THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE ANTIGUN MOVEMENT

The ultimate goal of the antigun movement is this: the universal elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and possession. This is true and incontrovertible. Everything the antigun movement does is directed to the attainment of that goal. Nothing the antigun movement does diverges from the path to that goal. When asked to admit the truth of the assertion, the antigun movement, and its sounding board, the mainstream corporate media, will deny it, curtly and vehemently. But, the antigun movement’s actions belie its blunt denial.Realization of the movement’s goal amounts to de facto repeal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms – a right expressed clearly and cogently, succinctly and indelibly, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, if there exist any residual doubt as to the import of that right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid such doubt to rest in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.In Heller the Supreme Court held: “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This right, the high Court maintains, operates as a constraint on the federal government. The question subsequently arose, in McDonald, whether the Heller holding applies to the States as well. The high Court held that it did, asserting, clearly, categorically, unequivocally, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”Still, the antigun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings. The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following: one, no one needs a gun because the police will protect you; two, curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents; three, civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them; four, since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession; and, five, the Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either. These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.The antigun movement does not recognize the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, which is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. Rather, the antigun movement sees each individual American as a random bit of unharmonious energy, running hither and yon – an individual who is likely to harm self or others unless appropriately constrained for his or her own good and for the good of the greater society. A firearm in the hands of a civilian lessens government’s ability to control that individual. Ergo, the government must keep the two – firearm and individual – separated. What NRA works to keep conjoined, antigun groups wish to sever and keep disjoined.As the antigun movement works incessantly, inexorably toward its ultimate goal, the movement invariably butts up against the NRA, which the movement routinely and pejoratively refers to as the “gun lobby.” But, the antigun movement refrains from referring to itself as the “antigun lobby.” Now, lobbying activities are protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and NRA is open about its lobbying efforts on behalf of its millions of members. Yet the antigun movement cloak’s its own lobbying activities and blatantly panders to the U.S. President. President Obama, for his part, has not shied away from using the power of his Office to further the agenda of the antigun movement through issuance of executive actions, and he has formally announced, in January of 2016, his intention to do so.Now, Congress, under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, has sole authority to make law. The question is whether Obama’s antigun measures operate within the framework of existing Congressional firearms laws, as he claims, or operate beyond the boundaries of existing law. That Congress might obtain some resolution of that question, U.S. Senator Richard C. Shelby, R-Ala., Chairman of the Subcommittee On Commerce, Justice and Science, requested Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appear at a hearing, held on January 20, 2016, to discuss the President’s recent executive actions.Senator Shelby made abundantly clear that the President does not have the authority to tell Congress what it must do. But the President has done just that, using the mechanism of executive directives, crafted by the Attorney General, herself, to conduct an “end-run” around Congress. The President isn’t asking Congress and the American people for permission to do what he wants to do. He is telling Congress and the American people what he’s going to do and cajoling both Congress and the American people to get on board with his game plan. That is extreme hubris.If the antigun movement is able to harness the Office of the President to craft its own laws to further a personal agenda, in defiance of both Congressional legislation and U.S. Supreme Court decision, then the Constitution is belittled and the Republic is endangered.[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.

NRA: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’S VOICE

Antigun Groups Curry Favor with the President to Further Personal Agenda and to Attack the NRA

Nothing speaks more clearly and cogently of the duplicity and hypocrisy existent in Obama’s efforts to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms than the personal attacks he levels against NRA. The singular aim of NRA is nothing less than defense of the inalienable, natural, and fundamental right to keep and bear arms – clearly and cogently articulated and codified in the Bill of Rights, as the second of ten critical, enumerated rights.We all know that the President and the various antigun interest groups habitually refer to NRA, disparagingly, as the “Gun Lobby.” They do this to suggest that NRA represents a small, select interest group, namely, gun manufacturers, whose singular objective is to make money from the sale of firearms. If true, NRA would be a “trade” group. Now, trade groups, on behalf of their members, do lobby Congress. And, there is nothing wrong with that. But, NRA is not a trade group.Although firearms’ manufacturers – which, by the way have their own trade groups – may benefit tangentially from the efforts of NRA to secure the sacred right of people to keep and bear arms, NRA does not represent gun manufacturers, and NRA is not an organization that comprises gun manufacturers. To the contrary, NRA is composed of American citizens – millions of Americans. Americans do not become members of NRA because they are interested in making money off NRA’s efforts. Americans become members of NRA because they know the United States will not long stand as a free republic if the right of each American to keep and bear firearms is curtailed. NRA is one organization that embodies and engenders the spirit of America as a free republic.The salient purpose of the NRA is to protect and preserve, for Americans the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It works on behalf of its members, certainly, but, in fact, it works on behalf of all Americans who cherish their Bill of Rights.NRA does lobby on behalf of its members, just as the antigun interest groups lobby on behalf of their members, although the antigun groups’ members amount to a miniscule fraction of Americans. Moreover, unlike the antigun groups that are essentially nothing more than a lobbying vehicle for those individuals and cabals both here and abroad who wish to erode the Bill of Rights and to destroy the Second Amendment, NRA is much more than a lobby group.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the many services NRA provides for average Americans, law enforcement, and, traditionally, for the U.S. military. Readers are invited to read the Arbalest Quarrel's extensive article on the history of the NRA, posted on April 8, 2015.President Obama and Hillary Clinton and the antigun groups attack the lobbying efforts of NRA. But, there is nothing wrong in the act of lobbying, per se. Lobbying is an activity protected under the First Amendment. And, it would hardly do for the antigun forces in this Country to attack the NRA on the ground that NRA's lobbying efforts are wrongly directed to defending and preserving one of America’s inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights, especially in light of the lobbying efforts of the antigun groups that are directed to attaining the opposite end – the tearing down of a sacred right that the founders of a free republic gave to us. And it would hardly do for antigun groups to attack the NRA's defense of the Second Amendment when those same antigun forces openly declare, albeit disingenuously, that they do not wish to tear down the Second Amendment, when they seek to do just that. For, if they were serious in their assertions and declarations that they do in fact support the Second Amendment, then they would not be continuously, endlessly, and vociferously attacking NRA. That they do incessantly attack NRA, their hypocrisy and duplicity is glaringly obvious for all to see.At the behest of the President and at the behest of the antigun groups the mainstream media argues, emphatically, but falsely, that NRA represents and conducts lobbying activities on behalf of firearms' manufacturers, whose interests, the selling of firearms, play well to the ignorant among America’s populace who are conditioned, through the power of the mainstream media, to equate guns solely with violence – that is to say – with nothing good, even as that violence, as everyone knows, is produced, not by the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners but, rather by a notably few, the very worst who live among us – namely, career criminals, psychopathic gang members -- many of whom have entered and remain in the U.S. illegally -- assorted lunatics and, of late, radical and radicalized Islamic jihadists.But, it is one thing for antigun groups to attack the NRA, as an organization whose goal it is to preserve the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and to attack, too, those Americans who choose to exercise that right. It is quite another for the President to do so. Why is that? For this reason: when the President of the United States attacks NRA and, by extension, attacks millions of Americans who simply wish to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, the President is, himself, operating as a lobbyist for a specific interest group, at the detriment of the interests of another group. In this instance we see the President, Barack Obama, representing groups whose interests – the destruction of the Second Amendment and the erosion of the other nine Amendments – are at odds with the well-being of a free republic and with the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights.The duplicity and hypocrisy of the President of the United States are obvious and self-evident. President Obama and, before him, President Clinton, have used the power and influence of the Office of the Chief  Executive, to condemn the lobbying efforts of the NRA and, in so, doing, they have played favorites: furthering the dubious interests of those interest groups whose avowed goal is the dismantling of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the undermining of our Bill of Rights.In contradistinction to the underhanded, secretive use of the Office of the President (the Chief Executive of the Nation) by antigun interest groups to further their own nefarious, insidious objectives, NRA’s lobbying efforts have been subject to full disclosure, have been directed to the most honorable of goals – preservation of Americans’ fundamental right to keep and bear arms set forth with specificity in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – and have been directed to securing appropriate legislation through Congress, not through the Office of the President.The right of an interest group to lobby Congress to further that group’s objectives, if those objectives are properly disclosed, is legitimate, fully protected political speech, under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the antigun groups, apart from lobbying Congress to further their own ends – upending the Second Amendment through the Legislative process – have, inappropriately, sought intervention by the Chief Executive, as well -- have, in fact, concentrated their lobbying campaign on the Chief Executive because Congress won't do their bidding. They trust that the Chief Executive will. But that means the Chief Executive is expected to legislate antigun laws on their behalf. And that is monstrous. We see the ludicrousness of President Obama's message to the public: asserting that he must intervene because Congress won't legislate in this area, but then asserting that he isn't making new law but simply operating within the constraints of present Congressional legislation! While an interest group is not prohibited from seeking special favor of, or groveling before, or currying favor from the Chief Executive, such instant and easy access to the President of the United States by one group, to the detriment of others, is fraught with danger especially when this behind-the-scenes actions of noxious special interest groups, namely and specifically, antigun interest groups, furthers goals that are diametrically opposed both to the well-being of a free republic and to the safeguarding of the Bill of Rights upon which a free republic depends for its survival.One must wonder whether President Obama’s recent impermissible promulgation of antigun legislation, through the device of executive directives, was not inspired by, or, more to the point, directed by antigun interest groups. Did not these antigun interest groups – angered by the failure of Congress to extend the parameters of the national instant criminal background check system of the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994” – exert pressure on the President – convincing Obama, who was amenable to their goals anyway, to use the power of his Office to further the antigun agenda along precisely because Congress wouldn’t? And, does not this circumvention of Congress by the antigun interest groups constitute an illegitimate exertion of influence by these groups on the Executive, contrary to and irrespective of the will of the American people? Do not the actions of Obama amount to a compounding of fault, having allowed his Office to be a conduit for illegal law-making?Indeed, one antigun group, “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” has, for decades, attempted to use the power of the Executive to further its own nefarious goals.The Brady Campaign, an antigun lobbying group, had appealed directly to President Carter, in the 1970s, to harass gun owners; and Carter did just that. The Brady Campaign had little success with the Republican Presidents, Reagan and H.W. Bush. But, then, Bill Clinton entered the picture. The Brady Campaign sent a confidential memorandum to the White House, setting out exactly what the Brady Campaign antigun interest and lobbying group wanted from and expected to obtain from Clinton, including, inter alia, licensing requirements and registration for handgun owners, bans on firearms, defined as ‘assault weapons,’ waiting periods, and a required “arsenal license” for anyone who owned 20 firearms or more.The Brady Campaign sought to use the power of the Executive Branch to put pressure on the Legislative Branch to further the interest of a small, virulently antigun segment of the population. Obviously, the Brady Campaign and other antigun groups have been working behind-the-scenes in recent times, as well, to push Obama to accede to their desires. Since Obama harbors anti-Second Amendment, antigun sentiments, anyway, he has been all-to-willing to use the power and influence of his Office to push the agenda of these groups – especially now, as he, in his final year of Office, is no longer afraid of offending Congress.If Hillary Clinton becomes her Party’s nominee and, thereafter, gains the Presidency, her Administration will be essentially an extension of her husband’s previous Administration, and the Brady Campaign and other antigun lobbying groups will continue to exert inappropriate, illegitimate, and, in fact, illegal influence over Hillary Clinton, just as they had exerted such influence over her husband and over Obama.Clinton, as we know, is more than merely amenable to this influence. She will be enthusiastic about using the Office of the Presidency to further the antigun agenda, even as this means by-passing Congress, and notwithstanding that Congress has sole authority to enact the laws of the Land, consistent with its law-making powers under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If Hillary Clinton is successful in securing the Office of President of the United States, Americans will see further erosion of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They will see the continued erosion, too, of the Separation of Powers Doctrine as the Executive Branch amasses ever more power unto itself.You can help prevent Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy to the highest Office of the Land. If you are an NRA member, that is good. If you are a “Life Member” of the NRA, that is even better. America’s interests in preserving the Second Amendment and in preserving, as well, the other Nine Amendments of our Bill of Rights, are enhanced, and the influence exerted by the anti-American, antigun interest groups are, contrariwise, diminished, as NRA accrues more members. We ask that you encourage your family and friends to become members of NRA. And, please do not forget to vote![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.

GUN LAWS THAT DO NOT MAKE SENSE, LITERALLY!

