DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

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

NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK, APPLICATION FOR AN UNRESTRICTED, CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

PART THREE: PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL STATE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY -- A LOOK AT ACTUAL APPLICATION LICENSING PROCEDURES IN THE SEVERAL STATES

SUBPART ONE: NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

Mr. Wright is a resident of New York State, and, as we previously mentioned, in Part Two of this multi-part series article, he lives in Nassau County, but his corporate offices are in New York City. MrWright first sought to obtain a concealed handgun carry license for his hometown, in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. And, he believed, logically, that once he secured the license, the license would be valid through the entirety of New York, at least, if not valid in any other State. Simple enough, you might think. Simple enough, Mr. Wright thought. Mr. Wright was wrong in his assessment. As he found out, through some digging, New York does not issue one concealed handgun carry license that is good throughout the State for most individuals, unless they are retired, qualified police officers or retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers. Of course, current active-duty New York police officers and current active-duty law-enforcement officers do not require a license to carry a firearm. Their badge and ID is license enough to carry anywhere in the State.Mr. Wright soon learned that a concealed handgun carry license that is issued by the County of Nassau would allow Mr. Wright to carry a handgun concealed in Nassau County and in all Counties within the State of New York, but would not allow him to carry a handgun concealed in any of the five Boroughs of New York City. So, Mr. Wright first decided that, as it made sense for him at least, at the outset, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license in his hometown of Nassau County, he would begin there. If Mr. Wright wishes to carry a handgun anywhere within the five Boroughs of New York City, he would unload his handgun and place it in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip through the city’s five boroughs. Ammunition must be stored in its own locked container. Both the handgun and ammunition should be stored in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the locked containers must be kept the furthest distance as possible from your person. Of course, Mr. Wright did not know this at the time, but would learn just how complicated and convoluted the laws of New York City, in particular, are, once he became knowledgeable of the City’s firearms’ Rules.

THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING A NASSAU COUNTY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

So, Mr. Wright went about the arduous task of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license in Nassau County. Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department is the issuing agency authorized by law to grant handgun licenses in the county. Mr. Wright then learned that the holder of a valid license may carry a handgun loaded in all counties in the State of New York, except for all five boroughs of the City of New York. Mr. Wright could download an application and, as well, for a handgun license, but once completed, he realized that he personally had to go to the Police Department’s headquarters located at 1490 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501 to file it. Mr. Wright also downloaded Nassau County’s “Pistol License Section Handbook.” During some off-time, during the weekend, Mr. Wright sat down to read the “Handbook.”Mr. Wright learned that the Nassau County Police Department issues six types of handgun licenses: one, “Target/Hunting License;” two, “Business License;” three, “Restricted Business License for Armed Guard & Armored Car Guard;” four, “Civilian Full Carry License;” five, “Retired Police Officer/Federal Law Enforcement Officer License;” and, six, “Retired Peace Officer License.”Mr. Wright reviewed the requirements for each type of license and the restrictions, if any, on the licenses. Mr. Wright found it easy enough to rule out several licenses. Since he resided in Nassau County, but his business was in New York, he decided that he would like to apply for a “Civilian Full Carry License.”Mr. Wright then reviewed the actual “PISTOL LICENSE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS” that he had printed out along with the “Handbook.” From a quick scan of the Handbook, Mr. Wright ascertained, immediately, that the Application did not provide any space allocation for setting down the type of handgun license the applicant wished to apply for. Mr. Wright wondered, then, whether the “Application” was, for all intents and purposes, an initial application and that, based on Mr. Wright’s responses, and on the basis of the Nassau County Police Department’s initial investigation of him, the Application would either be accepted for further processing, or his Application for a pistol license – any kind of a pistol license – would be summarily rejected. But, Mr. Wright, realized that his initial assessment was wrong, once, after a cursory inspection of the Handbook, he carefully read and memorized important details. He noticed that, on the very first page of the handbook, the NCPD had this to say:"Please note that while pistol licenses are processed as quickly as possible, the present processing time is approximately six (6) months. All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready. PLEASE DO NOT CALL TO INQUIRE AS TO THE STATUS OF A PENDING APPLICATION."Mr. Wright’s gaze was drawn to a particular sentence that wasn’t in bold type: “All applicants will be sent a notice as soon as their license is ready.” This sentence proclaimed that the NCPD would, itself, determine what kind of license it would issue to an Applicant, if a handgun license would be issued at all. So, Mr. Wright reasoned, he would not have any choice in the matter after all. The next day Mr. Wright phoned the NCPD and asked to speak to an Officer with the “Pistol License Section” of the NCPD. Once connected to the appropriate Officer, Mr. Wright explained that he was reading through the handbook and he was aware that the NCPD issues six types of handgun licenses and that he is aware of only two that could feasibly apply to him: the “target/hunting license” and the “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright explained that he wanted a handgun for self-defense, adding that he was not interested in hunting or for plinking at targets. The Officer replied in an offhanded way that, if Mr. Wright qualified for a license at all, he would not be receiving a “civilian full carry license.” Mr. Wright wanted to know why that is. The Officer pointed out that very few of those are issued. Mr. Wright asked him if the NCPD obtains many requests for “civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer stated that, in fact, many New York residents do want full carry licenses but very few are ever issued. “Who,” Mr. Wright asked, “receives ‘civilian full carry licenses.” The Officer replied: “judges and politicians.” Mr. Wright thanked the Officer for his time and for his honesty and, once he hung up the telephone, he wondered if it would be worthwhile for him to spend the time, which would be considerable, and a sum of money, which would not be inconsiderable, to apply for a handgun license at all, in his own home town, if, at best, he would receive nothing more than a “target/hunting license.” Mr. Wright decided that he would complete the application process.In continuing to read through the application process, it was very clear to Mr. Wright that, if a person, was to receive a handgun license at all – any kind of license, that person would need to be literally squeaky clean. Indeed, one question required Mr. Wright to indicate whether he had received a traffic violation within the last five years and “traffic violation” included “traffic infractions.” This was what the Handbook set forth:“An applicant for the issuance of a pistol license must:

1. Provide two passport-size photos with their application;

2. Reside within the confines of the County of Nassau;

3. Complete the notarized form letter (found in the application package) which states all persons 18 years of age or older who reside with the applicant are aware applicant will be securing a firearm(s) in the residence.

4. Be at least twenty-one (21) years of age or older, provided however, that where such applicant has been honorably discharged from the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force or Coast Guard, or the National Guard of the State of New York, no such age restriction shall apply;

5. Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

6. Not have had a license revoked or be under a suspension or ineligibility order issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 530.14 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law or Section 842-A of the NYS Family Court Act;

7. Not be an alien who is illegally or unlawfully residing in the United States;

8. Not have been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa subject to the exception in 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2);

9. Having been a citizen of the United States, never renounced his or her citizenship;

10. Be of good moral character;

11. Demonstrate the existence of proper cause or legitimate business necessity for the issuance of a license other than Target/Hunting or Retired Officer;

Note: The NCPD may alter a licensee’s classification at any time upon a finding that proper cause/legitimate business necessity no longer exists. Proper cause, like any license requirement stated herein, must be demonstrated each time the license is renewed and at any time upon request by NCPD Pistol License Section personnel. If proper cause is not proven, the license will be modified accordingly to reflect the appropriate classification.

12. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a felony or other serious offense, as defined in Section 265.00(17) of the NYSPL;

13. Have no prior conviction anywhere of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;

14. Disclose whether he or she has been the subject or recipient of an Order of Protection or a Temporary Order of Protection;

15. Not be a fugitive from justice;

16. Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. § 802;

17. Not have been involuntarily committed to a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Hygiene pursuant to Article 9 or 15 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law, Article 730 or Section 330.20 of the NYS Criminal Procedure Law, Article 402 or 508 of the NYS Correction Law or Section 322.2 or 353.4 of the NYS Family Court Act;

18. Not have been civilly confined in a secure treatment facility pursuant to Article 10 of the NYS Mental Hygiene Law;

19. Not have had a guardian appointed for him or her pursuant to any provision of New York State law, based upon a determination that as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incapacity, condition or disease, he or she lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs;

20. Not have a history of suffering from a mental illness;

21. Be free from any mental disorders, conditions, defects or diseases that would impair or affect his or her ability to safely possess or use a firearm;

Note: If an applicant is being treated by a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, he or she must obtain a letter of “no objection” from that caregiver.

22. Demonstrate that no good cause exists for the denial of such license.”

Mr. Wright could deduce from the nature of the questions in the handbook, which were mirrored in thirteen questions that required a simple “yes” or “no” answer, that a “yes” answer was sufficient grounds for immediate disqualification for any handgun license. And, if an applicant were to lie, in the hope that the NCPD might not, through its investigation, uncover the deception – well – the NCPD had that possibility covered as well, for the “Pistol License Application Questionnaire” set forth this:“ANY OMISSION OF FACT OR ANY FALSE STATEMENT WILL BE SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO DENY THIS APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTES A CRIME PUNISHABLE BYFINE, IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH.”Mr. Wright, who is a man of impeccable integrity and honesty would never lie; nor had he need to. He could honestly answer, “no” to each question. Mr. Wright’s main concern – indeed – Mr. Wright’s only concern was that he would likely not receive a “civilian full carry license.” Having reviewed both the Application Questionnaire and the “Pistol License Section Handbook” in depth, Mr. Wright, who was also a man who was methodical and meticulous in attending to details decided that if he were to enhance his prospect for obtaining a civilian full carry license, he should consult with both an attorney and with a professional organization adept at understanding and handling the intricate process of obtaining a handgun license.At the end of the day, after waiting the full six months to obtain a handgun license, issued by the NCPD, Mr. Wright obtained his handgun license: a “target/hunting license.” He was unable to obtain a “civilian full carry license” as issued by Nassau County, his own hometown. Had he been a judge or a politician, instead of a mere “businessman,” as the NCPD Officer explained to him, the outcome would likely have been different. Apparently, the NCPD has determined that the life of a politician or a judge is more valuable than that of an American citizen who is only a businessman. One can only wonder what the founders of this Republic would have said about that!If Mr. Wright wished to acquire a handgun license for self-defense, he realized that he would have to obtain one in another New York jurisdiction. As his business was located in New York City and, as his attorney and other specialists suggested that his opportunity for securing an unrestricted “full carry” license may actually be better once he applied for a handgun license as issued by the NYPD, Mr. Wright now used considerable energy and resources to obtain what he hoped would culminate in his first unrestricted full carry concealed handgun carry license. In the back of his mind Mr. Wright was more than a trifle upset that he – an honest, law-abiding American citizen and a successful businessman who has helped fill the State and City and County coffers with substantial tax dollars, much of which would go to the very police departments bestowed with the singular power to determine how much value to place on his life – should deny him the right of access to a handgun simply that he might exercise his right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and deny him one of the most basic of human imperatives: the impulse to defend one’s own life.Would the NYPD treat Mr. Wright just as curtly? Mr. Wright aimed to find out. In the next subpart of this multi-series article, we will discuss Mr. Wright’s experiences involving his application for a New York City unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE PRAGMATIC BASIS FOR UNIVERSAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES

A Roadtrip With A Handgun: The Case For Universal State Reciprocity

PART TWO: The Pragmatic Basis For Universal Concealed Handgun Carry Among The Several States

INTRODUCTION

This article is the second of a multi-part series. The purpose of this second article, and of those that follow, is to establish a cogent, coherent case for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity based on pragmatic grounds. In our first article of this multi-part series, as posted on the Arbalest Quarrel website, we provided you with the legal and moral grounds for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity and responded to the usual arguments that antigun proponents and zealots raise against implementation of concealed handgun carry reciprocity across the United States. In this segment of our series, and of those that follow, we provide you with the pragmatic grounds for universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity. We illustrate for you the travails encountered by one individual as he attempts to secure for himself a number of concealed handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions that will allow him to protect his life and well-being with the most effective means possible – a handgun – as he travels in and through several States to conduct business. We look at: one, the actual police licensing division handbooks and application forms of particular jurisdictions; and, two, the actual procedures involved in applying for and securing a handgun license.

QUALIFICATION CONCERNING THE MANNER IN WHICH WE DISCUSS THE CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING APPLICATION PROCESS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

In providing you with and discussing the content of actual licensing handbooks and application forms, and, in setting out the procedures and events that took place for our businessman, whom we employ as a test-bed for illustrating the onerous nature of handgun licensing generally and whose personal experiences form the basis for this exercise, we have taken certain liberties. First, the handgun licensing manuals or handbooks and application forms, that we point to and discuss at some length, are current as of the time that any particular article in this multi-part series is posted. We do this for a couple of reasons: One, firearms laws and procedures go through a process of change in the course of years – often, unfortunately, becoming more draconian and formidable, rather than less so as time passes. If we are going to explain to you the handgun licensing procedures of various jurisdictions, it would be more helpful to you, if we explain the state of firearms’ laws today, rather than yesterday. Two, at the time that the individual, who is the subject of this multi-part series, obtained his first few concealed handgun licenses, police department websites that make it easy to obtain handgun licensing handbooks and application forms were nonexistent. So a person – in this case, our businessman – had to allocate the time to drive to the appropriate police station to obtain the necessary handbooks and forms. And a personal visit often required him to wait in line, for an hour or more, simply to request a copy of the handgun licensing handbook and forms, that he needed, as these documents and forms were not “hanging on a rack” or “sitting on a table” – readily accessible to the public. Second, we have found it difficult to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that our businessman went through to secure his first handgun licenses and it is difficult to reconstruct the precise sequence of events involving renewal of those licenses. So, we have had to attempt, as best we could, to reconstruct those sequence of events. But, keep in mind that the important objective here is to make the point, demonstrably, that obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is not a simple endeavor, to be undertaken casually.The process of obtaining even one concealed handgun carry license can be time-consuming, convoluted, and incredibly complex, and, for most of us, quite expensive. Moreover, at the end of the day, there is no guarantee that an applicant will obtain his or her prize. We would hazard a guess that police departments across the Country are, generally, reluctant to issue unrestricted, “full concealed carry” handgun licenses. And, the licensing officers are often given wide latitude and discretion in doing so. If, then, a person is refused issuance of a concealed handgun carry license, that person must go through the ordeal of a police administrative hearing, and, sometimes, administrative appeals that, ultimately, may very well go against the applicant, thus requiring a lawsuit after all administrative all appeals have been exhausted. And law courts, too, are not generally predisposed to find in favor of the applicant who desires a “full carry” handgun license. The standard, in many courts, is “abuse of discretion.” If the applicant fails to prove, through the proffering of evidence, that “abuse of discretion,” occurred in his case, that applicant will end up empty-handed, with nothing to show for the experience but frustration, some not unexpected anguish, and the loss of considerable time and money spent chasing shadows.

THE QUAGMIRE OF HANDGUN LICENSING PROCEDURES

At present, since universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity doesn’t exist, the law-abiding American citizen who wishes to exercise his natural right of self-defense as embodied in the Second Amendment must wade through a quagmire of laws, rules and procedures if he or she wishes to secure a concealed carry handgun license. The application process in the vast majority of jurisdictions across the Country is complicated, expensive, and time-consuming. The law-abiding citizen, who wishes to secure one or more handgun licenses for himself or herself, must exemplify the qualities of patience and fortitude. According to the NRA-ILA, only a handful of States, as of the posted date of this article, allow the law-abiding American to carry a handgun concealed, for lawful purposes.In the following segments, beginning with Part 3 of “A Road Trip with a Handgun” we provide you with a pragmatic look at what the typical law-abiding American citizen must contend with as he undertakes the arduous task of obtaining concealed handgun carry licenses in a multitude of States – licenses he needs that allow him to protect his life as he conducts business across State lines.In what follows, the identity of the businessman, upon whose experiences this exercise is loosely based, has been kept confidential in order to protect his privacy. We have also changed certain details of this person’s life, including the nature of his business, and specific points in time when he actually applied for the various jurisdictional pistol licenses. But, the situations that we discuss here – the hurdles this American citizen, and resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, has had to face and overcome to first obtain and then, periodically, maintain his concealed handgun carry licenses – are all true. The point of this exercise, in describing the complexity of securing concealed handgun licenses in several States, is to educate you and to sensitize you to the harsh realities involved in simply securing for yourself the means by which you might best exercise the basic right of self-defense that underlies the Second Amendment guarantee. In a very real sense the sacred right to keep and bear arms that is etched in high relief in our Bill of Rights – a Right that would not exist but for the blood that was spilled by Americans in forging our Nation – must be fought for yet again, but this time Americans must wage war against oppressive governmental bureaucracies that our Nation has devolved into. That this war must be waged at all is due entirely to the efforts of all too many State and federal Legislators and to the efforts of their backers. Antigun proponents and zealots do not recognize or have otherwise long-since forgotten that the average law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend his or her life and if that right is exist as something more tangible than vacuous words, it must be permitted real expression. And this means that Americans ought to be able to defend their lives and well-being with the best means available for namely, through that provided by a firearm.Universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity among the several States would go a long way to safeguarding and effectuating the import of self-defense as embodied in the Second Amendment.

BACKSTORY, CONCERNING OUR BUSINESSMAN

We refer to our businessman, here, by the name Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright has an impeccable, unblemished record: no arrests, no instance of drug abuse, no history of mental illness, no domestic disturbance incident and no physical handicap that would otherwise preclude the issuance of some sort of handgun license. In other words, there is nothing in our businessman’s past or present life and circumstances that could conceivably be ground for immediate rejection of issuance of a handgun license of some sort. That is to say, good cause for denying our businessman the right to possess a handgun or, for that matter, from possessing any firearm does not exist. But, our businessman doesn’t want a restricted handgun license because that would effectively preclude him the use of the weapon for self-defense in many environments, which is precisely why many jurisdictions are loathe to issues such licenses to average, law-abiding Americans. They do not want Americans having access to handguns for self-defense. Yet, our businessman seeks an unrestricted, concealed, “full carry” handgun license or permit for just that purpose: self-defense.But, to obtain an unrestricted, “full carry” license in many jurisdictions, such as New York, there is a higher standard that an applicant must meet. It is not enough to show that good cause does not exist for denying a person the right to possess a handgun. The applicant must show that good cause exists why that person should be permitted the right to carry a handgun, concealed, for the purpose of self-defense, in a public space – that is to say – outside of one’s home or business. In other words, the applicant must show why some aspect of that person’s life places that person in more serious danger than the average law-abiding American faces. That higher standard is very difficult to meet and often requires the assistance of a professional firm that specializes in firearms’ licensing and, in some cases, the expertise of an attorney may be required. And, those services are not cheap. They may very well cost the applicant thousands of dollars.Our objective is, then, to expose, in minute detail, just how difficult it is for most law-abiding Americans – other than those individuals who fall within certain exceptional categories, such as retired police officers, judges, and politicians – to simply exercise their natural right of self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In our next article, we get into the guts proper of what is actually involved in obtaining an unrestricted concealed carry handgun license. We begin by discussing the procedure for obtaining a “Civilian Full Carry License” in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. As Nassau County is our businessman’s hometown, he decided that he would obtain a Nassau County handgun license first. He would learn that a “Civilian Full Carry License” is not easy to come by. He would also learn that, once he received that license, a Nassau County “Civilian Full Carry License” would permit him to carry a handgun concealed anywhere in the State of New York, except for the five Boroughs of New York City. And our businessman, whom we will hereafter call Mr. Wright, will realize, shortly, that, one valid unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is, then, insufficient if one wishes to exercise the natural right of self-defense.So, join our businessman on his journey. Both he and you are in for quite a ride.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: STRAIGHT IN THE CROSSHAIRS!

