CLINTON CLAMORS, ALL GUNS MUST GO!

The current leading Democratic Party contender for the U.S. Presidency in 2016, Hillary Clinton, who equivocates on most issues, has no qualms about letting the American public know precisely where she stands on the matter of gun ownership and gun possession in this Country. On that issue she speaks with self-assurance, even arrogance, expecting the public to accept her false, illogical pronouncements about guns and gun violence as self-evident truths, requiring neither legal analysis or logical validity, nor accurate statistical evidentiary support.Case in point: during a town hall meeting, held on a College Campus in Keene, New Hampshire, in October of this year, Clinton responded to a question posed by an elderly man from the audience who, apparently referring to the 1996 Australian Government gun confiscation program of which he was aware, asked, beseechingly, whether we could do that here and if not why not. Clinton clearly relished the question. In response she remarked that Canada, the UK, and Australia have all implemented national “gun buyback” programs. Remarking further on Australia’s 1996 massive gun buyback program, Clinton asserted, in her typical preachy, irritating way, that the Australian Government offered to purchase hundreds of thousands of “automatic weapons” at “a good price” and that the Government then “clamped down [on gun purchases] going forward.”The Government’s “gun buyback” program to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the Australian populace was hardly voluntary. It was a carefully orchestrated compulsory, gun confiscation scheme, concocted by the Government, ostensibly in response to a lunatic’s April 28, 1996 shooting of 35 tourists in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Yet, Clinton deviously intimates that this clearly coercive 1996 Government “gun buyback” program was, in some sense, truly voluntary, since, according to Clinton, the Government offered to give to Australian gun owners a “good price” for their weapons. But, it stretches credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of Australian citizens would voluntarily surrender to their Government for wasteful destruction, well over 600,000 perfectly functional firearms, even if one accepts at face value Clinton’s disingenuous remark that the Australian populace was actually getting a “good price” for them.Of note, Clinton didn’t bother to elaborate on what specific “automatic” weapons were surrendered to the Government authorities; nor did she bother to elaborate on the specific “good price” each Australian happened to receive for his or her weapon or weapons. Indeed, how would Clinton know the price any Australian received for a particular weapon? And, if the price were unknown, then it would be patently ridiculous to assert that Australians received a “good price” for those weapons.Indeed, Australians, who were compelled to surrender their weapons, may not feel that the Australian Government gave them a “good price” for their weapons. More to the point, one might stop to consider that, to the typical Australian gun owner, who thought it important enough to purchase and possess a firearm in the first place, no price is a good price for a weapon that had to be forfeited to the Government. For, once forfeited, Australians knew that they would never again be able, lawfully, to obtain suitable replacement firearms.Of course, no one at the New Hampshire Town Hall meeting bothered to weigh-in on these matters. And Clinton, for her part, did not trouble herself to offer argument in support of her statements, relying only on bald assertions, lest she defeat the poignancy of her rhetoric. And, this is the most aggravating thing about Clinton, even if one is drawn to her at all. She treats her adult, target audience as if she were speaking to grade school children. In her remarks to the public she routinely tends toward gross exaggeration, conflation, pontification, embellishment, evasion, falsehoods, over-generalizations, over-simplifications and outright lies. If one tries to pin her down, she refuses to respond, flamboyantly throwing her hands up in disgust.Clinton’s goal is securing the Oval Office, whatever the cost. Doing so would be the culmination of her quest for self-aggrandizement. In pursuit of that goal she forever engages in shameless self-promotion. Everything she says is carefully orchestrated for emotional effect, not for intellectual clarity. A Town Hall meeting is not, apparently, the place where the American public is expected to pose hard, well composed questions to this Democratic Party candidate for President of the United States; nor should the public expect detailed, cogent, intelligent answers. Clinton doesn’t relish a lively, frank, intelligent debate before the public – ever!Continuing to address the matter of “gun buyback” programs, at the Town Hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton said that communities in this Country have implemented such programs. She added that she would like to see a gun buyback program instituted on a national level, asserting, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged. . . . I do not know enough detail to tell you how we would do it, or how would it work, but certainly your [the audience member’s point] is worth looking at.” And, in those candid declarations rest a critical slip-up to Clinton’s otherwise carefully framed, calibrated remarks concerning her policy position on gun ownership and possession in the U.S. For, as an attorney, Clinton must know that a coercive “gun buyback” program, on a national level, is patently illegal. Congress would never oblige. And, even if she, as U.S. President, would dare, through an illegal executive order, to implement such a vast gun forfeiture scheme, she must know that the result could invite insurrection. Perhaps that is why Clinton added, somewhat obliquely and lamely – although the damage had already been done – that she didn’t know how such a massive undertaking could be instituted here in the U.S., for the mechanism of a gun buyback is surely simple enough. Just ask the Australian Government. But, in the U.S., it is the public’s response to such a program that would be particularly problematic to Clinton and to other antigun proponents, both in this Country and abroad, who wish to dispossess Americans of their firearms. Clinton is evidently suggesting that she doesn’t know how she could get the majority of law-abiding American gun-owners to acquiesce to a quiet coup d’état by the Federal Government; for a massive gun confiscation scheme is exactly that: a takeover of the Federal Government from the People.The mainstream news media – apparently, and rightfully, concerned that members of the public who do not share Clinton’s views on gun ownership and possession – namely, the vast majority of us – might object to the idea of a massive gun forfeiture scheme carried out on the national stage – created a news blackout of her remarks, lest the American public find a Hillary Clinton Presidency too repugnant to even contemplate. The mainstream news media obviously realized -- even if Clinton, herself, did not immediately realize the serious ramifications of her blunder -- that a federal government seizure of millions of firearms from the hands of the American public means nothing less than the seizure of government from the People! Such an undertaking is unforgivable. It is legally and ethically indefensible even if seemingly tenable to an irrational antigun crowd, unable to truly appreciate what it would presage for Americans’ rights and liberties, and even if desirable to a predacious, calculating and scheming cabal of international socialists who would like very much to see the United States Constitution discarded and a Free Republic dismantled.Under our Constitution a national, coercive gun confiscation program is patently illegal, and rightly so. Such coercive confiscation programs that have taken place in Australia and in other commonwealth nations are only possible given those Countries' history. If one can appreciate the critical differences between Australia and the U.S., one can truly appreciate how outrageous – even insulting to the American public – Hillary Clinton’s emulation of the Australian Government’s coercive 1996 gun buyback program truly is.So, let us for a moment consider Australia’s history and compare it to our own. For, one must consider the context in which a massive gun confiscation program might occur that would make it feasible and legal in one Western Country, but not in another. It is legally defensible and feasible in Australia. It is not legally defensible here in the U.S., even if it were feasible, and it isn’t. Australia’s history as a Nation is wholly unlike that of our own. And the Constitutions of Australia and the U.S. are notably quite different.Before the American Revolutionary War, the United States was not a sovereign Nation. The “United States,” as such, did not exist. The Country was simply a loose collection of colonies – thirteen of them – dependent upon Great Britain. And it was Great Britain that exerted its sovereignty over these thirteen colonies. It took a war against Great Britain to completely sever that dependency. Unlike the United States, Australia, like Canada, never fought a war of independence from Great Britain. As an ex-commonwealth Nation, Australia, unlike the U.S., is still, in a real sense, a subject State of Great Britain. In fact Australia is described as an “autonomous” Constitutional Monarchy. Queen Elizabeth II, the reigning Monarch of Great Britain, is also Queen of Australia. She is not Queen of the United States. Moreover, Great Britain has a deeply entrenched class structure – consisting of the royalty and nobility at one end, and the commonalty on the other. A rigid class structure that is a mainstay of Great Britain’s history sees expression in Australia’s Constitution. The royalty and nobility do not trust the commonalty – the “ordinary people” – to keep and bear arms. This mindset exists in the Government of Australia. It is a carry-over of a time when Australia was a commonwealth of Great Britain.Consider, too, the framework of Australia’s Government in comparison to our own. Our Legislative Branch consists of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The Legislative Branch of Australia’s Government – the Parliament – consists of, one, the House of Representatives, two, the Senate, and, three, and most extraordinarily, the Queen, who is represented in Australia by a Governor-General.Certain members of Australia’s Parliament – its ministers – also function as members of the Executive. Thus, the British Queen not only has influence over Australia’s national government, she has both a law-making function in Australia and an executive function, the latter of which