A Critical Look at California's New 'Assault Weapons' Bill and a Comparison and Contrast with New York's 'Assault Weapons' Laws

California is playing the child’s game of “leapfrog” with New York and with other States that enact draconian firearms laws. What do we mean by that? Just this: as one State Legislature drafts and enacts ever more draconian gun laws, the other States follow suit and attempt to do the first State, one better. Let’s see how this plays out.The New York State Legislature in Albany, NY, rewrote the law defining the expression ‘assault weapon.’ The Safe Act became effective on January 15, 2013 and was the de facto model for new antigun laws around the Country. The Safe Act was also the de facto model for Dianne Feinstein’s failed effort to enact a new federal assault weapons’ ban and ammunition ban in 2013. Fortunately, Republicans in Congress and the NRA stopped a federal “Safe Act” in its tracks.The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident that occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut, was the impetus for – actually the pretext for – implementation of new and highly restrictive gun and ammunition bans.Notwithstanding oppressive gun restrictions in New York, the Safe Act further encroached on Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, adding new restrictive provisions to the New York Penal Code and to other Statutory Sections of the Consolidated Laws of New York and making existing gun provisions even harsher.The drafters of the Safe Act aimed to ban ever more types of guns. To make guns bans palatable to the public, the drafters of the Safe Act continued, through the artifice of rhetoric to create the illusion that some firearms were evil. They called these firearms assault weapons.Once a firearm is defined as an ‘assault weapon,’ that firearm becomes, at the stroke of a pen, a “banned weapon.” Under present New York law, specifically, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) and (C), firearms, namely, rifles and pistols that, one, are semiautomatic in operation, two, can accept a detachable magazine and – if the first two necessary conditions are met – then three, if those firearms have at least one of a specific set of features as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) or (C). If all three conditions are met, then, under New York law, those rifles and pistols are, by virtue of a legal fiction, ‘assault weapons,’ and are, therefore, banned weapons.Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B), Shotguns that are, one, semiautomatic in operation and, two, have at least one of a particular set of characteristics as set forth in NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(B) are also ‘assault weapons.’ And the New York Safe Act adds a fourth category of “assault weapons.” Under NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(D), Shotguns that utilize a revolving cylinder are, by definition, also ‘assault weapons’ and therefore banned weapons. We have discussed the legal fiction of 'assault weapons' as constructed by the drafters of the New York Safe Act, at length, in previous articles that appear on this site. See in particular: "Cuomo's NY Safe Act and the notion of 'assault weapon;'" "NY Safe: Looking at the 'assault weapon;'" and, "NY Safe: 'assault weapon' definitions.'"At the moment, typical handguns that utilize a revolving cylinder, and rifles that utilize a revolving cylinder – rare as revolving cylinder rifles  are – are not, under present New York law, defined as ‘assault weapons;’ but who can say what the future holds if antigun legislators, like New York Senator Jeffrey D. Klein, continue to control the politics of gun ownership and possession, and draft ever more onerous and heinous gun laws for law-abiding Americans who happen to reside in New York.Let us now compare the definitions for rifles that are also ‘assault weapons,’ as those definitions appear in both the California Penal Code and the New York Penal Code, because CA A.B. 1663, throws a wrench into the mix, specifically in respect to rifles.In the New York Penal Code rifles that are also assault weapons must, as we have said, be semiautomatic in operation and also be capable of accepting a detachable magazine. These are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled before a weapon can be considered an ‘assault weapon’ in New York. If and only if a rifle is semiautomatic in operation and is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, then NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), says that we look for additional characteristics that a rifle might have if it is to be deemed an ‘assault weapon’ under New York law. So, then, if the rifle has at least one additional characteristic, for example, a second handgrip, or a flash suppressor, or a folding or telescoping stock, or a bayonet mount, then the rifle is, under, NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A), an assault weapon. Otherwise it isn’t.Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), at the moment, reads much like NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A). Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) sets forth three requirements for rifles that are also assault weapons, two, of which, like New York, are necessary conditions that must be fulfilled: one, the rifle must be centerfire semiautomatic in operation, and two, the rifle must have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. If those necessary conditions are met, then we look to see if the rifle has at least one of several listed features such as, inter alia, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, a folding or telescoping stock, or thumbhole stock. If these three conditions are met, the firearm in question is an “assault weapon” and, therefore, a banned weapon under California law. Thus, we see that Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as it presently reads, mirrors NY CLS Penal § 265.00(22)(A) in every critical respect.Even before CA A.B. 1663 was drafted, California “did New York one better.” Under present California law, rifles that are also assault weapons include, under Cal Pen Code 30515(a)(2), “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” Recall, under New York law, rifles that are also assault weapons must be semiautomatic in operation and be capable of accepting a detachable magazine only. So, under present New York law, no rifle is an assault weapon that happens to have a non-detachable, i.e., fixed, magazine. A rifle might have a magazine that can hold 100 rounds of ammunition. If that magazine is fixed to the rifle, that is to say, if that magazine cannot be readily detached from the body of the rifle, the rifle is not an ‘assault weapon’ under present New York law.In California, on the other hand, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), a rifle that has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition is an ‘assault weapon.’ So, in the California Penal Code, unlike the New York Penal Code, a semiautomatic rifle may, under the appropriate circumstances, based on definition, be deemed an assault weapon if the rifle utilizes either a detachable or fixed ammunition magazine.Now, what would CA A.B. 1663 do, if enacted? CA A.B. 1663 modifies Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), which would be amended to read: a rifle is an assault weapon if that weapon is a “semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” Do you understand the meaning of that sentence? Read it again. In fact, read it several times, but don’t be upset if you continue to scratch your head in bewilderment as to the meaning of that sentence; for, the meaning of that sentence isn’t clear to us either.The California legislators, who drafted that sentence – making liberal use of negatives – apparently derive pleasure from torturing the English language as much as they enjoy torturing those California residents and U.S. citizens who choose to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as drafted by the Legislature, is inherently ambiguous. That was obviously the intention of its drafters.Under one interpretation – a more conservative interpretation – a rifle is an assault weapon, in California, if it is a centerfire semiautomatic weapon that can accept a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds. However, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon that can accept a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds of ammunition the magazine might be capable of holding. An argument can be made for either interpretation and, if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted, and thereafter challenged, it will take a court of law to decide which interpretation is correct. You will note, too, something else about the definition of ‘assault weapon’ as promulgated in the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1). In the revised Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), there is something missing. In the original version of that statutory section, a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is not deemed to be an assault weapon, unless it have at least one of several enumerated characteristics. That requirement has been eliminated in the revision.Essentially, the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) – if CA A.B. 1663 is enacted and codified into law – is the obverse of Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2), which reads that a rifle is an assault weapon if it is “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” But, the idea here is that, under a liberal interpretation of the ambiguous sentence – as the new Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1) reads – the number of rounds that a detachable magazine can hold is not decisive or even relevant to the issue whether a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is an assault weapon. So long as a rifle is capable of accepting a detachable  magazine – even if the magazine is capable of holding only one round – that will be sufficient to transform the rifle into an assault weapon, and, therefore, a banned weapon, in California.Let’s distill all of this. So, if CA A.B. 1663, becomes law a rifle is also an assault weapon, and therefore, a banned weapon in California under two scenarios:Under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(1), as amended by CA A.B. 1663, a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic, and it is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, regardless of the number of rounds that the rifle’s detachable magazine may hold (under a liberal interpretation of the amended statute). And, under Cal Pen Code § 30515(a)(2) – the language which remains unchanged – a rifle is an assault weapon if it is a centerfire, semiautomatic and has a fixed magazine that is capable of holding more than ten rounds.In the continuing game of “leapfrog,” antigun forces in the New York Legislature may be, even now, drafting new legislation, redefining and refining the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to “improve upon” California’s 'assault weapons' fetish. If right of the American people to keep and bear arms, as embodied in the Second Amendment, is to survive in the 21^st Century, it is incumbent upon each American to defend that right against the forces intent on destroying it, just as the Second Amendment was, itself, meant to defend the sanctity of each individual law-abiding American. The Second Amendment protects us so long as we protect it. [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.

NRA DIDN’T TAKE THE BAIT AT THE CNN “GUNS IN AMERICA” TOWN HALL MEETING “DE-BATE”

Once the CNN Town Hall meeting, that took place Thursday evening, January 7, 2016, primetime, had concluded, the liberal mainstream media, together with the hordes of sycophantic left-wing web blogs – including, “Forward Progressives,” “Liberals Unite,” “The Daily Beast,” “Addicting Info,” and “the Atlantic Broadband,” to name a few – went immediately to work, on behalf of President Obama, attacking both the Second Amendment and the NRA, chastising and belittling the NRA for having turned down the President’s invitation to take part in the give and take “debate” with the President, at the Town Hall meeting.Of course, had Obama not made mention of the NRA’s failure to attend the Town Hall, the mainstream media and left-wing web blogs would not have even brought the matter up. But, Obama doesn’t say anything unless his utterances have effect. And he meant to poke fun at the NRA for its failure to accept his “invitation” to join in on the conversation.These and other left-wing panderers to Obama and destroyers of our Bill of Rights either cannot understand or otherwise choose not to understand why the NRA has refused to take part in the CNN Town Hall meeting – why, in fact the NRA refused to “debate” Obama. The reason is plain. The CNN Town Hall presentation, featuring Obama was, contrary to the producers’ assertions, an orchestrated event. A handful of individuals stood up, said their piece, and listened intently, while the Commander in Chief of the night’s performance, Obama, lectured, as he is ever wont to do.This staged performance, this carnival, was not a debate and was never intended to be a debate. It was simply a vehicle through which the President might appeal to the American people, explaining why, as he sees it, he must take action because Congress, in Obama’s mind, won’t.The NRA knew, of course, that the entire event was staged and the NRA made the right decision – the only sensible decision it could make under the circumstances. The NRA wasn’t snubbing Obama; nor did the NRA feel any sense of apprehension, contrary to the remarks of the left-wing web blogs.The simple truth is that the NRA had nothing to gain by attending an event that merely served Obama’s political aims – an event where nothing the NRA happened to say would benefit its members – where anything the NRA might say would only be turned against it at an event that was nothing more than a theatrical performance with the President, Barack Obama, cast as the box office star, protagonist, and the NRA cast in the role as the villain, antagonist. But that didn’t stop Obama from poking fun at and attacking the NRA in absentia.Obama asserted at one point: “There’s a reason that the NRA isn’t here. They’re right down the street. You think they’d be prepared to have a debate with the President.” The President might have added – “if in fact I intended for this event to be a true debate. And, there’s the rub. The “Town Hall” event wasn’t a ‘debate’ in the true sense of the word.In this day and age, the word, ‘debate,’ has been so over-used and misused that the public can be forgiven for having forgotten what a real debate is. Obama surely knows what a true debate is and of what a true debate consists. And the NRA knows this as well, and that is why the NRA wasn’t about to take the bait that Obama dangled in front of it. For, the NRA would have been foolish indeed to have done so.A true debate has a highly structured format and takes place, not in a highly charged arena or amphitheater, but often enough in a smaller, and always neutral forum; and each party who takes part in a true debate stands on an equal footing with the other.The CNN Town Hall meeting that took place last Thursday had neither the physical structure associated with a true debate, nor a format that could, under even a loose definition of the term, be considered a true debate. And, the NRA definitely would not have stood on an equal footing with Obama since the NRA would, for its part, only be able to proffer questions to the President, as any other member of the audience would, and the President, Obama, for his part, would then commence to lecture NRA on the way things are and why they must be as Obama sees them.Even the phrase, “Guns in America,” – the identifying title for the night’s performance – carries negative connotations and makes clear to the viewing audience that the salient matter to be addressed that evening involves guns and Americans’ access to them, not the extent to which the Executive Branch of the United States Government seeks to extend its authority over the U.S. Congress and, by extension, over the American people – the more pressing issue, to be sure.The physical stage for the event that took place at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia was constructed to draw the viewer’s  attention to the President. Obama sat in the center of a seemingly circular theater, along with the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper, around which sat one hundred people. If anyone should doubt that the event was to highlight the President – to place him prominently in the limelight of the night’s events – the very positioning of the President, as he sat on a stool, in the “center of the circle,” emphasized his singular importance and the weight that was to be given to anything he might happen to say that evening. The CNN spectacle was not a “debate” in the traditional, formal, sense or, for that matter, in any sense.In a traditional debate there is a policy issue to be resolved. The unstated policy issue here is abstruse, certainly, but of paramount concern to those who hold dear the Bill of Rights: whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall within and do not extend beyond the scope of existing Congressional legislation and therefore amount to the lawful use of the President’s executive authority or, on the other hand, whether the President’s unilateral firearms’ measures, that he intends to undertake through the use of executive directives, fall outside of and extend beyond the parameters of existing Congressional firearms’ legislation and therefore amount to a clear abuse of Presidential authority.Now, as it happened, the President did not remark on what he deemed to be his Constitutional authority to issue executive directives pertaining to firearms’ laws; and those questions posed to him by members of the audience simply reflected the questioner's personal feelings toward and concerns about guns, not about Obama’s use or abuse of executive authority. The questions did not even skirt the salient issue which goes directly to the power the Chief Executive, Barack Obama, would exert to contravene the clear import of the Second Amendment, ostensibly to curb gun violence, through the mechanism of executive directives.In a true debate one party, sitting center-stage, wouldn’t be fielding a set of questions, that were anything but impromptu, from a mere handful of audience members, who had been pre-selected. And, in a true debate, the public would not be compelled to sit through a fireside chat. Rather, in a true debate, there are two equal parties, each of whom takes a position, one pro, to advocate for the position, and one con, to refute the position. Each side presents its arguments according to a set format, during a set period of time. Through it all there are a stringent and clear and cogent set of protocols that each side must adhere to in a true debate.Had this been a real debate, the NRA would probably have agreed to take part in it, even welcomed it. The President and his team members would present their case, advocating for the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives, and the NRA spokespersons would present their case, refuting the lawfulness of the President’s executive directives. A judge, or an audience would thereafter decide who presented the most convincing argument. That, in essence, is the structure of a true debate. And, a true debate takes place in a fair, impartial, neutral forum. The audience would not be taking an active part in presenting argument but would dutifully listen to each side’s presentation of facts, logical arguments and, yes, emotional rhetoric. That would be something the American people deserve. That is something the American people might reasonably expect. Sadly, that is rarely how issues are ever presented to the public.President Obama, through the power of his Office, and through support from the mainstream media, is not really interested in hearing the views of those members of the public who believe strongly in the import and purport of the Bill of Rights, and who believe strongly in the Separation of Powers Doctrine, other than to discount such views out-of-hand or to belittle them, or, as was the case with the Town Hall meeting, to pretend that he, President Obama, understands and really cares what anyone who supports the right of the American people to keep and bear arms has to say. So, the NRA did well to avoid making an appearance at the staged CNN event. It would have been impossible for spokespersons for the NRA to be on an equal footing with President Obama at this non-debate, anyway.[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 DEMOCRATIC PARTY DEBATE THAT WASN’T