With the latest tragic shooting incident – this one taking place at an obscure community college in Oregon on October 1, 2015 – the Mainstream Media is, once again, ever again, thrusting the public’s attention onto guns. Oh, What to do about guns! Well, Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from New York, has a plan. Maloney introduced a bill, back in May of this year: “The Firearm Risk Protection Act.” If this bill were to become law, a person would be required to have liability insurance to purchase a gun or face a $10,000.00 fine. The cost of that insurance would, of course, add to the overall cost of the firearm. But, then, the salient point of Maloney’s bill is to make gun ownership such an onerous, expensive proposition that the American public would be dissuaded from making the purchase of a gun in the first place. But, suppose a person is willing to tighten his or her belt and expend the money. What, then?Just imagine: your firearm is stolen by a psychopathic “gangbanger” or a psychotic, homicidal maniac and that person injures or kills someone, or injures and/or kills several individuals with that weapon. The injured party or parties – or the family or families of individuals killed by the “gangbanger” or maniac – files a lawsuit against you, and not the “gangbanger” or maniac, because liability for the injury or death accrues to you and to you alone by virtue of “The Firearm Risk Protection Act;” and, you, after all, are the deep pocket through the liability insurance coverage on your firearms -- that you were forced to obtain.Now, your insurance company does indemnify you, the insured, against the damages claims. And that’s all well and good. But your insurance premiums go up or, worse, insurance coverage is thereafter denied to you altogether as a result of an astronomical payout to the injured party or parties or to the family or families of the parties suffering harm at the hands of the “gangbanger” or maniac. And that isn’t so good. But Maloney doesn’t wish to talk about that possibility.You decide that it is simply too costly to protect yourself and your family with a firearm, or, perhaps, you have no choice in the matter. But, if you are denied firearm liability insurance coverage, you can no longer lawfully own and possess a firearm. So, then, what do you do? You decide to invest in a Louisville Slugger. Insurance, fortunately, isn’t required for that. Thank you very much, Carolyn Maloney, for your The Firearm Risk Protection Act.Maloney’s bill, will not, of course, pass. Indeed, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, fortunately, the bill will not even make its way out of Committee. Indeed, the bill, has not, as of this date, six months since its introduction by Maloney -- made its way out of Committee. Still, for her effort, introduction of the bill will endear her to those few frightened, lost little lambs who are forever looking to Big Government to protect them from others and, for that matter, who are looking to Big Government to protect them from themselves.But, apart from Maloney’s bill and many other ludicrous ideas of late, concocted by antigun zealots to erode the Second Amendment at both the federal and State levels, there is something more sinister afoot that threatens the Second Amendment directly – something worse than Maloney’s bill, awful as her bill is, even if the bill did gain traction in Congress, which it won’t.As alluded to in the first sentence of this post, the Mainstream Media has provided wide coverage of the latest “mass shooting.” But, we would be wrong to dismiss the impact of this latest incident out-of-hand The reason for this is that so-called “mass shootings” are the impetus behind specific kinds of restrictive firearms language that denies firearms’ access to extremely large segments of the American population. And, the antigun establishment, and President Barack Obama, and Democratic Presidential Candidate, Hillary Clinton, intend to turn this latest incident into a “tipping point” for restrictions on gun possession.The NY Times has pulled out all the stops with the latest incident in Oregon through a series of articles designed  to affect the emotions – not the intellect – of its readers. The October 4, 2015 Sunday edition of the newspaper is replete with articles – news accounts and editorials – by such ostensible “luminaries” as Frank Bruni and Nicholas Kristoff, who feel obliged or, perhaps, were asked, to weigh in.What the NY Times news reports and commentary boils down to is this: since it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty who will become a “mass murderer,” the better course of action is to remove firearms from the American citizenry in totality, and in double-quick time.” What is the rationale for this?Well, we, humans, are, after all, beings of emotion as well as intellect. We react to life’s events emotionally as well as intellectually. Each of us, at one time or another, expresses hope and fear, joy and sadness, compassion and resentment. Sometimes we get angry, or we fall into fits of depression or anxiety. Perhaps we lost a loved one, or a job. Perhaps we express concern – much concern – over the manner in which our Government spends our hard-earned tax dollars. Thus is our human-ness expressed.The vast majority of us deal with the vicissitudes of life stoically. A few of us do not – apparently cannot. The NY Times has written a lengthy polemic, posted on line, October 3, 2015, “How They Got Their Guns.” It is curious, though, that no photographs of the individuals who perpetrated the violence are shown – in the digital version of the NY Times article which, clearly, is expected to receive the largest audience and “most hits.” Instead, the NY Times thrusts large, high gloss, high resolution – almost three-dimensional – graphics of firearms upon us – something that the publisher cannot do cost-effectively in the print version of the newspaper. The NY Times' use of large, high gloss, high resolution graphics is not accidental. The Times is suggesting, subliminally, that it is the firearms themselves that are the real sentient actors of the violence, and not the individuals who actually wielded the weapons. But, for all that, our intelligence tells us, contrary to what the NY Times article strongly suggests, that it is individuals, after all, and not inanimate objects, who are the real perpetrators of the violence that occurred.And, what of those perpetrators? The antigun zealots and fanatics intend that those few poor souls, bereft of mind and spirit, who are the cause of violence, whether committed with guns or with any other implement – in a population of millions of law-abiding, sane, rational gun owners – are to be the measure – the standard – by which our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is to be finely calibrated. But, most Americans do not expect, certainly do not demand, indeed would not ever wish that Government utilize, as the standard of measurement, the lowest common denominator among us upon which the vast majority of us is to be judged and found wanting of the ability to handle firearms responsibly. But, that is exactly what is happening. And, let there be no mistake: the antigun forces through their stooges in the mainstream media have the entirety of the Second Amendment in their sights.NY Times reviewer, Frank Bruni, in his op-ed, published on October 4, 2015, titled, “Guns, Campuses and Madness,” did not mince words, when he stated: “This is madness. When it comes to guns, we have lost our bearings in this country, allowing misguided chest-thumping about a constitutional amendment penned in an entirely different epoch, under entirely different circumstances, to trump all prudence and decency.” The Bill of Rights, according to Bruni – who is obviously speaking on behalf of the antigun establishment – has no meaning, no purpose, except in the context of a particular place and a particular time. The Bill of Rights – our Bill of Rights – must, consistent with Bruni’s argument, be rewritten, sans any mention of one, particular right pre-existing in Man himself. And, the entirety of our jurisprudence must be reconsidered in light of a new global view of law, as argued by Justice Stephen Breyer in his recently published book, “The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities,” consistent, too, with trade policies, such as the pending, “TPP,” that make mincemeat of our Nation’s laws and of our Constitution.But, no other Country on the face of this Earth has ever expressed a right to keep and bear arms existent in a Country’s citizenry. So, is the U.S. wrong, and every other Country right? Were our Founders so mistaken to profess to create a Bill of Rights, embracing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that was deemed to express a sacred right existent in Man for All Time and not just for a particular epoch? Is it time to repeal the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the antigun establishment, both in this Country and abroad, hope for and are strenuously working toward? And, were that to happen, what, then, becomes of the United States? Would it even be accurate to still call the United States a Free Republic at that point, as that notion was envisioned by our Founders?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Transfers of Assault Weapons by Sale, Gift, Trade or Bequest to New York Police Officers, New York Peace Officers, and to Federal Law Enforcement Officers

THE MATTER OF LAWFUL ACQUISITION OF, LAWFUL OWNERSHIP OF, AND LAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, DEFINED AS 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' UNDER THE NY SAFE ACT, AS ACQUIRED BY NEW YORK POLICE OFFICERS, NEW YORK PEACE OFFICERS, AND TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

PART 5: TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES; TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION; BEQUESTS OF ASSAULT WEAPONS TO NEW YORK POLICE OFFICERS, NEW YORK PEACE OFFICERS, AND TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

SUBPART 3: Transfers of Assault Weapons by Sale, Gift, Trade or Bequest to New York Police Officers, New York Peace Officers, and to Federal Law Enforcement Officers

SUB-SUBPART 1 Transfers of Assault Weapons by Sale, Gift, Trade or Bequest to New York Police Officers and New York Peace Officers

RECAP

We have discussed in some detail the transfer of guns and ammunition. In the matter of ammunition transfers, we have mentioned that New York law concentrates on those transfers that are in the nature of commercial transactions – better understood as commercial sales. And, we have shown that transfers of ammunition that do not properly involve commercial sales are not dealt with clearly in New York law. Since we cannot resolve, categorically and, therefore, absolutely, for you all of the issues pertaining to the transfers of ammunition, we have, at least, laid out, for you, where it is that the problems in ammunition transfers rest and where amendments to the New York Penal Code ought, in the future, to be made.What we can say, categorically, about at least one of the issues involving transfers of handgun ammunition is that, if two law-abiding gun owners and holders of New York handgun licenses wish to transfer handgun ammunition from one to the other person and, if such transaction is in the nature of a sale, rather than, say, simply, in the nature of a gift or bequest, then that transaction is deemed to be a commercial sale or transaction under the law, and the transfer of ammunition from one person to another is unlawful in the event that neither one of the two individuals who wish to consummate the transfer is a licensed dealer in firearms or a registered seller of ammunition. This means that, if two holders of valid New York handgun licenses – or where required, holders of valid New York shotgun or rifle permits, as well – wish to undertake the purchase and sale of ammunition from one person to the other – that is to say, if the parties wish to engage in a commercial transaction – then the parties must employ the services of either a licensed dealer in firearms or a registered seller of ammunition, who acts as an intermediary for the transaction. Either one of those persons, as intermediary, may allow the transfer of ammunition to be undertaken, lawfully. This mechanism of lawful transfer is set forth in Section 50 of the New York Safe Act. But – and this is an important, but – in New York City, transfers of ammunition must be undertaken through a licensed dealer in firearms and not through a person who is simply a registered seller of ammunition if the transaction is to be deemed lawful. Under the Home Rule Provision of New York’s Constitution, NY CLS Const Art IX, § 2, which provides “for the creation and organization of local governments,” and under the Home Rule Statute, CLS Mun HR § 10, “General powers of local governments to adopt and amend local laws,” the New York State Legislature has given Cities wide latitude to enact ordinances that, in their implementation, seemingly contradict State Statute on the subject. So, while State Statute clearly sets forth that registered dealers in firearms and registered sellers of ammunition can both operate as intermediaries for transfers of ammunition, New York City itself does not allow for a lawful transfer of ammunition to be completed through a registered seller of ammunition. In order for the transfer of ammunition between two parties to be lawful in New York City, the transfer must be made only through a licensed dealer in firearms. We discuss this issue at some length and point to the relevant laws in our Article on transfers of ammunition. The Article is titled: Transferring Ammunition Magazines in New York: What You Need To Know.Now, weapons that are defined as ‘assault weapons’ are banned weapons under the New York Safe Act as codified in the Penal Code of New York. We have argued at length in a previous Article of the Arbalest Quarrel that the notion of an 'assault weapon' is a legal fiction. The Article is: NY Safe: Looking at the Assault Weapon.  The expression, 'assault weapon,' is not a trade term and the expression is not utilized by the firearms’ industry; nor is the expression a specifically defined military term of art. The military does, however, use the expression, ‘assault rifle,’ and that expression is defined with particularity in literature of the Defense Department. But the expression ‘assault weapon’ is not and should not be considered an “assault rifle;” nor should it be considered a derivative of the “assault rifle.” It is not and never had been. Nonetheless the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is defined in New York law, and, since a legal definition exists for it – actually several definitions for the expression exist – in the New York Safe Act, the notion of ‘assault weapon,’ as a creature of New York State Statute, is given an artificial life. The notion of an “assault weapon” is a Frankenstein’s monster that proponents of the New York Safe Act created in order to place restrictions on the weapons the average, law-abiding New York resident may lawfully possess. So, the expression, as it refers to some firearms, does have life – clearly an artificial life, to be sure, but a life, of sorts, nonetheless. One might reasonably expect that, as time goes on, antigun New York Legislators will add to the list of "assault weapons" many more firearms that, at present, are not banned firearms.

HOW DOES NEW YORK DEFINE THE EXPRESSION ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’?

The New York Safe Act of 2013 redefines earlier Penal Code versions of the expression ‘assault weapon.’ And, there is no one unique definition for the expression. There are several. Those definitions all appear in Section 37 of the New York Safe Act. Section 37 of the New York Safe Act is codified in subdivision 22 of the New York State Penal Code Section 265.00, specifically NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22). In a previous Article we provided you with the complete 'assault weapon' definitional scheme. You may take a look at that definitional scheme in our Article titled: NY Safe: 'Assault Weapon Definitions.

WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON TRANSFERS OF ASSAULT WEAPONS, IN NEW YORK, TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY, THAT IS TO SAY, OUTSIDE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES?

The New York Safe Act Section 37, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), and, specifically as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h) says, in pertinent part, that any firearm defined as an ‘assault weapon’ that was lawfully possessed prior to the enactment of the New York Safe Act, namely prior to January 15, 2013, “may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer.” This means that, if a person happened to be lawfully in possession of an “assault weapon,” prior to the date of enactment of the New York Safe Act, January 15, 2013, and that person (the transferor) wishes to transfer the weapon to another person (the transferee) residing in New York, that original, lawful owner (“first generation” owner) of the “assault weapon” cannot, under the New York Safe Act, lawfully transfer his or her weapon to that other person (the transferee) unless the transferee is authorized to possess an “assault weapon” – a banned firearm – after the date of enactment of the Safe Act. And, there are very few persons in New York who can lawfully possess a weapon defined as an 'assault weapon' after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, January 15, 2013.Now we know – and can say with absolute certainty – that a licensed dealer in firearms is authorized to possess such banned weapons. We know this because licensed firearms’ dealers are exempted from the general prohibition of possession of firearms. And, we also know – and can also say with absolute certainty – that your average, law-abiding New York resident and holder of a valid New York handgun license – or, where required – the holder of a valid New York rifle or shotgun permit – is not authorized to take lawful possession of any firearm classified, categorized, defined as an “assault weapon.” How do we know this, and why do we feel confident about our assertion? We know this and feel confident in so asserting this as fact because the NY Safe Act was especially created for those average, law-abiding New York residents who just happen to believe in the Second Amendment guarantee – establishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms – and who choose to exercise their right under the Second Amendment, much to the chagrin of the drafters of and proponents of the NY Safe Act. And, those Americans who wish to -- indeed demand to be able to -- exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may, very well, wish to possess such “banned weapons” for personal self-defense and for other lawful purposes; and, so, the NY Safe Act was created with a particular aim in mind: to prohibit that person from possessing those firearms and to further restrict that person from exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, it is that, for the average, law-abiding New York resident, there is, at present, under New York law, only one exception to lawful possession of banned weapons – namely and specifically -- one exception to possession of those weapons designated as “assault weapons.” And, it is this: unless the average law-abiding New York resident is, one, the original, first generation owner of a firearm defined as an ‘assault weapon’ under the NY Safe Act, and, two, has come into lawful possession of that weapon prior to enactment of the Safe Act, namely, prior to January 15, 2013, the date that New York Governor, Andrew M. Cuomo signed the NY Safe Act into law, and, three, has timely registered the “assault weapon” or “assault weapons” in accordance with the NY Safe Act -- unless all three requirements are met -- such person cannot, lawfully, continue to possess an "assault weapon" in New York. For the average, law-abiding New York resident o be able to lawfully continue to possess an "assault weapon" in New York after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, the New York resident must fall within narrow exceptions – very narrow exceptions – to the “assault weapon” ban – which include, for example, licensed dealers in firearms. So, very few individuals can lawfully possess firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ at this point in time, anywhere in the State of New York.The central issue here, and the purport of this article, is to determine who, apart from licensed dealers in firearms, namely, who, among the broad category of law enforcement officers, fall within the exception – referred to in New York law as an “exemption” – to what otherwise amounts to the unlawful possession of banned weapons, namely and particularly, unlawful possession of “assault weapons” and, more particularly, whether a New York police officer or New York peace officer – like a licensed dealer in firearms – may lawfully acquire and continue to lawfully possess assault weapons, after the date of enactment of the New York Safe Act -- January 15, 2013 – the date that New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed the New York Safe Act into law.Always, keep in mind that, under the NY Safe Act, the average law-abiding New York resident does not fall within an exception to possession of a banned firearm, such as, and particularly, those firearms defined as ‘assault weapons,’ under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h). The question for us here is whether individuals, defined as 'police officers,' or 'peace officers,' or 'federal law enforcement officers,' do, and, if so, to what extent. In other words, we are asking how does the general ban on the acquisition of, ownership of, and possession of firearms defined as 'assault weapons' for special groups of people specifically defined as law enforcement, in New York, work, after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013. And, in looking at and in resolving this central, salient question, we point out three important aspects of it: one, how are the expressions, 'police officer,' and 'peace officer,' and 'federal law enforcement officer' defined in New York law: in other words, who, under New York law, is considered to be a 'New York police officer, a New York peace officer (assuming New York law draws a tenable difference between the two), and who is considered to be a federal law enforcement officer; and, two -- and, as we shall see -- most, critically, in respect to the lawful acquisition of, ownership of, and possession of firearms defined as 'assault weapons' under New York law, how does New York law distinguish between current, active-duty, sworn New York police officers and current, active-duty, sworn New York peace officers, and current,  active-duty, sworn, federal law enforcement officers, on the one hand, and retired, qualified New York police officers, and retired, qualified New York peace officers, and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers on the other hand; and, three, what are the obligations of current, active-duty, sworn New York police officers, and current, active-duty, sworn, New York peace officers, and current, active-duty federal law enforcement officers on the one hand, and retired, qualified New York police officers, and retired, qualified New York peace officers, and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers, on the other hand, when it comes to the registration of firearms defined as 'assault weapons' under the New York Safe act, and, too, in that regard, whether a tenable distinction can be drawn apropos of the registration of those "assault weapons" where those weapons were lawfully acquired, in New York, by the New York police officer or by a New York peace officer or by the federal law enforcement officer, prior to enactment of the New York Safe Act -- and, perhaps, where those weapons were acquired before the individual became a New York police officer or New York peace officer, or federal law enforcement officer -- and those "assault weapons" that were acquired after enactment of the Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, when the individual who acquired those weapons was, at the time of acquisition of those weapons, a current, active-duty sworn police officer, or a current, active-duty sworn peace officer, or a current, active-duty sworn federal law-enforcement officer. So, these, then, are the issues and matters that we will be addressing for you here.As to the third matter, we will taking a look at whether the "New York sworn police officer" or "New York sworn peace officer," or "sworn federal law enforcement officer," who had not otherwise been in possession of a firearm defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ prior to the enactment of the NY Safe Act – that is to say, had not been a first generation original owner of that weapon – is permitted, after enactment of the NY Safe Act -- and the word, 'permitted' means, 'is lawfully permitted to acquire, lawfully permitted to own, and lawfully permitted to possess' (namely, lawfully permitted to hold) -- a firearm specifically defined as an 'assault weapon' under the NY Safe Act -- after the date of enactment of the Act. Note: we are not looking at the manner in which the Officer might happen to, or have happened to, take possession of that “assault weapon” because, if the Officer can take lawful possession of an “assault weapon,” it matters not one whit whether that Officer took possession of the weapon through gift, sale, trade, or testamentary bequest. So, these, then, are the issues and matters that we will be addressing for you here.Now, before we begin to delve further into this matter, we wish to point out what, specifically, we are not dealing with here. From the outset we wish to make clear that this study has nothing to do with – is not in any way concerned with – weapons a police officer may happen to possess and utilize in the normal course of his official duties as a law enforcement officer. Each New York police department or agency has its own rules, regulations, and/or policies in that regard. We will say, though, in passing, that, as most everyone knows, police SWAT teams routinely are armed with weapons that the New York Safe Act places into the category of banned weapons – namely ‘assault weapons,’ – and these SWAT team members also utilize, often enough, selective fire ‘assault rifles,’ and fully automatic weapons, such as submachine guns and, possibly, too, revolving shotguns. And, by the way, revolving shotguns, are not semi-automatic weapons but operate, essentially, like common revolver handgun, through a rotating cylinder. Revolver handguns are not -- presently, at least -- defined as 'assault weapons' under the NY Safe Act. Even so, revolving cylinder shotguns, that operate through a rotating cylinder, are, in fact, curiously, defined in the NY Safe Act as 'assault weapons' even as every other firearm that operates, mechanically, through operation of a rotating cylinder is not defined, in the NY Safe Act, and in the Penal Code of New York, as an 'assault weapon.' Further -- and we need to point this out -- New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, sets forth, on his NY Safe website, at least he did so at the time we last checked the site several months ago, that revolving cylinder shotguns are, in fact, assault weapons precisely because of certain aesthetic features they generally happen to have. But, if that were the case, then, under the usual definition, for shotguns that are also assault weapons, as a necessary condition, those shotguns would have to be semiautomatic in operation. But, revolving cylinder shotguns do not fall under the definition of semiautomatic shotguns that are 'assault weapons' precisely because they are not semiautomatic in operation. So, the Governor's website misleadingly ascribes to these weapons that they are 'assault weapons' under a wrong definition. That is not to say that, under the NY Safe Act, revolving cylinder shotguns are not 'assault weapons.' By definition, such weapons are "assault weapons," but they are 'assault weapons,' as defined in the NY Safe Act, precisely because such shotguns operate through the mechanism of a revolving cylinder. The aesthetic appearance of revolving cylinder shotguns is absolutely irrelevant to their treatment in the NY Safe Act and to their categorization as 'assault weapons' under the NY Safe Act. In other words, under the NY Safe Act, there is a specific definition for revolving cylinder shotguns that thrusts them into the category of 'assault weapons.' The point of this exposition is that, if the Governor is going to talk about the NY Safe Act, he ought to cite to the language of the NY Safe Act as it is actually, precisely written and not, as he thinks, wrongly, as it turns out, what he would like for the NY Safe Act to say or what he believes the NY Safe Act says. We discuss this issue in depth, in a previous Article of the Arbalest Quarrel: NYSAFE: Cuomo's Website Misleads the Public.Now, police department SWAT team members may also be authorized by their department or agency to carry, as their typical duty arm, a .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun, even when most other officers in the same department or agency, in accordance with departmental or agency policy, might only be permitted to carry, as their normal duty arm, a 9mm semiautomatic handgun or .38 caliber revolver.Lastly, and, as suggested by the remarks concerning firearms used by law enforcement personnel in their official capacity, it is important to keep in mind that when we look at the matter of lawful acquisition of, ownership of, and possession of weapons, defined, under the NY Safe Act as 'assault weapons, we are looking at application of New York law to the issue of whether current sworn, active-duty New York police Officers, and New York peace officers, in their personal capacity, namely, off-duty, may lawfully, acquire, own and possess firearms defined as ‘assault weapons.’ As to the matter of off-duty versus on-duty, we will be considering this issue only in relation to current, sworn active-duty New York police officers, and to current, sworn, active-duty peace officers, and to current, sworn, active-duty federal law enforcement officers, as it will be presumed, here, that no tenable distinction exists between being on-duty as opposed to off-duty or that one happens to wish to acquire, own, and possess firearms in one's personal capacity as opposed to one's official capacity because, for retired, qualified New York police officers, and for retired, qualified New York peace officers, and for retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers the distinction between "on-duty versus off-duty" or "personal capacity  versus official capacity" is obviously moot.In providing you with answers to these questions, our primary focus will be on those individuals who, under New York law fall into the category of 'New York police officer' or 'New York peace officer' and 'federal law enforcement officer' and we will attempt to discern whether a tenable distinction really exists between current, sworn active-duty New York police officers, and current, sworn active-duty New York peace officers, and current, sworn active-duty federal law enforcement officers on the one hand, and retired, qualified, New York police officers, and retired qualified New York peace officers, and required federal law enforcement officers, on the other hand. We also note, at the outset that, as we have drawn a distinction between the expressions ‘police officer’ and ‘peace officer,’ we will ascertain for you whether the expressions are simply synonymous under New York law or whether a tenable distinction exists between the two expressions under New York law and, if a tenable distinction does exist, we will ascertain whether one designation or the other has a decided and decisive impact on the issue of the  lawful acquisition, ownership and possession of weapons defined as ‘assault weapons.’ And, too, we will consider whether other governmental officials that engage in police-like duties, such as constables, are legally definable under New York law and, if so, whether "constables" fall within an exception to the near, all-encompassing New York ban on acquisition of, ownership of, and  possession of firearms defined as “assault weapons,” after the date of enactment of the New York Safe Act, on January 15, 2013.