sees that her laws are carried out. In the U.S., which our founders created as a Free Republic, the Queen of England has no place in the Legislature Branch or in the Executive Branch of our Government. Just imagine if she did!So it is that Australia’s Constitution is framed as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, not in its People, who are treated more like subjects of “the Crown,” and less like citizens in their own right. Our Constitution, unlike that of Australia, is framed as one of rights and liberties preexistent in the People. And “We the People” are not subjects of the State, much less of a monarchy. The powers of our federal government are expressly limited and such powers that the federal government does have exist only by grace of the People, in whose hands true and ultimate power alone rests. But, since Australia’s Constitution is framed, in the first instance, as one of powers, existent in the Government itself, rather than as rights and liberties preexistent in the People, such rights and liberties that Australians might have are not preeminent. In fact, Australia’s Constitution does not speak of rights and liberties of the People at all. Try as you may you will find Australia’s Constitution devoid of a Bill of Rights, which means that, in Australia, there are no rights preexistent in the People and, therefore, no rights existent in the People, independently of a Government maxim that extends particular rights and liberties to the People. Properly speaking, Australians are not “citizens” at all. They are subjects of "the Crown." Thus, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a gun confiscation program, on an order of magnitude that took place in Australia in 1996 – and others that have taken place in that Country in the past and more that may take place in the future – are an anathema here. Clinton’s off-the-cuff remark, if effectuated, would be tantamount to an illegal usurpation of power by the federal government from the American People.What, specifically, precludes a national gun confiscation program from occurring in this Country that took place in Australia is established in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: “We the People.” The primacy of “We the People” over the federal government is particularly efficacious precisely because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Secondarily, the primacy of “We the People” is protected through a system of checks and balances within the federal government itself, as established in the Articles. But, it is the very existence of the Second Amendment, as a codification of a natural and inalienable right of the American People to keep and bear arms – "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" – that precludes confiscation of guns from the hands of the People.The assertion of that right, etched in stone, serves two purposes. It serves, one, as an emphatic reminder to those who serve the People – the Congress, the Executive and its bureaucrats, and the Judiciary – that together comprise the federal government – that the sovereignty of this Nation rests in, with, and upon “We the People.” The American People will suffer no rule under any other nation or under any trans-national or international ruling body; nor will they be subordinate to the federal government. And, the assertion of that right in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves, two, as a constant reminder to those elected to serve the American People and to those appointed or hired as functionaries to serve the American People that ultimate power rests in, with, and upon the People and that those limited powers the People have granted to the federal government are for no purpose other than to serve the People. The American People reserve to and for themselves alone, the absolute power to revoke any and all federal government powers if or when that government ever subverts the Will of the American People.In light of these facts it is exceedingly odd, even perverse, that the leading Democratic Party candidate for President in 2016, Hillary Clinton – who graduated from an elite law school in the United States – would dare emulate Australia’s gun buyback, confiscation program and that she would assert how much she would like to see a national gun “buyback” program played out in this Country since such an undertaking is patently illegal under our Constitution. In the assertion Clinton dares to express her blatant contempt for the American People.But there is more. Apart from the legal constraints, precluding a massive, coercive national gun confiscation program, there is another matter to consider. It is one that is rarely if ever discussed. It is the ethical theory upon which massive, coercive gun confiscation programs are grounded. The Australian Government argues, at least tacitly, that gun confiscation programs maximize “the good” for society, for “the Collective.” But, “the good” referred to here has nothing to do with crime reduction. It has everything to do with maximizing control over the citizenry, over the commonalty. This ethical theory is called utilitarianism. It is based on the notion that “the good” equals what is best for society, that is to say, what has “maximum utility” for society as a whole. But who decides what “the good” for society is? In Australia, it is the Government that decides. Moreover, whatever “the good” for society – for “the Collective” – is or is presumed to be, will, most likely, not be good for the individual in that society. And, therein lies the root problem with utilitarianism. The drafters of our Constitution did not subscribe to utilitarianism. Our Constitution, framed on the idea of limited government and on a Bill of Rights, incorporating the right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right that shall not be infringed – clearly expresses the sanctity and autonomy of the individual over the collective “good” of society. Ethics in this Country, as manifested in our Bill of Rights, is grounded on what is “morally right,” not on what maximizes utility (“the good”) for the collective. Ethical theories that are based on the notion of what is morally right are known as deontological theories, in philosophy. The two ethical theories, utilitarianism and deontology, are mutually exclusive; for, what is morally right and in the best interests of the individual in society is antithetical to what may happen to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, for “the Collective.” No better example of the conflict of the two ethical theories exists than that illustrated by massive, coercive gun confiscation programs, such as those created and implemented by Australia’s Government, on the national stage.Taking away the guns of the citizenry will enhance a government’s control over its citizenry. Enhancing government control, as perceived by the antigun crowd and by international socialists, equates with maximizing “the good,” maximizing “utility” for society, under the utilitarian ethical model. But, taking away guns from the law-abiding citizen does not enhance safety for that citizen, as an individual, in his or her own right. Rather, the individual is less safe as the individual is essentially defenseless against an armed psychopathic criminal or a lunatic. Moreover, the individual is harmed by that individual’s own government since an unarmed citizenry cannot adequately defend itself against the suppression of the citizenry’s rights and liberties. So, gun coercive confiscations programs are unethical under a deontological theory of ethics, grounded on what is “morally right,” even if such programs may, to some, appear to maximize “the good” for society as a whole, that is to say, for “the Collective.” And, in light of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and given the primacy of “We the People” as set forth in the Preamble to our Constitution, such coercive gun confiscation programs – whether or not cloaked as seemingly benign gun buyback programs – are facially illegal.Hillary Clinton, as well as President Barack Obama, clearly holds to utilitarianism – an ethical theory that is repugnant to the sensibilities of our founders as reflected in the Constitution the Founders drafted for future generations of Americans. On both legal and ethical grounds the position of President Obama and Hillary Clinton on gun ownership and gun possession in this Country is unsound. It is little wonder, then, that, although voicing constant rancorous, vociferous objection to gun ownership and gun possession in this Country, they offer no sound argument in support of their position – only empty emotional rhetoric and platitudes – because sound argument in support of their dubious position on gun ownership and gun possession in America simply does not exist.The existence of our Bill of Rights is a testament to the fact that our founders did not hold to utilitarianism. Our Constitution is predicated on a moral code, not a utilitarian one. The criterion of moral conduct is based on what is right; not one that is based on a Quixotic quest to maximize utility for society, for the Collective. The Second Amendment is an assertion of the importance of individual responsibility; and morality is predicated on the right of the individual to take responsibility for his or her actions. Thus, the founders of our Republic believed all the more in emphasizing, exemplifying, and extolling the sanctity of and the moral worth of the individual, and significantly less on maximizing utility for an amorphous society – for “the Collective,” which effectively denigrates the individual. Gun confiscation/forfeiture programs illustrate distrust of government in its own citizens. The citizen is told that, for his or her own good, the citizen must be dispossessed of firearms. The philosophy of President Obama and Hillary Clinton exemplify the predominance of government might over individual rights and liberty; government control over the citizen, rather than citizen control over government; inculcating obedience to authority and subservience to the State, rather than enhancing freedom of expression, individuality, and personal autonomy.Americans, of late, suffer endless exhortations that they ought sacrifice their rights and liberties for the Societal Collective “good.” Strident remarks against gun ownership and gun possession should serve, especially, as a warning to Americans that if they do not take steps to preserve their Constitution, they will lose it. A Free Republic cannot long endure under a Constitution whose precepts are ignored and denigrated. And, a free People cannot long remain free if the rights and liberties of the individual are systematically trampled upon. It has become abundantly clear that neither President Obama nor Hillary Clinton really care.[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.