On December 19, 2015, on Saturday night, the week before Christmas, when vast numbers of Americans are out and about, the Democratic Party held its last “debate” of the year, hosted by ABC News. If you missed it, you weren’t alone. The Democratic Party bigwigs obviously don’t want Americans to see it – hence, the reason for holding it on a weekend night, and the New York Times didn’t even bother to report on it. Take a look at the Sunday, December 20, 2015, print edition of the NY Times; you will find nothing about it.The “debate,” which took place in what appeared to be a small lecture hall at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, was filled with a handful of the Party faithful. Hillary Clinton, grinning, as always, but not smiling, looked as if she would rather be somewhere else. She did her best, as always, to avoid answering pointed questions. Her responses invariably carried the message: if I am elected your President, you can rely on me! Two of the salient issues covered during this debate concerned the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremism, and, one of the Democratic Party’s favorite subject: gun control.So, where does Clinton stand on threats to the Nation posed by Islamic extremists and on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms in their own defense? Since Clinton has a lock on the Democratic Party, her responses to last night’s debate, give some clue of what a Clinton Presidency would look like.The ABC news moderator, David Muir, established the setting for the first set of questions, directed to Clinton, Sanders, and O’Malley. They concerned the San Bernardino incident. As Muir pointed out, that incident, is deemed to be an act of terrorism, as acknowledged by Obama, who had said, dubiously, just before Thanksgiving, that there was no credible intelligence, indicating a plot on America. Muir pointed out that the couple who had committed the act of terrorism on U.S. soil had assembled an arsenal, were not on law enforcement’s radar, were completely undetected by intelligence and yet, for all that, just before Christmas, Obama is again telling the American people that no credible terrorist threat exists against America. That remark is inconsistent with the reality of the fact of an Islamic terrorist attack on our land. Therefore Obama’s remarks are altogether inexplicable.Muir asked Clinton to respond to how confident Americans should be, in spite of, or, perhaps, precisely, because of Obama’s remarks, that there aren’t other such couples in the U.S. who are as yet going undetected, and how Clinton would go about finding them. Clinton responded as she usually does, by evading the question and interjecting empty feel-good pronouncements. She said that her job is to keep America safe and to keep the families of America safe and that she has a plan to go after the Islamic State. That, of course, is all well and good. But, what would she actually do to keep Americans safe in this Country? She said only that she would work with Muslims in this Country who would be “our early warning system” and that she would rely on them to learn what they are doing about dealing with the radicalization of Muslims.Clinton intimated that technology companies must work with government. What she meant by that, as she clarified her remarks, later in the debate, is that technology companies must be willing to give up their encryption keys to government. This of course weakens our Fourth Amendment right to privacy and opens Americans’ computers to hackers both here in this Country and abroad.Martha Raddatz, the second ABC news moderator, pointed out to Clinton that, in the wake of the San Bernardino attack, Clinton has emphasized gun control but that in recent ABC poll most Americans now feel that arming themselves, rather than stricter gun laws is the best defense against acts of terrorism. Raddatz pointedly asked Clinton, “are they wrong?” Clinton responded, with her wry smile, that you have to look at the role that terrorism plays at home and abroad, “and the role that guns play in delivering the violence that stalks us.” Clinton then went off on a tangent talking about the need to build a coalition at home and abroad to take on the "Islamic State."Raddatz then brought Clinton back to the question at hand, asking Clinton, “can we stick to the question about gun control? Clinton responded: “Guns in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer. Arming more people . . . I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism.” Applause from the peanut gallery. “I think what is, is creating much deeper, closer relations, and, yes, coalitions, within our own Country. The first line of defense against radicalization, according to Clinton, is in the American Muslim community. People we should be welcoming and working with.” Clinton then goes into a diatribe against the Republican Party generally and Donald Trump in particular. Clinton begs the question when she says that the Republicans are sending the wrong message that there is a clash of civilizations. Perhaps, there is just that: a clash of civilizations. Certainly, from the standpoint of Islamic State, there is a clash of civilizations. And, we would do well to consider the problem posed by Islamic State as just that serious. Clinton ends her response, with this: “guns have to be looked at as their own problem, but we also have to look at how we are going to deal with radicalization here in the United States.”Guns, in the minds of both Clinton and Obama are seen as a broader problem that encapsulates terrorism. Thus, Clinton speaks of the San Bernardino attack on innocent Americans, not as an act of Islamic terrorism but, rather, as a gun issue. The killers are described as “shooters,” not “terrorists.” Thus, Clinton places emphasis on the weapon used in the attack, rather than emphasizing the reason for the attack. She therefore places Americans in danger of further attack by Islamic radicals, for she absolutely refuses to consider that more armed Americans would best forestall such attacks.  And, there you have it. Clinton says, not only that guns serve no purpose as tenable means of self-defense, but that they present their own “problem.” And, as for Islamist radicalization, her answer to lone-wolf acts of terrorism is that Americans should simply rely on the Muslim community, who harbor them, to turn them in to the authorities.What can Americans expect from a Clinton Presidency? Just this: one, further erosion of the Fourth Amendment right of Americans to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; two, erosion of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, out of fear of retribution from Islamic extremists and to spread the gospel of “political correctness;” and, three, destruction of the Second Amendment because ownership and possession of firearms in this Country is to be perceived not as a fundamental right but simply as a problem.We have a question for each of the candidates from either party: “If you were given carte blanc, to rewrite any one or more Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, would you desire to do so? And, if so, how would each of the Amendments, that happen to remain, if any, read? We would especially like to see Clinton’s honest response 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.

OBAMA: JUMPING THE GUN!

Obama's Executive Action Not Only Unlawfully Expands Federal Law, But Operates To Convert Private Sellers Of Guns Into Gun Dealers

President Barack Obama claims that his executive action, using the mechanism of executive orders to expand gun background checks, falls within his lawful authority. But does it? For all his pontificating at the CNN Town Hall Meeting, televised on Thursday, primetime, that one remark, stated and reiterated during the Town Hall Meeting, is deserving of close consideration and dissection because, if Obama is wrong, then we can dispense with any further discussion of the purported merits of his antigun agenda.We begin with one incontrovertible fact. The very use of executive orders is fraught with peril because the President is essentially making law, not executing law. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that all legislative functions rest with Congress. The making of law does not rest with the President. The President’s duty is not to make law but to execute the laws that Congress makes.In accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution the President, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This means that the Chief Executive has no authority to tell Congress what Congress must do. But that is precisely what the Chief Executive, Obama, does when he issues an executive decree. He is in fact saying to Congress: “you haven’t done what I want you to do, so I will take action myself.” Well, Congress doesn’t work for the President of the United States. Congress works for the American People. If Congress doesn’t legislate in the manner that the President wishes, or if Congress fails to legislate at all in an area that the President wants, that failure to legislate is not lawful grounds for the President to do so. But, that is precisely what the President is doing here.One of the four key features of the antigun executive orders President Barack Obama plans to issue in the coming days or weeks pertains to expansive gun background checks. President Obama has set forth his intentions in his “Fact Sheet” what he intends to do. Just a few of the significant ways in which Obama is taking aim at Congress and at the Second Amendment involves gun sales. Through his executive orders he intends to:“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks. Background checks have been shown to keep guns out of the wrong hands, but too many gun sales—particularly online and at gun shows—occur without basic background checks. Today, the Administration took action to ensure that anyone who is ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms is licensed and conducts background checks on their customers. Consistent with court rulings on this issue, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has clarified the following principles: A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is ‘engaged in the business.’ For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.”Is Obama saying that anyone who sells a firearm is ipso facto a ‘dealer of firearms’ and, therefore, according to Obama, 'in the business of selling firearms?' It would seem so. For, Obama has not clarified what it means to be in the business of selling firearms but, rather, has muddied the waters. Both in the above Fact Sheet and at the Town Hall meeting, Obama fails to clarify what it means to be a “gun dealer” and what it means for a person to be “in the business of selling firearms.” And, this is clearly intentional. Obama sees anyone, who sells or transfers a gun, is a “gun dealer” – that is to say, “a person who is in the business of selling firearms.” But, are these expressions truly nebulous? Not at all!Contrary to what Obama would have the American public believe, the phrases, ‘dealer in firearms,’ and, ‘in the business of selling firearms,’ are not subject to myriad definitions, dependent upon the personal whim of the President. They are legal terms of art, specifically defined in law by Congress. They are not subject to tweaking by the President.Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11), “The term ‘dealer’ means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term ‘licensed dealer’ means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 921 et seq].”Case law further clarifies the meaning of ‘dealer in firearms’ and ‘in the business of selling firearms.’ In the annotated notes of the U.S. Code, there are several cases that clarify the meaning of these important expressions. See, e.g. United States vs. Fifty two Firearms, 362 F. Supp. 2d (MD Fla. 2005). A “person is ‘engaged in the business of selling firearms’ at wholesale or retail’ under 18 USCS § 921(a)(21)(C)  if that person devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as regular course of trade or business with principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such person does not include person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for enhancement of personal collection or for hobby, or who sells all or part of that person's personal collection of firearms.” And, in United States vs. Masters (CA4 SC 1980), the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said, “For defendant to be ‘dealer’ within meaning of 18 USCS § 921, there must be willingness on defendant's part to deal, profit motive and greater degree of activity than occasional sales by hobbyist; defendant's primary business need not be dealing in firearms nor need he necessarily make profit from such dealings; showing that defendant had guns on hand or was ready and able to procure them and sell them to such persons as might accept them is sufficient to establish defendant as ‘dealer’.”Obama wishes to make anyone who sells a firearm into a “dealer of firearms.” In so doing, he would make it a crime for a person, even the occasional "hobbyist," to lawfully sell or, for that matter, even to give away a firearm to another person, if the transferee does not have an "FFL." And, in so doing, Obama wishes to do away with the very possibility of a "private sale" or, for that matter, even a "private transfer" of a firearm that does not amount to a sale or trade in and of firearms. He cannot lawfully do this because that amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law.Now, Obama claims that his executive actions, directed to firearms, fall within existing federal law and that he is only proposing regulations to effectuate existing federal law and not creating new law. But, that is absolutely false because, in his executive actions, he is expanding the very concept of what it means to be a person who is “in the business of selling firearms.” When Obama attempts to transform anyone who sells or transfers a firearm into a person who is "in the business of selling firearms," he is attempting to make the transferee of a firearm, who is merely a “hobbyist,” into a criminal who is impermissibly selling or transferring a firearm, absent a federal license, in violation of 18 USCS Section 1922(a)(1) and 18 USCS Section 924(a). In effect Obama is attempting, unlawfully, to turn the occasional hobbyist into a "criminal arms dealer,” namely, someone who is, in fact, in the business of selling firearms, but is doing so, as a criminal, selling to other criminals, in clear contravention to federal law.For the federal government to prove that a person was operating unlawfully as a dealer in firearms – essentially, a criminal arms dealer – “the federal government must prove the status of the defendant as a ‘dealer in firearms.' In order to satisfy this burden the Government need not prove that the defendant's primary business was dealing in firearms or that he necessarily made a profit from such dealing; ‘it must (however) show a willingness (on the defendant's part) to deal, a profit motive, and a greater degree of activity than occasional sales by a hobbyist.’ United States v. Huffman, (4th Cir. 1975) 518 F.2d 80, 81, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864, 96 S. Ct. 123, 46 L. Ed. 2d 92; United States v. Tarr, (1st Cir. 1978) 589 F.2d 55, 59."Thus, under federal statute and federal case law, in order for the government to prove that the person, who is selling a firearm to another person is doing so unlawfully, it is not enough for the government to prove that the seller of the firearm(s) is attempting to make a profit from the sale of a firearm or firearms. The government must also prove that the seller is not making an occasional sale of a firearm “as a hobbyist.” In other words, the federal government must prove, under existing law, that the person who is making a sale of a firearm or firearms is not a “criminal arms dealer” – a criminal who is selling firearms to make a profit.Obama is unlawfully expanding the notion of a “criminal arms dealer” to a law-abiding citizen, who is really only a “hobbyist,” under existing federal law. Such an attempt by Obama amounts to an impermissible expansion of federal law, not a theoretical permissible executive action, that amounts merely to regulation within existing federal law. When Obama expands federal law, he is entering into the purview of Congress, in contravention to the U.S. Constitution and in contravention of the Separation of Powers Doctrine because he is legislating – that is to say – he is making new law. He is not merely effectuating the intentions of Congress through the promulgation of rules within the framework of existing law.Obama begs the very question at issue by asserting that anyone who transfers firearms to another is, ipso facto, a “gun dealer” and “in the business of selling firearms” under federal law and is doing so illegally if that person does not have a federal firearm's license (FFL). Why does Obama want even private sellers of firearms -- "hobbyists" -- to obtain a federal firearm's license? He wants private sellers of firearms to obtain a federal firearm's license because, licensed dealers in firearms are required to perform a criminal background check under existing federal law, pursuant to the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922. A person who is not “in the business of selling firearm,” is under no such legal mandate to conduct an national instant criminal background check. In fact, a “hobbyist” cannot even access that system precisely because that person doesn’t have an FFL!So, what is Obama doing? Just this: he is placing the “hobbyist” in an impossible position if that “hobbyist” wishes to sell, trade, gift to, or otherwise, in some manner, transfer his firearm to another person. Obama is saying to that person: “we are assuming that you are a gun dealer and, if you are a gun dealer, you must undertake a criminal background check on the transferee. But, in order to be able to have access to FBI NICS files, you must first obtain an FFL. If you do not have an FFL, you better get one, if you can. If you can’t obtain an FFL, do not attempt, under any circumstances to transfer a firearm to another because my Administration will assume that you are an unlawful arms dealer, and I will see to it that the Justice Department prosecutes you to the fullest extent of the law.”Do you understand what more Obama is attempting to do through his unlawful executive actions? He is using his Office to enact new gun laws. In effect he is precluding, under threat of federal criminal indictment, the transfer of any firearm by one private law-abiding gun owner to another private law-abiding gun owner. Obama is not attempting to close a so-called “gun loophole.” He is in effect precluding every individual from transferring firearms, regardless of venue. This amounts to the unlawful regulation of commerce by the Executive Branch to stifle legitimate trade in firearms between two law-abiding individuals who happen to be “hobbyists.” Moreover, Obama’s unlawful executive actions negatively impact the absolute and exclusive interest that a person has in his or her own private property.If Obama admits to this but argues that his executive directives are necessary to prevent a private person, who is not a gun dealer, from transferring a gun in interstate commerce, his executive directive is redundant because, under, 18 USCS § 922(a)(1)(A), “it shall be unlawful for any person except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.” Thus, if I, for example, as a "hobbyist," who is not, then, in the business of selling firearms, wish to sell a gun over the internet, and I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, I cannot lawfully do so in any event. I may, however, transfer a firearm to another through the mediation of a licensed dealer who will then be required to perform a necessary background check on the transferee. Thus, further regulation of firearms' sales on or over the internet aren't necessary. Such sales are already regulated!What about sales of guns at gun shows? Well, gun shows, too, do not present a problem. Most sellers of firearms at gun shows are licensed dealers in firearms and, so, must, under present federal law, perform a criminal background check on anyone whom the dealer is transferring the gun to. Now, if I am not a licensed dealer in firearms, and I, as a law-abiding American and gun owner, wish, as a private person -- a hobbyist, not a licensed dealer in firearms -- to sell a firearm to another person, at a gun show, I can make a transfer of a firearm to another, without performing a background check, but, that does not mean that I am permitted to sell a firearm to a person who is not permitted to possess a firearm. Under 18 USCS 922(d), it is unlawful for anyone – whether a licensed dealer in firearms or a private individual – to sell to individuals who are not permitted to own or possess a firearm. These include convicted felons, fugitives from justice, an individual who has been adjudicated a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution or who is an illegal alien. So, then, if I, as a private individual and law-abiding American citizen and gun owner and, as defined in law, a “hobbyist,” not a “licensed dealer in firearms,” offered a firearm for sale or trade, to a person, whom I did not know, and that person was a convicted felon who cannot lawfully own or possess a firearm, I have committed a crime in taking part in that sale, and I can and ought to be prosecuted. So, I, as a law-abiding citizen, have to be damn careful whom it is that I am transferring that firearm to.Now, will criminals sell firearms to other criminals? Of course they will. And they will do so in venues other than at gun shows which are likely to be carefully monitored by the State police. Obama’s executive orders, though, clearly are not directed to precluding firearms’ transactions among criminals. They are directed to further restricting gun transactions among law-abiding Americans. Obama’s goal, is -- as is the penultimate goal of all antigun groups -- just this: restricting the number and kinds of guns that a law-abiding citizen may own; and restricting the extent to which an individual may exercise control over his or her own property. What these executive actions of Obama won’t do – and, in fact are not designed to do – is curb criminal sales of firearms. They are specifically designed to curb what has, prior to Obama’s executive actions, amounted to the lawful transfer of firearms between and among law-abiding Americans, who do not fall, under the federal legal definition of ‘dealer in firearms,’  and 'in the business of selling firearms.'Obama intends to extend the scope of federal law beyond that which Congress has authorized. He cannot do so legally. Moreover, there is no need for further federal law. There are no loopholes. So, there is nothing that requires closing.Obama fails to appreciate and respect the fact that our federal statutes and federal case law are sufficiently broad to encapsulate all firearms’ transfers in every conceivable venue. Criminal transfers of firearms would be effective if existing federal law was enforced. They are not. But, that is not the fault of Congress. It is the fault of the Chief Executive. Obama, who fails to enforce federal law.Obama also fails to appreciate the sanctity of the Separation of Powers Doctrine upon which a Free Republic is able to survive and thrive. The very structure of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution establishes that no one Branch may subsume the duties of the other two within it.Obama’s executive actions are demonstrative of his disrespect for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Nothing he can assert or suggest, predicated on his personal notion of morality, and personal distaste for firearms ownership and firearms possession among law-abiding Americans can condone and justify his actions. But, then, Obama is not interested in the rule of law. He has a personal agenda: the very dismantling of the Bill of Rights, using, as singular pretext, his stated concern to curb firearms’ violence.Congress has, in the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993,” 107 Stat. 1536; 103 P.L. 159; 1993 Enacted H.R. 1025; 103 Enacted H.R. 1025, as codified in 18 U.S.C. § 922, as cited supra, made it unlawful for a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to a person who is not licensed under 18 U.S.C. § 923 absent the appropriate background information on the individual as set forth in Statute. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a) says, in pertinent part, "No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General. The application shall be in such form and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the Attorney General shall by regulation prescribe and shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant. Each applicant shall pay a fee for obtaining such a license, a separate fee being required for each place in which the applicant is to do business." Other federal law, cited supra, precludes anyone, whether a licensed dealer in firearms or not, to lawfully transfer a firearm to a person who is not permitted under federal law to own and possess firearm.Obama’s executive actions are unnecessary if he believes there are loopholes in the law – for there aren’t any. And, they are otherwise inscrutable. Obama is unlawfully attempting to preclude firearms’ transfers among law-abiding Americans and gun owners who are not licensed dealers in firearms and who would not wish to obtain a federal firearm's license and, more to the point, could not obtain a federal firearm’s license had they wish to do so precisely because they are not in the business of selling firearms.Obama's executive directives are a scarcely disguised attempt to hide his an intent to control the distribution of one's private property.Again, what President Obama is doing, surreptitiously, insidiously, and unlawfully, through his executive directives, is destroying the very concept of a “private sale” of a firearm, and he does this by unlawfully transforming, through Presidential edit, every individual, who wishes to sell a firearm, into a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who must therefore obtain a federal license to sell firearms. Federal firearms’ licenses are expensive. Even to attempt to obtain one is a time-consuming process, administered through the BATF. It is difficult to acquire – impossible, really, for a person who simply owns one or two or a few firearms and who wishes to transfer them to another law-abiding American and who cannot legitimately make the case that he or she is anything other than a "hobbyist." Obama's executive directives are not necessary because they are not directed to curbing transfer of firearms among criminals.  These executive directives are directed to revising what it means to be a person who is in the business of selling firearms and who is a licensed dealer in firearms. Obama's executive directives are inconsistent with current federal law; they impermissibly expand federal law; and, lastly, they are inconsistent with current BATF regulations, promulgated on what federal law actually says about who is a dealer in firearms and not on what the President would like the definition of ‘dealer in firearms’ to mean. Obama cannot lawfully prevent private sales of firearms; he cannot require a private seller, who is not in the business of selling firearms, to obtain a federal license – which is impossible for a private individual to obtain anyway; and he cannot require a private seller of a firearms to perform a federal background check. But, Obama doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about limitations on executive authority. He doesn’t care that he is placing law-abiding gun owners, who are not gun dealers, and who may wish to transfer a firearm to another law-abiding American, in a precarious, impossible position. He doesn’t care about any of this. He intends to press ahead with the antigun agenda: destruction of the fundamental right of the American people to keep and bear 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.

CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGALITY OF EXECUTIVE ACTIONS MUST PRECEDE DISCUSSION OF THE REASONS BEHIND THEM

With the usual fanfare and the usual props standing in front of him and behind him, President Barack Obama told the public, on January 5, 2015, at 1230 hours, EST, on a NBC special news report, that he, in his infinite wisdom, will take unilateral action to expand gun background checks – in effect, turning private individuals, who may wish to sell a firearm, into gun dealers, who must comply with federal laws, governing gun background checks. But how Obama intends to effectuate this in the absence of funding by Congress, having now offended Congress, and without violating the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and without violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, presents a most pressing question – and a deep conundrum for anyone who cares deeply about preserving the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and yet would wish, at one and the same time, to give this devil his due.But, there is a preliminary question. It is one that goes to the presumed authority upon which Obama works his legerdemain on the American people. Now, it is all well and good for Obama to be concerned about curbing gun violence on the part of criminals, lunatics, and, of late, Islamic terrorists; and we have a plethora of laws to contend with this problem if only the laws we presently have were duly enforced by the Obama Administration. That would go a long way in effectively curbing the very violence Obama says he is so keen on curbing. Moreover, with millions of law-abiding Americans properly armed, that, too, would go a long way in effectively dealing with the problem of those, who, under present law, should not have access to firearms anyway. But, like all good stage magicians, Obama is not interested in any of that. His interest is the same as those of all antigun zealots: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. And, in that singular pursuit he attempts to distract his audience with intricate sleight-of-hand.The sleight-of-hand here has to do with the failure of Obama to point to anything in the Constitution or in Statute that might seemingly give him the authority to act behind the back of Congress, essentially operating as both Chief Executive and, Consummate Legislator. But as we have seen, Obama would rather talk about his reasons for acting unilaterally, then he would to address the legal footing upon which those reasons might rest. For, given even the best of reasons that ground a President’s actions, if those actions are illegal, the reasons he relates for those actions are of no count. Clearly, Obama is on thin ice here and he knows it. Thus, he avoids broaching the salient, critical legal issue in favor of pontificating upon the superficial, rhetorical one.So it is that Obama, in typical rhetorical mode, doesn’t talk about the authority that presumably permits him, legally, to circumvent Congress, but, rather, argues that, because Congress has not acted as Obama wishes Congress to act, he, Obama, President and “Boss,” can and will do so, himself. Doing so, the Boss makes it so, and making it so, makes it right – this, coming from a Harvard Law School graduate, and one-time Constitutional Law professor.What Obama doesn’t talk about is a matter that the public must become cognizant of and knowledgeable about: the issue of executive directives. The Arbalest Quarrel touched upon this in its previous article. The issue of lawful use of executive directives is of the utmost importance to the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution and to the preservation of a Free Republic, for a Free Republic is a State that is ruled and governed by law, not by men. Now the authority to make laws rests solely with Congress. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth, clearly and categorically: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The very notion of executive directives directly confronts and challenges the singular authority of Congress to make laws.The Arbalest Quarrel is not naïve to think that executive directives have not been used – often routinely so – by past Presidents, and a few have definitely abused their use. Past U.S. President Bill Clinton is one Chief Executive who has abused the use of executive directives. But President Obama’s use of executive directives is surely the most audacious. Let us explain.We may start with a study by one legal scholar, Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Legal Studies and Director of the Center for Legal Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Gaziano has done substantial research on executive orders, and, in an aptly titled law review article, “The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Executive Directives,” 5 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 267 (Spring 2001), he has written a cogent and comprehensive essay on the nature of executive directives.The author discusses the authority upon which executive directives rest, and the circumstances under which they may be deemed lawful or not. Gaziano makes poignantly clear that, “Ultimately the authority for all presidential orders or directives must come from either the Constitution or from statutory delegations” (at page 276). But, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly provides for the use of executive directives by the President. So, can lawful use of executive directives be implied from an “express grant of power?” Gaziano says that the authority to issue executive directives can be implied or even be inherent in the substantive power of the President “. . . in the exercise of his constitutional and statutorily delegated powers: [as] Commander in Chief, Head of State, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, and Head of the Executive Branch” (at page 277). Gaziano adds, “When the President is exercising powers inherent in Article II of the Constitution, Congress has much less ability to regulate or circumscribe the President's use of written directives” (at page 281).The paramount question is, then, how do we know when a U.S. President is abusing executive directives? Gaziano says, “A legal framework of analysis is required in order to separate legitimate presidential directives from those that are abusive or improper. Unfortunately, a dearth of governing law and prudential guidelines in the area of executive orders makes the articulation of that framework difficult. Reference to history, therefore, is essential when seeking to uncover the necessary analytical structure" at page 281). Gaziano adds, importantly, “The President's authority, to act or issue an executive order, is at its apex when his action is based on an express grant of power in the Constitution, in a statute, or both. His action is the most questionable when there is no grant of constitutional authority, either express or inherent, and his action is contrary to a lawful statute or provision of the Constitution” (at page 284).Gaziano mentions wartime crises as one example of use of executive directives that can, plausibly, albeit, controversially, be employed by the Chief Executive. But, in the case at hand, Obama has neither expressly stated nor intimated that his use of executive authority to infringe the Second Amendment and supersede Congressional authority proceeds from a wartime crisis. Is there, then, a statutory basis upon which Obama might rely that can feasibly support his use of executive directives to expand gun background checks? If so, Obama has not pointed to any, nor can he. His unilateral action to expand gun background checks is, on its face, statutorily illegal because Congress has clearly established the parameters of permissible gun background checks in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994. If Congress sought to expand upon gun background checks as promulgated in the Brady Act, it would have done so. It has not. So, Obama has no statutory basis upon which to argue independent authority to act to expand background checks statutorily.Moreover, at the moment, at least, Obama has not indicated that he has obtained legal support for use of executive directives to expand gun background checks, in the form of an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”). The New York Times has previously reported that Obama has contacted the Attorney General, ostensibly to ask the Office of Legal Counsel for an opinion that might, perhaps, provide a legal foundation, however implausible that might be, upon which Obama’s executive directives, expanding gun background checks, may meet with Justice Department approval. As Gaziano says, “For over one hundred years, the President has asked the Attorney General or another senior official in the Department of Justice to review draft executive orders and proclamations with regard to their form and legality” (at page 292). If Obama obtains such an legal opinion here, the public should be permitted to see it. If he fails to secure a legal opinion from OLC, this would strongly suggest that the OLC does not believe Obama’s unilateral executive directives are legally defensible.The last paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth, “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”Regardless of what one thinks about the morality and aesthetics of guns generally and gun ownership and gun possession particularly, each American should ask of him or herself and then be prepared, honestly, to answer the following question: “Shall I deign to honor this man, the President of the United States, who, having subscribed to the oath he has taken, would dare become a law unto himself?”[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.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SEEKS TO UNDERCUT SECOND AMENDMENT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ACTION

