson’s license, that is so if Ferguson is convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor.Now, it’s clear that, if Dwayne Ferguson were convicted of a Class E felony, Judge Michalski would in fact have no choice in the matter as conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law would mandate revocation of all pistol licenses and long arm permits. But, although the SAFE Act has amended Section 265.01-a of the New York Penal Law so that conviction under that Section is now a Class E felony, Ferguson was allowed to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor, the penalty for carrying a weapon onto school grounds prior to SAFE. So the question is whether a Class A misdemeanor constitutes a serious offense within the meaning of Section 400.00 of the New York Penal Law. The title of Section 400.00 of the Penal Law is, “Licenses to Carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms.” Now, it so happens that the words ‘serious offense,’ are defined with particularity in the Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law. That means that we need not guess whether a Class A misdemeanor is a ‘serious offense,’ for the expression is a legal term of art. Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the New York Penal Law says in pertinent part: “Serious offense means any of the following offenses defined in the penal law: illegally using, carrying or possessing a pistol or other dangerous weapon.” The question now is whether Ferguson had illegally carried a gun at the time of his arrest on school grounds. Well, he did illegally carry a gun onto school grounds. There's no question about that, and that was the basis for his arrest and for his ultimate conviction under Section 265.01-a of the Penal Law in the first instance. But the question is whether Ferguson had illegally possessed a gun at all. Well, Ferguson did not illegally possess or carry a firearm since he had a valid permit for it. The Permit was lawfully issued to him under Section 400.00 of the Penal Law. And the nature of the license allowed Ferguson both to possess a gun and to carry it on him. And that is why the Section 265.03 charge against Ferguson was dropped. So, we may now reasonably conclude that, under Subsection 17 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Law, Dwayne Ferguson did not plead guilty to and was not convicted of a serious offense under the Penal Code of New York. A Class A misdemeanor is not, in this instance at least, a 'serious offense' under the Penal Code of New York. So, clearly, it was for this reason that Ferguson was in fact willing to plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge under Section 265.01-a for having possession of a weapon on school grounds. Had he not been able to do so, it is unlikely that he would've readily agreed to plead out. He certainly would not have willingly pleaded guilty to a Class E felony under Section 265.01-a. The Class A misdemeanor conviction provides Ferguson his best chance of keeping his “full carry” handgun license and for reclaiming his firearms from the police.So, where does that leave us and Ferguson? Well, the police still have Ferguson’s two handguns. So, as it appears the Erie County Supreme Court isn’t required to revoke Ferguson’s pistol license, and, too, as the matter of the disposition of Ferguson’s pistol license is out of the hands of the First District Attorney of Erie County, the question is, then, who does have authority – if anyone at all – to revoke or allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license? That, we’ve learned, falls upon Wilmer Fowler. Who is Wilmer Fowler? Wilmer Fowler is the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer. And it’s up to Mr. Fowler whether to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol license. If Mr. Fowler does allow Dwayne Ferguson to keep his pistol license – and it isn’t clear the Hearing Officer will allow Ferguson to keep his pistol carry license in light of the conviction, notwithstanding that Ferguson pleaded guilty to a Class A misdemeanor charge rather than a Class E felony charge – the matter doesn’t end there. For the Hearing Officer’s decision to allow Dwayne Ferguson to retain his pistol permit ultimately rests with the Erie County Supreme Court, although Judge Michalski who presides over the criminal proceeding won’t decide that matter. The decision – whether Ferguson is allowed to retain his pistol license – isn’t a criminal matter. It’s a civil matter. So, who decides the issue? Judge Martin Boller of the Erie County Supreme Court, who handles civil cases, does. Judge Boller, you see, also handles pistol permit cases. And the suspension or revocation of pistol licenses is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Judge Boller is the Pistol Permit Hearing Judge. Thus the fate of Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license rests in the hands of Judge Boller, assuming the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer does not revoke Ferguson’s pistol license and allows the return of his handguns to him in the first instance, and the Pistol Permit Hearing Officer has full discretion unless he abuses his discretion. If the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer decides to revoke or to suspend Ferguson’s pistol license, Ferguson can only request the Court to determine whether the Erie County Pistol Permit Hearing Officer’s decision amounts to an abuse of discretion.The Arbalest Quarrel will keep you abreast of the Ferguson matter as it continues to play out. For, there is much more we need to know; for at the present time we don’t know whether the Pistol Hearing Officer has, as yet, acted upon Ferguson’s pistol license. Dwayne Ferguson’s pistol license may already have been suspended or revoked. We just don’t know, but we aim to find out because that, certainly, is on your mind. We know this matter weighs on Ferguson’s mind.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