ON THE SUBJECT OF A NATION’S CONSTITUTION

It may seem of more interest to legal scholars than to those with a decidedly less academic bent to give serious consideration to the import of and, indeed, necessity for a Nation’s written Constitution, but no citizen of any Country should pass off an understanding of that citizen’s system of laws, considering it too complex a subject to devote substantial time to study. Still, in this day and age where the very concept of the ‘nation state’ has, for powerful and ruthless international socialists and socialist technocrats, outlived its usefulness and is seen as an anachronism that should be dispensed with, along with a nation state’s constitution, it is incumbent upon the citizen of a nation state to take a closer look at his or her nation’s constitution -- assuming a nation state has one at all -- to better understand what rights and liberties are also being dispensed with.In our own Country, where the expression, ‘isolationism,’ is today treated unkindly by the mainstream media, where the expression ‘Made in America’ has become archaic, and where our Country’s Bill of Rights is considered old and dusty, it behooves Americans now, more than ever, to take a very close look at the Constitution that the founders of our Republic created, and which our citizen soldiers have fought and died for in the years since, to preserve.There is pressure exerted by internationalists in our own Nation State who feel that our Constitution needs to be revised so that it “fits with” the reality of “globalization” and with “neoliberal economic principles” and with international jurisprudence – matters and notions truly antithetical to the continued existence of our Nation State as an independent and free Republic.As our Nation and other Western Nations are increasingly under attack by savages from the Middle East and from international socialists in the West who use the unrest in the Middle East to further their own agenda, citizens of all Western Nations -- and most importantly citizens of our own Nation -- ought to “think through” what they are being asked to trade: personal rights and liberties for seeming internal security.Americans, in particular, might reflect on the fact that our Fourth Amendment right to privacy is being slowly and systematically eradicated as surveillance becomes ubiquitous. Our First Amendment Right of Free Speech is being challenged by the agents of censorship who seek to ram “political correctness” down our throats. And, what of the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms, unlike the notions of free speech and privacy, cannot be so easily molded and reconfigured like pottery clay by international socialists and their technocrats -- to be rendered “harmless.” The very physicality of firearms strengthens the reality of them so that their loss would be immediately felt by the American citizenry -- in a way and in a manner that the loss of the right to free speech and the loss of privacy may not be immediately felt.Now much is said, by those who wish to disarm the American public, of the harm that guns may cause to innocents, but virtually nothing is said of the necessity for an armed citizenry as the Founders of our Republic envisioned. Worse, for those of us who value the continued existence of our rights and liberties – much worse than any harm caused by guns in the hands of psychopathic, violent criminals and psychotic lunatics, that are but a tiny segment of the population, to be sure – is the lack of guns in the hands of an armed citizenry if it should ever have to deal with a federal government run amok. The Founders knew this and for that reason the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms was indelibly incorporated into our Constitution.Now our armed citizenry is sometimes compared to the armed citizenry of Switzerland and the armed citizenry of Israel. Those two Countries, Israel and Switzerland, do not suffer incessant attacks by gun grabbers. But, before we wax poetic over the virtue of Switzerland’s lenient attitude toward gun ownership, where able-bodied citizens are, in fact, required to keep firearms in their household, or, where, in Israel, its citizens are generally able to obtain licenses to possess firearms, relatively easily, including automatic weapons in some cases, one should understand that there is nothing in the Swiss Constitution that informs the Swiss citizen that he has a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And Israel doesn’t even have a written Constitution.Even though Switzerland demands that its citizens be armed for defense of Country, Swiss law can change that requirement, literally overnight. So, the present maintenance of an armed Swiss citizenry must, then, be statutory, that is to say, not part of Switzerland’s Constitution. And, in Israel, a citizen must indicate a need for a firearm before a firearm is issued to that person – even if the application process is a simple and relatively painless. Moreover, Switzerland changes its Constitution quite regularly. The latest Constitution was adopted in 2000. And, Israel, for its part, has not, since its inception as a Nation State, in 1948, drafted a Constitution; nor has Israel indicated, to this day, any serious desire to do so.Keep in mind, too, that the population of Switzerland is or, at least, had been, at one time, essentially Germanic, homogenous, and the people are tied closely to their Country’s Government. In Israel, too, the population is essentially homogenous, since the majority of its citizens are Jews. So, a codification of a right to keep and bear arms may, perhaps, be deemed unnecessary and superfluous by the citizens of those Countries. But, in the absence of Constitutional language, enshrining a right to keep and bear arms, the idea that a codification of a right to keep arms is unnecessary would be given serious consideration if Swiss law and Israeli law were to change. Suppose the Swiss Government reversed its position on gun ownership by Swiss citizens – no longer allowing -- indeed no longer ordering -- its citizens to be armed, but, instead, requiring its citizens to surrender their firearms to Government authorities. And, suppose the Israeli government imposed stringent restrictions on gun ownership by Israeli citizens, making the process of obtaining a gun license extremely onerous. Neither Swiss citizens, nor Israeli citizens would appreciate that turn of events, but in the absence of a Constitutional guarantee, the citizens of those two Countries would have no legal recourse. Still the possibility that Swiss or Israeli attitudes toward gun possession and ownership would change in the foreseeable future is remote. Now imagine the likelihood of the average law-abiding American citizen continuing to own and possess firearms were the U.S. to adopt the Swiss Constitution and Swiss procedures for easily rewriting its Constitution. Or imagine the likelihood of the average law-abiding American citizen owing and possessing firearms were the U.S. to adopt the governmental framework of Israel which has no written Constitution.Now, the population in the U.S. – with millions of illegal immigrants, currently residing in the U.S., tens of thousands of whom are known criminals and probably drug cartel gang members – is hardly homogenous, unlike the populations in Switzerland and Israel. Nonetheless, American citizens emanating from many Countries – certainly the vast majority who came to this Country through legal channels – inevitably develop a love for this Country. They learn our Country’s history, study its laws, learn its language – English – even as they maintain, and rightfully so, their own unique history, and as they celebrate the traditions of their native Countries, in their homes. But, we are all Americans. And, what secures the rights and liberties of all Americans is our written Constitution – a remarkable Constitution that has stood the test of time. Most remarkably, our Constitution enshrines the importance of the individual over that of a central government. This was no accident. It was as the framers of our Constitution intended.The framers of our Constitution were, rightfully so, always suspicious of a strong central government and that fear is well borne out today as the U.S. Government has been taken over by plutocrats, whose desires and goals for the United States are not co-extensive with those of the People. Hence, the U.S. is the only Country on the face of the Earth that has codified the fundamental right of the People to keep and bear arms – a right preexistent in the People – not a privilege extended to the People by grace of the State as is the case in those Countries – those very few Countries that deign to permit, authorize and, in Switzerland, even require its citizens to keep and bear arms.Still, as weight of World Opinion is decidedly against an armed citizenry – especially an armed citizenry that exists by right, not by license – we, Americans, must be extremely and forever extra vigilant. The Second Amendment has become the bete noire not only of misguided, frightened sheep at home, but of powerful, ruthless, and cunning oligarchic international socialist groups abroad, such as those who designed and implemented the EU. And, they are hell-bent on world domination. Their principal goal extends to destruction of the very notion of the “Nation State.” These groups likely intend to reduce the American citizenry to abject penury – in mind and spirit, as well as in the American citizenry’s pocketbook.The existence of our Second Amendment is inconsistent with the objective of these groups. Through their agents in the U.S. Government, they can ignore out-of-hand, and by able sleight-of-hand, the precepts of the Fourth Amendment. And they can with a little more effort, shackle our Right of Free Speech as embodied in the First Amendment. But they cannot effectively dismantle or disregard the Second Amendment until or unless they can physically remove firearms from the hands of the U.S. citizens. That is an arduous task, as well the Founders of our Nation intended it to be.It is not, then, just a singular currency and a singular language that unites the American citizenry. It is the “Bill of Rights” as secured essentially by the “Second Amendment.” A strong central U.S. Government remains in check less by the three Branches of Government – for, as we have seen, these three Branches have been essentially subsumed into one – and more by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.And, the Second Amendment is the one clear, undeniable chink in the plan of these international socialist oligarchs for a one world government – a government ruled by them and by them alone. These international socialists know that they cannot adequately, effectively control Americans until they are able to control their access to physical firearms.In 1933 President Roosevelt – via executive order, ostensibly based on national emergency – demanded that every American turn in that American’s gold bullion and coins. And many Americans did so. Thus, the Government itself hoards most of the gold. How many Americans do you suppose would voluntarily turn in their firearms today if, by executive order, a President, at the behest of the puppet-masters – claiming national exigency or emergency – asked, or urged, or ordered every American to do so – that the Government itself may, alone, hoard weapons? Very few, would be our guess. Americans know that such executive order would be patently illegal. National exigency or emergency -- whether purported or real -- does not warrant -- can never legally warrant the trampling of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so long as the Second Amendment exist. Americans certainly know this. Such an executive order would require not a surrender of arms but, rather, a call to arms![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.

OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN THE STATE OF MAINE

OUR PURPOSE FOR THE "ROAD TRIP" MULTI-SERIES ARTICLE

This is the third segment of or installment in our continuing “Road Trip” multi-series article dealing with handgun license reciprocity. The salient purpose of this series is to educate the American public on the difficulties a person encounters attempting to secure concealed handgun licenses or permits in multiple jurisdictions. By providing gun owners with a detailed look at the various handgun licensing schemes of the various States, we make poignantly clear how difficult, time-consuming, and costly the handgun licensing application process is. Yes, some States create many more hoops for the applicant to jump through than others, but in no State, where a handgun licensing application process has been established at all, can the application process truly be said to be relatively simple and straightforward. It isn’t. And, duplication of effort is the norm where an individual seeks to obtain a handgun carry license or permit in multiple jurisdictions. For purposes of this study, we follow the ordeal of an actual individual, an American businessman, who has, through the years, applied for and obtained several concealed handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions. You see, firsthand, just how complicated and convoluted concealed State handgun licensing application processes are.To protect the identity of this individual, whose experiences we illuminate for our readers, in detail, we have provided him with a pseudonym. We refer to him, throughout this multi-series article, as Mr. Wright. Through the experiences of Mr. Wright, we lay out for you the actual steps that Mr. Wright went through to obtain his handgun licenses – the frustrations and travails – simply to exercise the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.In the first two segments or installments of this multi-series article we discussed the handgun licensing application process established by the Nassau County Police Department, Long Island, New York, and by the New York City Police Department. The fact that New York City does not recognize a validly issued concealed handgun license issued to a civilian from another New York jurisdiction should not be lost on anyone.In this segment we discuss the concealed handgun application process established by the State Legislature for the State of Maine. Be advised that what we provide for you here is only a very brief summary. The task of reviewing police department application procedures in conjunction with an analysis of the pertinent Statutes, for just one jurisdiction, is a monumental task. There are often, we have found, inherent ambiguities and vagueness in the law and, to deal with those, requires a comprehensive analysis of the law. We are completing at the moment a highly detailed analysis of the handgun licensing laws of Maine and will publish our legal exegesis in the Arbalest Quarrel “White Papers.” We will provide a detailed analysis of the concealed handgun carry application procedures of other jurisdictions in the Arbalest Quarrel “White Papers” from time to time.

THE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT APPLICATION PROCESS IN MAINE