President Barack Obama, as we have seen, demonstrates little restraint using the power of his Office to obtain what he wants. The most powerful tool in a Chief Executive’s arsenal falls under the umbrella “executive directives.” These take the form of orders and proclamations, memoranda and signing statements. But, in the absence of a legal source explaining distinctions among them, one may presume they are, in essence, the  same.When a U.S. President issues an executive directive, he is asserting, “this is what I want to do; this is what I intend to do; this is what I have done, why I have done it, and how and when it shall be carried out, and what Congress and the American People must do to recognize or to comply with it; so accept it!Presidential directives are then essentially declarations – much like edicts of a despot, such as a dictator, or a king, or other such autocratic ruling authority. Presidential directives are not subject to debate by the public or even by Congress, and they are not subject to Legislative veto. Moreover, there is nothing in law that tells us how they may be used, when the President may use them, or how narrow or broad in scope they may be. There are no procedural safeguards that might otherwise impact the legality of them. Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor case law, defines what they are or how they may be properly used. But the danger that executive directives present to a free republic and to the foundation of that free republic, namely, the U.S. Constitution, is very real and ever present. In fact the only safeguard against executive directives – if you can call it a safeguard – is an opinion rendered by the Office of Legal Counsel. But, as we have seen, when a Chief Executive wishes to issue a directive, that Chief Executive calls upon the Office of Legal Counsel for the purpose not to tell the Chief Executive what he cannot do under the law but, rather, to give its imprimatur on what the Chief Executive has already decided to do; and the Office of Legal Counsel will almost invariably do whatever the Chief Executive wants. The Office of Legal Counsel of the Justice Department “licenses” the Chief Executive’s unilateral executive actions in the form of a legal opinion. We have seen this before. Recall how Obama asked for and obtained, from the Office of Legal Counsel, “legal license” to usurp Congressional authority to regulate naturalization, allowing Mexicans, who came to this Country illegally, to remain in the Country indefinitely. Thus, the Office of legal Counsel, in the Department of Justice, wrote a lengthy opinion that demonstrably licenses Obama to circumvent Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution that sets forth clearly, concisely and categorically: “all legislative Powers . . . shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” and Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that  “the Congress shall have Power to establish . . . a uniform rule of Naturalization.”Now, there is nothing in the Constitution that tells us under what circumstances use of an executive directive happens to cohere with the U.S. Constitution. But, this does not mean that a President may use executive directives haphazardly. There are guidelines, even if they are informal. The salient guideline is that embraced in the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Under Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution, the duty to legislate the Laws of the Land rests solely with Congress. And, Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .” The President doesn’t take care to faithfully execute the laws of the Land when he makes law by executive fiat. For his actions then amount to  subsuming the Legislative Branch into the Executive Branch. Moreover, reliance on a legal opinion of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that simply rubber stamps what a President seeks to do does not constitute binding legal authority. But, then, the Justice Department, as a “rubber stamp” for the President operates, unfortunately, as one would expect. The Justice Department, after all, is not an independent organ of Government. It operates within the Executive Branch and will almost invariably do whatever “the Boss” wants it to do, even, and especially, as here, when the President uses the power of his Office with impunity, without regard to the legality of his actions.Similarly, when a President says that he will take action when Congress doesn’t act, he is taunting Congress and threatening Congress. The Boss is telling Congress what Congress must do. Congress, though, doesn’t work for the President. Congress works on behalf of the American people and is answerable to the American people, not to the President. We see that Obama told Congress to reform immigration law and, when Congress failed to do so, Obama placed himself in the shoes of Congress and created immigration law himself. Hillary Clinton, too, has already strongly suggested that she will – if she, in a worst case scenario, became President of the United States – use executive directives with impunity to accomplish her goals, if Congress doesn’t act at her behest.But, nothing in the annals of executive directive history, can possibly serve as preparation for Obama’s desired new escapade. On January 2, 2016, in an article titled, “Obama and Attorney General to Discuss How to Curb Gun Violence” – tellingly, retitled in the digital version of the story as “Obama to Consider Executive Actions on Gun Violence” –  the New York Times reported that Obama plans to meet with the Attorney General to discuss use of the Office of the Chief Executive to legislate new restrictive gun laws. The NY Times article sets forth that, “facing the reality that lawmakers are unlikely to strengthen the country’s gun laws anytime soon, the administration has been looking at ways Mr. Obama can tighten gun sales unilaterally. . . .” Once again, Obama is calling on the Office of Legal Counsel to render a legal opinion that will serve as a plausible, if not legally sound, basis for upholding an executive directive on his behalf. But, understand that a legal directive that impinges on and infringes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not something to be dismissed as inconsequential to the continued existence of a free republic. It is one thing for Congress to enact restrictive gun laws – and Congressional Democrats have successfully done so in the past and are attempting to do so now – but it is quite another thing for the President to create antigun laws by executive fiat. Those laws enacted by Congress are always subject to challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. Executive directives, though, are not, which makes an executive antigun directive a preferred fallback position by which a Chief Executive might seek to “make law” he wants since that directive cannot be readily challenged in Court, even under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, then, if Obama dares to attack the Second Amendment, through the vehicle of a Presidential directive, such illegal action is of an order of magnitude beyond anything a sitting President has done before. In fact, an executive directive that directly impacts a fundamental right amounts to nothing less than a takeover of Government. We must repeat that. If Obama uses the Office of the Presidency to undermine the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any such executive action amounts to a coup d’état of Government. Whatever impact globalization has on economic and military policy of this Nation, such globalization issues have absolutely no bearing on the efficacy and supremacy of U.S. jurisprudence and on the efficacy and supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. For, anything that negatively impacts the very structure of our Republic is immediately suspect.The very thought that a U.S. President might dare to undercut the Bill of Rights compels one to consider whether the Executive Branch of this Government has been compromised and is working on behalf of forces both inside this Country and outside it that are actively, ruthlessly, and, heretofore, silently working for the dissolution of our Constitution and for the dismantling of our Nation State. If so, such forces must be doing so in preparation for this Country’s entry into a new international, globalist, socialist world order. What the American people have learned from and continue to learn from Barack Obama’s “reign” should, hopefully, do much to forestall the coronation of Hillary Clinton.[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.

ANTIGUN FORCES LEAP OUT OF THE STARTING GATE FOR THE NEW YEAR WITH A RENEWED ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Gun Seizure Law

A law that just took effect in California raises the ante in the antigun movement’s continued assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. A British newspaper, the guardian, said, in a December 31, 2015 article titled, “Landmark California gun seizure law takes effect 1 January but amid concerns,” that the “gun statute going into effect on 1 January gives the police or family members the option to petition the courts to seize the guns and ammunition of someone they think poses a threat, the first law of its kind in the country.”A California, antigun proponent and assemblywoman, Nancy Skinner, sponsored the antigun legislation. But, how does this new restrictive California antigun bill, that just became law, actually operate? Not trusting the guardian – a liberal newspaper with a profound antigun bias, based in the antigun United Kingdom – to adequately provide the American public with the details, the Arbalest Quarrel decided to take a look at what this law really says and the manner in which it actually operates.The bill, CA A.B. 1014, that took effect on January 1, 2016, both amends existing California State Statutes and creates a substantial number of new California Penal Code Sections. Let’s take a close look at just a few of the pertinent changes that CA A.B. 1014 makes to California law.Cal Pen Code § 1524 sets forth the general grounds under which a search warrant, primarily pertaining to investigations of felonies in California, can be lawfully issued. A new paragraph in Cal Pen Code § 1524, establishes an unusual condition under which a court can issue a warrant. The new paragraph, which has nothing to do with investigations of felonies, says that, “A search warrant may be issued upon any of the following grounds. . . (14)Beginning January 1, 2016, the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order that has been issued pursuant to Division 3.2 (commencing with Section 18100) of Title 2 of Part 6, if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law."To understand the import of the changes that CA A.B. 1014 brings to California’s Statutes, we must zero in on the phrase, “gun violence restraining order.” This is something entirely new to California gun laws and to the laws governing the operation of injunctions in California. And, it is something that, at present, exists in no other State.Prior to enactment of CA A.B. 1014, a California peace officer, when responding to a domestic disturbance, was required to take temporary custody of a firearm at the scene of the domestic disturbance but only if the firearm is in plain sight. The officer was not authorized to hunt around for a firearm. The emphasis, then, in California law, prior to enactment of CA A.B. 1014, was on the domestic disturbance, not on one’s firearms, where one has a personal property interest in those firearms. Now, Cal Pen Code § 18250 is California’s domestic violence Statute. It authorizes a peace officer to take temporary custody of a firearm at the scene of a domestic violence. The amended version of this Statute sets forth in pertinent part, “If any of the following persons is at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, is serving a protective order as defined in Section 6218 of the Family Code or is serving a gun violence restraining order issued pursuant to Division 3.2 (commencing with Section 18100), that person shall take temporary custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace officer or other persons present. . . .”What CA A.B. 1014 does is to create, presumptively, a nexus, that is to say, a connection, between domestic disturbance or violence and firearms. CA A.B. 1014  is, then, aimed directly at gun confiscation. It operates through the mechanism of a ‘temporary restraining order.’Attorneys use a shorthand phrase for a ‘temporary restraining order.’ They refer to it as a “TRO,” (where each letter is pronounced, separately). What is a TRO? A TRO is an extraordinary writ. It is an extreme form of legal injunction. And it is one that courts traditionally are loathe to issue. Why is that?Our system of laws is grounded on the idea that a person has a right to his or her day in court. Court proceedings, whether in criminal matters or civil matters, almost invariably commence with a formal written complaint. No action is taken against the named defendant in a complaint until that defendant has had an opportunity to respond. This means that two parties are involved in the legal process: a plaintiff and a defendant. And a court of competent jurisdiction hears what both parties have to say before entering judgment for one or the other party. But, a person requesting a court to issue a TRO is essentially declaring: “I can’t wait for a hearing. The risk of harm is imminent unless the court takes immediate action on my behalf.” The petitioner is asking a court to render a decision, ex parte. That means the court is asked to render a decision on the basis of one party’s allegations alone – something a court of law is, understandably, in our adversarial system of law and justice, wary of doing.Cal Pen Code § 18150 is the specific mechanism for issuance of this singularly bizarre TRO: a gun violence restraining order.Cal Pen Code § 18150 sets forth, inter alia: “An immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.” [Furthermore] A court may issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order if the petition, supported by an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement taken pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 18155, and any additional information provided to the court shows that there is a substantial likelihood that both of the following are true: The subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering the factors listed in Section 18155 [and] An ex parte gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.”How long does the gun violence restraining order remain in effect? Cal Pen Code § 18155(c) says, “If the court determines that the grounds to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order exist, it shall issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition, and expires no later than 21 days from the date of the order.”Now, California Assembly woman Nancy Skinner, might argue, if asked to explain whether the purpose of her bill is not, after all, to restrict gun rights, that her bill, CA A.B. 1014, is not aimed at suppression of gun rights but only aimed at protecting a person from harming himself or others with guns through the legal procedural device of a temporary restraining order. But, then, one might sensibly respond to Nancy Skinner's remark by mentioning that California already has a full panoply of injunction laws that one may draw upon in a pinch, and, so, the State certainly doesn’t need another one. In fact, drilling down through the California Civil Code –  under Title 7, “Other Provisional Remedies in Civil Actions,” of Part 2, “Of Civil Actions,” in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Chapter 3, “Injunction,” Cal Code Civ Proc § 527.6, “Temporary restraining order and order after hearing prohibiting harassment,” – California has in place a mechanism for granting exceptional relief, that is to say, a TRO. So, again, it would be appropriate to ask Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, once again, whether her bill is not a backdoor attempt to further restrict gun rights, albeit under the guise of purportedly preventing violence with guns.Indeed, why did the California State Legislature deem it necessary to establish a whole new TRO law scheme, giving it a unique descriptor, “gun violence restraining order,” if not to further erode gun ownership and gun possession in California? And, if that is the true purpose behind CA A.B. 1014, then why not add a “knife violence restraining order,” and a “baseball bat violence restraining order?” But, then, they are all equally absurd because each is aimed at addressing an inanimate, non-conscious object, and none of them are aimed at the cause of perceived violence, namely, the person. Injunctions, including TROs, are, after all, historically, and sensibly, directed toward individuals – sentient beings – not objects.The very placement of the “gun violence restraining order,” in the Penal Code, in lieu of the Civil Code, where TROs traditionally fall – since TROs pertain to civil remedies – is demonstrative of a clever new way in which California antigun legislators seek to regulate firearm ownership and possession. The “gun violence restraining order” is a legal artifice through which one’s firearms can be confiscated, immediately, without hearing, and, indeed, without formal legal notice, simply upon the affidavit of a police officer or immediate family member – and eventually, perhaps, even upon affidavit of a neighbor – any one of whom may have an ulterior motive for taking action against this or that person, which has nothing to do with the matter of imminent harm. Understandably, then, the laws codifying the gun violence restraining order are found, not in the aforesaid, Civil Code of California, but, rather, in a new and extremely broad category of laws in Part 6 of the California Penal Code, including Division 3.2, Gun Violence Restraining Orders,” Chapters 1 through 6.The “gun violence restraining order” directly infringes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But it also infringes the Fourth Amendment. What does the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say? Just this: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Cal Pen Code §18250 and Cal Pen Code §1524(14) turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. Why is that? For this reason, there is no precedent in the law of California – or in any other State for that matter – for anything like a “gun violence restraining order,” where a person’s firearms – his or her private property – could be confiscated without legal notice to that person.CA A.B. 1014 is, ultimately, less about protecting people through TROs and more about suppressing the inalienable right of Americans to own and possess firearms – treating the very ownership and possession of firearms as inevitably criminal, and, therefore, a proper subject – in the eyes of antigun zealots – of the most draconian antigun measures that can be devised, however irrational those measures may happen to be.The antigun forces in the California Legislature will, no doubt, in time, create ever more novel antigun laws, restricting ever more kinds of guns that a Californian may own, and scrutinizing ever more closely the lives of those Americans who reside in California, who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Antigun States such as New York and New Jersey will likely follow suit – each State borrowing from the other, the same draconian laws.One thing is certain. The right of the American people to keep and bear arms will grow ever more tenuous and ephemeral if the antigun forces continue to have their say and their way.[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 COURT OF LAW THAT REJECTS U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT UNDERMINES THE RULE OF LAW AND UNDERCUTS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS DEFIES U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS IN HELLER AND MCDONALD AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS BOWS TO THE WILL OF GOVERNMENT IN FRIEDMAN CASE