BRIEF NOTE CONCERNING "SWORN ACTIVE-DUTY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS" AND "QUALIFED RETIRED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS"

Since federal law is certainly relevant to and definitely impacts application of the New York Safe Act apropos of federal law enforcement officers, we have decided to leave discussion of that impact to the next Article, in a "sub-sub section" of this present Article. We will, in that Article, point, especially, to some vagueness between federal law and New York law, specifically as it concerns qualified retired federal law enforcement officers who reside in New York, on their retirement from federal law enforcement.

SO, CAN A NEW YORK RESIDENT WHO HAPPENS ALSO TO BE A NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER, OR WHO HAPPENS TO BE A NEW YORK PEACE OFFICER, LAWFULLY TAKE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM DEFINED AS AN ASSAULT WEAPON, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, THAT IS TO SAY, FOR NON-OFFICIAL PURPOSES, WHETHER BY GIFT, SALE, TRADE OR BEQUEST, ALTOGETHER APART FROM AND IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT PERSON’S STATUS AS EITHER A CURRENT, ACTIVE-DUTY, SWORN NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER OR CURRENT, ACTIVE-DUTY, SWORN NEW YORK PEACE OFFICER, AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT?

The New York Safe Act does not provide us with guidance in this, so we have to dig deeper into the New York Penal Code to find an answer. We look first to NY CLS Penal § 265.20, titled, aptly enough, “Exemptions.” NY CLS Penal § 265.20, sets forth, in pertinent part: “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 (among others), Police officers as defined in subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law and Peace Officers as defined by section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law."From the get-go, we see that a person who is a New York police officer or New York peace officer falls into one of two exemptions, as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.20. But, while it may seem abundantly clear, from a commonsense standpoint who falls into the category of ‘police officer’ and, perhaps, who falls into the category of ‘peace officer,’ as well, we know, from experience, that it is best not to assume what Government officials tell us what the firearms' laws of New York mean as they may, deliberately or inadvertently, leave out critical details in their telling. Therefore, we must, as a better practice, go to the source and look very carefully at what New York State Statutes actually say. We have also found to be true in several cases, and this is particularly true of the various Statutes that we are analyzing here, that it is necessary, often enough,to look at more than one Statute for a definitive answer to a question. There may very well be several Statutes that touch on a particular subject, and, given inherent ambiguity and vagueness, careful scrutiny of the language of New York State Statutes -- especially those involving firearms -- is absolutely essential if one is to obtain a clear -- or at least, clearer -- understanding of the meaning of particular laws. So it is here. In this case we must take a very close look at the expressions, ‘police officer,’ ‘peace officer,’ and ‘constable,’ when attempting, first of all, to decipher whom it is who really is a “New York police officer” or “New York peace officer” or “constable.” And, we will take a look at each of these each in turn.

WHO IS A ‘POLICE OFFICER?’ HOW IS THE EXPRESSION 'POLICE OFFICER' DEFINED IN NEW YORK LAW?

As set forth above, the Statute, NY CLS Penal § 265.20(a)(1)(b), that is titled “Exemptions,” refers us to NY CLS CPL § 1.20. And, that Statutory Section is titled, “Definitions of terms of general use in this chapter.” We find that NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) provides us with a detailed list of and exposition of the meaning of ‘police officer’ under New York law. In fact, there are close to two dozen definitions for the expression, ‘police officer.’ So, if you are wondering whether or not you, as a reader of this article, fall within the statutory definition of ‘police officer’ under New York law, you must look to the statutory schema. We provide you with pertinent language from the actual Statute at a later point in this Article. We will say this, now: if you fall within one of the nearly two dozen definitions of the expression, 'police officer,' you are a “police officer” under New York law. If you do not fall, clearly and categorically, within one of those nearly two dozen definitions, you are not a “police officer” under New York law. There is no instance for legitimately concluding that you might be a "police officer" under New York law. You either are a "police officer" or you are not. It is that simple and, when it comes to the matter of whether you can, lawfully, in your personal capacity -- apart from your official duties as a police officer -- possess banned weapons, such as, and particularly, those defined as 'assault weapons' -- it makes all the difference in the world. Presumptively, if you work for a well-known and well-regarded department or agency of New York, such as the NYPD, you may rest-assured that you are, indeed, a “police officer.” "For those members of the NYPD, The State Statute, NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34)(d) says this, as it specifically defines a 'police officer' as: "A sworn officer of an authorized police department or force of a city, town, village or police district." And, it is safe to assume, in this instance, that the NYPD is, in fact, an authorized police Department for the City of New York. To do further research on what the word, 'authorized,' while possible, is superfluous in this instance. If you are not a police officer of "an authorized police Department for a city, town, village or police district," and you are unsure of your status as a 'police officer,' it is always best to consult New York law, and the answer to that question certainly begins with the definitions set forth in NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34), titled, "Definitions of use of general terms in this chapter.

SO, THEN, IS A ‘PEACE OFFICER’ REALLY, OR, AT LEAST, ESSENTIALLY A ‘POLICE OFFICER’ UNDER NEW YORK LAW? IN OTHER WORDS, IS THE EXPRESSION, 'PEACE OFFICER' TRULY OR FOR, ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, SYNONYMOUS WITH THE EXPRESSION, 'POLICE OFFICER' OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE? AND, IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THEN, IF BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND PEACE OFFICERS ARE ULTIMATELY ESSENTIALLY BOTH "LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS," WHAT CRITICAL DIFFERENCES EXIST BETWEEN "POLICE OFFICERS" AND "PEACE OFFICERS" THAT MIGHT AMOUNT TO ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE ACQUISITION, AND OWNERSHIP, AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS DEFINED AS 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' BY ONE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAPPENS TO BE A NEW YORK POLICE OFFICER THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAPPENS TO BE A NEW YORK PEACE OFFICER, WHEN ONE IS CONSIDERING THE INFLUENCE OF THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT?

Well, under New York law, a ‘peace officer’ is not a ‘police officer.’ How do we know this? We know this because New York law has a specific definition for ‘peace officer’ as we indicated above. But, true, a person who is a “peace officer” does fall within the statutory exemption to banned weapons, such as, and particularly, firearms defined as 'assault weapons.' We refer you to NY CLS Penal § 265.20(a)(1)(c). So, even though the definitional scheme for the current, active duty “peace officer” is distinct from and is not to be confused with the definitional scheme for “police officer,” under the New York penal code and under New York criminal procedure law, and, since both kinds of law enforcement officers fall under the Exemption Statute, we would say that the power of the exemption for a “peace officer” is considerably less than that for a law enforcement officer who is defined, in New York law, as a 'police officer. So, for peace officers, it is, in effect, more accurate to say that they fall, seemingly, within the statutory exemption of NY CLS Penal § 265.20, specifically, NY CLS Penal § 265.20(a)(1)(c). And, we use the word, 'seemingly,' here for good reason, which we will get into, a little later because, the issue whether "peace officers" as opposed to "police officers," are permitted, lawfully, to acquire and possess firearms defined as 'assault weapons,' after enactment of the NY Safe Act is not at all clear-cut, and this fact is representative of what we said earlier, namely, that, where firearms are concerned, it is often necessary to look beyond just one New York Statute to find a definitive answer to a specific, perplexing question; and, even then, one might be compelled, at best, to take an educated guess unless one wishes to obtain a definitive ruling on a vague matter, in a court of competent jurisdiction.The definition of ‘peace officer’ is found in its own statutory section of New York law, as is the case, as well, for the expression, 'federal law enforcement officer,' the latter of which we will deal with more in depth in an upcoming Article. But, for now, in the matter of New York peace officers, the expression ‘peace officer’ is found in NY CLS CPL § 2.10. There are an extraordinary number of definitions for the expression – 82, presently, to be precise – even more, if one counts sub-categories of 'peace officer.' And that Statutory Section of the Penal Code is much too lengthy to set forth here. We may post it later, in full, on our "White Paper" webpage. Moreover, the definitions for ‘peace officer,’ are, as the New York Statute states, only effective until November 1, 2015. So, the definitional scheme for 'peace officer,' unlike the definitional scheme for 'police officer' is routinely subject to change. Therefore, be advised that, a person presently defined as a 'peace officer' today, may not be considered a 'peace officer' after November 1, 2015.

WHAT ABOUT A CONSTABLE? IS A CONSTABLE A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER OR DOES THE TERM, ‘CONSTABLE’ FALL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EITHER A ‘POLICE OFFICER’ OR ‘PEACE OFFICER?’

Constables are not police officers as the expression, 'police officer' is defined in and pursuant to NY CLS CPL 1.20(34), as referred to in Civil Rights Law § 50-a. Rather, constables are considered to be peace officers as specifically defined in NY CLS CPL 2.10(1). New York case law also says that constables are peace officers, citing to Statute. But, there is a notable qualification in NY CLS CPL 2.10(1). The definition of ‘constable’ as a 'peace officer' is this: “Constables or police constables of a town or village, provided such designation is not inconsistent with local law.” The phrase, “. . . provided such designation is not inconsistent with local law,” informs us that local governmental bodies may restrict the State exemption status of “constables.” So, even though State Statute provides an exemption to possession of banned weapons, such as “assault weapons” for constables, State Statute does not preempt the field, and local governments can, in their discretion, deny to those individuals, defined as ‘constables,’ the exemption to possession of banned weapons that NY CLS Penal § 265.20 otherwise provides to them.

SO, THEN, WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE HERE? CAN A PEACE OFFICER TAKE LAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS DEFINED AS ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ UNDER THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT, OR NOT? AND, CAN A PEACE OFFICER, WHO IS A CONSTABLE, TAKE LAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS DEFINED AS 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' UNDER THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT, OR NOT?

Even though we pointed out that “peace officers,” as with “police officers,” as defined under New York law, are exempted from the “assault weapon” ban, pursuant to NY CLS Penal § 265.20, there is a discrepancy between NY CLS Penal § 265.20 (the general exemption section of the Penal Code) and NY CLS CPL § 2.10. So, although both peace officers and police officers fall under a specific exemption to the “assault weapon” ban of the New York Safe Act, still, under NY CLS CPL § 2.10 (which sets forth the lengthy definitional scheme for ‘peace officer’ – 80+ definitions for the expression) there is a qualifier in all or virtually all definitions of ‘peace officer.’ And, it is a qualifier that we do not see under the definitional schema for ‘police officer’ as set forth in NY CLS CPL § 1.20 or, for that matter, as set forth in the definition of ‘constable’ as set forth in NY CLS CPL § 2.10 (1). This suggests that ‘constables’ may very well possess weapons defined as “assault weapons” when other “peace officers” cannot do so. We explain the reason for this below:The qualifying language of NY CLS CPL § 2.10 is this: “Provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to authorize any such employee designated as a peace officer after November first, nineteen hundred eighty-five to carry, possess, repair or dispose of a firearm unless the appropriate license therefor has been issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law." The addition of this paragraph to each definition of ‘peace officer’ means that, regardless of the exemption provision of the New York Criminal Procedure Law, NY CLS Penal § 265.20 -- which says that persons designated as “peace officers” specifically do not fall under the purview of the “assault weapon” ban that impacts virtually every other New York resident who isn’t also a police officer -- those individuals, defined as ‘peace officers’ under NY CLS CPL § 2.10, are nonetheless subject to the limitations of firearms ownership and possession imposed by NY CLS Penal §400.00 (“Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms”). This obvious ambiguity in New York law poses a singular problem for New York officers designated as “peace officers,” rather than “police officers,” (other than peace officers who are "constables") because NY CLS Penal §400.00 is designed, in effect, as a limitation on firearms’ ownership and possession precisely because the Statute exemplifies a firearms’ licensing scheme at all. That is to say, no one who falls under the purview of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 can obtain a firearm – specifically a handgun that is also defined as an “assault weapon” under Section 37 of the New York Safe Act as codified in subdivision 22 of the New York State Penal Code Section 265.00 – because NY CLS Penal § 400.00 prescribes the requirements for securing a handgun lawfully in New York – and sets forth those requirements in detail and that licensing scheme proscribes the licensing of any handgun that is also, by definition, an ‘assault weapon.’ And, unfortunately, for New York residents, that very licensing, scheme – which is, in our estimate, inconsistent with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is, in its very inception, an assertion that firearms’ possession is a privilege, granted by government, not a right preexistent in the individual. The qualifying language in the definitional schema of 'peace officer' that makes virtually all "peace officers" subject to the limitation on ownership of assault weapons manifested in NY CLS Penal § 400.00, is language that is not included in the definition of ‘constable’ as ‘peace officer.’ So, paradoxically, unless a local governmental body enacts an ordinance that specifically denies to constables their right under NY CLS Penal § 265.20  to possess “assault weapons,” constables, nevertheless, stand on a much stronger footing than do all or virtually all other individuals who hold the ‘peace officer’ designation, which is probably not what the drafters of the Penal Code had in mind.

WHAT IS THE REAL NATURE OF THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE NEW YORK PENAL CODE?

To illustrate the inconsistency between NY CLS Penal § 265.20  and NY CLS Penal § 400.00 let’s consider the language of a pertinent section of NY CLS Penal § 400.00, namely, NY CLS Penal §400.00(2), titled (“Types of Licenses”). NY CLS Penal §400.00(2) says this: “A license for gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall be issued to engage in such business. A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof. . . .”Now, apart from the special licensing of gunsmiths or dealers in firearms, we note, first of all, that any license issued pursuant to NY CLS Penal § 400.00 is limited to licensing of handguns only – as rifles and shotguns do not require licensing except in certain jurisdictions within New York, such as New York City. We see, second, and more importantly, for purposes of this Article, that NY CLS Penal § 400.00 specifically proscribes licensing of any handgun that is also defined as an ‘assault weapon.’ So, anyone who, other than a gunsmith or firearms dealer, who is licensed pursuant to NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2), cannot lawfully possess an “assault weapon” unless an exemption exists in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 for, once again, the “Exemption” Statute of NY CLS Penal § 265.20  is not, ipso facto, sufficient to preclude application of NY CLS Penal §400.00 unless NY CLS Penal §400.00 further establishes exemption status. In fact a specific section of NY CLS Penal § 400.00, does provide and clarify the meaning and application of exemption status for those individuals that fall within the purview of NY CLS Penal § 400.00, pertaining to assault weapons, but the applicant must jump through several hoops to secure such exemption status for himself or herself. NY CLS Penal §400.00(3)(b) says this:“Each applicant desiring to obtain the exemption set forth in paragraph seven-b of subdivision a of section 265.20 of this chapter shall make such request in writing of the licensing officer with whom his application for a license is filed, at the time of filing such application. Such request shall include a signed and verified statement by the person authorized to instruct and supervise the applicant, that has met with the applicant and that he has determined that, in his judgment, said applicant does not appear to be or poses a threat to be, a danger to himself or to others. He shall include a copy of his certificate as an instructor in small arms, if he is required to be certified, and state his address and telephone number. He shall specify the exact location by name, address and telephone number where such instruction will take place. Such licensing officer shall, no later than ten business days after such filing, request the duly constituted police authorities of the locality where such application is made to investigate and ascertain any previous criminal record of the applicant pursuant to subdivision four of this section. Upon completion of this investigation, the police authority shall report the results to the licensing officer without unnecessary delay. The licensing officer shall no later than ten business days after the receipt of such investigation, determine if the applicant has been previously denied a license, been convicted of a felony, or been convicted of a serious offense, and either approve or disapprove the applicant for exemption purposes based upon such determinations. If the applicant is approved for the exemption, the licensing officer shall notify the appropriate duly constituted police authorities and the applicant. Such exemption shall terminate if the application for the license is denied, or at any earlier time based upon any information obtained by the licensing officer or the appropriate police authorities which would cause the license to be denied. The applicant and appropriate police authorities shall be notified of any such terminations.”So, if a peace officer desires to lawfully possess a firearm defined as an “assault weapon,” the exemption provided him under NY CLS Penal § 265.20 is in and of itself not enough to enable that peace officer to obtain an assault weapon. The reason for this is that the peace officer must obtain a handgun license under NY CLS Penal § 400.00 – something a current, active-duty New York police officer doesn’t need to do as a police officer has a "badge" – and since NY CLS Penal § 400.00 says clearly and categorically that anyone desiring to exercise the exemption status provided for in NY CLS Penal § 265.20 that NY CLS Penal § 265.20, that person must apply for an exemption under NY CLS Penal §400.00(3)(b). The exemption provided for an individual under NY CLS Penal §400.00(3)(b) only operates for an individual who seeks to use the assault weapon at a target range. Why is that the case? That is so because NY CLS Penal § 265.20 (7-b), that NY CLS Penal §400.00(3)(b) refers to, says this:“Possession and use, at an indoor or outdoor pistol range located in or on premises owned or occupied by a duly incorporated organization organized for conservation purposes or to foster proficiency in small arms or at a target pistol shooting competition under the auspices of or approved by the national rifle association for the purpose of loading and firing the same, by a person who has applied for a license to possess a pistol or revolver and pre-license possession of same pursuant to section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter, who has not been previously denied a license, been previously convicted of a felony or serious offense, and who does not appear to be, or pose a threat to be, a danger to himself or to others, and who has been approved for possession and use herein in accordance with section 400.00 or 400.01 of this chapter; provided however, that such possession shall be of a pistol or revolver duly licensed to and shall be used under the supervision, guidance and instruction of, a person specified in paragraph seven of this subdivision and provided further that such possession and use be within the jurisdiction of the licensing officer with whom the person has made application therefor or within the jurisdiction of the superintendent of state police in the case of a retired sworn member of the division of state police who has made an application pursuant to section 400.01 of this chapter.”The bottom line, then, is this: New York residents who fall within the definition of ‘peace officer’ (rather than ‘police officer’) are not automatically entitled to possess banned weapons, defined as ‘assault weapons’ apart from – oddly enough – “constables.” And, this brings us now to the issue of whether retired qualified sworn police officers come under the general exemption of NY CLS Penal § 265.20 as do current, active-duty, sworn,

ARE RETIRED, QUALIFIED, SWORN POLICE OFFICERS SUBJECT TO THE SAME LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION OF, OWNERSHIP OF, AND POSSESSION OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE NY SAFE ACT AS IS THE CASE WITH CURRENT ACTIVE-DUTY  OR RETIRED, QUALIFIED “PEACE OFFICERS,” OR ARE RETIRED, QUALIFIED SWORN POLICE OFFICERS TREATED, UNDER NEW YORK LAW THE SAME AS CURRENT, ACTIVE-DUTY, SWORN POLICE OFFICERS,” WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS ON ACQUISITION OF, OWNERSHIP OF, AND POSSESSION OF BANNED WEAPONS, NAMELY AND PARTICULARLY, THOSE WEAPONS DEFINED AS 'ASSAULT WEAPONS,' AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT?”