At the time that Mr. Wright first manifested a desire to carry a concealed handgun in the State of Maine, in the last decade of the Twentieth Century, Mr. Wright had to apply for a “PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM,” as issued by the Maine State Police. But, on July 8, 2015, the Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, signed, into law, ME S.B. 245, titled, “An Act To Authorize the Carrying of Concealed Handguns without a Permit.” The Bill, ME S.B. 245, did not go into effect as a new law, immediately, in Maine. In accordance with State practice, the Act would go into effect 90 days after the State’s Legislature adjourns for the session. See Maine Government Glossary, "Effective Date." In fact, 2105 Bill Text ME S.B. 245 did go into effect very recently, on October 15, 2015, virtually one month ago from the day of posting of this segment. The Act amends specific portions of Maine’s Revised Statutes. And, those amendments include detailed additions to and some deletions of select passages of Maine's Revised Statutes.One portion of the Act is codified in 12 M.R.S.A. § 11212. Several other portions of the Act are codified in various sections of 25 M.R.S. §§ 2001-A, 2003-A, 2004-A, and 2112. Oh, and by the way, the concealed handgun permit system is still operational in Maine. It exists alongside the present permit-less system. The Maine Legislature may have kept the concealed carry permit system in effect, in part, at least, to be able to account for and to effectuate reciprocity with other States that would not otherwise recognize the right of a citizen of the U.S. and a resident of Maine, to carry a handgun concealed in a sister State if that U.S. citizen and resident of Maine did not have physical proof of his or her right to carry a handgun concealed. Still, the existence of both a concealed handgun carry permit system coupled contemporaneously with a concealed handgun carry permit-less system does create some ambiguity and vagueness in the law, and some unfortunate confusion, for residents of Maine and for non-residents, alike. But, we cannot get into a discussion of this in a Blog  summary. We will, however, deal with these problematic issues in a "White Paper" to be published in the near future.Now, the Maine Legislature may or may not have been aware of problems attending the fact of two types of concealed carry systems operating co-extensively. Be that as it may, during the early 1990s, when Mr. Wright expressed a desire to carry a handgun, concealed, in Maine, for the purpose of self-defense, Mr. Wright didn’t have a choice. He had to secure a concealed handgun carry permit as issued by the Chief of Police for the State of Maine if he wished to carry, lawfully, a concealed handgun on his person within the State of Maine.Mr. Wright continued to utilize his team of experts to do the necessary preliminary work of obtaining the requisite explanatory materials and application forms for Mr. Wright. The Maine State Police have set up a somewhat different set of preliminary procedures for non-residents – to establish whether the non-resident qualifies for a Maine concealed carry permit. As the Maine State Police, Department of Public Safety website sets forth on the home page: “Please check this list to see if the State Police issues concealed handgun permits in the city\town you live in. If you do not see the name of the city\town you live in on this list please contact your respective city\town office for more information on how to apply for a concealed handgun permit. If you live in a city\town that has their own police department you must go through them to obtain a concealed handgun permit.”The Maine State Police requires that a non-resident first obtain a concealed handgun carry license or permit in the applicant’s own State of residence before the Maine State Police will consider issuance of A “NON-RESIDENT PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARM.” Note: this can create a serious problem for residents of States, such as New York, that have instituted very difficult standards for the issuance of any kind of concealed handgun carry license. In fact, had the NYPD License Division not issued Mr. Wright a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” the Maine State Police would not have even entertained Mr. Wright’s application for a “NON-RESIDENT PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARM.”Moreover, Mr. Wright’s restricted “TARGET/HUNTING LICENSE,” issued to him by the Nassau County Police Department, would not have sufficed as an effective firearm’s license in lieu of a “CIVILIAN CARRY LICENSE,” which the NCPD simply does not issue to most civilians – other than to politicians and judges – as a matter of policy. And, by the same token, a restricted New York City “PREMISES LICENSE,” is not at all similar to an unrestricted “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” As the Maine State Police see it, the denial to a person of a concealed carry license or permit in a person’s State of residence is ipso facto sufficient evidence that a person does not qualify for Maine’s “NON-RESIDENT PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARM” either – notwithstanding that the Maine State Police are almost certainly aware that many jurisdictions – such as New York and Connecticut – establish, for their residents, standards for issuance of concealed carry licenses or permits that are almost impossible to meet. Fortunately, for Mr. Wright, he did obtain, with the critical assistance of his team of experts, an unrestricted, “BUSINESS CARRY LICENSE,” and that provided, as a condition precedent, the necessary basis upon which the Maine State Police would begin to entertain Mr. Wright’s application for a “NON-RESIDENT PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARM.”

CONCLUDING NOTE

If you obtain nothing else from this multi-series article, hopefully you can begin to appreciate the complexity and difficulty inherent in the attempt to exercise one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Difficult enough as it is, often enough, to exercise one’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms in just one jurisdiction – now multiply that complexity and difficulty as one seeks to exercise his or her Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms in multiple State jurisdictions – thus, the need for universal concealed handgun reciprocity.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

NEW YORK CITY, NY FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

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

PART TWO: NEW YORK CITY, NY 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.

SYNOPSIS OF PREVIOUS ARTICLE

In our previous article, we explained the process of securing a handgun license in Nassau County. We explained that Mr. Wright, a successful businessman, who lives in Nassau County, New York, had applied for a “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE.” That was the nomenclature that the Nassau County Police Department used for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. But as an attorney relayed to Mr. Wright, specific information that the Nassau County Licensing Officer explained to the attorney, the Nassau County Police Department did not, in actual practice, issue NCPD "FULL CARRY LICENSES" to civilians unless those civilians happen to be judges or politicians. So, very few “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSES” are ever issued in Nassau County. That is quite an admission on the part of the Nassau County Police Department Officer. Apparently, the lives of judges and politicians are deemed more important than those of any other law-abiding resident of Nassau County. After much labor, the best that Mr. Wright could obtain for himself was a Nassau County “TARGET/HUNTING LICENSE.”Even though Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County as previously mentioned, his corporate offices are not in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. His corporate offices are in New York City. Mr. Wright first sought, albeit, ultimately, unsuccessfully 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 “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE,” that license would be valid throughout the State of New York even if not valid in any other State. Simple enough, you might think. Simple enough, Mr. Wright thought. Mr. Wright was wrong in his initial assessment. As he found out, had Mr. Wright been successful in obtaining a “CIVILIAN FULL CARRY LICENSE,” that license would not be valid in New York City. Be that as it may, since Mr. Wright has his business offices in New York City and, as the manner in which he conducts business requires him often to carry substantial cash and other negotiable instruments, his life and well-being are in constant danger. Mr. Wright was determined to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license from the New York City Police Department. This time, Mr. Wright hired a professional team, consisting of, one, a professional firm that is knowledgeable about and assists individuals, such as Mr. Wright, in obtaining firearms’ firearms’ licenses and permits throughout the State and in other jurisdictions across the Country, and, two, a licensed New York attorney. With the assistance of these professionals, Mr. Wright would enhance his chances on securing an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for himself.

THE NEW YORK CITY FIREARMS’ LICENSING PROCEDURES

Although Mr. Wright retained the services of professionals to assist him in securing an unrestricted concealed handgun carry permit, Mr. Wright, who always prides himself on being “on top of his game,” decided to learn as much as he could about the New York City firearms’ licensing procedures. So, he took a look at the New York City Police Department website.On the far left-side of the website’s main page, there is a laundry list of menu options. The one Mr. Wright was looking for was set forth clearly enough. It was titled, “FIREARMS LICENSING.” Mr. Wright clicked on the link. Unlike Nassau County, the website did not provide a manual that Mr. Wright might download, but there were a list of menu options that explained the firearms’ licensing procedures that the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) had established. There were five links: ONE, “THE LICENSE DIVISION;” TWO, “TYPES OF LICENSES;” THREE, “HANDGUN LICENSE CONSULTING FIRMS;” FOUR, “INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL HANDGUN LICENSE APPLICANTS;” AND, FIVE, “FEES.” Mr. Wright reviewed all the material. He would have many questions for his team of experts.

THE LICENSE DIVISION

“The License Division receives many inquiries from the public regarding the procedures involved in obtaining a permit for a handgun. Because of the serious safety concerns inherent in the possession of handguns, it is recommended that the decision to obtain a handgun license be carefully considered and that a licensee receive training in the safety and use of a handgun. Licensees must become familiar with all laws and regulations relating to handgun ownership. The following sections provide information in order to assist persons who wish to apply for a handgun license. They do not in any way imply that a license application will be approved.The following pages have been prepared as a guide to assist you in deciding which type of handgun license may be appropriate for you. If you decide to apply for a license you must APPEAR IN PERSON at the License Division with the completed application, the documents specified in the application instructions, the application fee, and the fingerprint fee. These are the only fees you are required to pay to have your application processed. The fees may be paid by credit card or in the form of two U.S. POSTAL OR BANK-DRAWN MONEY ORDERS made payable to the New York City Police Department, CASH IS NOT ACCEPTED. Make sure that you save the receipt for your application fee given to you by the cashier. This receipt is proof of payment and contains your application number, which is required for any subsequent inquiries regarding the status of your application.If you intend to apply for a license related to your employment, profession, or business, you may ask to speak to an application reviewer who will screen your application and documents, and will assist you in determining the type of license you appear to be eligible for. Whether or not you choose to have your application screened by a reviewer, you will have to provide the documentation specified in the application instructions at the time of application submission.After you file your application you will be contacted for an interview and may be required to submit additional documentation. All documents will be examined and evaluated, and all factors will be considered in making the determination as to your qualification for an employment, profession, or business related license.Regardless of the reviewer's recommendation, you may apply for whichever type of license you choose. The screening process is merely an attempt to assist you, and does not affect the final decision regarding your application. You must be twenty-one (21) years of age to apply for a handgun license or rifle/shotgun permit.” As Mr. Wright reviewed the extensive on-line information, he learned that the NYPD classifies handgun licenses into four categories. In the back of his mind Mr. Wright wondered why Nassau County established six categories of handgun licenses and was a little perturbed at the mind-numbing complexity and inconsistency of handgun licensing standards that existed throughout the State.