State governments and local governments that enact or establish antigun laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations must comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). State and local governments are not allowed to take the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court lightly; and they are certainly not permitted to ignore the rulings of the High Court in the Heller and McDonald cases out-of-hand. This is not an option. It may therefore come as a shock to some people and an unpleasant surprise to many that State and local governments often do just that. Many State and local governments, not only ignore, but openly defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald. Worse, some federal and State courts, when called upon in lawsuits filed by plaintiffs -- individuals and groups -- to review plaintiffs' challenges to governmental actions, directly and negatively impacting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, often give legitimacy to unconstitutional laws enacted by State legislatures and to unconstitutional ordinances, rules, and regulations adopted by local governments, rather than striking them down as an unconstitutional restraint on the exercise of a fundamental right. Antigun proponents zealots, unsurprisingly and unremarkably, don’t see -- never see -- a problem with this. Indeed, Michael Bloomberg’s antigun group, “Everytown for Gun Safety,” for one -- the antigun political group that Bloomberg created upon leaving office as Mayor of New York City, after serving as its Mayor for twelve years -- is ecstatic over an April, 2015 decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015). Just read the report by the left-wing news commentary site, “AlterNet,” on this. The article, which was posted on December 12, 2015, is titled, “Aggressive Pushback at Evil NRA Is Working; Lives Will Be Saved as a Result.”While the antigun crowd sees reason to applaud any attack on Americans’ Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, even, and especially, those negative decisions, impacting the Second Amendment, handed down by courts of law -- the institution of last resort, called upon to defend Americans' rights and liberties -- an institution that reasonably would be expected to preserve and defend, assiduously, the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans -- no American, regardless of personal sentiment, or ethical view or political persuasion, should be pleased when the Second Amendment is in fact denigrated. No one should be pleased when the Second Amendment is attacked and denigrated because an attack on the sanctity of any one Amendment of our sacred Bill of Rights is, in essence, an attack on the sanctity of all of them. Political rhetoric should not be given equal weight with – much less lord over -- our system of laws, and political rhetoric should not be used as a wedge to divide the public on matters directly impacting our fundamental rights and liberties, guaranteed to all Americans in our Bill of Rights.Steven Rosenfeld, the author of the aforesaid “Alternet” article obviously disagrees. He argues that curtailment of Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, politically motivated, is politically warranted, even if not legally warranted, consistent with antigun rhetoric, spawned in the political world. And, Rosenfeld laments that our Second Amendment right is “bogged-down” in the legal world. So it is that Steven Rosenfeld waxes poetic and exclaims, exuberantly, how wonderful it is when the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is denigrated,  and when unconscionable, abhorrent and unconstitutional laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations of States and Cities, that negatively impact our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, are allowed to flourish -- with the assistance of and, indeed, blessing of those courts of law that write decisions, giving credence to and that sanctify those State and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations; and that advance no compelling governmental purpose; and that, in fact, are specifically designed to undermine and defeat Americans’ fundamental rights.Courts that give credence to and that, in effect, sanctify such restrictive and oppressive and unconstitutional "edicts" of government are to be singled out for condemnation. In lieu of rendering decisions that defend and preserve Americans' fundamental rights, such courts of law are to be seen as operating subordinate to, subservient to and merely as an extension of government, rather than as a component of a legitimate, independent institution in its own right, whose singular purpose is as overseer of government and protector of our laws and of our fundamental rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution.  Case in point: the aforesaid Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), decided in April of 2015.In the Friedman case the Plaintiff Appellants, including an individual, Ari Friedman, and a group, the Illinois State Rifle Association, brought suit against Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, in the State of Illinois. Highland Park had passed an ordinance, prohibiting the possession of “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines,” namely ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds. The ordinance defines an ‘assault weapon’ as any semiautomatic gun that can accept a ‘large capacity magazine’ and has at least one of five banned features, including, inter alia, a pistol grip without stock; a folding, telescoping stock; a grip for the non-trigger hand; or a barrel shroud. Moreover, the ordinance prohibits the ownership and possession of some firearms by name, such as AR-15s and AK47s.Plaintiff Appellant Friedman lawfully owned a banned rifle and several large capacity magazines, before the ban took effect. The prohibited firearm and magazines are not "grandfathered in" by the ordinance. In that respect, the Highland Park ordinance goes well beyond the highly restrictive and oppressive New York Safe Act, insofar as and particularly as those residents of New York who lawfully owned and possessed firearms defined as 'assault weapons' prior to the effective date of the NY Safe Act, on January 15, 2013, are permitted to retain their weapons so long as they are timely registered in accordance with New York law. In Illinois, though, under the unconscionable City of Highland Park ordinance, Plaintiff Appellant Friedman was forced to surrender his banned weapon and banned ammunition magazines to the government. And had he failed to do so, he would be criminally prosecuted for possessing the very items that were perfectly legal for him to own prior to implementation of the ordinance. Friedman, as a law-abiding citizen dutifully, albeit certainly not happily, surrendered his "assault weapon" in order to avoid certain prosecution, and he wants to own these weapons back.To have any chance of regaining possession of his weapons -- his personal property -- Friedman had no recourse but to file an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the oppressive ordinance and hoping that the federal court would strike down the restrictive gun ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on the exercise of a fundamental right. Friedman, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, that joined him in the lawsuit, argued that the City of Highland Park ordinance was inconsistent with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed to all Americans, as an individual right under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and inconsistent, too, with Supreme Court holdings in Heller and McDonald. The District Court, nonetheless, found in favor of the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, and Plaintiffs thereupon appealed the adverse decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Heller, at the outset of its Opinion, acknowledged that “Heller holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home (or making their use in the home infeasible) violates the individual right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment.” The Seventh Circuit also pointed to the holding of the high Court in the subsequent McDonald case, decided in 2010, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that, “the Second Amendment creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments.” McDonald essentially took the holding of Heller -- which applies to unconstitutional actions of the federal Government impacting the Second Amendment, under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment -- to  unconstitutional actions of State and local governments, impacting the Second Amendment under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Given the clear, cogent, unambiguous, and comprehensive import of these two holdings in Heller and McDonald, the salient issue before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was certainly easy to promulgate and should have been: whether the Highland Park ordinance, that proscribes certain weapons, operates as an unconstitutional constraint on a person’s right to keep and bear arms and, if not, then, whether the ordinance is the least restrictive means available to the City for advancing a compelling governmental purpose. Had the legal issue been set forth in this way, in accordance with the actual holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, utilizing the appropriate standard of review, namely the stringent strict scrutiny standard, to test the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance, the Seventh Circuit Court would have struck down the ordinance as an impermissible constraint on an Americans’ right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases. For, under the strict scrutiny test there is no logical, coherent reason for the City of Highland Park to adopt an ordinance, negatively impinging upon and infringing a fundamental right that mandates a wholesale ban on an entire category of firearms, firearms that had been, prior to adoption of the ordinance, perfectly legal for law-abiding residents of the City to own and possess -- namely and specifically firearms that the City arbitrarily defines as impermissible “assault weapons" and on ammunition magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds. And, the government proffered no empirically and legally sound reason for the ban. Yet, the Seventh Circuit refused to apply the strict scrutiny test to the Highland Park ordinance even though, the City ordinance, on its face, impinged upon and infringed a fundamental right, and, indeed, the ordinance was specifically designed to do so.*In its decision the Seventh Circuit also dismissed, inexplicably, the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald, giving nothing but lip-service to them, through the mere act of reciting the holdings in the Court’s opinion, but failing, utterly, in adhering to them. In fact, not only did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals fail to apply – as it should have done – a strict scrutiny standard of review to an ordinance impacting a fundamental right, the Court really failed to apply any standard of review in assessing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. Instead, notwithstanding the clear import and purport of the High Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald and, notwithstanding that the Seventh Court of Appeals had before it, for its review, an ordinance directly, and emphatically, and categorically impacting a fundamental right, under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Seventh Circuit upheld the City of Highland Park ordinance. In permitting an unconstitutional local ordinance to stand, rather than striking it down, the Court of Appeals relied not on actual holdings of the high Court in Heller and McDonald, but on dicta in those cases, arguing that, because the high Court did not – according to the Seventh Circuit’s faulty reasoning – define the scope of the Second Amendment in its entirety, the Seventh Circuit was free to read into Heller and McDonald essentially whatever it wanted to.Curiously, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied a “political” rationale to its decision, foregoing, altogether, application of the appropriate legal standard of review, and this becomes evident in the issue that the Court framed for itself and thereupon sought to resolve, namely: “whether the ordinance leaves residents of Highland Park ample means to exercise the ‘inherent right of self-defense’ that the Second Amendment protects.” The legal issue, that the Court framed for itself in this odd way, totally ignores the fact that many of Highland Park residents desire to hold onto an entire category of weapons and magazines that were and are perfectly legal to own and possess under the Second Amendment, consistent with the holdings in Heller and McDonald, where the U.S. Supreme Court made absolutely clear that government laws and ordinances that ban, wholesale, entire categories of weapons, are patently illegal.By constructing the legal issue in the way that it did, the Seventh Circuit not only took away the freedom of the people to own and possess firearms that they previously had lawful access to but deliberately and defiantly refused to consider the constitutionality of the City ordinance at all in light of the Second Amendment and in light of the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. In the issue that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals devised for itself, the Court insinuated politics into the issue, and in the resolution of the issue that the Seventh Circuit constructed for itself, the Court begged in the question the very answer it sought.The Seventh Circuit surmised that, because the City of Highland Park did not prohibit all weapons, the City could prohibit some of them – including an entire category of weapons that had been perfectly lawful to own and possess prior to adoption of the City ordinance – and that the City could, in fact, prohibit, perfunctorily, without cause, those weapons and weapons' paraphernalia, such as – what the City deemed to be – high capacity ammunition magazines, as it wished. In the issue that the Court devised for itself to resolve, the Seventh Circuit didn't even need to listen to and consider the absurd arguments that the City put forth ostensibly in support of its wholesale gun ban. The Court included the rationale of the City government in its Opinion, to give seeming weight to its decision. But it was all empty "effect," for the Court had ipso facto decided that, so long as the City of Highland Park left its residents with the means to own and possess at least one kind of firearm -- whatever firearm the City deigned to allow its law-abiding citizens to possess -- say an antique Blunderbuss -- virtually all other firearms could lawfully be, and eventually would be, banned. In fact the Court's reasoning leaves the door open for just that result: eventual adoption of yet further gun bans.The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's decision is grounded not only on faulty legal reasoning, but on faulty logical  reasoning -- reasoning truly at odds with the principles of sound logic and reasoning that is, at once, at odds with the holding in Heller. The Heller holding entails, by logical implication, that bans on entire categories of weapons are impermissible absent a clear and compelling reason for government to do so and this means that a government is not permitted to ban entire categories of weapons unless the court of review satisfies itself that a particular governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation is the least restrictive means available for advancing a compelling governmental interest.Moreover, The Heller holding that constrains the federal government from enacting laws that constitutionally impinge upon and infringe the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States and local governments through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in accordance with the holding in McDonald. Thus, neither the federal Government, nor State and local governments, are permitted to infringe the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms absent extremely stringent scrutiny of the laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by a reviewing court of competent jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit failed, utterly, in performing its legal duties. Let's take a closer look at the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Friedman to see more precisely where faults in the Court's legal and logical reasoning rest.The Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Friedman is faulty, first, because the holdings of Heller and McDonald make abundantly clear that choice of weapons – those that have been available to Americans in the past – should continue to be available to Americans in the present, and into the future, absent a compelling reason set forth by government, to the satisfaction of the reviewing court, that establishes a lawful need to preclude ownership and possession of those weapons. In that regard, it is not for government to decide which firearms to permit Americans to continue to own and possess and which ones must be surrendered, based on mere personal predilections of government. That the City of Highland Park would do so – that it would dare to do so – amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property and serves at once to denigrate the import and purport of the holdings in Heller and McDonald because the ordinance amounts to a ban on an entire category of firearms and ammunition magazines absent any showing by the City of Highland Park that the City has in fact a compelling reason to do adopt such bans and absent any showing on the part of the City that the language of the ordinance as adopted is the least restrictive means available to the City  to advance a compelling local governmental interest -- which is to say that the compelling governmental interest is so critical that the government is justified in infringing a fundamental right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is the strict scrutiny test.*The Seventh Circuit did not consider strict scrutiny criteria at all when rendering its decision, and it should have done so. It simply allowed the City of Highland Park to assert an ad hoc assortment and array of non-empirical declarations of the usual sort developed by and utilized by antigun proponents to further a personal social and political agenda: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to force our unique Constitution toe the line with those of other Western nations -- nations whose history and culture are markedly different from our own.The Supreme Court, in Heller, made abundantly clear that the District of Columbia could not ban an entire category of firearms. In Heller, the District of Columbia attempted, unlawfully, to ban all handguns from the hands of the District of Columbia populace. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as unconscionably broad and an unconstitutional infringement of the Second amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Similarly, and by logical implication, then, the City of Highland Park could not constitutionally mandate a wholesale ban on so-called “assault weapons” and on magazines that happen to hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Certainly the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals could not allow the Highland Park ordinance to stand without first applying strict scrutiny to the City’s infringement of a fundamental right. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard of review, relying on political considerations to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted. The Court  failed to apply the appropriate standard of review – or any recognized legal standard of review, for that matter. This amounts to prejudicial error, subjecting its decision to remand for further consideration, requiring application of the appropriate standard of review. The Seventh Circuit devised a makeshift standard to arrive at the "political" decision it wanted.Second, in affirming the decision of the lower, District Court, the Seventh Circuit made the dubious assertion that, “the best way to evaluate the relation between assault weapons, crime, and self-defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions.” But, there is nothing in the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases that are ambiguous, and there is nothing in those decisions that suggest that a court of review can or should consider political matters when rendering a legal decision, impacting a fundamental right. Certainly, the Seventh Circuit did not point to any ambiguities in the Justices’ text, and there is nothing in the Supreme Court holdings that so much as intimate that political considerations are merited when testing the constitutionality of a governmental law, ordinance, rule or regulation. The Seventh Circuit simply made a bald and bold pronouncement.The best way for a court of review – in fact the only lawful way for a court of review – to review a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges on and infringes a fundamental right is for that court of review to demand that the government that enacts or adopts such a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, sets forth, in the first instance and to the complete satisfaction of the reviewing court, the government's legal argument, supporting the government's  contention that a given law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is, in that government's contention is constitutional. The government necessarily has a heavy legal burden to carry for a court of law must assume that any such law, ordinance, rule, or regulation that negatively impacts a fundamental right is unconstitutional. A court of law, reviewing such governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation, negatively impacting an American's fundamental right, has no discretion in the matter. The reviewing court must apply the strict scrutiny standard to test whether the governmental action can stand or be struck down. Moreover, and importantly, judicial deference to the political process is not a legally tenable basis or mechanism through which to test whether a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that is clearly directed to and impacts a fundamental right is permitted to stand. The matter before the court is a purely legal one, and it is one that goes directly to the constitutionality of the law or ordinance. Political concerns are of no moment, or consequence in the reviewing court’s determination.The issue of the constitutionality of a law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation that impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right is solely and precisely and absolutely a legal issue, not a political one. Deference to political concerns has no place, where, as here, in the Friedman case, an ordinance directly impacts a fundamental right, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in opining that there is one.Furthermore, and it bears repeating, where fundamental rights are at stake, government is under a heavy burden to justify any restriction on an American’s exercise of a fundamental right. That means, once again, that a governmental law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation  is presumed, from the get-go, to be unconstitutional, when a court of review begins its analysis of the impact of a law or ordinance on a fundamental right, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that a given law or ordinance is in fact constitutional. If a court of review finds that the government has failed to meet its burden, which is to say, that the court of review finds that the law or ordinance is, prima facie, unconstitutional, then that court of review must strike down the offending statute or ordinance. It has no choice in the matter, regardless of what it may otherwise wish to do. But suppose the court of review finds that the government has met its burden of proof and that the court finds the offending statute or ordinance to be facially constitutional. That doesn’t end the matter under the standard of strict scrutiny. That doesn't mean that the governmental law, ordinance, rule, or regulation is permitted to stand. For, even if the government, in the first instance, is able to carry the heavy burden of proof and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that the law or ordinance is not facially unconstitutional, the matter doesn’t end there. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. The court of review must then decide whether a given law or ordinance that is ostensibly constitutional is, for all that, still, in the government’s adoption of that statute or ordinance, or rule, or regulation, the least restrictive means available to the government by which to advance a compelling governmental purpose. If so and only if the court  of review finds to its satisfaction that an oppressive law or ordinance that impacts a fundamental right is the least restrictive means available to that government to enable it to advance a compelling governmental purpose, can the court of review then and only then allow the oppressive law or ordinance to stand. Otherwise the court must strike down the offending law, or ordinance, or rule, or regulation. In that judicial review of a State law or local governmental ordinance, rule, or regulation impacting a fundamental right, no deference is to be given to the political process. When a court of competent jurisdiction is called upon to review the constitutionality of laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations that impact fundamental rights, consideration of political issues, social issues and the political process are wholly inappropriate. Governmental laws and ordinances and rules and regulations impacting fundamental rights are most serious. An analysis of them involves the application of law, not politics, and courts of review are called upon to make a legal assessment  of them. Matters impacting fundamental rights are never to be left to the wishes or to the wants or to the will of government. And, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is absolutely wrong to assert that they can be and, for that matter, ought to be, left to government. And, by failing to apply the legal standard of strict scrutiny to an ordinance that directly impinges upon and infringes a fundamental right, the Seventh Circuit reduced itself to a servile vessel of government, giving deference to government action, where it should never have done so.Third, in its deferential, even obsequious regard for government, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals added that, “the central role of representative democracy is no less part of the Constitution than is the Second Amendment: when there is no definitive constitutional rule, matters are left to the legislative process.” This is patently false. The matter before the Seventh Circuit has nothing to do here with public policy any more than it has to do with the political process. The matter before the Court in the Friedman case has everything to do with the City government’s creation of  and adoption of an ordinance directly and negatively impacting a fundamental right. And, a definitive constitutional rule, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, does exist, contrary to the Seventh Circuit's assertion that there is none. The Seventh Circuit simply decided to ignore the Supreme Court’s clear and categorical and cogent holding. The Seventh Circuit’s argument in the Friedman case is not a direct and perceptive and critical review of a governmental ordinance, directly impinging upon and infringing the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, but an unconscionable digression from its duty to review, critically, the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance. The Seventh Circuit altogether ignores its duty, a that duty rests squarely on testing the constitutionality of the Highland Park ordinance in light of the holdings in Heller and McDonald.Fourth, the Seventh Circuit said, “another constitutional principle is relevant: The Constitution establishes a federal republic where local differences are cherished as elements of liberty, rather than eliminated in search for national uniformity.” Even so, where, as here, the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake, the assertion of such a principle in this instance amounts to nothing more than rhetorical flourish, not sound legal reasoning. The Court’s assertion is not sound and has absolutely no relevance here because, once again, where a fundamental right is at stake, the application of that right – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – applies “across the board,” that is to say, nationally – and the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases make this point poignant, clear, categorical, and unequivocal. “Local differences” are absolutely beside the point where fundamental rights, as set forth in our Bill of Rights, are at stake.The Seventh Circuit simply and erroneously sets up a peripheral straw man issue and ignores the salient one which goes to the very heart of the import of the Second Amendment: whether the City of Highland Park Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and, were it not so, then, whether that ordinance is, nonetheless, the least restrictive means available to the City of Highland Park for advancing a compelling governmental interest. By failing to consider the impact of the City of Highland Park ordinance on the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Seventh Circuit improperly reduced a serious constitutional issue before it to one of mere public policy, political process, and local political and social concerns. Such analysis by a court of review might be adequate to address some minimal social concern or political matter, but not one that goes to the heart of our rights and liberties under the U.S. Constitution, namely and specifically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.In his lengthy dissent, Judge Manion asserted, in his opening remarks, that “by prohibiting a class of weapons commonly used throughout the country, Highland Park’s ordinance infringes upon the rights of its citizens to keep weapons in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and their property. Both the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” The dissenting Judge also noted that Plaintiff Appellant Friedman did, in fact, lawfully keep in his home, for self-defense, the weapons and ammunition magazines that the ordinance now bans, and that Friedman was compelled to surrender them to the authorities or face a misdemeanor conviction that is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of between $500.00 and $1,000.00. The City of Highland Park ordinance thus forces a law-abiding citizen either to forsake his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms or to become a misdemeanant, end up in jail, pay a fine, and probably never again be able to own or possess any firearm.Once the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, finding for the Defendant Appellee, City of Highland Park, against Plaintiff Appellants, Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association, the Appellants petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan all were in attendance to consider the writ of certiorari. A majority of Justices denied the writ. Justices Thomas and Scalia were so incensed at the refusal to grant the petition for writ that Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, admonished their brethren in a dissent.In his opening remarks, Justice Thomas wrote, “‘[O]ur central holding in’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was ‘that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.’ And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec­ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well as the Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the decision below—have upheld categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015). Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.” It is abundantly clear that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has failed in its duty to carefully review a governmental ordinance that, on its face, amounts to a deliberate, audacious, callous, caustic, and defiant attack, not only on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but on clear and unambiguous holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald that directly apply to the Friedman case and inform the Court how to review an ordinance that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. By failing to consider the import and purport of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and McDonald, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in its holding in Friedman improperly and defiantly ignored the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.The Seventh Circuit has capitulated to local government; ignored the directives of the U.S. Supreme Court; failed to apply the appropriate legal standard when testing the constitutionality of a law or ordinance, infringing a fundamental right; reduced a serious constitutional issue to a mere administrative one; saw fit to prostate itself before a mere local government, raising that government to the level of potentate; made itself, wittingly or not, into a subservient ally of antigun groups; and allowed its status as an independent trier of law and fact to play a subordinate role to political forces. In ceding its own, critical judicial role, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has demonstrated a callous disregard of its duties and joined with government in undermining the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is most unfortunate that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices paid no heed to the remonstrations of Justices Thomas and Scalia. In denying the Friedman Appellants' petition for writ of certiorari, the majority of Justices allowed a clearly unsound and deeply offensive ruling of the Seventh Circuit to stand, unchallenged.The adverse and legally and logically unsound decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Friedman, coupled with the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to grant Appellants' petition for writ sets a bad precedent. Had the Justices, instead, granted the petition and determined to review the decision of the Seventh Circuit, then, thereafter, federal, State, and local governments and, too, federal and State courts would be placed on notice that the holdings of Heller and McDonald are not to be taken lightly. What has transpired in the Friedman case will only embolden antigun groups and their allies in government and in courts friendly to their political objectives to take further steps and ever more daring and outrageous steps to undercut the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Erosion of our remaining rights and liberties, as set forth in our Bill of Rights will, as well, follow suit.Indeed, when one takes the time to pause and consider what has, of late, been occurring in our Nation, one becomes immediately aware that the destruction of our Bill of Rights -- most prominently, our First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, along with our sacred Second Amendment -- is already well underway.____________________________________