GUNS, KNIVES, AND OCCAM’S DANGEROUS RAZOR

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

OF CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

Let’s start with four axioms.1)  Sensory data give rise to perceptions. 2) Perceptions form beliefs. 3) Beliefs create urges. 4) Urges compel action.Keep these four axioms in mind as you read through the following two thought experiments.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ONE

Let’s say you never heard of the word, ‘chainsaw.’ Still, the word comprises two separate words you’re familiar with: ‘chain’ and ‘saw.’ You have an understanding of chains and saws and conclude a “chainsaw” combines a “saw” and “chain” in some manner. But, you don’t know its purpose and want to know. You see a film. It’s about lumberjacking. You learn a chainsaw is a useful tool. You’d like to develop lumberjacking skills, and you sign up for a course. Among the skills taught, you learn how to properly use and store a chainsaw. You’re aware a chainsaw is dangerous if used improperly. You recognize its dangers and understand its utility. You assess risks and benefits and decide to buy one. You are willing to take responsibility for it. As an autonomous individual, living in a free society, no one forbids you from owning or possessing it.Soon, thereafter, the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a maniac has gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with it. Individuals form grassroots groups to combat this new evil -- the chainsaw.  The organizations mobilize. They contact legislators. The legislators contact the newspapers and TV outlets. No one can watch TV or read newspapers without coming across articles about the horror of chainsaws. Politicians call for a ban. They write bills. Bills become laws. To own a chainsaw you must first obtain a license. Only police departments can issue licenses. You must pay a fee for the license. Once issued, you can buy a chainsaw. Some chainsaws are outlawed. Chainsaws must have certain dimensions. Battery powered or electric powered chainsaws are legal. Gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. If you lawfully bought a gasoline powered chainsaw prior to the law banning them, you may keep it, but you must register it; and you have one year from the enactment date to do so, else you lose it. Disqualifications exist. Anyone convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor is disqualified. Anyone who’s under the care of a mental health worker is disqualified. Anyone who has ever taken antidepressants is disqualified. And anyone involved in a family dispute or disturbance is disqualified. If you own a chainsaw, the public looks at you oddly; you’re a potential threat to the “public order.”The politicians gauge public opinion. The public outcry for bans on chainsaws subsides. But, that’s not good. Politicians work with the mainstream media to keep the public focused on chainsaws. They enlist the aid of “experts” and think tanks to write on the evil of chainsaws. They silently, secretly hope another incident involving chainsaws occurs. And another incident involving chainsaws does occur. Newspapers write articles anew. News anchors comment. Legislators amend existing laws further restricting chainsaws. They incorporate new definitions for chainsaws. All chainsaws are equal -- equally bad. But, some chainsaws are worse than others. Under the old law -- the public recalls -- all gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. Politicians realize they can’t ban all chainsaws outright. Many citizens own them. Millions exist, including gasoline powered chainsaws. Since politicians have already banned gasoline powered chainsaws, they write laws to ban a few more kinds of chainsaws. They come up with an expression to describe the worst sort of chainsaws. They categorize those chainsaws under the expression ‘assault saws.’ The mainstream news media begins to use the expression 'assault saws' when describing the worst chainsaws. The name, 'assault saws,' as predicted, catches on. “Assault saws” are illegal. The anti-chainsaw zealots create slogans and chants: "Get rid of 'assault saws;'" "commonsense chainsaw laws we can live with;" "chainsaw owners for commonsense laws;" "commonsense chainsaw laws save lives;" and, "a reasonable compromise on chainsaw control." As time passes, politicians include more chainsaws under the rubric, ‘assault saws.’The police keep a watchful eye on those persons who have bought ‘assault saws’ lawfully prior to the new laws. Now, you, of course, happen to own an ‘assault saw.’ You had purchased it lawfully before the ban took effect. Still you feel harassed by the laws. You’ve never felt depressed or anxious; suddenly you do. You decide to get rid of your ‘assault saw.’ You feel the fuss over chainsaws is unfounded. But, holding onto it is not worth the aggravation. You turn it into the local police department. The police department decides to keep it and uses it to build a new precinct. After all, why destroy a perfectly good chainsaw?