TYPES OF HANDGUN LICENSES ISSUED BY THE NYPD

PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED while being transported.CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE: This is an unrestricted class of license which permits the carrying of a handgun concealed on the person. It is valid for the business name, address, and handguns listed on the front of the license. It is not transferable to any other person, business, occupation, or address, without the written approval of the commanding officer, license division.LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. The licensee may only carry handguns indicated on the license in accordance with the specific limitations listed thereon. At all other times the weapon must be safeguarded within the confines of the business address listed on the front of the license either concealed on the licensee's person in a proper holster or stored unloaded in a locked safe. SPECIAL CARRY LICENSE: Is valid for the business name, address and handguns listed on the front of this license, only while the licensee has in his possession a valid basic county license issued according to the provisions of article 400 of the N.Y.S. Penal law. Upon the revocation, suspension, or cancellation of the basic license, the special license is rendered void and must be immediately returned to the license division.CARRY GUARD LICENSE: (SECURITY GUARDS, ETC.) Applications for this type of license must be made with the documentation provided by a company's Gun Custodian. It is issued only for the handgun listed on the license. The handgun may be carried only while the licensee is actively engaged in employment for the company whose name appears on the license, and/or while licensee is in transit directly to or from residence and place of employment. At all other times the handgun must be stored unloaded in a locked container, at either the address on the license, or at the employee's legal residence (within the State of New York).Mr. Wright determined that he must obtain an “unrestricted” handgun license if he were to be able to adequately defend his life. The NYPD referred to this type of license as a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.”Mr. Wright relied on his team of experts to assist him. He made it very clear to his this team of experts that he must obtain an unrestricted, concealed handgun carry permit and they were to assist him to that end.Mr. Wright first had to gather information that was required of all applicants, as set forth in the “HANDGUN LICENSING INFORMATION” material. This was set forth cogently and comprehensively on the NYPD website under the heading:

INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL HANDGUN LICENSE APPLICANTS

The application form MUST be typewritten and signed by you. Only the original application form will be accepted. DO NOT SEND A PHOTOCOPY. The application form must be completely filled out and presented by you personally at the License Division. At the time you submit your application, you must furnish the items listed below that are applicable to you. All documents, certificates, licenses, etc., must be submitted in the original. (A copy certified by the issuing agency as true and complete is also acceptable). In addition, a legible photocopy of each item submitted must accompany the original or certified copy. Originals and certified copies will be returned. Your application will not be accepted without the required documents.1. Photographs: Two (2) passport size color photographs of you taken within the past thirty (30) days are required. They should show you from the chest up. The wearing of any article of clothing or adornment that obscures identification is not permitted.2. Birth Certificate: In lieu of your birth certificate, some other proof of your birth date, e.g., a military record, U.S. passport or baptismal certificate must be submitted. You must be twenty-one (21) years of age to apply for a handgun license or rifle/shotgun permit.3. Proof of Citizenship/Alien Registration: If you were born outside the United States, you must submit your naturalization papers or evidence of citizenship if derived from your parents. All other applicants born outside the United States must submit their Alien Registration Card. If you have lived in this country less than 7 years you must submit a good conduct certificate, or equivalent, from your country of origin and two (2) letters of reference that certify to your good character. 4. Military Discharge: If you served in the armed forces of the United States, you must submit your separation papers (DD 214) and your discharge.5. Proof of Residence: You must submit proof of your present address. Proof may consist of, but is not limited to, a real estate tax bill, ownership shares in a cooperative or condominium, or a lease. You may also be requested to supply further documentation i.e., a New York State Driver's License, a New York State Income Tax Return, or a current utility bill.6. Arrest Information: If you were ever arrested, indicted or summonsed for any reason, other than a parking violation, you must answer "Yes" to question #23 on the handgun license application and submit a certificate of disposition showing the offense and disposition. Also, you must submit a detailed, notarized statement describing the circumstances surrounding each arrest or summons. YOU MUST DO THIS EVEN IF: the case was dismissed, the record was sealed or the case was nullified by operation of law. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services will report to us every instance involving the criminal prosecution of an applicant. DO NOT rely on anyone's representation that you need not list a previous arrest or summons.If you were ever convicted or pled guilty to a felony offense or a serious offense, as defined in Penal Law Section 265.00(17), an original Certificate of Relief of Disabilities, must be submitted.6a. Order of Protection: If you have ever had an Order of Protection issued against you, or issued on your behalf against anyone, you must list the following information: Court of Issuance, Date of Issuance, Complainant's name, address and phone number, Complainant's relationship to you, and reason for issuance of Order of Protection.7. Proof of Business Ownership: If you are making application for a carry or premises license for use in connection with a business, you must submit proof of ownership for that business. Such proof must clearly state the names of the owner(s), or, if a corporation, the names of the corporate officers. A Corporation must submit its corporate book to include filing receipt, certificate of incorporation and minutes of the corporate meeting reflecting current corporate officers; others must provide their business certificate or partnership agreement, whichever is applicable. If the business requires a license or permit from any government agency, e.g., alcohol or firearms sales, gunsmith, private investigation and guard agencies, you must submit the license or permit or a certified copy thereof. You must also submit proof of address for the business. Proof may consist of a utility bill, not more than 60 days old, in the name of the business or a lease in the name of the business.8. Letter of Necessity: All applicants for a carry license and those seeking a premises license for use in connection with their employment MUST complete the Letter of Necessity found on page 3 of the application. NO SUBSTITUTES WILL BE ACCEPTED. 9. Social Security Card: All persons filing applications must bring their original Social Security cards with them to the License Division when applying for a license.”Mr. Wright then reviewed the last section, titled, aptly and succinctly enough: FEES “The application fee is $340.00.Please note that effective March 19, 2012, the fingerprint fee is $91.50 for all applicants. Due to a decrease in the charge for FBI electronic civil fingerprint submissions, the fee for fingerprints will be $89.75 effective February 1, 2015.These fees may be paid by credit card or by two separate money orders made payable to the New York City Police Department. ALL FEES ARE NON-REFUNDABLEIf you have any questions concerning your application, please call (646) 610-5560. Applications must submitted in person at the License Division, 1 Police Plaza, Room 110, or the Rifle and Shotgun Section, 120-55 Queens Boulevard, Room B-11, Kew Gardens, NY. You may submit your application between the hours of 8:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. It takes approximately 45 minutes to process an application. Please arrive early enough to complete the application process by closing time.Mr. Wright was not deterred by the fees although, as a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights in general and of the Second Amendment in particular, he was more than a little annoyed at the fact that he had to pay fees to the New York City Police Department in order to be able to exercise a basic right, guaranteed to him under the U.S. Constitution. And, Mr. Wright was aware that many New York residents are not wealthy by any means, and the expenditure of over $400.00 to acquire a license – expenses apart from the cost of a firearm itself and other assorted items – could very well preclude many law-abiding New York residents from exercising what the Founders of the Republic insisted to be a fundamental right. Indeed, when one factors in the cost of a semi-automatic handgun, as produced by a respectable manufacturer, and the costs of a quality holster, ammunition, trigger-lock, gun box or gun safety cabinet, cleaning kit, membership at a gun range, and NRA gun safety training course, the cost of NYPD filing fees is, in fact, a very small, although not insignificant, portion of the entire monetary outlay.And, in Mr. Wright’s case, since he was intent on securing an unrestricted business carry license – that is extremely difficult to obtain, necessitating the services of attorneys and other specialists – Mr. Wright was well aware that he would have to spend thousands of dollars on professional fees if he were to have a reasonable chance of obtaining his much sought-after unrestricted New York City “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.”Many New York residents learn to their dismay, after much time, money, and effort expended to obtain a license – even a basic “PREMISES LICENSE” – that no handgun license will be issued if, as determined by the License Division of the NYPD, there is any blemish on a person’s record. And, filing fees are not refundable. And, if that is the case, and if a person is intent on obtaining a handgun license, then even the less well-heeled New York resident realizes that he or she will need to secure the services of professionals to handle the administrative and judicial appeals – time-consuming and costly processes and ordeals in their own right.Mr. Wright was less vexed by the monetary outlay – substantial though it was – than he was exasperated by the sheer volume of documentation that he had to gather together and provide the NYPD since acquisition of a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” requires the amassing of substantial documentation about Mr. Wright’s business – an inordinate amount of documentation, far beyond the documentation required of an applicant who seeks to secure or who might only be able to secure a restricted, “PREMISES LICENSE.” And, Mr. Wright was not pleased that massive amounts of proprietary business information would now fall outside his control and purview. He had to trust the NYPD to keep his information secure.