*UPDATE AND CLARIFICATION:

Reviewing this post, we must clarify the points made in our analysis of strict scrutiny as a standard of review in Second Amendment cases. In our jurisprudence, where fundamental rights are at stake, such as exercise of one's Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, governments must apply the least restrictive means to accomplish their goals. And, Courts will use strict scrutiny to assess the constitutionality of laws, impacting fundamental rights, when a challenge is made as to the constitutionality of them.The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller did not, though, articulate a specific standard of review a court must use when assessing the constitutionality of a law when a constitutional challenge to a law impacting the Second Amendment is raised, apart from stating that the most liberal standard of judicial review, rational basis as a means test, is altogether inappropriate for means testing. It is not clear that the Highland Park Court used any standard of review but merely and essentially rubber stamped government edit. If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals applied any standard of review, in Friedman vs. Highland Park, then, tacitly, the Court applied "rational basis," the lowest most deferential standard of review. But, The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller pointedly remarked that rational basis was never the correct standard of review in Second Amendment cases and can never be appropriately applied in any Second Amendment case.That the  high Court did not apply a standard of review in Heller though was probably due to the fact that the Court found the District of Columbia's total ban on handguns to be facially, per se, invalid. The law was designed to destroy the core value of the Second Amendment and therefore had to be struck down as a blatant example of a law that was unconstitutional. So, the high Court found it unnecessary to apply strict scrutiny.For those laws, infringing the Second Amendment right that do not, on their face, appear to be invalid, then, arguably, consistent with Heller, heightened scrutiny of such law must be invoked and applied by a court of review.Strict scrutiny, as a means test, is, traditionally, the most durable and most stringent standard of heightened security a court or judicial review can apply, when deciding the constitutionality of a law. Yet, some Courts--those obviously antithetical to the Second Amendment-- have, through the failure of the Heller Court to articulate a definitive standard of review, tended to apply an intermediate scrutiny test or, as in the Friedman vs. Highland Park case, a rational basis, if a standard of review was applied by a Court at all, if only tacitly. Again, rational basis is not an appropriate standard for means testing a law infringing upon the Second Amendment in any circumstance. Curiously, rational basis is used by New York Courts and is used by those Courts with regularity to justify the NY Safe Act and to justify any other restrictive gun law that the New York State Legislature and other governmental bodies in New York implement. Under strict scrutiny or even under intermediate scrutiny, it is unlikely that New York's draconian gun laws would stand. New York Courts know this, and that may explain why they rigidly adhere to application of an incorrect, liberal standard of review at all.[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 NEW YORK TIMES’ CALL FOR NATIONAL GUN CONFISCATION IS LEGALLY INSUPPORTABLE AND MORALLY INSUFFERABLE