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TWO

The fact pattern here is the same as in “Thought Experiment One” with a slight twist.You see a film. It’s not about lumberjacking. It’s a horror film, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The film concerns a maniac who hacks innocent persons to pieces with a “chainsaw.” The film leaves you physically ill. Of course, that’s the film’s purpose. That’s the purpose of “slasher” films. Months later, you go to a home improvement store and happen across shelves of chainsaws. You feel unaccountably ill and, at first, you don’t know why. But, then, you dimly recall images of chainsaws and maniacs and bloodied bodies. You wonder why a person would want a chainsaw or need one other than to commit a horrific crime with it – and you give the matter no more thought until the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a lunatic has actually gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with a chainsaw. You’d never buy a chainsaw and wish no one would have access to them. You surmise: if someone believes he needs a chainsaw, he can buy a hand saw. That’s sufficient. You wish that Congress or the States would outlaw chainsaw ownership altogether.

ARE CHAINSAWS EVIL?

The terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ apply to persons, not things. Yet, the public tends to ascribe those terms to inanimate objects. The mainstream media, consisting of TV, radio, newspapers, and the like, create a perception in the mind of the viewer or reader; and that perception molds belief.Beliefs are true or false. According to one theory of truth, if beliefs correspond or cohere to facts, they’re true; if not they’re false. The mainstream media seeks to create, mold, and alter public perception. That media, working in concert with, and likely at the direction of politicians and secretive cabals, isn’t concerned about truth. It works in lockstep with those individuals, groups and cabals to engineer deception. The goal is control over the masses.

THE PURPOSE OF THE “THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS”

The thought experiments provide a glimpse into how perceptions are created and how perceptions are reinforced. We are talking about how sensory data serves to create impressions in one’s mind. And we are, of course, alluding to guns. The thought experiments describe how one’s experiences impact one’s views about guns and how the SAFE Act of 2013 came to be. We are also alluding to the mainstream media’s collusion with politicians and antigun groups to foment confusion over and erroneous beliefs about guns.The mainstream media isn’t interested in providing news about the world as it is but on relaying information to produce a false image about the world it wishes the public to see. That world view posits guns as dangerous entities, having no positive use or benefit to an individual. That world view posits guns as evil – an absurd notion. For, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are moral concepts, properly ascribed, as previously stated, to persons, not to things. That world view posits guns as difficult for the average person to master. That world view posits guns as inherently and irrefutably dangerous. That world view posits guns as serving no tangible, societally acceptable purpose. That world view posits guns as anachronistic. That world view posits guns as incompatible with notions of decency and respectability. These ideas are all false or meaningless. The mainstream media feeds them to the public anyway.What’s behind the feeding of false data to the public? What’s behind the deception? What’s behind the desire to create – in the mind of the public – a set of false beliefs about the world? At the moment, we can only speculate. But, that it’s occurring at all is abundantly clear.[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.________________________

APPS: CA Registration Scheme?

[video type="youtube" id="DwRvDXq8ft8" autoplay="true"]APPS (Armed & Prohibited Persons System): California's Universal Registration Scheme?

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

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

"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.