THE MATERIAL THAT MR. WRIGHT NEEDED TO AMASS AND TO DELIVER TO THE NYPD

Mr. Wright downloaded the application form that was provided on the NYPD website. There were the usual questions he had seen before when he completed the Nassau County Police Department handgun license application. There were questions pertaining to military service, questions pertaining to use of narcotics, questions pertaining to arrest record, mental health, and whether the applicant had ever suffered from a disability that might affect one’s ability to handle a handgun. In particular the NYPD handgun application required the applicant to state affirmatively whether the applicant suffers from epilepsy, diabetes, fainting spells, blackouts, loss of memory, or any nervous disorder. And, recently, the NYPD application has added a new category – apparently operating as a disqualification for issuance of a handgun license – involving orders of protection and there were several questions related to the issue of domestic disturbance and domestic violence. Mr. Wright, fortunately, was able, honestly, to respond in the negative to any question that might operate as a basis for disqualification for any kind of handgun license. But, there was more, much more, to the application process.Mr. Wright came to a section of the Application, titled, “ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR CARRY LICENSE APPLICANTS,” sub-titled, “LETTER OF NECESSITY.” This section was targeted to those applicants, who, like Mr. Wright, were applying specifically for a concealed handgun carry license. The first question set forth, “All applicants for a carry license for use in connection with a business or profession must answer the following questions in the space provided. If additional space is necessary continue your letter on reverse side. In ALL CASES the form provided must be used.” The applicant for a concealed handgun carry license, whether for a restricted or unrestricted carry license has to set forth, “a detailed description of the applicant’s employment and an explanation of why the employment requires the carrying of a concealed handgun.” Now this question is tricky. What the NYPD is looking for – although the rationale for a carry license is unstated – is whether the applicant for a concealed handgun license can distinguish himself or herself from others. But, only experienced experts would know this. In other words, apart from the fact that any individual can be assaulted at any time and in any place, Mr. Wright had to explain, to the satisfaction of the Licensing Officer, why Mr. Wright felt that his life and well-being were more likely to be jeopardized on any given day that was the life of any other New York resident – and, more to the point, Mr. Wright had to explain why he felt that he was more exposed to danger from assault or robbery than any other New York businessman.Mr. Wright’s team of experts knew that, as a necessary condition for the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license, Mr. Wright would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NYPD License Division Officer, that he can adequately distinguish himself from the countless others who do business in New York. This translates into the manner in which Mr. Wright conducts his business. Now, the nature of Mr. Wright’s business requires him to collect, carry, and transport substantial sums of money and other negotiable instruments throughout the City of New York and to and from banks. Doing so places his life in jeopardy in an uncommon way, as he is a tempting target for robbery – no less so than is the case for those private security individuals who work for companies that collect, transport, guard, and deliver cash to and from businesses. This fact, Mr. Wright had to make poignantly clear to the NYPD License Division Officer who would be reviewing his application for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” Mr. Wright’s team of experts would assist him in drafting the “LETTER OF NECESSITY.”Lastly, the application for a concealed handgun carry license required Mr. Wright to provide recent sales tax reports and Federal and New York State Tax returns for the previous year, and daily bank deposit slips and corresponding bank statements for the preceding six months from the date set for an interview with an NYPD License Division Officer. In addition, Mr. Wright also had to provide payroll information and employee withholding taxes; Mr. Wright’s Company workers’ compensation policy; and, as well, Mr. Wright had to provide valid local, State and federal licenses, permits, and certificates that were required in order to conduct business.Given the sheer volume of information that Mr. Wright had to compile, collate, and copy for the NYPD License Division Officer who would be conducting the interview and assessing the merits of his application for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” Mr. Wright realized that the task of obtaining that license was a major business project in its own right, requiring Mr. Wright to expend an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy that might have been better spent on the running of a huge business enterprise. Mr. Wright could and did delegate some of the work in gathering together the necessary documentation to trusted people inside his Company. But, Mr. Wright had to coordinate what became a massive undertaking effort and he had to ascertain that all necessary documentation was gathered, copied, and collated so that no documentation was missing once he met with the NYPD License Division Officer. And, throughout this massive undertaking, Mr. Wright was guided constantly by his team of experts.Once all the documentation that the NYPD License Division Officer required had been compiled, and a date had been set for the interview, Mr. Wright had to cart that documentation over to the NYPD. And, that, itself, was no easy task, as the documentation would easily fill a few large filing cabinets. Mr. Wright’s team of experts warned Mr. Wright that the NYPD License Division Officer, in his sole discretion, might require yet other documentation in support of his application for a concealed handgun carry license. So, Mr. Wright could never be certain that the information required of him, as set forth in the application forms, would be sufficient. As it turned out, the NYPD License Division Officer, who was conducting the interview, pointed out to Mr. Wright that he would need to see Mr. Wright’s corporate books. So, Mr. Wright had to make arrangements to meet with the Officer once again to provide the necessary corporate books for the Officer to review.At the end of the day the sum total of proprietary information that Mr. Wright was required to produce at the request of the NYPD License Division Officer was not unlike the vast reams of information attorneys might request of each other when undertaking discovery on behalf of their respective clients in a complex legal case.Approximately, six months from the date that Mr. Wright first sought to obtain an unrestricted, “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” Mr. Wright was issued his much sought after “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” Mr. Wright was contacted by the License Division. And, he would have to come down to the License Division to obtain his license. New York Police Department policy required Mr. Wright to personally arrive at the License Division within 30 days of notification that his "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" was available. Failure to pick up his license within the 30 day window would result in automatic cancellation of his license. To the best of our knowledge and belief that 30 day window to pick up one's license is still in effect. After Mr. Wright picked up his license, he was told that he has thirty days, counting from the date that he received his license in hand, to purchase a handgun. And, the purchase of a handgun must be made through a licensed New York dealer of firearms or, otherwise, by some other party through special instructions from the License Division. The "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," constituted a "NOTICE OF APPROVAL" to purchase one handgun Once Mr. Wright purchased his handgun, he had 72 hours from the point in time that he made his purchase to, once again, travel to the main headquarters of the NYPD, at One Police Plaza, where he had first met with an  License Division Officer, to have the gun inspected. Mr. Wright could not carry that handgun on his person. Because, at this point in time, he still did not have authorization to carry a handgun on his person, concealed or open. But, he had to bring the handgun down to One Police Plaza, unloaded, in a locked box, without ammunition on his person, and the handgun had to be equipped with trigger-locking device. The NYPD licensing officer would then inspect the handgun and the make, model, type, caliber, and serial number would all be recorded on the license. Mr. Wright was aware that the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" is not Mr. Wright's by right, but only by privilege, granted to him by the NYPD, and therefore revocable by the NYPD at any time. In fact, language on the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" itself makes this point poignantly clear: "This license is revocable at any time. Upon demand of a police officer, a licensee must immediately surrender his/her license and handguns. Lost, stolen, confiscated, or surrendered handguns must be reported to the License Division immediately at 646-610-5560 or 646-610-5154." As a holder of an unrestricted, "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," Mr. Wright might possibly possess, but at the sole discretion of the NYPD, a second handgun. If the NYPD permitted Mr. Wright to possess a second handgun, he would, once again, have to travel to One Police Plaza to obtain, from the License Division, a "PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION FORM," setting forth the make, model, type, and caliber of the handgun that he wished to purchase and possess. And, once again, after Mr. Wright obtained that second firearm, he would have to return to One Police Plaza to have the handgun inspected. He would have to be very careful that, once again, as well, the handgun was secured in a locked-box, sans ammunition and he must not have ammunition anywhere on his person, and the handgun must also be secured with a trigger lock. Details concerning the make, model, type, caliber, and serial number would all be duly recorded on the carry license.For those New York residents who hold a valid, "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," only one handgun is permitted on the license. That is not to mean that a holder of either an unrestricted, "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," or holder of a restricted, "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," cannot lawfully possess other handguns. But, such other handguns that a licensee might happen to possess would have to be listed on another handgun license. For example, if Mr. Wright sought to obtain one or two additional handguns, other than those two listed on his license, he would have to secure another type of New York handgun license, namely and specifically, a "PREMISES LICENSE." And any additional handguns that Mr. Wright happened to own and possess could not lawfully be used for concealed carry. those handguns and only those handguns that appear on Mr. Wright's "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" may be lawfully carried concealed in public, for the purpose for which the license was issued. If Mr. Wright happened to carry a handgun that was not specifically listed on his license, Mr. Wright's license would be summarily revoked and he would likely face criminal charges, as well, for unlawful possession of a firearm. Also, even if Mr. Wright has two handguns listed on his "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," he is only permitted to carry one of them at a time. He cannot legally carry both handguns. This limitation does not, of course, apply to current, active-duty NYPD Officers, who are governed by NYPD policy affecting active-duty NYPD Officers and not by License Division policy that affects civilian handgun licensees.With his license in hand, Mr. Wright then went to a New York licensed gun dealer and purchased his handgun, trigger lock, ammunition, and other handgun accessories. Mr. Wright was also aware that his handgun license would have to be renewed every three years; that he was responsible for the renewal of his license every three years; and that the process was not automatic. He would have to prove, to the satisfaction of the NYPD License Division Officer, that he has a continued need for a "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," and this would necessitate the submission of documentation similar to what he had to submit during the initial application. Nothing can change in regard to Mr. Wright's business. In fact, if the NYPD License Division Officer determined that the nature of Mr. Wright’s business had changed, to the extent that Mr. Wright's “LETTER OF NECESSITY” no longer supported his singular need for a “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” then that license would be cancelled. Moreover, the onus on maintaining his license was on Mr. Wright, himself. If Mr. Wright did not timely renew his “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE,” the license would be automatically cancelled, and then revoked. And the renewal fee was not insignificant. It is $340.00, valid for three years. Mr. Wright kept his team of experts employed for the specific purpose of making sure that his “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” would not be cancelled for failure to timely renew.