What does New York law say about the status of retired, qualified, sworn New York police officers? Can they take possession of firearms defined as ‘assault weapons,’ – whether by sale, trade, gift, or bequest – upon retirement, just as they could have done when they had been current, active-duty, sworn New York police officers? The answer to that question is somewhat nebulous as one reads through the many  definitions of ‘police officer’ as set forth in NY CLS CPL § 1.20. Yet, on analysis, the language of that Section strictly implies that the Officer is current or active-duty. Curiously, early Legislation, going back to the 1990s did include language that specifically permitted retired, qualified, sworn police officers to own and possess weapons defined as ‘assault weapons.’ The fact that such language was never finalized into law should tell New York police officers – whether current or retired – that the drafters of NY Safe had no desire to extend the prerogative of assault weapon possession to retired officers, unless of course such language isn’t needed. And this raises the question whether there is any specific language in the consolidated laws of New York that place retired, qualified police officers on the same legal footing as current active-duty police officers in terms of a right to acquire, own, and possess firearms defined as 'assault weapons' after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013. So, Let’s take a closer look at present New York law, beyond the language of the New York Safe Act. And, to get a better handle on this, let us, for the moment, go back to a consideration as to whether “peace officers” -- whether current or retired -- can now, after enactment of the NY Safe Act, lawfully acquire weapons defined as ‘assault weapons.’ It might seem from the language of NY CLS Penal § 265.20 titled, “Exemptions,” that “peace officers,” like “police officers” can possess firearms defined as ‘assault weapons,’ whether procured through gift, sale, trade, or bequest, subsequent to enactment of the NY Safe Act; and, in fact, peace officers, like police officers are exempted from the ban on certain categories of weapons -- including, importantly, those weapons defined as 'assault weapons' in The New York Safe Act Section 37, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) -- by operation of NY CLS Penal § 265.20. But, that doesn’t end the matter for us because, notwithstanding the language of the Exemption Statute, NY CLS Penal § 265.20, we have to go to another Statute, NY CLS CPL § 2.10, to see whether there is any qualification there to the otherwise straightforward exemption assertions set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.20; and, indeed, there is a qualification to what otherwise seems to be a clear-cut exemption for peace officers in respect to the general "assault weapon" ban. The problem for individuals who fall within one of over six dozen definitions for 'peace officer’ is that each of these definitions include the qualification. So, once again, we see the qualification to the broad exemption Statute: NY CLS Penal § 265.20. The Statute, NY CLS CPL § 2.10, says over and over again for virtually every definition of 'peace officer:' “Provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to authorize any such employee designated as a peace officer after November first, nineteen hundred eighty-five to carry, possess, repair or dispose of a firearm unless the appropriate license therefor has been issued pursuant to section 400 of the penal law." So, now we are directed to NY CLS Penal § 400.00.Now let us take a close look at the language of NY CLS Penal § 400.00. This is the New York Penal Code's salient Section on the licensing of firearms. So, then, what does this Penal Code Section say particularly about "assault weapons?" Well, paragraph 2 of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 makes clear that, apart from the licensing of a gunsmith or dealer in firearms, “A license for a pistol or revolver, other than an assault weapon or a disguised gun, shall be issued to (a) have and possess in his dwelling by a householder; (b) have and possess in his place of business by a merchant or storekeeper; (c) have and carry concealed while so employed by a messenger employed by a banking institution or express company; (d) have and carry concealed by a justice of the supreme court in the first or second judicial departments, or by a judge of the New York city civil court or the New York city criminal court; (e) have and carry concealed while so employed by a regular employee of an institution of the state, or of any county, city, town or village, under control of a commissioner of correction of the city or any warden, superintendent or head keeper of any state prison, penitentiary, workhouse, county jail or other institution for the detention of persons convicted or accused of crime or held as witnesses in criminal cases, provided that application is made therefor by such commissioner, warden, superintendent or head keeper; (f) have and carry concealed, without regard to employment or place of possession, by any person when proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” Note the words, “other than an assault weapon.”The inference to be drawn from NY CLS Penal § 400.00 for "peace officers" is plain. Peace officers cannot lawfully possess any handgun that is defined as an ‘assault weapon’ because any license to carry a handgun does not, under State law, permit for the licensing of those handguns that are defined as 'assault weapons' under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h). Their carry license does not allow for that. And, it follows by logical implication, then, that a person who is defined as a ‘peace officer’ under NY CLS CPL § 2.10 cannot acquire, own, and possess, an "assault weapon" -- whether by gift, sale, trade, or bequest -- after the enactment of the NY Safe Act, namely on January 15, 2013.Such assault weapons that "peace officers" do lawfully possess, after enactment of the NY Safe Act, must have been duly, and lawfully, acquired, prior to the effective date of the NY Safe Act. Note also that NY CLS Penal § 400.00 regulates licensing of handguns, not long arms, namely, rifles and shotguns. The acquisition of assault weapons by those individuals defined as 'peace officers,' under NY CLS CPL § 2.10, are no more permitted, lawfully, to acquire rifles and shotguns defined as 'assault weapons' than can average, law-abiding residents of New York, who are not engaged in law-enforcement, because of the proscription of New York Safe Act Section 37, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), and, specifically as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h). So, apart from the proscription against the licensing of handguns that are defined as 'assault weapons' under NY CLS Penal § 400.00, it also follows that rifles and shotguns that are defined as ‘assault weapons,’ under the New York Safe Act Section 37, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) are, as well, banned. And, that ban against possession of "assault weapons" applies with equal force to peace officers as well as to any other law-abiding New York resident who is not a peace officer or who is not in any manner involved with or connected to law enforcement.But, we know that persons who clearly fall within the definition of ‘police officer,’ namely current, active-duty, sworn police officers --  who, then, are not relegated merely to the status of  ‘peace officer’ – can, in fact lawfully acquire, own, and possess a banned weapon, such as, and particularly, a firearm defined as an ‘assault weapon,' after the effective date of the NY Safe Act, the question arises whether the expression ‘police officer’ extends to and means ‘current, sworn, Police Officer,’ only or whether the definition of ‘police officer’ extends to a ‘retired, qualified police officer. To resolve this issue, we must return to the definitions of ‘police officer’ as catalogued and enumerated in  NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34), and you will see that not one of the definitions makes specific mention of the notion of 'police officer' who is a 'retired, qualified police officer.' The expression, 'police officer' means:“Police officer. The following persons are police officers:(a) A sworn member of the division of state police;(b) Sheriffs, under-sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of counties outside of New York City;(c) A sworn officer of an authorized county or county parkway police department;(d) A sworn officer of an authorized police department or force of a city, town, village or police district;(e) A sworn officer of an authorized police department of an authority or a sworn officer of the state regional park police in the office of parks and recreation;(f) A sworn officer of the capital police force of the office of general services;(g) An investigator employed in the office of a district attorney;(h) An investigator employed by a commission created by an interstate compact who is, to a substantial extent, engaged in the enforcement of the criminal laws of this state;(i) The chief and deputy fire marshals, the supervising fire marshals and the fire marshals of the bureau of fire investigation of the New York City fire department;(j) A sworn officer of the division of law enforcement in the department of environmental conservation;(k) A sworn officer of a police force of a public authority created by an interstate compact;(l) Long Island railroad police.(m) A special investigator employed in the statewide organized crime task force, while performing his assigned duties pursuant to section seventy-a of the executive law.(n) A sworn officer of the Westchester county department of public safety services who, on or prior to June thirtieth, nineteen hundred seventy-nine was appointed as a sworn officer of the division of Westchester county parkway police or who was appointed on or after July first, nineteen hundred seventy-nine to the title of police officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain or inspector or who, on or prior to January thirty-first, nineteen hundred eighty-three, was appointed as a Westchester county deputy sheriff.(o) A sworn officer of the water-supply police employed by the city of New York appointed to protect the sources, works, and transmission of water supplied to the city of New York, and to protect persons on or in the vicinity of such water sources, works, and transmission.(p) Persons appointed as railroad policemen pursuant to section eighty-eight of the railroad law.(q) An employee of the department of taxation and finance. . . .(r) Any employee of the Suffolk county department of parks who is appointed as a Suffolk county park police officer.(s) A university police officer appointed by the state university pursuant to paragraph 1 of subdivision two of section three hundred fifty-five of the education law.(t) A sworn officer of the department of public safety of the Buffalo municipal housing authority who has achieved or been granted the status of sworn police officer and has been certified by the division of criminal justice services as successfully completing an approved basic course for police officers.(u) Persons appointed as Indian police officers pursuant to section one hundred fourteen of the Indian law.(v) Supervisor of forest ranger services; assistant supervisor of forest ranger services; forest ranger 3; forest ranger 2; forest ranger employed by the state department of environmental conservation or sworn officer of the division of forest protection and fire management in the department of environmental conservation responsible for wild land search and rescue, wild land fire management in the state as prescribed in subdivision eighteen of section 9-0105 and title eleven of article nine of the environmental conservation law, exercising care, custody and control of state lands administered by the department of environmental conservation.”So, must we assume from this extensive list of definitions – and, from the definitions of ‘peace officer’ which is a magnitude larger than those definitions of ‘police officer’ – that the drafters of this list of definitions of the expression 'police officer' as set forth with specificity in NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) intend to reference only “current, active-duty sworn police officers," and not “retired, qualified, police officers?"  Or did the drafters of NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) intend, if tacitly, to include “retired, qualified, sworn police officers?" If one takes the position that NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) does include “retired, qualified, police officers," then retired, qualified, police officers," are permitted to acquire, own, and possess firearms defined as "assault weapons" since NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) does, then, fully embraces the exemption to the "assault weapon" ban of NY CLS Penal § 265.20. If not, however, and, in the absence of clear explication of the definitions of 'police officer' insofar as the question whether those definitions logically entail all "retired, qualified, police officers," doubt certainly exists as to the drafters of NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34), we must delve further into the Consolidated laws of New York to obtain an answer. For, if the notion of 'retired, qualified, sworn police officer,' is not subsumed in the category of 'current, active-duty police officer,' then the "retired, qualified, police officer" is on weak ground should that officer attempt to acquire, own, and possess "assault weapons" after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, because such acquisition, ownership and possession of "assault weapons" would be unlawful. There is a Statute we need to look at that may resolve this issue and it is this: NY CLS Penal § 265.00, titled, simply, “Definitions,” sets forth in a subsection, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(25), the following:“ ‘Qualified retired New York' or ‘federal law enforcement officer’ means an individual who is a retired police officer as police officer is defined in subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, a retired peace officer as peace officer is defined in section 2.10 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer as federal law enforcement officer is defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who: (a) separated from service in good standing from a public agency located in New York state in which such person served as either a police officer, peace officer or federal law enforcement officer; and (b) before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest, pursuant to their official duties, under the criminal procedure law; and (c) (i) before such separation, served as either a police officer, peace officer or federal law enforcement officer for five years or more and at the time of separation, is such an officer; or (ii) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency at or before the time of separation; and (d) (i) has not been found by a qualified medical professional employed by such agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health; or (ii) has not entered into an agreement with such agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified for reasons relating to mental health; and (e) is not otherwise prohibited by New York or federal law from possessing any firearm.”So, in understanding the meaning of ‘retired, qualified police officer’ or 'retired, qualified federal law enforcement officer,’ the best approach is to read NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34) concurrently with NY CLS Penal § 265.00(25). We now know that the expressions, 'retired, qualified police officer’ and 'retired, qualified federal law enforcement officer,’  have their own express meanings in New York Statute, as set forth with particularity in New York's Criminal Procedure Law. And, since the expressions, ‘retired, qualified police officer’ and ‘retired, qualified federal law enforcement officer’ are defined with particularity in the law, and, as those definitions are specifically absent from the list of definitions of 'police officer' set forth in NY CLS CPL § 1.20(34), the Exemption Statute, NY CLS Penal § 265.2o – that would otherwise exempt "retired, qualified police officers" or "retired qualified federal law enforcement officers" -- is not available to them does and, so, those provisions of the law banning the possession of certain weapons, including and especially those weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ – on the basis of the Statutes discussed herein -- places retired, qualified police officers" and "retired qualified federal law enforcement officers" on the same legal footing as any ordinary, law-abiding New York resident.

SO, IF A POLICE OFFICER OR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CANNOT LAWFULLY ACQUIRE FIREARMS DEFINED AS 'ASSAULT WEAPONS' UPON THEIR RETIREMENT BASED ON THE EXEMPTION SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE AND UPON THE DEFININITIONS SECTION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW, WHAT OTHER STATUTE MIGHT THE RETIRED QUALIFIED POLICE OFFICER AND RETIRED QUALIFIED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FEASIBLY RELY UPON, IF ANY SUCH LAW EXISTS, THAT MIGHT YET ALLOW RETIRED, QUALIFIED   OFFICERS TO CONTINUE TO ACQUIRE, OWN AND POSSESS FIREARMS DEFINED AS ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS,’ UPON THEIR RETIREMENT FROM A BONA FIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY?

We have combed New York law, and have found no Statute that permits retired, qualified, police officers or retired, qualified law enforcement officers from acquiring, owning and possessing, lawfully, weapons designated as ‘assault weapons,’ after they retire from law enforcement, given the impact of the NY SAFE Act. And, so, in the absence of any other New York State Statute that might otherwise allow into New York qualified retired police officers or retired federal law enforcement officers to lawfully acquire, own, and possess firearms defined as ‘assault weapons’ under the New York Safe Act, upon or after the date of formal retirement, we are left with the “Licensing Statute” of NY CLS Penal § 400.00. NY CLS Penal § 400.00, titled, “Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms” alone informs us. That Statute alone provides the manner in which New York qualified retired police officers or retired federal law enforcement officers may lawfully acquire, own, and possess firearms that fall into the category of handguns and the parameters for the possibility of acquiring, owning, and possessing those handguns defined as 'assault weapons' under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22).First, CLS Penal § 400.00(6) sets forth this, in pertinent part:“License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city. Such license to carry or possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of that city, provided that (d) the licensee is a retired police officer as police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided, further, however, that if such license was not issued in the city of New York it must be marked “Retired Police Officer” or “Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer”, as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons.”What does this Section actually say? And, what does this Section mean? This Section says that the handguns that "retired, qualified police officers" and "retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers" can acquire are those for -- and that means, only those for --  the license to carry is issued. And those weapons “shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons.” Now, NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) refers, very importantly, to the licensing of weapons “other than an assault weapon or disguised gun,” but note: NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) does not refer to the issuance of licenses to retired, qualified police officers or retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers. So, does that mean that "retired, qualified police officers" and "retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers" can acquire, own, and possess handguns defined as 'assault weapons,' after the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, when no other class of holder of an unrestricted concealed handgun carry permit -- other than a licensed gun dealer or licensed gunsmith -- can now, under the New York Safe Act, lawfully, acquire, own, and possess firearms defined as 'assault weapons?'So, if NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2) doesn't apply to the licensing of retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers, what provision of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 does apply to the licensing of retired, qualified police officers and retired federal law enforcement officers. We see that the only Section of NY CLS Penal § 400.00 that refers to the licensing of handguns to retired, qualified police officers and retired qualified federal law enforcement officers is NY CLS Penal § 400.00(6). And, always keep in mind that that NY CLS Penal § 400.00 deals with the licensing of handguns. Rifles and shotguns are not within the purview of State licensing Statutes. And, in fact, most jurisdictions in New York do not require the licensing of long arms, namely, rifles and shotguns. But, a few jurisdictions, such as New York City, do, and these jurisdictions have enacted their own rules and regulations concerning the licensing of rifles and shotguns. But, regardless, since retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified, federal law enforcement officers do not fall within the purview of NY CLS Penal § 265.20, the Exemption Statute, retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers are not permitted to acquire, own, or possess, under the NY Safe Act, any rifles or shotguns defined as “assault weapons,” and this fact holds true whether a jurisdiction within in New York requires a license or permit to possess a rifle or shotgun, or not. Now, then, what does, NY CLS Penal § 400.00(6) (titled, "License. validity) say, concerning the licensing of particular handguns to retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers? In full, NY CLS Penal § 400.00(6) says this:"License: validity. Any license issued pursuant to this section shall be valid notwithstanding the provisions of any local law or ordinance. No license shall be transferable to any other person or premises. A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city. Such license to carry or possess shall be valid within the city of New York in the absence of a permit issued by the police commissioner of that city, provided that (a) the firearms covered by such license have been purchased from a licensed dealer within the city of New York and are being transported out of said city forthwith and immediately from said dealer by the licensee in a locked container during a continuous and uninterrupted trip; or provided that (b) the firearms covered by such license are being transported by the licensee in a locked container and the trip through the city of New York is continuous and uninterrupted; or provided that (c) the firearms covered by such license are carried by armored car security guards transporting money or other valuables, in, to, or from motor vehicles commonly known as armored cars, during the course of their employment; or provided that (d) the licensee is a retired police officer as police officer is defined pursuant to subdivision thirty-four of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law or a retired federal law enforcement officer, as defined in section 2.15 of the criminal procedure law, who has been issued a license by an authorized licensing officer as defined in subdivision ten of section 265.00 of this chapter; provided, further, however, that if such license was not issued in the city of New York it must be marked “Retired Police Officer” or “Retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer”, as the case may be, and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons; or provided that (e) the licensee is a peace officer described in subdivision four of and the license, if issued by other than the city of New York, is marked “New York State Tax Department Peace Officer” and in such case the exemption shall apply only to the firearm issued to such licensee by the department of taxation and finance. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may be, where issued. A license as gunsmith or dealer in firearms shall not be valid outside the city or county, as the case may be, where issued."A critical clause in NY CLS Penal § 400.00(6) is the underlined portion of the above quoted section of the Penal Code that reads: ". . . and, in the case of a retired officer the license shall be deemed to permit only police or federal law enforcement regulations weapons." Now, if the law enforcement regulation handgun happens to be one that is defined as an 'assault weapon' under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) or otherwise conflicts with the limitation on ammunition capacity of the magazine under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) and Section 38 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23) -- if the regulation firearm happens to be a semiautomatic -- that constitutes a lawful, if tacit, exception to what otherwise would amount to unlawful possession of a firearm defined as an 'assault weapon' or unlawful possession of a "large capacity ammunition feeding device." And, that regulation firearm that otherwise butts up against the NY Safe Act, accounts for and allows for the only firearm that a retired, qualified police officer or retired, qualified federal law enforcement officer may continue to possess, lawfully, upon retirement, after enactment of the NY Safe Act.

DO RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS AND RETIRED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE TO REGISTER THOSE ASSAULT WEAPONS THEY ACQUIRED PRIOR TO RETIREMENT, IN THE SAME MANNER AS DO THOSE NEW YORK RESIDENTS, CIVILIANS, WHO LAWFULLY ACQUIRED THEIR OWN “ASSAULT WEAPONS” PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF THE NY SAFE ACT?

One further question remains to be resolved here. And, that question has to do with whether an current, active duty police officer or current, active duty federal law enforcement officer, who happens to acquire, own, and possess, lawfully, one or more firearms that are defined as 'assault weapons' under Section 37 of the NY Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), must register those "assault weapons" in the same manner and pursuant to the same requirements as any ordinary, law-abiding New York resident, once that current, active duty police officer or current, active duty federal law enforcement officer retires from law enforcement.NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a) is the “Registration” section of the Statute. NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)(a) sets forth the requirements for registration of assault weapons that New York residents lawfully possessed, prior to the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013. That statutory section says, in pertinent part:“An owner of a weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this chapter, possessed before the date of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, must make an application to register such weapon with the superintendent of state police, in the manner provided by the superintendent, or by amending a license issued pursuant to this section within one year of the effective date of this subdivision except any weapon defined under subparagraph (vi) of paragraph (g) of subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this chapter transferred into the state may be registered at any time, provided such weapons are registered within thirty days of their transfer into the state.”NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)(a) sets forth the general registration requirements of "assault weapons" for those original, first-generation owners of firearms defined as "assault weapons" who acquired them, lawfully, prior to the effective date of the NY Safe Act that banned further lawful acquisition of "assault weapons" except for those individuals, such as current, active duty police officers and current, active duty federal law enforcement officers who may continue to acquire, own, and possess such "banned" weapons after the effective date of operation of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, because current, active duty police officers and current, active duty federal law enforcement officers fall under the exemption Statute exclusion of NY CLS Penal § 265.20.So, do retired qualified New York police officers and retired qualified federal law enforcement officers, like current, active duty police officers and current, active duty federal law enforcement officers come under the purview of NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)? Actually, “no.” But this is a qualified, “no.” Although retired, qualified  police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers are required to register their assault weapons, those retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers -- unlike the average, law-abiding New York resident, who is required to register and re-register the assault weapons periodically through the years, retired, qualified police officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officers are, as well, required to register certain assault weapons they possess, but they must do so only once and after which they are allowed to continue to possess those assault weapons they happened to acquire prior to the date of their formal retirement from law enforcement, indefinitely, without need for re-registration. But, this requirement for one-time registration of "assault weapons" only applies to certain “assault weapons,” namely that weapon or those weapons that the officer happened to acquire when that officer was a current, active duty police officer or current, active duty federal law enforcement officer, and those weapons that the Statute refers to are weapons that the officer was issued or weapons that the officer had purchased for use in the performance of his official duties. And, the operative statutory section that supports this assertion is NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)(a-1), and that statutory section says this:“Notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, an owner of an assault weapon as defined in subdivision twenty-two of section 265.00 of this chapter, who is a qualified retired New York or federal law enforcement officer as defined in subdivision twenty-five of section 265.00 of this chapter, where such weapon was issued to or purchased by such officer prior to retirement and in the course of his or her official duties, and for which such officer was qualified by the agency that employed such officer within twelve months prior to his or her retirement, must register such weapon within sixty days of retirement.”So, qualified, retired New York police officers and qualified, retired federal law enforcement officers who reside in the State of New York may continue to possess the assault weapon – or assault weapons – that the Officer had purchased prior to retirement that was used during the Officer’s official duties and for which that Officer had obtained qualification for, but so long as the Officer registers that weapon within sixty days of retirement. We must point out, though, that the operative words of NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)(a-1) here refers to the purchase of or issuance of a 'weapon,' singular, and not 'weapons,' plural. On a strict reading of the Statute, the language of the Statute means that the Officer may continue to keep one "weapon," and not "weapons" if that Officer was issued or purchased more than one weapon for use in the performance of that Officer's official duties during that Officer's tenure in law enforcement. Of course, we are talking, here, about a weapon that is, or weapons that are, otherwise "banned" under the NY Safe Act, namely, "assault weapons." And the Statute is, tacitly, at least, taking into account, weapons that, although not defined as 'assault weapons,' under the Safe Act, nonetheless happen to utilize, a banned component such as, and particularly, a "large capacity ammunition feeding device." Such a device is banned under the NY Safe Act. Otherwise, if a weapon does not fall within the category of 'assault weapon' or does not utilize a "large capacity ammunition feeding device" or have some other banned feature, the qualified retired police officer or qualified retired federal law enforcement officer is allowed, in New York, to lawfully possess more than one weapon.

NOW, AS ALLUDED TO ABOVE, SUPPOSE A RETIRED, QUALIFIED POLICE OFFICER OR RETIRED, QUALIFIED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAPPENS TO OWN SEVERAL WEAPONS DEFINED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS UNDER NEW YORK LAW, WHICH THAT OFFICER LAWFULLY ACQUIRED DURING HIS TENURE AS A CURRENT, ACTIVE-DUTY, SWORN POLICE OFFICER OR CURRENT, ACTIVE-DUTY, SWORN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND WHICH WERE NOT THAT OFFICER’S OFFICIAL DUTY FIREARM OR OTHERWISE WERE NOT PURCHASED AND UTILIZIED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF THAT OFFICER’S OFFICIAL DUTIES WHILE HE WAS EMPLOYED BY AN AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OR AUTHORIZED LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. NEED THOSE WEAPONS BE REGISTERED ONLY ONCE, NAMELY WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THAT OFFICER’S RETIREMENT FROM ACTIVE-DUTY, OR MUST THEY BE RE-REGISTERED PERIODICALLY?