PARENTHETICAL NOTE CONCERNING APPLICATIONS FOR HANDGUN LICENSES IN NEW YORK CITY

Today, unlike the period of time when Mr. Wright applied for and obtained his NYPD issued “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," the NYPD License Division doesn’t issue an unrestricted concealed carry license immediately. Instead, the License Division issues only a “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE.” This is a restricted license that allows the licensee to carry a handgun concealed only at particular times and on specific days. The issuance of a restricted “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE” in lieu of issuance of an unrestricted FULL “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" is, of late, a matter of policy. It appears that the creation of the "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" by the NYPD is a manifestation of the desire by politicians to curtail civilian ownership and possession of concealed handgun carry licenses to the extent possible. Clearly, in the running of a business that requires a proprietor to carry substantial sums of money or other negotiable instruments, circumstances may require that proprietor to transport negotiable instruments on days and at times other than those listed on the "LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE." Be that as it may, that proprietor is not permitted to carry his handgun on his person.Currently, the NYPD policy will issue, during the initial application for a concealed handgun carry license, only limited “LIMITED CARRY BUSINESS LICENSES,” assuming a businessman is qualified to possess a firearm at all and assuming, too, that the businessman can distinguish himself or herself, in the "LETTER OF NECESSITY," from other businessmen who do not have handguns accessible to them for self-defense. Through time the NYPD License Division will consider the issuance of a FULL “CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE," assuming the licensee’s stated “LETTER OF NECESSITY” has not changed and to the extent that the licensee has demonstrated responsible handling and safeguarding of the licensee’s handgun and to the extent that the licensee has shown that he or she has successfully completed a certified handgun safety training course. In other words, the licensee must demonstrably establish a track record of proven ability and responsibility in the safe handling and safeguarding of a handgun, consistent with continuous proof of need for a handgun.Curiously, in many other States that issue concealed handgun carry licenses -- and they don't create odd distinctions between restricted and unrestricted "full carry" handgun licenses -- the applicant must take and pass a certified handgun safety training course before the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. That isn’t the case in New York. First, one has to have an unblemished record – free of any arrest record or mental health issue and that person must show that he or she is not subject to a protective order – and, second, the applicant must show especial need for the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license that sets that businessman apart from other New York business people, as explained supra, and third, the applicant must provide voluminous documentation to support the claim of especial need, which means exposing massive amounts of proprietary information to the police.

FURTHER TO MR. WRIGHT’S EXPERIENCES IN APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

This is not the end of the story. It is just the beginning. Since Mr. Wright does business throughout the Country, he realized that the time, money, energy spent on securing a New York City "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" would be of little value in most other States. Thus, the effort expended to obtain the two licenses that he now had – a “TARGET/HUNTING LICENSE” issued by the Nassau County Police Department, and the "CARRY BUSINESS LICENSE" issued by the New York City Police Department, would be of no value to him in virtually any other State he happened to travel to and through as he conducted business. Mr. Wright would need to obtain concealed a handgun carry licenses in virtually every other State he did business in if he were to best protect his life and well-being.Mr. Wright's journey through the Labyrinthine quagmire of State concealed handgun carry licensing would never be an easy one.In the next installment we discuss the application procedure for obtaining an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license as issued by the police authority for the State of Maine.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2015 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATES BRAZENLY ATTACK SECOND AMENDMENT DURING DEBATE

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

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.