Basically, the retired, qualified New York police officer and retired, qualified federal law enforcement officer is placed on the same footing as an ordinary law-abiding New York resident who happened to acquire, lawfully, his or her own firearms – now defined as ‘assault weapons’ – prior to enactment of the New York Safe Act. Those non-departmental or non-agency weapons come under the purview of NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a), and not under the purview of NY CLS Penal § 400.00(16-a)(a-1). Furthermore, retired, qualified New York Police Officers and retired, qualified federal law enforcement Officers who reside in New York are not entitled – any more  so than is the case for the average, law-abiding New York resident, who is not a retired, qualified New York Police Officer or retired, qualified  federal law enforcement Officer – to continue to acquire “assault weapons,” upon the effective date of retirement. So, our advice to those current, active duty New York police officers and current, active duty federal law enforcement officers who wish to acquire one or more weapons defined as ‘assault weapons’ under Section 37 of the New York Safe Act, as codified in Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code, is that you acquire those weapons while you are still current, active-duty police officers or current, active duty federal law enforcement officers. For, once you enter retirement you will not be able to continue to acquire, own, and possess those new “assault weapon” acquisitions, lawfully.

CONCLUSION

The New York Legislature gives individuals who are defined as 'police officers' or as 'federal law enforcement officers' substantially more leeway to acquire, own, and possess firearms defined as 'assault weapons,' at least while their status is current, active-duty police officer or current, active-duty federal law-enforcement officer. However, for those individuals who fall into the category of 'peace officer,' whether current, active-duty or retired, the lawful acquisition, ownership, and possession of firearms defined as “assault weapons,” under Section 37 of the New York Safe Act, as codified in Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code, is restricted. Furthermore, once an officer – whether that officer is a New York peace officer, or New York police officer, or federal law enforcement officer – enters retirement, the lawful acquisition of banned weapons, namely and particularly, “assault weapons,” is essentially foreclosed to every officer, no less so than is the case for the average, law-abiding New York resident who had never been in law enforcement -- unless and to the extent that one particular weapon or, perhaps, more than one weapon, as the case may be, that the officer happened to use in the normal course of his  or her duties when he or she was employed as a police officer or federal law enforcement officer for which that officer obtained qualification in, happens to be a handgun or handguns that falls into the category of 'assault weapon.' That weapon, or those weapons, the officer may continue to possess, lawfully, and that weapon or those weapons will be listed on the officer’s handgun license, in accordance with NY CLS Penal § 400.00(6).So, if you are a current active-duty New York police officer or current active-duty federal law-enforcement officer and you are contemplating retirement in the near future, and you wish to acquire firearms that the New York Safe Act defines as “assault weapons,” whether these weapons are to be acquired by gift, sale, trade, or bequest, we strongly urge you to obtain those weapons now – well before you sign your retirement papers and retire your badge. For, once, you enter upon retirement, you will no longer be able, lawfully, to acquire those weapons, that, at the moment, you may acquire relatively easily without butting up against restrictive New York firearms’ laws.If you have a question concerning any aspect of this article, please feel free to contact us at: rjk@arbalestquarrel.com, or sld@arbalestquarrel.com.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

Subverting the Second Amendment: The Subtle Road to Injustice

Antigun proponents and zealots are quick to qualify their remarks about guns so as not to openly disparage American citizens who cherish their Bill of Rights – all ten of them. “Yes,” the antigun proponents and zealots chant over and over again: “we need ‘commonsense’ gun laws, and of course we respect the Second Amendment.” The obligatory parenthetical remark, “of course we respect the Second Amendment,” hangs at the end of the phrase, “commonsense gun laws,” like a puppy dog’s tail. The gun grabbers “wag it” in our faces as if to suggest that American citizens who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should be “sensible about guns” – as if we aren’t and, so, must be made to be. Antigun proponents and zealots always have the Second Amendment in the cross-hairs, ready to wound it, eventually to kill it, even as they proclaim no such intention to do so.The fact of the matter is that the antigun movement seeks to end civilian ownership of firearms. The movement’s entire reason for being is focused on that end. Second Amendment adherents know or should know that more “commonsense gun laws” mean, ultimately, nothing more than “total gun confiscation,” except for those individuals who happen to fall into some “small, select, special, trusted, elite class.” The goal of all antigun proponents and zealots is omnipresent; it never changes even as it remains tacit, unspoken. The American public should be under no illusion about that. The antigun mantra – “commonsense gun laws,” – is ultimately meaningless, senseless, and even nonsensical. It echoes hollowly in the void.The gun grabbers use that meaningless, senseless, nonsensical slogan, “commonsense gun laws,” every chance they get. Just recently, as reported by The Associated Press through The New York Times newspaper, President Barack Obama – a staunch advocate for dispossessing Americans of their firearms – also used that familiar, wearisome, tiresome refrain when he spoke to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation). Obama apparently does not understand, or simply chooses not to understand or, perhaps, is utterly incapable of understanding the import of the Second Amendment to Americans, which the founders of the Republic bequeathed to Americans, to us – to cherish, to treasure, to hold most dear. The issue of gun control, President Obama says, has left him “the most stymied” . . . [and, he] “tells the BBC he is ‘frustrated’ that the U.S. does not have ‘commonsense gun safety laws,’ even in the face of repeated mass killings.”The BBC is, as most people know, a major British news outlet. Great Britain does not have anything comparable to our Second Amendment. Indeed, Great Britain doesn’t even have one specific document that might be considered a written Constitution, let alone anything remotely like America’s “Bill of Rights.” In a land whose social structure is grounded on class distinctions, well-honed and solidified after hundreds of years of existence, the British royalty and nobility would not trust, and never have trusted the British commonalty, with possession of firearms. Apparently, the British commonalty doesn’t see anything wrong with that. True Americans, however, do. So, Obama preaches to the choir over there. And that choir would like to sing Obama’s praises over here. “What is the problem with Americans, the British ask?” “Why must Americans own and possess firearms at all?” And, if they must possess firearms, what do they have against “commonsense gun safety laws.” The British might reflect on American history before suggesting answers to those questions. And, President Obama, for his part, would have done better to reflect on the import of and impact of his ‘commonsense gun safety laws’ message on Americans before he conveyed that message, strangely as he did, to the British.Without firearms, America would still be under British rule, subservient to and paying homage, today, to the Queen of England; pledging allegiance to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, under the Union Jack, rather than to an independent Democratic Republic under the Stars and Stripes – having nothing to do with the United Kingdom.Clearly, Americans do not need another set of so-called “commonsense” gun laws. And the inclusion, now, of the word, ‘safety,’ into the phrase, doesn’t alter that fact. Thousands of federal and State gun “safety” laws already exist. Why have another slew of them? What does it even mean to think we need more? Indeed, what must it mean to even suggest the need for more restrictive, oppressive, so-called “commonsense” gun “safety” laws but that the Obama Administration and like-minded individuals both inside and outside Government – and like-minded individuals and groups both inside and outside this Country – seek to divest average, law-abiding Americans of their natural right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed to them under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Lest there be any mistake about the intention of the antigun groups in this Country and those abroad, an article in a recent Sunday Review Section of The New York Times, makes plain the agenda of these groups. Mike McIntire, a reporter for The New York Times, asks, “What Makes a Shooter Do It?” That question – the title of McIntire’s op-ed – is rhetorical. McIntire answers his own question, when, toward the end of his article, he says: “What makes someone seek solace in a spasm of bloodshed is perhaps unknowable.” Because no one knows for certain – because no one can ever really know for certain – who might resort to violence, McIntire is making a not so subtle suggestion that the better approach is to get rid of the guns now, from as many Americans as possible – namely, and particularly, from law-abiding Americans – so that any temptation to commit violence with guns in the future – the mere possibility that a law-abiding American might, even if improbably, commit violence with guns in the future – is substantially lessened, if not altogether removed.What McIntire and those like him are opting for, then, is a “Minority Report” type of society in America.In the film, “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise, a police force called “PreCrime” arrests citizens before they commit their crimes of murder. “PreCrime” uses three “Precogs,” quasi-human beings whose dreams predict murders to come, along with the individuals who ostensibly commit them. “PreCrime” then locates, arrests, charges, and sentences those people for crimes of murder they never committed – and, at the time of their arrest, had no inkling they would ever form an intention to commit them – but, apparently, according to the “Precogs,” would have committed murder if they weren’t prevented from doing so in the first place. The people, so apprehended by PreCrime police, are duly and brutally punished, and in a novel and most bizarre fashion, even though they never actually committed crimes of murder.Notwithstanding the problematical philosophical and legal issues of arresting, charging, convicting, and sentencing an individual for a crime before a person develops the very intention to commit the crime, the true import of the film has less to do with drawing attention to the legal and philosophical implications and ramifications of damning a person for commission of a crime before the fact, which is simply a plot device, and more to do with the oppressive control exerted by the Security State over the individual, presumably for the sake of preemption and prevention of violence.Yet, as bad as a “Minority Report” society is, what McIntire and other antigun zealots envision for Americans is just as bad if not worse than a “Minority Report.” Consider: A call for an eventual, total civilian gun ban, which, for gun proponents and zealots is on the horizon, is based on the notion that a person does not ever have to commit an actual crime with a gun to be, in a sense, guilty of having committed a crime with a gun. That is to say, the mere possibility that a sane, rational, responsible, honest, law-abiding American citizen may – at some indefinable point in the future – commit a crime with a gun becomes the justification – the Cause Cèlébre of the antigun proponent and zealot – for denying a person access to a gun in the present. Antigun proponents and zealots seek to remove the logical possibility of a crime ever being committed with a gun. They seek to accomplish that feat by banning, outright, the mechanism for that violence from the vast majority of honest, sane, rational, law-abiding American citizens – millions of average American citizens – who have never acted out a violent crime with a gun and who never would do so.The rationale implicit in the antigun proponents’ and zealots’ call for ever more restrictive gun laws is that every American – including and notably, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – is essentially, mystifyingly, bafflingly, ultimately, a cipher. Since no one can know for certain “who will go off the deep-end” at some indefinable point in the future – so their argument goes – it behooves the Government to suspect everyone of eventually resorting to violence. That, apparently, is the “safer” practice: the Government protecting people from people, themselves, and the Government protecting itself from the people.So, if one can harbor the intention to commit a crime, then one can feasibly act on that intention: preemption and prevention of even the possibility – however remote the possibility – of gun violence demand seizure of all weapons from virtually everyone. This is what the antigun proponents and zealots would decree; what they would ordain. And, this is the misguided philosophy of ethical consequential utilitarianism. The American citizenry would see ever more restrictions and controls placed on its movements, upon its actions. Surveillance becomes ubiquitous. The Government begins the process of dispossessing the American commonalty of its guns. The Government, through the mainstream media, controls the citizen’s thought processes. The mainstream media broadcasts, the same messages over and over again, in a hypnotic tone: “Guns are bad for you!” “You will hurt yourself with a gun!” If you see a gun report that immediately to the police!” If you see a family member or neighbor acting oddly, report that person’s actions immediately to the police!” “Stay tuned as we happily provide you with more commonsense safety laws.” This is a portrait of the “Minority Report” society that the antigun proponents and zealots seek to bring to fruition. This is the kind of society that the antigun proponents and zealots are working day and night on to manifest into Reality. If they succeed, the Bill of Rights, itself, becomes meaningless. It begins to crumble. One Amendment after another is formally repealed. The first Amendment to go is actually the Second, followed by the First. Everything the antigun movement seeks to accomplish in America is illustrative of totalitarianism. What they seek to do is the hallmark of the Security State, and it all boils down to suspicion of and paranoid preoccupation with an entire class of citizenry, virtually the entire citizen population, the commonalty of America. The apparent single-minded quest to quell gun violence hides, then, an insidious agenda: the alteration of our society – converting a free, Democratic Republic into a component of a unified international Socialist World Order. And, it all begins through subtle steps to dispossess the average, rational, sane, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen of that citizen’s firearms.But such massive undertaking cannot get traction – nor should it ever get traction in a Democratic Republic such as the United States. And it won’t gain traction, so long as this Country remains a Democratic Republic – a Democratic Republic in fact, not merely in name.At present millions of American citizens own firearms. They are sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding members of society. The number of people who actually resort to violence with guns – who are not, otherwise, from the get-go, either hardened, career criminals on the one hand, or psychopathic or psychotic killers, on the other – is virtually negligible. Yet, the antigun zealots, and the antigun Globalists, and the International Socialist elites – who see no saving grace for Americans’ Second Amendment in a future Socialist World Government – seek to impose ever more restrictive gun laws on millions of sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy law-abiding American citizens. And, if the antigun proponents and zealots, and like-minded groups and individuals such as antigun Globalists and International Socialist elites succeed, the Bill of Rights would be at its end.The Second Amendment is particularly problematic and vexing to antigun proponents and zealots, to antigun Globalists, and to International Socialist elites – to such people and groups both inside this Country and outside it. As they see it, the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen must be controlled – just as much as the career criminal or the raving lunatic must be controlled if, for no reason, than that there exists millions of them. And, who knows when any one or more of those millions “will turn.”And, so, it is seen as necessary to remove the gun from that average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen American citizen before the fact so that the mere possibility of “acting out” a delusional violent fantasy with a gun – however remote that might be – will be impossible. And, as nothing remotely like America’s Second Amendment exists anywhere in the World today – nothing remotely like it exists that cedes such power to the average, sane, rational, responsible, honest, trustworthy, law-abiding American citizen – that power must be constrained. The Second Amendment must be dismantled. Further, all memory of the Second Amendment must eventually be erased. That Amendment must be consigned to the dustbin of history. And the history behind it must be rewritten.Make no mistake. The dream of the antigun zealots in this Country and their many counterparts elsewhere in this Country and in the world at large would be a nightmare for Americans. If there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought, rationally, to fear more than hardened criminals getting their hands on guns and harming someone or, if there is anything the law-abiding American citizen ought to fear more than a few paranoid lunatics getting their hands on guns and harming anyone, it is the presence of a powerful, paranoid Government operating without Constitutional restraint, clamping down on an individual’s every thought, action, and deed, imposing its will on everyone.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

WHO’S PACKING IN NEW YORK CITY?

If ever there existed a testament to the need for universal concealed handgun license reciprocity, New York City is glaring proof of it. Yesterday, August 3, 2015, an honest U.S. citizen, Marine Corps veteran, resident of Texas, and mother of three, was visiting the 9/11 memorial with her friend in the City, when she was arrested for carrying two handguns. The story appeared, yesterday, August 3, 2015, in the New York Post, under the title, “Pistol Packin’ Mama Under Fire.” The person arrested, Elizabeth Anne Enderli, does possess a valid concealed carry permit. But, Mrs. Enderli’s concealed carry pistol permit was issued in Texas, not in New York City. Her Texas concealed carry license isn’t recognized as valid in New York City or, for that matter, anywhere else in the State of New York. Mrs. Enderli didn’t know that. And, since she doesn’t also possess a valid, unrestricted New York City handgun concealed carry license, she found herself spending the night in jail rather than in her hotel room. An otherwise law-abiding American citizen became a de facto law-breaker simply because she was unaware of the impact of New York City’s restrictive gun laws.Mrs. Enderli was subsequently arraigned on weapons possession charges. If convicted, she could face prison time. Is this just a quirk? Unfortunately, the answer is “no.” What happened to Mrs. Enderli, could happen to any honest and otherwise law-abiding American citizen, and, in fact, has happened to other honest, law-abiding American citizens – with disturbing regularity.But, this should not happen and need not happen. It would not happen if each State recognized the validity of a concealed handgun carry license issued by other States. Curiously, according to the New York Post, Texas does recognize the validity of New York firearms’ licenses, and has done so since 2006, even as New York does not recognize the validity of Texas firearms’ permits. This might explain why Mrs. Enderli thought, reasonably enough, although wrongly, that her Texas concealed handgun carry permit was valid in New York. Handgun license reciprocity ought not to be so blatantly one-sided. State reciprocity is not, we see, always reciprocal.Many States, such as New York, have archaic, draconian, and mind-numbingly convoluted firearms’ laws. These laws are clearly aimed at the average, law-abiding citizen, not the criminal, for they do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns and committing crimes with them. This is clear, obvious, and beyond reasonable refutation.But, the irrationality of firearms’ laws such as those of New York does not lead to the repeal of them because the goal of these laws has little if anything to do with reducing crimes committed with guns – and, so, the laws, not surprisingly, fail. Restrictive firearms’ laws have more to do with disarming the honest, law-abiding American citizen – and, so, the laws, on that score, not surprisingly, tend to succeed. New York’s firearms’ laws were, clearly enough, not designed – were never really designed – to encourage the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right of self-defense. They were designed, rather, with the opposite goal in mind: to discourage the exercise of that right. But, why is that?For honest American citizens, like Mrs. Enderli, who wish to exercise their natural right of self-defense, it is hardly welcoming to say: “if you wish to visit New York City, leave your firearms at home; your out-of-State handgun license is not valid here; and, if you feel that you must carry a handgun, then you would do well to secure an unrestricted New York City handgun carry license.” That license is, by the way, exceedingly difficult to obtain. An applicant for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license must go through a lengthy, arduous, and expensive investigative process. And, after all is said and done, that applicant may, more often than not, end up empty-handed anyway because the modus operandi is "may issue," not "shall issue." In the State of New York – and even more particularly in New York City – the law-abiding American citizen does not have the inalienable right to carry a handgun, as guaranteed by and through the Second Amendment, only the privilege to do so, as warranted by and through government. And, as a privilege to carry a handgun, that privilege can be revoked at any time.So, once again, we ask: "Why is that?" Why does New York City – and the State of New York, for that matter – make it so difficult for the average, honest, law-abiding citizen to secure for him or herself a concealed handgun carry license merely to exercise the natural right of self-defense as embodied in and guaranteed by and though the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Why does New York City and the State of New York wish so fervently to discourage the exercise of a fundamental right? Is this due to the irrational notion that a firearm in the hands of the law-abiding citizen is more to be feared than a firearm in the hands of a criminal? Given the nature of New York’s draconian firearms’ laws – directed more to oppressing the law-abiding U.S. citizen than effectively restraining the criminal – one could reasonably draw that conclusion.Consider: the law-abiding American citizen and motorist needs one and only one valid driver’s license, issued by any one State, to secure the privilege of driving a motor vehicle lawfully in any other State. It is extremely odd that the same law-abiding American citizen must secure multiple State-issued concealed handgun carry licenses and permits, merely to exercise his or her natural right of self-defense, as sanctified in the Second Amendment.If the one license is so easy to obtain but amounts merely to a privilege proffered by a State government -- which that government may refrain from granting to a citizen because the granting of a license to drive a vehicle on public roads is a government sanctioned privilege, not an inalienable right -- why is the other so difficult to secure, when the right of self-defense – the effective right of self-defense that a firearm provides – is so much more than the mere privilege to drive an automobile on a public road? The right of self-defense is a basic and fundamental right existent in the individual and, therefore, a thing that neither a State Government, nor the federal government, can justifiably deny to a citizen, absent sufficient and good cause for doing so.For those readers who are interested in the issue of handgun carry reciprocity, we explain the merits of universal concealed handgun carry reciprocity, and respond to those who criticize it, in our article, “A Road Trip with a Handgun: The Case for Universal Handgun Reciprocity,” posted on July 12, 2015. In future articles we explain just how arduous, time-consuming, and expensive it is for a law-abiding American citizen to secure concealed handgun carry licenses and permits from a plethora of States.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A GUN AT RISK: THE CRIMINAL’S ADVANTAGE

INTRODUCTORY THESIS

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

SCENARIO ONE

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

SCENARIO TWO

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

SCENARIO THREE

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

SCENARIO FOUR

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

ANALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

PERSONAL SURVIVAL IS THE STRONGEST OF ALL HUMAN IMPULSES

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

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

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

WHY ARE MANY STATES RELUCTANT TO GRANT RECIPROCITY?

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

ONE BUSINESSMAN’S STORY:

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

NEW TRADE DEAL THREATENS THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF GUN RIGHTS AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The events of the last two weeks will be remembered by Americans as the day Congress sold America down the river. Over sixty members of the U.S. Senate, along with the House of Representatives, voted to give President Obama carte blanche “fast track authority” to enter into trade agreements with foreign nations without need to obtain any input from Congress. The majority of the House of Representatives, on June 18, 2015, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, on June 23, 2015, cast their votes in favor of the “Trade Promotion Authority” (“TPA”), thereby giving Obama exactly what he wanted.Through the “TPA,” which extends to July 1, 2018, Congress has abdicated its own authority to represent and protect the interests of American citizens as well as many American businesses. With passage of “TPA,” which the President had been anxiously awaiting, Obama will sign “TPA” into law. With that signature Congress has permitted the President to negotiate all trade deals in the name of the American People, without adequate input from Congress.Secret negotiations, between President Obama on the one hand and foreign countries and multi-billion dollar transnational companies on the other, have been taking place for several years, unbeknownst to most Americans, including, apparently, members of Congress. And to date, Congress has had precious little opportunity to scrutinize the proposed Treaty. And the American Public, ostensibly living in a Free Republic, is not permitted to see it. Americans do care what is in this proposed Treaty, but all too many members of Congress, apparently, do not; nor do they wish to enlighten the American Public as to the content of this thing.With passage of “TPA,” having now greased the wheels for implementation of “TPP,” Congress will not have the opportunity to debate the merits of the Treaty, nor will Congress have the opportunity to attach any amendments or make changes of any kind to it; nor will any member of Congress be permitted to use the tactic of filibuster to delay "TPP" or prevent it from being brought to a vote. Congress can do nothing but merely vote "up or down," for or against the Treaty, as "TPP" is written, as "TPP" is given to it. Congress can do nothing more. Congress has willingly handcuffed itself by granting "fast track authority" to the President -- which is precisely what Obama wanted -- and, in so doing, Congress has essentially turned its Article I, Section 1 law-making authority over to the Chief Executive. It has done this without a fight, with hardly a whimper of protest.Now, it is true that Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution does confer, upon the President, the power to make treaties. But, two-thirds of the Senators must agree to it to give it force. Why, then, would Congress wish not to closely scrutinize the language of any treaty the President happens to negotiate, suspending its own power to debate it, to filibuster it, to offer amendments to it given the all-encompassing influence that it will have on America’s economic life and well-being? That Congress, especially the U.S. Senate which, alone, can agree to a treaty between the U.S. and other Countries or not, would abdicate its duties under the Constitution and forsake its responsibility to the American People is all the more ironical and all the more troubling as both Houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans. Curiously most Democrats are fighting Obama over the "TPP." Yet, Republicans for their part, except for a courageous few, are in lockstep with Obama on this. Indeed, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, worked in secret with Obama on this. But, is that not a bit odd? Perhaps the distinction between the two parties – at least in the muddled middle of centrism – is illusory, a fabrication to suggest to the American people that a real distinction exists between the two parties when such is not the case at all.Consider: Republicans have consistently, and rightfully, questioned Obama’s judgment on many things in the past. So, why would most Republicans, now, trust Obama’s judgment on a matter that has such all-embracing influence over the lifeblood of this Nation’s economy? Are Americans being played for dupes?Congress has asserted, oddly enough, that while it does not trust Obama on military policy and domestic policy, it does trust Obama on an all-encompassing trade deal that he negotiates with foreign countries. With enactment of TPA, which Obama will sign, this Country is but one step closer to joining an International Socialist Order. But, in the interim, more is at stake here than simply the removal of tariffs to benefit the multinationals; much more.If TPP is enacted, America’s system of laws will become superfluous. International companies will be permitted to contest American laws in foreign tribunals, not in U.S. courts. This means that a decision of a foreign tribunal will have the force of law in our own Country. State Governments and our Federal Government will not only be required to defer to the order of foreign courts and tribunals, but will be required to enforce the laws of those foreign tribunals. This facet of the TPP has received precious little attention but it is, in fact, the cornerstone of TPP. Its importance here transcends trade considerations. TPP weakens and displaces the foundation of America’s own Sovereignty by substituting the laws of foreign tribunals for its own.Where is this all going? As our institutions of law are undermined, our Constitution is invariably weakened. The next step toward a New International Socialist Order involves the creation of a North Atlantic Union that includes the United States, Mexico, and Canada, modeled after the EU. That will issue in the need for a new Constitution – one that is more palatable to powerful business and financial interests in Mexico and Canada and in the U.S. A new common currency will be minted. Spanish, which is insinuating itself into this Country at a record pace, may very well displace English as the common language. Our heritage and culture and history are dissolving.Also, keep in mind, no other Country on Earth has a Bill of Rights like ours. In no other Country’s Constitution does there exist recognition of the right to keep and bear arms that resides in the citizenry itself. It is only a matter of time when our Constitution, that has stood the test of time, is cast aside and rewritten in a manner palatable to and consistent with Globalist interests who see, in the implementation of TPP, a steady movement toward the ultimate dissolution of America as an independent Sovereign Nation State.If you think a slippery slope to America’s demise is far-fetched, consider that a few short years ago any talk of the existence of the “TPP” was met with skepticism, even derision. Only the weblogs brought this matter to the attention of concerned citizens of this Country. The mainstream news media rarely, if ever, even broached the subject. Quite likely, secret discussions are even now underway among internationalists, working out ways to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.Now, of course the United States Constitution spells out the manner in which new Amendments are proposed and ratified. Indeed, Article V sets forth concisely and unambiguously the ways in which Amendments to the U.S. Constitution may be made:“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”But, Article V, as pointed out by the great logician and mathematician, Kurt Gödel, who happened to take a close look at the U.S. Constitution during the time when he decided to apply for U.S. citizenship in 1947,  realized that Article V carries the seeds for the U.S. Constitution's own destruction. He pointed out that Article V permits Congress to amend the Constitution to invite the creation of a dictatorship in this Country. Moreover, consistent with Gödel's reasoned conjecture: nothing in the Constitution of the United States addresses the matter of revocation of the entirety of it outright. If there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution articulating a basis for its own continued existence against the ruthlessness of a duplicitous Executive, operating in tandem with a feeble Congress, what safeguards are in place to protect it? Moreover, secret Executive Orders can, and probably do, exist that are directed to the suspension of it, ostensibly in times of “National Emergency.” Might not those same Executive Orders be directed not merely to the suspension of the U.S. Constitution – horrific as that is – but to its revocation?Now, it is indeed true that the U.S. Constitution sets forth the specific powers and authority of each Branch of Government. No Branch can subsume unto itself more power and authority than is provided to it, as expressly set forth in the Constitution. Yet, in the absence of an express assertion in it that, under no set of circumstances shall any amendment or amendments to it allow for the weakening or total abolishment of it, it is well within the realm of possibility that amendments can slowly be included in the U.S. Constitution that operate together to reduce it, in effect, to a nullity: hence, Kurt Gödel's concern for the continued sanctity of the U.S. Constitution.Clearly, there is nothing to prohibit powerful, ruthless, selfish interests both within this Country and outside it, from taking steps, replacing the Bill of Rights, say, for a new innocuous Bill of Rights conducive to and favorable to the existence of a new International Socialist Order – the existence of which destroys the very fabric of a Nation State, the very fabric of our Nation State, as an independent and absolute Sovereign entity. And, from what we have seen in the recent past, how many members of Congress, do you think, would have the strength and fortitude and conviction to object to that?[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION IN NEW YORK: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

White Paper Summary

The New York Safe Act is a minefield. One notoriously vague area pertains to transfers of ammunition. Only one section of the NY Safe Act deals with ammunition. The matter of transactions involving ammunition is found and dealt with in Section 50 of the New York Safe Act. Section 50 of the NY Safe Act is codified in the Penal Code of New York: NY CLS Penal § 400.03, titled, “Sellers of ammunition.” Moreover, Section 50 is the only section of the NY Safe Act that deals with transfers of ammunition.Section 50 says, in pertinent part, “No commercial transfer of ammunition shall take place unless a licensed dealer in firearms or registered seller of ammunition acts as an intermediary between the transferor and the ultimate transferee of the ammunition for the purposes of contacting the statewide license and record database pursuant to this section. Such transfer between the dealer or seller, and transferee must occur in person.” Section 50 talks about what both licensed dealers in firearms and sellers of ammunition must do in order to comply with the Act and, too, what individuals who are neither licensed dealers in firearms or registered sellers of firearms must do in order to comply with the NY Safe Act, when one of the parties wishes to sell a box of ammunition to another party. So, Section 50 is talking explicitly about sales of ammunition. And, that is fine as far as Section 50 goes. But, the Safe Act presents a problem.The problem is that not all transfers of ammunition between New York residents who lawfully own and possess firearms are typical purchase and sales of ammunition. Some transfers of ammunition from one individual to another individual are not sales at all. They are gifts or bequests of ammunition from one individual to another in a situation where neither individual is in the business of selling firearms or ammunition. So are those kinds of transactions lawful?Unfortunately, the New York Safe Act – which otherwise has much to say regarding the transfer of firearms defined as ‘assault weapons’ from one person to another person – is silent on ammunition transfers that do amount to sales. So, one must delve deeper into the Penal Code of New York in search of an answer, and we have done this for you.The laws of New York dealing with ammunition transfers – as with firearms matters, generally – are confusing and complex. In our “White Paper” we explain in detail the intricacies of ammunition transfers. We clarify the issues for you and do our best to provide you with meaningful answers that you can work with.View And Download The Full White Paper Here.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS EMBRACES A PROPERTY INTEREST IN FIREARMS

The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of America’s rights and liberties. This, we know. But, tucked away in the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is another right. It is the right to own property. Its place in and impact on the Second Amendment are rarely, if ever, mentioned.State laws that deny your right to keep and bear arms also deny your ownership right and interest in your firearms. Let’s look at a couple of examples.Many States utilize licensing schemes to control and restrict civilian access to firearms. Government licensing of firearms is incompatible with the right to keep and bear arms because licensing of firearms is a condition precedent to possession. That means a license to keep and bear arms is nothing more than a privilege to keep and bear arms since possession of firearms is contingent on the government’s willingness to grant a license at all. The right is forsaken through licensing. But more is lost.Once a government revokes the license to possess firearms, as it can since it granted the license in the first place, the owner loses his property. You may have spent thousands of dollars on your firearms. No matter. Your dollar investment is forfeited, along with your firearms. So, a government’s abrogation of the Second Amendment guarantee entails the denigration of your private property right and interest in your firearms. If you lose your license, you lose your firearms. Two basic rights are lost, then, not one. The two go hand-in-hand.States that utilize firearms licensing schemes employ firearms’ transfer schemes too. Suppose you, as a law-abiding citizen, lawfully acquired your firearms: through bequest, gift, or commercial transaction. The firearms belong to you. You have full and complete title to and control over them, and exclusive and absolute right in them. That’s what it means to have a private property interest in your firearms.Now, suppose you wish to bequeath your firearms to your son, or daughter. Laws that interfere with your ability to transfer your firearms as you wish inhibit your enjoyment of them because you are unable to exercise complete dominion over them. This amounts to an unconstitutional taking of them without due process.So, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to acquire, own, and hold them perpetually, or transfer them, operate in tandem. Moreover, they are both natural rights.The Second Amendment merely codifies a preexisting right. Since government cannot rationally bestow a right that already exists within you, government cannot lawfully take that right from you.The preexisting right to acquire, own, and hold property isn’t codified in the Second Amendment, but it is codified in the Due Process Clause and in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The Fifth Amendment says in critical part: “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The private property interest is, arguably, also one of the unenumerated rights of the catchall Ninth Amendment. It is intrinsic to the Fourth Amendment and it even implicates the Third Amendment, as well as the Second Amendment.The Due Process Clause and Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment operate as constraints on the federal government. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is mirrored in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the States. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has no correlate in the Fourteenth Amendment but it applies to the States through operation of law as does the Second Amendment.Your right to keep and bear arms means precisely that you have the inalienable right to acquire and own and hold indefinitely, or transfer without government interference, those arms you bear and keep. The private property right and interest in your firearms must, then, be regarded as a tacit part of the Second Amendment’s guarantee. This surely is as the Founders of the Republic intended. The firearms you have a right to bear and keep are your private property, not the State’s. You have full and complete title to them, absolute control over them, and exclusive rights in them. To denigrate a person’s ownership interest in his firearms is to abrogate the Second Amendment right to bear and keep them.So, in defending our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms we must never lose sight of the equally important private property interest inherent in and coextensive with that Second Amendment right.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

Arbalest Quarrel Newsletter: Spring 2015

The Arbalest Quarrel Spring 2015 Newsletter is now available for viewing and download:The Notion of a Private Property Interest in FirearmsClick to View or Download Newsletter

2015 NRA Annual Convention in Nashville, Tennessee

Stephen L. D'Andrilli, President of Arbalest Group LLC., publisher of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, is attending the 144th NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits, being held in Nashville, Tennessee, on April 10-12, 2015. Mr. D’Andrilli will be taking an active and important part in this year’s event, meeting with NRA staff members, attorneys, exhibitors, industry leaders and attendees. Of critical importance to Arbalest Group’s work, as defender of the Second Amendment, Mr. D’Andrilli will be attending the “NRA 18th Annual Firearms Law Seminar,” taking place at the Renaissance Nashville Hotel on Friday, April 10, 2015. Mr. D’Andrilli will provide a detailed report in an upcoming post in the Arbalest Quarrel upon his return to New York. See our 2015 Spring Newsletter for additional information. We discuss the Arbalest Quarrel’s work to date to preserve our sacred Second Amendment on behalf of law- abiding American citizens, and we provide a glimpse of our future plans for the Arbalest Quarrel.

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 Will You Do With 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 – the NRA has its fair share of supporters and detractors. 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.What, then, 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 – journalists 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. 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 upon 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. 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 is 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 a dissertation study of a University Professor: “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 to describe 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. “Freedom of the Press” becomes, instead, a tool of control for those who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights.A corollary to a major myth that NRA is merely an arm of gun manufacturers (the firearms industry) is that the NRA receives all of its funding from the firearms industry and, too, that NRA is run by the firearms industry. This myth is fostered 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 – forever 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 – 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, the antigun group, “One Million Moms for Gun Control,” 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 incessantly 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, 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 the meaning of words. 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 words, ‘lobby’ and ‘lobbyist,’ are words of disparagement. 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 the group 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 a host of negative connotations, all used to disparage it.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 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 a healthy democratic social order is 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 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 to the existence of a Republic. 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 are antithetical to right embodied in the Second Amendment and those interests are antithetical to the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Those interests are inconsistent with the principles of a democratic Republic.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 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 as well.

WHY IS NRA THE FOCUS OF ATTACK?

NRA is a threat to the plutocrats because NRA exposes the plutocrats’ lies.  At present the plutocrats who seek to control the American citizenry cannot directly attack the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment; for, to do so, amounts to an attack against a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.What do they do? They attack the NRA 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 all these remarks, 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 21st 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 40th 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. And, “the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence” that started in 1973, is scarcely over 40 years old. Perhaps the most well-known  antigun group 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 coincidence,or was there another hand at work here, mapping out strategies to undermine and destroy the Second Amendment?While these antigun 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 are truly nothing more than lobbying arms and politically motivated action committees for the plutocrats.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 – 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

On balance, we see truth and myth both 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  and 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.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 from possessing guns and laws banning the violent and the mentally ill from possessing guns. We also have background checks. But, the plutocrats, through their antigun front groups, constantly insist on 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-gun groups seem to believe in absolute centralized governmental power, which maintains that all rights 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 down in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights.The plutocrats obviously have no use for the idea of natural inalienable rights. They wish to dictate behavior for all Americans. And in that process, they want to destroy their Rights and Liberties.

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

Most Americans understand the nature of the danger lurking in the shadows, the nature of the danger hidden in the seemingly benign call for purported “commonsense gun laws” – laws that in their mode of expression and in their very essence – do nothing but erode the citizen’s basic freedoms, independence,  and 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.

GUNS, PLANES, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

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

TRANSFERRING AMMUNITION MAGAZINES IN NEW YORK: WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

PART 5: Transferring Ammunition Feeding Devices (magazines); Transferring Ammunition; Bequests Of Assault Weapons To Police Officers

SUBPART 1: Transferring Ammunition Magazines In New York: What You Need To Know

Introductory Remarks:

New York gun owners have many questions concerning gun transfers in New York, whether through sales or bequests to heirs. This is not a simple matter. We have dealt with this at length in a previous article on gun transfers. But there is much more to discuss, and we hope to get back to that issue in the foreseeable future. However, one aspect of gun transfers is rarely if ever discussed and that has to do with an important component of many firearms, predominately with semiautomatic pistols: the ammunition magazine. It may seem odd that the transfer of ammunition magazines requires discussion at all. After all, unless one is a licensed gun dealer, the notion of transferring parts of guns – gun barrels, gun grips, triggers, hammers, and so forth – makes little sense. The average consumer is interested in purchasing an entire firearm, not a melange of so many separate parts. And, an ammunition feeding device – generally an ammunition magazine – is certainly a critical part of a semiautomatic handgun. A semiautomatic handgun cannot function without one. And, one must be perplexed that a discussion related to the transfer of ammunition feeding devices, apart from a complete weapon’s system, should be necessary at all. But it is. This topic is not only meaningful, it is, in fact, necessary in the context of the New York Safe Act if one is to have a full and complete understanding of the awful consequences of the Safe Act in matters of gun transfers. And that says quite a lot about the very queer nature of the Safe Act.You will realize just how queer -- just how bizarre -- the Safe Act is once you have completed reading what we have to say here.We have divided Part 5, the last part of this multi-series Article on the issue of private property rights and bequests of firearms in New York, into 3 Subparts. Subpart 1 deals with transfers of ‘large capacity ammunition feeding devices.’Now, what we have to say here applies to all transfers of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. But, apropos of this comprehensive multi-series Article, we are primarily concerned with transfers of guns by way of testamentary bequests by gun owners to their heirs. For, nothing subverts one's private property interest in his or her firearms more than the idea that one's last will and testament should be denied effect because some powerful individuals in Government have a personal distaste for firearms and desire to use that power to enact laws that thwart others Constitutional right and interest in their own private property.Subpart 2 of this multi-series Article deals with the transfer of ammunition by bequest to heirs. And Subpart 3 deals, in pertinent part, with the issue of  transfers and -- more particularly -- bequests of assault weapons to heirs who are active duty police officers or retired police officers, and who, therefore, may not be considered “ordinary” New York residents and citizens of the United States, at least where gun rights are at stake.

HOW THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT TREATS AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES

An ‘ammunition feeding device’ (whether “large” or “small” – which is a subjective matter unless otherwise defined with particularity in the law) means, typically, an ammunition magazine. Now, it may seem odd to have to talk about transfers of ammunition magazines at all. Ammunition feeding devices, including ammunition magazines, are, after all, an essential and integral component of semiautomatic handguns and they are an essential and integral component of many rifles and of a few shotguns as well.A testator bequeathing a semiautomatic handgun to an heir wouldn’t reasonably think of bequeathing the weapon without the weapon’s accompanying ammunition magazine. And, the heir, as the intended recipient of a weapon, would certainly expect to receive all component parts of that weapon. Otherwise, obviously, the firearm is useless as a firearm, so that, if it were to have any use at all as a defensive weapon, one might consider using it as a club -- an expensive one at that -- and nothing more.Why, then, are we discussing the transfer of ammunition feeding devices at all since such devices are clearly a critical component of many small arms? We are doing so because the New York Safe Act treats ammunition feeding devices as a separate component of weapons – a very odd idea to contemplate but one that must be contemplated nonetheless, and appropriately dealt with.Treating a weapon and the components of a weapon as two distinct things creates an odd set of circumstances for the law-abiding New York gun owner and odd issues arise from those circumstances that have to be resolved if the New York gun owner is to hope to avoid incurring serious misdemeanor charges. And that point gets to the crux of the problem with the New York Safe Act: You may have a weapon the Safe Act doesn’t ban, but you may also have, at one and the same time, the weapon’s ammunition feeding device that the Safe Act does ban. This isn't mere supposition, as you shall see.Again, keep in mind: we are not talking here about weapons banned by the Safe Act. The Safe Act does, of course, ban outright weapons it defines as assault weapons. That, we all know. A New York resident and citizen of the United States cannot currently own -- that is to say, cannot at the present time own lawfully -- a weapon defined as an ‘assault weapon’ under the New York Safe Act unless that weapon was grandfathered in and timely registered as an assault weapon. The expression ‘grandfathered in’ means here that a New York resident who lawfully came into possession of an ‘assault weapon’ prior to enactment of the New York Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, may continue, lawfully, to possess the assault weapon, subsequent to the effective date of enactment of the Safe Act, namely, subsequent to January 15, 2013, so long as that gun owner timely and properly, registered it, namely, so long as that gun owner had, in fact, timely and properly registered it on or before April 15, 2014, as that date has come and gone. If the owner of an assault weapon has not timely and properly registered it on or before April 15, 2014, that gun owner is in unlawful possession of a banned firearm. But, assuming the original owner of a firearm defined as an assault weapon under the Safe Act -- lawfully possessed that weapon prior to the date of enactment of the NY Safe Act -- and, assuming, further, that the original owner of the assault weapon did in fact timely and properly register it so that, at this particular point in time, the gun owner is, in fact, in lawful possession of a firearm that is otherwise banned by the Safe Act, and, so, can continue to lawfully possess that assault weapon, still, that owner cannot, unfortunately, transfer the weapon to his or her heirs even if those heirs are otherwise eligible to own and possess firearms, unless the heirs are exempted from the ban on possession of assault weapons. Those New York residents who are exempted from the ban on possession of assault weapons include licensed New York gun dealers -- a very small number of New York residents to be sure.Moreover, the effect of allowing the original owners of assault weapons alone to continue to own assault weapons so long as they wish, or, otherwise, so long as they live -- means that ownership of and possession of those weapons cannot extend to the original owners' heirs. The drafters of the Safe Act undoubtedly intended to preclude the lawful ownership and possession of assault weapons in New York to extend beyond the original, first generation owners of them. The goal of proponents of the Safe Act is, then, to bring about the extinction of weapons defined as assault weapons from the landscape of New York within 50 years or so -- after the last lawful New York resident and owner of an assault weapon dies and the weapon or weapons is surrendered to the appropriate Government official for transfer to someone out-of-State or, otherwise, is surrendered to the appropriate Government official for no other purpose than for destruction.Similarly, a New York resident and gun owner who lawfully came into possession of a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” prior to enactment of the Safe Act may continue to possess that device, but he or she cannot lawfully transfer it to another law-abiding eligible New York resident in the State, including an heir, unless, once again, the heir is also a licensed gun dealer or falls under another exemption. As with firearms defined as assault weapons, the goal of proponents of the Safe Act is to bring about the extinction of large capacity ammunition feeding devices from the landscape of New York within 50 years or so -- once again, after the last lawful owner of such a device dies.

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE APPLICABLE NY SAFE LAWS

Section 37(H) of the New York Safe Act, as codified in Subdivision 22 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h) bans the transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h) says: “Any weapon . . . and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to  an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.” Now, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) talks specifically about banned weapons, namely weapons defined as assault weapons under Section 37(A through F) of the New York Safe Act, as codified in Subdivision 22(a through f) of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(a through f); and those Sections of the Safe Act must be read in conjunction with Section 37(H) of the Safe Act as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h). Be advised, failure to comply with these obligatory Sections will subject the New York gun owner to a Class A misdemeanor charge. And, if that happens, the gun owner will lose his or her handgun license and, where applicable, namely, in New York City, the gun owner will lose his or her rifle and shotgun permit as well. That means the gun owner will can no longer lawfully own and possess firearms in New York.But, we are not discussing here the ramifications of the New York Safe Act on those who are in lawful possession of assault weapons, who wish to lawfully dispose of them. The weapons we are talking about here are permitted weapons under the Safe Act. But, many ammunition feeding devices – specifically, “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” manufactured with the weapon, are not. Those devices are banned under the Safe Act. How do we know this? We know this because the NY Safe Act says so. The Safe Act, as we have seen, specifically, in Section 37(H) of the New York Safe Act, as codified in Subdivision 22 of Section 265 of the Penal Code, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(h), explicitly and categorically tells the gun owner that “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” are banned in New York.The Safe Act incongruously views a weapon and the ammunition feeding device as two separate devices – not as an integrated whole weapon. We explain. But, first:

WHAT IS A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE?

A large capacity ammunition feeding device – typically an ammunition magazine – is a legal fiction, just as the notion of an ‘assault weapon’ is a legal fiction. A large capacity ammunition feeding device is a legal fiction created by the drafters of the Safe Act. The drafters of the Safe Act, obviously enough, created this legal fiction to further whittle down the number and kinds of weapons a gun owner might lawfully own and possess.The New York Safe Act defines a ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ in Section 38 of the New York Safe Act. Section 38 of the Safe Act is codified in subdivision 23 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code of New York, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23). NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23) sets forth, 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.” What does this Section of the New York Safe Act tell us? Section 38 of the Safe Act as codified in subdivision 23 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code of New York, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23), tells us that an ammunition feeding device that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is, by law, a banned and, therefore, illegal device. Granted, a large capacity ammunition feeding device isn’t a weapon itself; it is simply a component of a weapon – a critical component to be sure, but a critical and banned component nonetheless.Now, be aware what NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23) does not say. NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23) does not say – nor does it suggest – that it is legal to own and possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device so long as a person keeps fewer than 10 rounds in it. No. The Safe Act makes abundantly clear -- and it is enough -- that merely possessing a “large capacity ammunition feeding device” is illegal if the gun owner happens to gain possession of it subsequent to enactment of the Safe Act. So, that large capacity ammunition feeding device can be empty. Your possession of it under NY Safe is still illegal, whether the magazine is completely filled with cartridges, partially filled with ammunition, or is, simply, completely empty.But, is there such a thing, under New York law, of a weapon that is legal to own – that isn’t also an assault weapon under the Act – but comprises a component part that is itself illegal? The answer is: Yes!Now, to prove our point, let’s consider a firearm that a New York resident and citizen of the United States can lawfully possess and transfer to eligible recipients in New York – including, then, a weapon that a gun owner can transfer lawfully to one’s eligible heirs – but one that incorporates a large capacity ammunition feeding device that cannot be lawfully transferred to a New York resident and citizen of the United States, unless, again, that New York resident and U.S. citizen falls within a specific exemption in the law.

AN EXAMPLE OF A FIREARM PERMITTED UNDER THE NY SAFE ACT THAT INCLUDES AN AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE SAFE ACT

One good example of a semiautomatic handgun that the Safe Act does not ban is the popular Glock 17. As the name suggests, the Glock 17 has a magazine that holds 17 rounds of 9x9mm cartridges.The Glock 17, sans the 17 round magazine, is perfectly legal for an eligible New York resident and U.S. citizen to own and possess. That means the Glock 17 is not defined as an assault weapon under the Safe Act. How do we know that? Well, let’s take a look at what the New York Safe Act says.Section 37(C) of the Safe Act is codified in subdivision 22 of Section 265.00(22)(c) of the Penal Code of New York, namely, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(c).  That Section, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(c), says, “Assault weapon” “means a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; (vi) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vii) a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; or (viii) a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm.” Let's first look at and apply the above definition of an assault weapon. The definition of a handgun that is also an assault weapon under the Safe Act is also the test you use to determine whether your own handgun is also an assault weapon and therefore a banned weapon under the Act. So, let’s see if a stock Glock 17 that is manufactured to be sold in the civilian market is an assault weapon under the Safe Act.According to the manufacturer’s website, a stock Glock 17 weighs 25.06 ounces unloaded. It does not have a folding or telescoping stock; nor does it have a thumbhole stock. It does not have a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. It does not have the capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip. Moreover, a stock Glock 17 does not have a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. Lastly, a stock Glock 17 that is designed for the civilian market is not sensibly a semiautomatic version of an automatic rifle, shotgun or firearm, whatever that means.So, we can conclude with reasonable certainty, that a stock Glock 17 as designed for the civilian market is not an assault weapon under the Safe Act. An eligible New York resident and U.S. citizen can therefore lawfully own one. And you will note, there is nothing in the definition of a pistol that is also an assault weapon that talks about magazine capacity. But, Section 38 of the Safe Act as codified in subdivision 23 of Section 265.00 of the Penal Code of New York creates a problem for the New York gun owner who lawfully owns and possesses a Glock 17 and wishes to transfer the gun to another eligible New York resident and citizen of the United States. For, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(23) says that it is unlawful for a New York resident to lawfully possess an ammunition feeding device that is capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition if that eligible New York resident happened to come into possession of that ammunition feeding device after enactment of the Safe Act.What all this boils down to is this: If you are a New York resident and U.S. citizen that lawfully came into possession of a stock Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol with, reasonably enough, the stock ammunition magazine that was manufactured with and for the Glock 17, prior to enactment of the New York Safe Act, and you wish to transfer that Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol to another eligible New York resident and citizen of the United States, you are permitted, under the Safe Act, to do so and that includes, of course, a transfer of the weapon to your heir by testamentary bequest.  But, what you cannot do– what you are absolutely forbidden from doing – is attempt to transfer to an otherwise eligible New York resident and U.S. citizen, including, particularly, your eligible heir who also resides in New York – the 17 round capacity ammunition magazine that came with the weapon, unless that New York resident is also a licensed New York gun dealer or is otherwise exempted from the applicable provisions of the Safe Act.Again, you can only lawfully transfer that 10+ ammunition magazine to a New York resident and U.S. citizen who happens to be exempted from the applicable provisions of the Safe Act, such as a New York licensed gun dealer, or you can lawfully transfer that 10+ round capacity ammunition magazine to an eligible recipient who resides outside the jurisdiction of New York, or you can simply surrender that device to the appropriate official for destruction.As you can see, the New York Safe Act is horribly convoluted, ill-conceived, poorly drafted, and wrongly enacted. That the New York Safe Act exists and operates in New York at all says much about some – all too many – New York Legislators’ and Government Officials’ who wanted it, who campaigned for it, and who show, even to this present moment in time, a marked contempt for and condescending attitude toward New York residents and citizens of the United States who wish merely to exercise their sacred Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.In Subpart 2 of Part 5 of this multi-part series Article, that we will present to you shortly, we look at the issue of ammunition. Can ammunition be lawfully transferred from one eligible New York gun owner to another or do strict controls exist in New York on the transfer of ammunition from one New York resident and U.S. citizen to another? Little if anything is said about this. We carefully examined the laws of New York. The answer may surprise you.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

QUESTIONS THE NEW YORK GUN OWNER SHOULD ASK BEFORE TRANSFERRING GUNS BY TESTAMENTARY WILL TO ONE’S HEIRS

PART 4: Given The Obvious Difficulties For A New York Resident And Gun Owner Who Wishes To Transfer Firearms To One's Heirs - How Should A Firearms' Owner Proceed If He Or She With BEQUEST Of Firearms To Heirs?

In the previous post of this multi-series article we looked at several New York Statutes impacting the transfer of firearms to one’s heirs. In this post we deal with the technical problems associated with bequests of firearms.To begin, the owner of a firearm or collection of firearms must, of course, be mindful of the laws pertaining to bequests of firearms. And, let it be understood, we are here talking about lawful ownership of firearms and the lawful transfer of firearms, not criminal possession and criminal transfers of firearms.In theory, at least, proponents of NY Safe would likely argue that your firearms are, indeed, your private property. Of course, if that were true, then you would have absolute control over them as well as exclusive ownership of them. After all, that is what the concept of private property means: exclusive ownership and absolute control. And, too, if that were the case, we would not need to spend considerable time, as we have done, discussing bequests of firearms. However, in New York, while you do have exclusive ownership of your firearms – that is to say, your firearms are not the property of the State, and they are not the property of the public at large – you never have absolute control over them. Thus, the statement, "a New York resident has absolute control over his or her firearms," is not truly an accurate one.  Indeed, the idea is highly implausible even to contemplate in a jurisdiction such as New York. Just take a look at the numerous New York laws that negatively impact your control over your own firearms and the specific manner in which your control over those firearms is constrained and restricted! In that regard, if you haven’t already done so, we ask that you take a look at the earlier installments of this multi-series Article: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Doing so will provide you with the conceptual framework you need upon which you can truly understand and appreciate the insidious way in which the New York Safe Act and other New York antigun laws associated with it operate to rob a New York gun owner of the private property interest one has in one's own firearms. You will then be able to place this particular post, Part 4, in the proper context and make maximum use of it as you begin to draft for the first time your testamentary will or otherwise prepare to modify a presently existing testamentary will, to provide for the lawful transfer of your firearms to your heirs.So, if you live in New York and you own and possess firearms, you don’t have absolute control over those firearms, in view of the numerous laws and regulations mandating and detailing how they are to be used and kept. And, the executor of your estate has even less control over them once you are gone, as your executor attempts to transfer the firearms to your heirs. So, in the absent of absolute control over your firearms, you do not have the enjoyment of your firearms while you are alive. And your heirs may not be able to obtain lawful possession of them upon your death.You cannot transfer your firearms to whomever you want whenever you want, during your lifetime. And, your executor may not be able to transfer them at all to your heirs upon your death, regardless of your wishes as expressed in your testamentary will.You are always in danger of losing possession of your firearms at the whim of the State while you are alive. And the State may deny you the right to transfer the firearms to your heirs, through your testamentary will, once you are gone. And, be advised, we are here concerned about transfers of guns after you die – in other words, bequests of firearms to one’s heirs. We are not dealing with the problems attendant to gun transfers while you are alive, which pose their own set of problematic issues.Moreover, as we have heretofore pointed out, although you can, in your will, bequeath your firearms to whomever you wish, that means nothing if nothing can come of it. In other words, a bequest that cannot be effectuated is no real bequest at all. The effectuation of a bequest is what matters: whether the person to whom you make a bequest of firearms is eligible, under the law, to possess them. And, that is what really counts to the testator and to the eventual heir who hopes to inherit the testator’s firearms.So, when making one or more bequests of firearms, you must consider the possibility, a real possibility, that your legatees – that is to say the prospective heirs of your gun collection, as stipulated in your will – may not be able to hold and keep them.To assist you in preparing your will, if you are an owner of firearms and wish to bequeath your firearms to one or more heirs, we have prepared, for you, first, a series of questions that you, as a testator – the maker of the will – ought to ask yourself. These are questions that you, as testator, should ask whether you own one firearm, or a few firearms, or a substantial number of them -- one or more of which may be part of an extremely valuable and rare collection -- when preparing your will. And, we have provided you, second, a checklist that you may find helpful and that you may wish to utilize, as well, when considering the transference of your firearms to one or more heirs.

A WORD OF CAUTION BEFORE WE PROCEED:

We are not providing you here with advice on how to draft a testamentary will. We could not do that even if we wished to do so. That is a legal matter, and we strongly suggest you retain the services of a licensed attorney to assist you in that endeavor. Furthermore, in that regard, be advised there is no such thing as a “simple will.” As everyone is a unique individual – a truth that antigun proponents refuse to accept or to concede – and as every unique individual has his or her own unique set of needs and wishes and concerns and circumstances, a will must be drafted to meet that individual’s unique needs and wishes and concerns and circumstances. Only a licensed attorney can best provide those services for you. There are no shortcuts; there is no person other than a licensed attorney who can properly assist you; and, where firearms are included in one’s estate, specific, considerable, and formidable obstacles exist to will formation that would not otherwise exist. Therefore, the need for a licensed attorney becomes critical. The need for a licensed attorney to assist the testator in drafting his or her will becomes critical because the executor or administrator of the decedent's estate, who first comes into possession of the decedent's firearms, is at considerable risk of incurring misdemeanor or even felony charges for failure to properly and timely deal with those firearms in strict accordance with law.The most important consideration here is, then, that neither the executor of your estate, on the one hand, nor your heirs, on the other, runs afoul of the law once you are gone and your firearms remain to be disposed of. For, the last thing that you would wish to leave the executor or administrator of your estate, and your heirs, is a nest of trouble. And, the existence of firearms in one’s hands in a jurisdiction like New York is, unfortunately, an invitation to trouble – as much, if not more so, for the law-abiding New York resident and U.S. citizen, as for the criminal, the latter of whom couldn’t care less about New York gun laws.What we are providing for you here is a solid foundation for one sort of bequest that you will be making -- a bequest of firearms to your heirs.  If you can answer the questions we provide for you, that will go a long way in assisting your attorney when he prepares your will for you.

QUESTIONS THE NEW YORK GUN OWNER SHOULD ASK BEFORE BEQUEATHING FIREARMS TO ONE’S HEIRS

Below are several of the questions you should ask yourself if you are a New York resident and happen to own one or more firearms and wish to bequeath that firearm or those firearms to others upon your death. Indeed these are the questions we would ask of ourselves. In fact, if anyone who is reading this post is a firearms’ owner, who resides outside New York and who resides in a jurisdiction that might be considered friendly to, or, at least, friendlier to possession of firearms by residents and U.S. citizens, consistent with the import and purport of the Second Amendment, several of the questions set forth below are certainly applicable to your jurisdiction as well, to the extent that you wish to plan now for, or in the foreseeable future for, the disposition of your firearms – your private property – to others upon your death.

ONE FURTHER POINT BEFORE WE PROCEED

The information we are providing for you below is a distillation of and expansion on certain content found in the following law review article: Note: A Testamentary Gift of Felony: Avoiding Criminal Penalties From Estate Firearms," Nathan G. Rawling, 23 Quinn. Prob. Law Journal 286 (2010). The author of the law journal article may disagree with our interpretation of and application of various material that appears in his Note. Be that as it may, we mention the law journal article in order to give due credit to the source for much of the information that follows even if the manner in which we use that information here differs from the manner in which the author himself uses it in his Note, or might wish to use it for other purposes at a later point in time.

QUESTIONS A GUN OWNER SHOULD ASK WHEN CONSIDERING A DISPOSITION OF ONE’S FIREARMS TO ONE’S HEIRS

First, what procedures must the executor of my estate and my heirs be aware of and adhere to when coming into possession of my firearms so as to avoid criminal liability? We have, in this multi-part series, provided you with most, if not all, of the major New York Statutes you must be aware of. There might be others -- at least laws tangentially related to and directed to bequests of firearms.  And, they must all be construed together. The statutes that we have given you here provide your executor – or your heir, if the heir himself or herself is the first person to come into contact with the firearms upon your death – with his or her duty under the law. For example, and most importantly, upon your death, whoever comes into contact with firearms must surrender them to the appropriate authority within 15 days of receipt of them. Failure to do so may result in a felony charge.Second, does the bequest of a particular asset involve an item defined as a firearm? This might not be as obvious at first glance as you may think. For example, suppose you have a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable. Does that firearm constitute a firearm qua firearm under the law? And, suppose you have an item that has the appearance of a true, functioning firearm, but it is a “dummy.” Do you still treat it as a firearm under the law? Suppose the firearm is an antique – or a quasi-functioning firearm such as an old musket or wheel lock? Is that object treated as a firearm under the law? Is a “starter pistol” classified as a firearm under the law? You must be prepared to answer these questions.Third, of those objects that I have reason to know are firearms, how are they categorized? Which firearms are pistols? Which firearms are rifles? Which firearms are shotguns? Be prepared to describe the firearms with particularity. Fourth, how many, if any, of my firearms are defined as an assault weapon under New York Law?For New York residents and residents of other States that have laws specifically defining certain weapons as assault weapons and strictly controlling ownership and possession, of them, this question is a particularly critical one, to be given particular consideration to.Fifth, how many, if any, of my firearms are classified as a ‘machine gun’ under New York law; and how many of them are classified as ‘selective-fire weapons’? Does New York law distinguish between selective-fire weapons and full-auto only weapons in its classification scheme? Do selective-fire weapons and full-auto only weapons fall under the nomenclature of assault weapons under New York law? Actually, under New York law selective-fire weapons and full-automatic weapons are not defined as assault weapons under. However, under Connecticut law, selective-fire weapons and full-automatic weapons are also defined as assault weapons.Sixth, are each of my heirs eligible to possess firearms? Suppose that each of my heirs is eligible to possess firearms at the time I draft my testamentary will. But, how do I know that my heirs will be eligible to possess firearms in the future? Suppose I have four heirs and I have a substantial number of firearms that I wish to bequeath to each of them. Now, suppose, further, that, at the time I am preparing my will, each of my heirs has a valid pistol permit; that two of my heirs live in New York City; that one of my heirs lives in upper State New York; and that one of my heirs lives in Connecticut. Suppose further that, of the two heirs who live in New York City, one of them has a valid rifle and shotgun permit, but the second one doesn’t. How do these specific facts affect the eligibility of each of my heirs to receive the specific firearms I wish to bequeath to each of them?Seventh, what are the applicable State laws? Apropos of the above example,  you must be mindful of both New York law and Connecticut law. Both jurisdictions have exceedingly restrictive gun laws, but one, Connecticut, allows an eligible person to receive a firearm defined as an assault weapon. New York does not. As you may recall, we pointed out that, in New York, assault weapons can only be lawfully possessed by the original owner. Assault weapons cannot be transferred to anyone else, including a blood relative and prospective heir to firearms. In Connecticut, they can.Eighth, what are the applicable Federal Laws? We haven’t discussed this, but you must be mindful of the possible impact of Federal laws on gun transfers. There are the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 both of which regulate transfers of guns and the National Firearms Act of 1934 also imposes a tax on gun transfers.Ninth, what are the penalties for failure to follow – to the letter – the applicable State and Federal Laws? You must know the penalties and, to avoid, the penalties, you must know the law. The old adage, “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” is one that gun owners should burn in their memory.Tenth, what do I need to know about gun transfers to heirs who live in another jurisdiction? If an heir to a bequest of firearms lives in another State, you must know and adhere to the requirements of transfers of guns to that resident who lives in a State other in New York. The requirements pertaining to gun transfers may be just as stringent in another jurisdiction as they are in New York. Even so, the laws pertaining to transfers will undoubtedly differ in several respects from one jurisdiction to another, and the very definition of ‘assault weapon,’ in particular, will differ from one State to the next. You must comply with the laws of each jurisdiction in which your firearms happen to be located and your heirs happen to reside.Eleventh, what happens if one of my heirs who is eligible to receive firearms at the time I draft my will, becomes ineligible to receive firearms at the time of my death? Your will should provide the executor with appropriate alternative instructions in the event that certain classes of firearms cannot be transferred to a particular heir or if it comes to light that a particular heir is no longer eligible to receive firearms at all or if the heir simply doesn’t want to take possession of one or more firearms.Twelfth, what do I do if the law pertaining to firearms changes? This is analogous to the question immediately above. Often – all too often of late – firearms laws become ever stricter. Ever more types of firearms become banned. And eligibility requirements become stricter. Once again, the maker of a will, the testator, should provide the executor of the estate, with specific instructions if it becomes evident that the bequest of firearms becomes too difficult to comply with or altogether impossible to administer. Ultimately, the testator may be compelled to sell the entirety of the collection of firearms well prior to his or her death in order to maximize the best price for the firearms. This would be unfortunate but would prevent headaches for the executor and heirs and would prevent the imposition of felony charges for failure to adhere to “the letter of the law” when coming into possession of the testator’s firearms.

A CHECKLIST FOR TESTATORS WHO OWN FIREARMS AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DRAWING UP THEIR TESTAMENTARY WILLS

• Accurately describe all firearms in your collection
• Be sure to provide the executor or administrator of your estate with clear, comprehensive, and explicit instructions for disposing of your firearms, so that all Federal and State gun laws, as well as applicable local ordinances, are adhered to.
• Determine whether each of your heirs to whom you wish to bequeath one or more firearms is eligible to own firearms generally, and, further, is eligible to possess the particular firearms you wish to bequeath to each heir.
• Confirm that each of your heirs has the necessary pistol licenses and, where applicable, such as and namely, New York City, a valid long arm permit.
• Do your heirs all live in New York? if not, what other State do one or more of your heirs live in, to whom you wish to bequeath one or more of your firearms?
• Are you familiar with the laws of each jurisdiction in which you own and possess firearms and in which each of your heirs live to whom you wish to bequeath your firearms?
• Are you familiar with the possible impact of Federal law on transfers of firearms to heirs. Little is said about the operation of Federal law. And we have not gotten into that here. But Federal Law as well as State law may have a decisive impact on the transfer of some or all of your firearms.
• Are any of your firearms classified as ‘assault weapons’ under the law of the jurisdiction where your heir or heirs reside, if other than New York?
• Do you own weapons that are classified as ‘machine guns?’ If so, you must definitely be familiar with Federal law as well as State law, concerning the transfer of those weapons to your heirs. There are specific eligibility requirements for ownership of and possession of fully automatic and selective fire weapons.
• If you own guns defined as machine guns, do your heirs have the appropriate current and valid federal licenses that would allow them to take possession of machine guns?
• Have you confirmed whether your heirs even wish to own and possess the particular firearm or firearms you wish to bequeath to them? You may presume, wrongly, that your heirs wish to take possession of your firearms. This is one type of property – unlike jewelry or expensive art or gold bullion or blue chip stocks or cash – where your presumption may be completely erroneous.
• Suppose, at the time of your death, one or more of your heirs, to whom you wish to bequeath your firearms, is no longer eligible to possess firearms. Or, suppose New York gun laws change and eligible recipients of your firearms, at the time you made out your will, are no longer eligible to receive certain firearms. Have you made arrangements for an alternative disposition of your firearms in the event that one or more of your heirs, to whom you wish to bequeath your firearms, is no longer eligible to possess firearms at the time of your death because of changed circumstances in that person’s life or in the event of further yet more draconian changes in New York gun laws that make it impossible for an executor or administrator to lawfully transfer firearms to your heirs?
• What are the penalties that your executor, or administrator or heirs might face for failure to adhere to all applicable laws pertaining to the lawful transfer of and possession of firearms? Know those laws! And, be certain that the executor or administrator of your will and that your heirs, too, are knowledgeable about the laws.

UPCOMING INSTALLMENT

In the fifth and final installment of this multi-series Article, we will discuss a few other matters we have not previously touched upon – matters that are directly related to bequests of firearms. For example, one might assume that the New York gun owner, like a gun owner residing anywhere else in the United States, will have a store of ammunition for one’s firearms. That is only reasonable. And the gun owner will likely wish to bequeath ammunition to one’s heirs, along with one’s firearm or collection of firearms. That, too, is only reasonable. And, York law has much to say about commercial transactions involving ammunition. Yet, New York law has virtually nothing to say about transfers of ammunition that do not involve commercial transactions. So, can a testator bequeath his or her ammunition to the testator’s heirs? We will get into that in Part 5 of this multi-series Article.And, then there is the issue of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines).” The New York Safe Act treats so-called large capacity magazines, separate and apart from the firearm itself. So, the firearm and the magazine are two distinct devices under New York law. Thus, the New York resident may have a firearm that is in fact, legal, but may have a magazine for that weapon, that, itself, isn’t legal, even though the magazine came with the gun – was, in fact, clearly, a critical component of the gun. Indeed, imagine, a gun dealer selling you a semiautomatic, but refraining from selling you the magazine that the manufacturer designed for it, to be used and sold together with it. Can a large capacity feeding device be transferred to heirs, along with the weapon that was manufactured with it, insofar as the magazine, reasonably, ought to be construed as integral to the weapon and would certainly have been sold with it? For, otherwise, why would an individual choose to purchase a semiautomatic weapon without the magazine? Would a person wish to purchase an automobile without the engine? The New York Safe Act creates, for the law-abiding New York gun owner, an “Alice and Wonderland World;” a place where things are not always as they seem; a place where you must leave your reason and sanity at the door before entering. If a testator can transfer a semiautomatic firearm to his or her heirs, can that testator also transfer the “large capacity ammunition feeding device” that came with it? We will discuss the ramifications of that question in the next installment of this multi-series Article as well.We will also talk about police officers -- but not in their professional capacity as police officers. We will be addressing the issue of bequests of firearms to police officers. Does New York law treat bequests of firearms to police officers any differently from bequests of firearms made to a New York resident who is not an active duty police officer or is not a police officer retired from the force?Of course, a police officer may lawfully possess and use so-called “assault weapons” when on active-duty, and, while on active-duty, the officer will most likely have access to “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” as well. Perhaps that officer may, and probably can, in accordance with Departmental policy, possess and use that same weapon when off-duty, too. That isn't our concern here. What is of concern here and relevant to the discussion, is whether that officer may receive and possess a non-departmental assault weapon as a bequest, for example, from a dying uncle, who happened to have purchased it lawfully prior to enactment of the NY Safe Act and who had timely registered it subsequent to enactment of the Act, in strict accordance with the Act. The answer to that question may surprise you. The answer may, in fact, surprise many New York police officers as well. We will deal with that matter as well in the upcoming fifth and final installment of this multi-series Article.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

The NY Safe Act Strips New York Gun Owners of Property Rights in Their Own Guns

PART 3: A LOOK AT THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT AND RELATED NEW YORK STATUTES THAT DEPRIVE GUN OWNERS OF THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY INTEREST IN THEIR OWN FIREARMS

CAPSULE SUMMARY

In this installment of our multi-series article on New York's mangling of the private property right interest in one's firearms, we look at actual New York Statutes that deprive New York gun owners of that property rights interest in their own guns from the specific standpoint of bequests of firearms. We list the Statutes, describe them, and explain how they operate to defeat one’s private property interest in one’s firearms as the Statutes. We explain how New York Statutes interfere with one’s right to make bequests of firearms to one’s heirs and, so, undermine one's property interest in one's own firearms.We will show you that, under present New York law, a New York resident and citizen of the United States does not have absolute control over his or her own firearms. That means that one’s private property interest is not preserved. If so, that is in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention to the New York State Constitution as well.Be forewarned: what follows is not a simple matter under discussion. But for New York gun owners it is certainly a critically important one. As failure to adhere to New York gun laws can create very serious issues for the executor of one's estate and for one's heirs.

NEW YORK STATUTES THAT OPERATE TO RESTRICT OR DEPRIVE A PERSON FROM TRANSFERRING ONE’S FIREARMS – ONE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY – TO ONE’S HEIRS

Now, let us begin.

HOW NEW YORK LAW DEPRIVES NEW YORK RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS OF THEIR ABILITY TO TRANSFER THEIR FIREARMS TO THEIR HEIRS IN CONTRAVENTION OF AND IN DEFIANCE OF A DECEDENT’S SPECIFIC BEQUESTS

22 NYCRR § 207.20 says, “the fiduciary or attorney of record [of a decedent’s estate] shall furnish to the court a list of assets constituting the gross estate for tax purposes, but separately listing those assets that either were owned by the decedent individually including those in which the decedent has a partial interest, or were payable or transferrable to the decedent’s estate; and those assets held in trust, those assets over which the decedent had the power to designate a beneficiary, jointly owned property, and all other non-probate property of the decedent.”The New York Safe Act adds a new and noxious wrinkle to the requirement in 22 NYCRR § 207.20. Under Section 53 of the Act, codified in the Surrogate Court’s Procedure Act, NY CLS SCPA § 2509, titled “Firearm’s Inventory,”  because a decedent’s firearms’ collection must be delineated with particularity. That list must be filed not only with the surrogate’s court for probate, but also with the division of criminal justice services.NY CLS SCPA § 2509, says, “Whenever, by regulation, rule or statute, a fiduciary or attorney of record must file a list of assets constituting a decedent’s estate, such list must include a particularized description of every firearm, shotgun and rifle, as such terms are defined in section 265.00 of the penal law, that are part of such estate. Such list must be filed with the surrogate’s court in the county in which the estate proceeding, if any, is pending and a copy must be filed with the division of criminal justice services.”At first glance, it’s clear that a person’s gun collection is separated out from a decedent’s other assets for special and undesirable treatment because a fiduciary or attorney of record must send an inventory of those firearms’ assets to the division of criminal justice service for action. The fiduciary or attorney of record doesn’t do that for other personal property.Section 53 of the NY Safe Act also mandates that a list of the decedent’s firearms must be listed with particularity, consistent with the definitions for ‘assault weapon’ as set forth in Section 37 of the New York Safe Act, as codified in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22).Section 37 of the NY Safe Act delineates complex definitional constructions of assault weapons. These definitions are not nearly as clear in meaning as the drafters of the Safe Act may have intended.Now, suppose a New York resident and gun collector has guns that are defined as 'assault weapons' under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22), Section 37 of the NY Safe Act. Can a testator bequeath those firearms to anyone the testator wishes, including and especially, a family member related to the testator by blood? Well, a testator can certainly bequeath particular items of personal property to whomever the testator wants and that includes bequests of weapons, including the testator’s assault weapons. There is nothing in the probate code of New York to suggest otherwise. And that is consistent with the fundamental right of a testator to bequeath his private property to whomever the testator wishes. And proponents of the New York Safe Act would likely argue that nothing in New York law prohibits a gun owner from bequeathing his or her guns to whomever the gun owner wishes. And, that is certainly true, as far as it goes. But, the real question, the pertinent question, is whether the heir or legatee to the bequest can keep those firearms, especially assault weapons. And there’s the rub. The answer to that question is a resounding, “no!”The New York Safe Act proscribes anyone but the original owner of assault weapons from keeping those firearms. And that includes close family members, whom the testator may wish to bequeath those weapons to. So, the bequest of assault weapons to heirs, who are not also licensed gun dealers, is an empty bequest. The testator’s wishes, upon his death, are unconscionably countermanded by the New York Safe Act; and the heir’s desire to obtain the testator’s private property – the testator’s assault weapons in accordance with the testator’s express wishes – to become, then, the new owner of them, as the testator wished – is helplessly and hopelessly frustrated and thwarted.Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), says, “Any weapon defined in paragraph (e) or (f) of this subdivision and any large capacity ammunition feeding device that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, may only be sold to, exchanged with or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons or to an individual or entity outside of the state provided that any such transfer to an individual or entity outside of the state must be reported to the entity wherein the weapon is registered within seventy-two hours of such transfer. An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.”Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), means that any firearm, defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ cannot be lawfully retained by anyone other than the original owner of it.So, while an assault weapon can be bequeathed by a testator to an heir, that bequest is more often than not an empty gesture. It means nothing because, once again, the decedent’s heir cannot keep the assault weapon (or assault weapons if there is more than one) for more than a few days even if that heir otherwise holds a valid pistol license and, where required, namely, in New York City, a valid rifle and shotgun permit as well.Section 37(H) of the NY Safe Act, codified in the Penal Code of New York, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22) (h), is extraordinarily draconian, for it categorically denies ownership of assault weapons by New York residents beyond first generation, original owners.Do you understand what proponents of the New York Safe Act are doing here?Proponents of the Safe Act are destroying the possibility of ownership of entire categories of firearms, defined as assault weapons, to future generations of New York residents and U.S. citizens. This, clearly and obviously enough, to those who read through the NY Safe Act, was the intent of the drafters of the Act.Curiously, even the neighboring State of Connecticut – which does not, by any stretch of the imagination, have gun laws one might call, “liberal,” apropos of firearms ownership and possession, and is not a State that can honestly be said to respect the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution  – does not itself deny ownership of firearms defined as assault weapons to successive generations of gun owners who are otherwise eligible to possess firearms. So, Connecticut, unlike New York, respects, to some extent, at least, the possession of firearms classified as 'assault weapons' by heirs to the original owner of them, in its own Statutes, to heirs who are eligible to possess firearms.To be sure, Connecticut, even more so than New York, has devised an undeniably complex, if more comprehensive, system for categorizing those firearms it calls ‘assault weapons.’ See, Conn. Gen Stat. § 53-202a. In fact Connecticut’s system of categorizing firearms is more comprehensive and complex than New York’s system, if less ambiguous overall.But, Connecticut, unlike New York, does not exclude successive generations of families from owning those assault weapons, assuming heirs to one’s firearms are eligible to possess firearms at all. See Conn. Gen Stat. § 53-202b(b)(3), which exempts from transfers of assault weapons, those transfers of assault weapons to heirs. The Statute sets forth a specific exemption for: “the transfer of an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d, by bequest or intestate succession, or, upon the death of a testator or settlor: (A) To a trust, or (B) from a trust to a beneficiary who is eligible to possess the assault weapon." New York, unfortunately, does not have a similar statute. Weapons classified as assault weapons cannot be transferred to heirs under any circumstance in New York.

WHAT MUST THE EXECUTOR, ADMINISTRATOR, OR HEIR DO ONCE HE OR SHE COMES INTO CONTACT WITH DECEDENT’S FIREARM OR FIREARM’S COLLECTION?

Once a New York firearms’ owner dies, the executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate who comes into possession of the decedent's firearms, or, otherwise, the heir who comes into immediate possession of decedent’s firearms, has a very short window in which to surrender the firearms to the appropriate official.NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code says, in pertinent part, “. . . A person who possesses any such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance as an executor or administrator or any other lawful possessor of such property of a decedent may continue to possess such property for a period not over fifteen days. If such property is not lawfully disposed of within such period the possessor shall deliver it to an appropriate official described in this paragraph or such property may be delivered to the superintendent of state police. Such officer shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.”This Section is very important. It tells the administrator, executor, or holder of firearms that the firearms – all of them, not merely those that are defined as assault weapons – must be surrendered to the appropriate authority within 15 days of receipt of the firearms, upon the death of the owner of the firearms.And, who is an appropriate authority who can receive firearms? The first – and lengthy – sentence of NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code sets forth: “A person voluntarily surrendering such weapon, instrument, appliance or substance, provided that such surrender shall be made to the superintendent of the division of state police or a member thereof designated by such superintendent, or to the sheriff of the county in which such person resides, or in the county of Nassau or in the towns of Babylon, Brookhaven, Huntington, Islip and Smithtown in the county of Suffolk to the commissioner of police or a member of the police department thereof designated by such commissioner, or if such person resides in a city, town other than one named in this subparagraph, or village to the police commissioner or head of the police force or department thereof or to a member of the force or department designated by such commissioner or head; and provided, further, that the same shall be surrendered by such person in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be established by such superintendent, sheriff, police force or department.”This means that firearms must not be surrendered to just any governmental official. Firearms must be surrendered to the appropriate official as defined in CLS Penal § 265.20(a) (1) (f) of the New York Penal Code.Now, suppose the administrator, executor, or holder of the firearms of decedent fails to surrender the weapons within fifteen days of receipt of them as the law requires. Well, under NY CLS Penal § 265.01-b, “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.”If a person – namely, the executor or administrator of an estate or the heir to a firearm or firearms, who comes into immediate possession of the firearm or firearms upon the death of the original owner of the firearms – fails, within fifteen days, to transfer the firearm or firearms to the appropriate official – that person is in unlawful possession of said firearm or firearms. Thus, failure to timely transfer a firearm or firearms of a decedent to the appropriate official, upon the death of the decedent – whether such failure to transfer is deliberate or inadvertent – places the possessor of the firearm or firearms in an untenable position. For that person is in felony possession of a firearm. That person is a criminal under New York law!Now, suppose a firearm or collection of firearms is in fact timely delivered to the appropriate official upon the death of the original owner. In that case NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6) says, “A firearm or other weapon which is surrendered, or is otherwise voluntarily delivered pursuant to section 265.20 of this chapter and which has not been declared a nuisance pursuant to subdivision one of this section, shall be retained by the official to whom it was delivered for a period not to exceed one year. Prior to the expiration of such time period, a person who surrenders a firearm shall have the right to arrange for the sale, or transfer, of such firearm to a dealer in firearms licensed in accordance with this chapter or for the transfer of such firearm to himself or herself provided that a license therefor has been issued in accordance with this chapter. If no lawful disposition of the firearm or other weapon is made within the time provided, the firearm or weapon concerned shall be declared a nuisance and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this section.”The last paragraph of NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6) makes clear that a firearm or other weapon will be disposed of if the party who surrendered the weapon does not arrange for the sale or transfer of it within the applicable time frame – one year from the date that the firearm or collection of firearms is delivered to the appropriate official.And, what does the expression ‘disposed of’ mean? NY CLS Penal § 400.05(2) spells that out bluntly. The Statute says, “The official to whom the weapon, instrument, appliance or substance which has subsequently been declared a nuisance pursuant to subdivision one of this section is so surrendered shall, at any time but at least once each year, destroy the same or cause it to be destroyed, or render the same or cause it to be rendered ineffective and useless for its intended purpose and harmless to human life.”The expression, 'disposed of' by an official” means 'destroyed' by that official.Now, NY CLS Penal § 400.05(1) defines ‘nuisance’ as, “Any weapon, instrument, appliance or substance specified in article two hundred sixty-five, when unlawfully possessed, manufactured, transported or disposed of, or when utilized in the commission of an offense, is hereby declared a nuisance.”We know that any firearm or weapon that is surrendered to the appropriate official by an executor or administrator of an estate or by another lawful possessor of such weapon, namely and particularly, an heir of decedent to whom a bequest of firearms has been made, in accordance with NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1) (f), is specifically not a nuisance under the applicable Statute, NY CLS Penal § 400.05(6), and therefore is not subject to summary destruction.NY CLS Penal § 265.20(a) (1) (f), provides that the officer to whom such weapon (or weapons) has been surrendered, “shall hold it and shall thereafter deliver it on the written request of such executor, administrator or other lawful possessor of such property to a named person, provided such named person is licensed to or is otherwise lawfully permitted to possess the same. If no request to deliver the property is received by such official within one year of the delivery of such property, such official shall dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of section 400.05 of this chapter.”NY CLS Penal § 400.05(2) makes abundantly clear that the official – to whom a decedent’s firearms’ collection is delivered, in accordance with NY CLS § 265.20(a) (1), namely within 15 days of a party’s possession of it – cannot summarily destroy the weapons. He is the custodian of them. The firearms are still the property of decedent’s estate. And so long as decedent’s heir to the bequest of firearms timely informs the official as to the ultimate disposition of them, namely, within one year of the date of surrender of those firearms to the official, that official, the custodian of them, is responsible for their safekeeping.This does not mean that the official to whom the weapons are surrendered will perform his or her duty. What, then, is the responsibility of the State when those firearms are prematurely damaged, lost, or destroyed, prior to the one-year time period? That issue turns on whether the official would have known that failure to preserve the firearms violated the owner heir’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. See, Maio vs. Kralik, 70 A.D.3d 1; 888 N.Y.S.2d 582; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8062; 2009 NY Slip Op 8187.In the next installment of this series, Part 4, we will provide you with a checklist for gun owners. Given present New York law, a testator who wishes to bequeath firearms to his living heirs, must be aware of traps and snares that lurk for the unwary.Be advised: failure to consider contingencies may place both the executor of one's estate as well as one's heirs in real danger of incurring felony charges for failure to make proper disposition of firearms in strict accordance with the applicable laws.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Vincent L. Pacifico (Orca) All Rights Reserved.

EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY PROMOTES PETITION DRIVE TO UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT

There is an old adage that has gained some currency of late. It is this: “keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.” Some attribute the adage to Sun-Tsu, the brilliant Chinese military genius and strategist, who authored, “The Art of War.” Others attribute the adage to Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian Politician and Philosopher, who authored, “The Prince.” Whoever first came up with that saying is not a matter of particular importance. What is important is the import of the saying. It is certainly one that any American who cherishes the Bill of Rights ought to keep uppermost in mind. Why do we bring this up? We do so for this reason: to keep you apprised of new developments in the antigun community as we become aware of them, as antigun groups work toward their endgame: Destruction of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Forewarned is, indeed, forearmed. The liberal weblog, “AlterNet,” has very recently sponsored a petition drive on behalf of the antigun Group, Everytown for Gun Safety. We cite it here for your perusal, together with links to the webpages that are promoting this drivel._____________________________________________

 Join The Movement To End Gun Violence In America. Join Everytown For Gun Safety. Everytown is a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities. Gun violence touches every town in America. For a generation, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by a broken Congress that has failed to take common-sense steps that will save lives. But something is changing. More than 2.5 million mayors, moms, survivors, law enforcement, teachers, gun owners, and everyday Americans have stepped up to demand more of our country and our elected officials -- and it's working. Because of this movement, the NRA is losing its grip on state houses across America. In 2015, we will continue to fight for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people by requiring a simple background check for every gun sale. And we'll hold our lawmakers accountable when they put the gun lobby's interests before the safety of our communities. Everytown starts with you, and it starts in your town. Sign up here to help bring an end to gun violence in your community and across the country.As a movement of Americans fighting for common-sense gun policies, we depend on contributions from supporters like you to fund important work to reduce gun violence.Paid for by Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund. Contributions to Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund are not tax-deductible.____________________________________________It is not our purpose here to explicate this propaganda for you. It is all nonsense, anyway. However, there are a couple of reasons we are bringing this matter to your attention.First, take a close look at this propaganda advert and petition. Something is missing from it, something important. Do you know what is missing? It is this: "Everytown for Gun Safety Action" is the brainchild of former New York City Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg. Apparently, Bloomberg doesn't want the public to know that a multi-billionaire is the driving force behind the effort to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Arbalest Quarrel discussed Michael Bloomberg's, "Everytown" organization in depth, when he  first created it, almost one year ago. The Article in the Arbalest Quarrel is titled, "'Everytown for Gun Safety": Bloomberg's Blueprint for Destruction of the Second Amendment?'" "Everytown" is Bloomberg's raison d'etre, since leaving public office.Second, anyone who is ignorant enough to sign Bloomberg's petition is signing away and, in fact, wishing away his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms: a sacred right that one is unlikely to find in the Constitution of any other nation in the world. If a person is willing to sign away even one Constitutional Right, that person obviously can be duped into signing away others. Once gone, one's rights and liberties are gone forever. Autocratic rulers and autocratic ruling bodies seek to reduce individual rights and liberties to a nullity. Destruction of the Second Amendment is a major step in that direction. Michael Bloomberg doesn't want to talk about that, though. He would rather talk about "violence" and, in so doing, he tortuously attempts to tie violence to guns -- inanimate objects. Bloomberg might just as sensibly tie violence to knives, and hammers, and broomstick handles -- the point being that the real issue here isn't guns at all -- it is people -- "dangerous people" as the "Everytown" petition says. And, who, are the dangerous people?  Why, everyone who owns and possesses a gun: people like you and me because, to the antigun crowd, a dangerous person is a person who would wish to own and possess a gun at all. Imagine that! So, don't for a minute believe that Michael Bloomberg's "Everytown" antigun group is concerned only with guns in the hands of criminals, and psychopaths, and lunatics. If that were so, the myriad gun laws in force today would be sufficient, for those laws would be enforced. They aren't. The Everytown petition drive is nothing more than a naked ploy, playing to irrational emotion. It is a devious attempt to obtain support from as wide a swathe of the American population as it can. With that support Bloomberg's "Everytown" organization will certainly attempt, anew, to make a case before the U.S. Congress and before the State Legislatures that ownership of and possession of firearms must be ever more stringently controlled and restricted -- controlled and restricted, ultimately, out of existence.The only real violence here is the violence to our Bill of Rights. Hopefully, the American public will see through the "Everytown" petition charade.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.