THE NEW YORK TIMES RESURRECTS FEINSTEIN'S MONSTER

The antigun groups have now made clear beyond any doubt their singular goal: remove firearms from the hands of Americans, nationally. In a rare editorial, appearing on the front page of the Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition of The New York Times, titled, “The Gun Epidemic,” the Times editorial staff presents its arguments for massive gun confiscation, at the national level. The New York Times – a vehicle of international socialist and globalist interests – is intent on divesting Americans of their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the Times is clearly and unconscionably setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency in 2016.The San Bernardino shooting incident, carried out by Islamic extremists – foreign invaders, whose allegiance, as the Times reports, are to the Islamic State – should be a clarion call to arms to all Americans. Instead, the Times uses this despicable attack by the Islamic State on innocent American citizens as a pretext for disarming all Americans. Treating this invasion on our shores as simply one more mass shooting, without regard to the motivation behind it, the Times calls for a massive, gun confiscation program at the national level. The rationale given for this unprecedented call for gun confiscation is reduction of gun violence – the same platitude voiced over and over by those individuals and groups intent on divesting Americans of their natural birthright and denying to Americans the right of self-defense, notwithstanding that the Federal Government either cannot adequately protect Americans from mass shootings -- whether or not these attacks are random or carefully planned and organized -- or the Government simply will not do so, despite constant assertions and assertions to the contrary.Since President Barack Obama refuses, incongruously, to seal our borders despite clear evidence of an attack in our Country by Islamic radicals, and since he continues to allow into our Country those of the Islamic faith, who are impossible to vet, one must wonder whether Obama is intentionally jeopardizing the security of the American people, to keep the American public off-guard, consistent with international globalist and international socialist interests and objectives, in preparation for America’s integration into a unified Socialist State at some point in the not too distant future. If so, the salient reason for the NY Times’ call for a program of massive gun confiscation has little, if anything, to do with reducing gun violence in this Country -- from whatever source -- and has everything to do with destruction of America’s sovereignty and subjugation of its citizenry. A massive gun confiscation program on the national stage would certainly hasten the accomplishment of that goal, paving the way for repeal of America’s Constitution, and, therefore, repeal of a critical portion of the Constitution -- America's Bill of Rights. Thus, would we see the international globalists and socialists smoothing the transition for the Nation's incorporation into a unified mega-international Socialist Order. And, the American people would be given a new constitution sans any mention of a right, existent in the people, to keep and bear arms.To Americans who see the United States as an independent sovereign Nation, beholding to and dependent on no other nation, and who place their faith in their Bill of Rights and, particularly, on the strength of the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights, such acts of gun violence, committed by criminals, lunatics, and, of late, by Islamic jihadists, there bespeaks a need for a strong citizenry, and that means an armed citizenry, not a disarmed, weakened one. But, a disarmed, weakened citizenry is clearly and specifically what the federal government has in mind for Americans. President Barack Obama has made that point many times and more incessantly -- with an air of urgency in recent days. Lest there be any doubt about this -- about the intention of wealthy, powerful, ruthless interests behind this effort to disarm the American citizenry, who use the mainstream news media to confound Americans and who proclaim that the only answer to this onslaught of gun violence in America is for American citizens to place their blind faith in and allegiance to the federal government, rather than to place faith in themselves and to take personal responsibility for defense of self and family -- suggesting, then, that the federal government -- and only the federal government can and, more to the point, is  warranted and permitted to protect them -- one ought to stop and consider the import of the following two remarks, appearing in the sixth paragraph of the NY Times front page, editorial: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”  The average person may not be quick to catch this, but there is an oblique message in these two assertions – both of which are utterly damning to American sensibilities, to the autonomy of the individual, to the sanctity of Americans’ Second Amendment, and certainly divisive, as the editorial can and is probably meant to tear the public apart, for The New York Times' assertions do most assuredly play to the sentiments of antigun proponents and zealots, even as those same sentiments will anger, and rightly so, every other American. So let us parse those assertions.The NY Times says the language of the Second Amendment is “peculiar.” Yet, the Times’ use of the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the language of the Second Amendment, is itself peculiar. The meaning of the independent clause in the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – is straightforward, cogent, clear, and certainly not “peculiar” to the American people. Indeed, that The New York Times would use the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the Second Amendment at all, suggests that the newspaper does not reflect America’s interests but, rather, the interests of the international socialists and globalists, intent on dismantling the Second Amendment in particular and dismantling the nine other Amendments, generally, which depend on the Second Amendment, ultimately, for their preservation. For, only to foreign governments whose history is unlike ours and whose constitutions are devoid of any mention of an inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms would America's Second Amendment possibly look "peculiar." But for an American newspaper to use that adjective to describe the Second Amendment, that should give the public pause.Take a look at the constitution of any other Western nation. Even if a constitution talks about firearms in the hands of the citizenry at all -- and very few constitutions do -- no constitution but that of the United States places that right squarely in the hands of the citizenry itself. In no other nation on this Earth does the right to keep and bear arms reside in the People. Rather, that right resides exclusively in the State. In those Western Countries that the New York Times clearly emulates, namely, France, England, and Norway, which the Times mentions in its editorial, the constitutions of those Countries do not respect the inalienable right of their citizens to keep and bear weapons in their own defense and as a means to secure their individual rights and liberties. Therefore, Countries such as France, England, and Norway, unlike the United States, clearly do not recognize that the citizens, themselves, are the ultimate guardians of their own rights and liberties, and so their citizens do not have the inalienable right to defend themselves with the most effective means available for doing so – that provided by a firearm; nor do those Countries recognize, in their people, the right of their people to secure their own rights and liberties through firearms, if the need should ever arise.Indeed, the Times admits, “that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.” But, in that very admission, the Times follows up with the singularly bizarre assertion, “But at least those Countries are trying.” Really, “trying?” What are those Countries trying to do through strict gun laws? The Times' assertion is incoherent. If those Countries are trying to provide safe havens for Islamic foreign invaders, and convert their citizenry into a flock of defenseless sheep, then those Countries are certainly succeeding! Must the U.S. follow the lead of those Countries? The New York Times says, unequivocally, “yes.” The language of our Second Amendment, however, manifestly counters the Times’ assertion with an emphatic, “no!”The New York Times also says, “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” This, too, is a particularly odd and outrageous remark as it denigrates our jurisprudence.First, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, expressly set forth in the language of our Country’s Bill of Rights. The New York Times cannot reasonably deny the truth of that assertion. And, as a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of something more than some protection. As a fundamental right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is deserving of the strongest possible protection. Second, to say that a fundamental right is not unlimited, namely, absolute, is merely a legal platitude. The Times is incorrect to suggest, as it does, that the Government can employ whatever regulation of the right it wants, whenever it wants, simply because no right, even a fundamental right, is not absolute.Second, the Times says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is subject to “reasonable regulation.” Understand, the New York Times is making a legal pronouncement, here, not merely – as most readers are inclined to see it – a colorful, somewhat innocuous, editorial remark. The Times is tacitly invoking a criterion of judicial review that many State courts use in order to determine whether a State law – regulating gun possession and gun ownership, say -- can withstand judicial scrutiny. The Times is asserting, albeit cryptically, that this standard of judicial review, ‘reasonable regulation,’ should apply, across the board, without exception, to each and every legal challenge a complainant may bring to the constitutionality of a federal or state gun law restriction. But, there is a serious problem with this. The problem is that the criterion of  ‘reasonable regulation’ is a very weak standard, virtually indistinguishable from the ‘rational basis test’ which many State courts, such as those in New York, the home of the New York Times, routinely use to test the constitutionality of their State's own draconian gun laws.Under both the ‘reasonable regulation’ standard and ‘rational basis test,’ State courts simply look to see whether a particular law is rationally related to a particular governmental purpose. In effect, this weak standard of review hamstrings Courts and allows States to impose draconian gun laws on the public. The New York Safe Act, which is one of the most restrictive gun measures in the Nation, when compared to the gun measures of any other jurisdiction in the United States, passes judicial scrutiny in New York precisely because the New York State Government need only assert – and need not argue – that the NY Safe Act is rationally directed to a legitimate government purpose – say, reduction in gun violence. If the New York Safe Act were challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction in New York – and of course various provisions of the Act, as well as the Act in its entirety, have been challenged in New York courts since enactment of the NY Safe Act – that court of competent jurisdiction is only permitted to decide whether the  Safe Act is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. In applying that standard of judicial review -- rational basis -- a court must give considerable deference to a legislative action. So, unless the law is clearly arbitrary on its face or clearly has no relationship at all to the matter for which it ostensibly was enacted, which is to say, that the government cannot demonstrate that the law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose, the law will be upheld. So, under either the rational basis test or the reasonable regulation standard, the latter of which the Times makes specific reference to in its front page editorial, a court of competent jurisdiction is prohibited from going further in its scrutiny of the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation. So, under the rational basis test a law can be very broad in scope and overreach its stated objective. That is of no consequence to the basic question of the constitutionality of it under either the rational basis test or under the essentially identical reasonable regulation standard. And the result is – as the NY Safe Act clearly demonstrates – that extraordinarily draconian gun laws pass constitutional muster. This is perverse. And, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the NY Safe Act flies in the face of the high Court’s holding because New York courts continue to use a relaxed standard of review in testing the constitutionality of the NY Safe Act, notwithstanding that the Act has a highly corrosive effect on a fundamental right: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Gun ownership and gun possession is a fundamental right. Even antigun proponents and zealots cannot reasonably deny the legal certainty of that fact. Legislation that impacts the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms demands extraordinary judicial scrutiny, not weakened, relaxed scrutiny. State courts and federal courts are, under our jurisprudence, expected to utilize the strict scrutiny test where fundamental rights are impacted. Can the New York Safe Act withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny criterion? The answer is clearly, “no.” Under a strict scrutiny criterion, the State Government has the burden of showing that the NY Safe Act, which places inordinate restrictions on a citizen’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms, is nonetheless necessary to satisfy a compelling State interest – in this case: the compelling interest of the State to reduce gun violence. But, importantly, under the strict scrutiny test, the constitutionality of the law or governmental regulation under review is not presumed, unlike the constitutionality of a law or governmental regulation would be presumed under the rational basis test, or under that test's functional equivalent, the reasonable regulation standard. Therefore, the burden of proof for the State of New York is a difficult one under strict scrutiny would be exceedingly difficult to overcome. Under either the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, on the other hand, a court of review in New York is legally required to presume, in the first instance, that a law or regulation is constitutional, hence valid. So, under the rational basis test or “reasonable regulation” standard, the New York State Government is able, very easily, to enact draconian gun laws that, just as easily, pass constitutional muster. This explains why challenges to various provisions of the Safe Act – except in one or two instances – fail, and this explains why challenges to the Safe Act in its entirety have, to date, also failed. And, this explains why draconian gun laws, such as the New York Safe Act, are able to exist and continue to exist at all. And, critically, this also clearly explains why The New York Times expresses a desire for courts of competent jurisdiction to use a relaxed standard of judicial review when testing the constitutionality of a draconian State or federal gun law or governmental regulation.Through application of the rational basis test or reasonable regulation standard, New York, and any other State, and, for that matter, Congress itself, can enact gun laws that infringe the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, and such laws will still, almost invariably, pass a constitutional challenge. And that is why, traditionally at least, our jurisprudence respects challenges to laws that impact fundamental rights such as the right of the people  to keep and bear arms, requiring State and federal governments to overcome an extremely difficult standard of judicial review if their restrictive gun laws are to be held constitutional and, therefore, to survive challenges to their constitutionality. This means that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a law or regulation is constitutional. But, under either the rational basis test or "reasonable regulation" standard that the NY Times refers to in its editorial, the burden rests with the challenger, in the first instance, to show that a particular law or governmental regulation is, in fact, unconstitutional. Under strict scrutiny, the burden rests squarely on the government to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the law or regulation is, in fact, constitutional. That is a crucial difference and explains why the New York Times not only asks for enactment of extremely restrictive gun laws on the national stage but, as well, explains why the Times would mandate use of a relaxed standard of review once the laws were challenged in federal court, and the constitutionality of those laws would be challenged. Under a relaxed standard of judicial review, such draconian gun laws would very likely survive a court challenge, testing the laws' constitutionality. Thus, the Times calls for use of the "reasonable regulation" standard of judicial review.But, if a New York State or New York federal court of competent jurisdiction applies strict scrutiny, say, to the New York Safe Act, for example, as it should, in lieu of the rational basis test, the New York State Government must prove to the Court’s satisfaction that the NY Safe Act furthers a compelling government interest. But that doesn’t end the inquiry. Strict scrutiny embraces a two-part test. Assuming the Government can prove to the satisfaction of the court that the New York Safe Act does serve a compelling State interest, the State Government must then show that the NY Safe Act is narrowly tailored to meet that objective – say, reduction of gun violence. That means the Government must prove to the satisfaction of the court, that the NY Safe Act is the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence in the State even if the State  can show that the Act is directed to satisfying a compelling State interest. If and only if the reviewing court is satisfied that the NY Safe Act amounts to the least restrictive means available to the Government for reducing gun violence will that court of review hold the Act constitutional. Otherwise, it will not do so, and cannot legally do so. Application of strict scrutiny to a law or governmental regulation is very difficult for a government to overcome. Application of the standard of strict scrutiny is meant to be difficult to overcome when a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right is at stake.Challenges to fundamental rights are meant to fail precisely because preservation of the fundamental rights of the American people is itself fundamental to preservation of a free Republic. And a free Republic cannot long endure if State and federal governments can, virtually at will, enact laws that tend to undercut and negate the Bill of Rights. Hence, it is highly unlikely that the New York Safe Act would survive judicial review under a strict scrutiny test. Since the NY Safe Act directly impacts a fundamental right it is presumed from the get-go, that the Act is constitutionally invalid. Thus the burden on a State government or on the federal government to show that a draconian gun law is legally required is considerable, and necessarily so. A reviewing court is likely to see the NY Safe Act as the charade and subterfuge it really is: an underhanded attempt to undercut and negate the efficacy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the guise of protecting the public from gun violence.Clearly, for the New York State Government to argue that denying to thousands of law-abiding New York residents access to large categories of firearms is the least restrictive means available to it for reducing gun violence is neither logically sound nor legally defensible. It is therefore highly unlikely that the NY Safe Act could withstand judicial scrutiny under a strict scrutiny standard. Thus, to say that no right – even a fundamental right – is not absolute, is not to suggest that a government can essentially regulate the right away whenever it so wishes. And, The New York Times is wrong in suggesting that it can.Now it is one thing for courts in New York to apply a weak standard of judicial review that allows for the existence of draconian gun laws, negatively impacting the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; it is quite another to suggest that such a weak judicial standard should be applied across the board. Yet, this is precisely what the NY Times is asking for: that Congress should enact laws denying to tens of millions of law-abiding Americans the right to own and possess entire categories of firearms and that, if anyone should challenge the constitutionality of such a law, then a court of competent jurisdiction should be required to apply a relaxed standard of review, namely ‘reasonable regulation,’ which would virtually guarantee that an unconstitutional law would pass constitutional muster when it should not and would not if challenged under the strict scrutiny test.As you may recall, Democrats attempted, essentially, to expand the NY Safe Act nationally in 2013. The "illustrious," Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Party Senator from California, introduced a bill, in 2013, in the Senate, to ban so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity ammunition magazines.” Her bill, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” included 157 kinds of firearms that the American public would no longer be able to lawfully own and possess. And Americans could no longer own and possess ammunition magazines that held more than 10 cartridges, if that bill became law. Feinstein's “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" was meant to resurrect the earlier “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” which banned 19 weapons and, in fact, to expand upon “The Assault Weapons of 1994,” which expired in accordance with its sunset provision in 2004. Fortunately, attempts by antigun Senators to renew the law, failed. And, Feinstein’s new 2013 bill could never gain traction. It failed by a vote of the Senate, 40 to 60, in April of 2013. Now, through despicable hubris and subterfuge on the part of a newspaper, The New York Times, that newspaper is attempting to resurrect Feinstein’s own dead antigun bill, using “fear," together with sleight-of-hand, to encourage the American public to take action against its own best self-interest – in effect calling upon the public to contact Congress to bring Feinstein’s Monster, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” back to life in the form of an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2016.”If there is any doubt about the New York Times’ deplorable intentions actions, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the Times makes the point that: “certain kinds of weapons . . . and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up. . . .” This is essentially Feinstein’s: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Now, under a strict scrutiny standard of review, Feinstein’s resurrected antigun bill, as a draconian antigun law – essentially the New York Safe Act, applied nationally (assuming for purpose of argument that  an assault weapons ban could succeed, at all, in 2016, when the Act failed in 2013) -- would almost certainly be struck down by federal courts, once challenged, and it would be challenged. But, under a relaxed “reasonable regulation” standard or under its functional equivalent, the “rational basis” test, such a law would more easily pass judicial scrutiny. This is why the New York Times presses for both an assault weapons ban and, at once, deviously, insists upon a relaxed legal standard of review, so that the Government can legally require Americans who own “certain kinds of weapons” – and one can fill in the blank as to what those weapons are, although the list would probably and eventually be extended to encompass all of them – to surrender them to government authorities and if such overreaching law were challenged in federal court, such challenge would almost certainly fail.The Times adds, piously, that Americans must give up their weapons "for the good of their fellow citizens.” In other words, the Times is saying that, for the “good” of the Collective, as defined by the puppet masters of Government, the sanctity and autonomy of each individual American must be forfeited. Of course, this will not make Americans safer. In fact it will make Americans substantially less safe as American citizens will be more prone to gun violence by sociopathic Islamic jihadists, psychopathic criminals and criminal gangs, and assorted lunatics. No doubt, the Times had substantial assistance from a phalanx of antigun lawyers to assist it when drafting its front page editorial.And, keep in mind that, if the New York Times is suggesting that, in the very act of dispossessing Americans of their firearms, thereby dismantling the Second Amendment, the Government is in some bizarre manner doing something beneficial for Americans, it is abundantly clear the Times is actually doing something quite contrary to the seemingly benign act of disarming Americans. The New York Times is actually targeting all Americans – hence, resurrection of Feinstein’s Monster. Clearly, the desire of the Times editorial staff is to target the millions of  law-abiding, sane, rational American gun owners – not simply Islamic jihadists, criminals and lunatics. For, in this same front page editorial, the Times asserts, that any American who wants those weapons, which the Times calls “weapons of war,”  must be corralled and considered criminally suspect. The Times asserts in the flamboyant, typically pious manner of the antigun zealot: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Ergo, if an American would want such a weapon, much less insist on owning and possessing such a weapon, there must be something seriously wrong with that individual. Thus, The New York Times is targeting essentially all Americans. This is a frontal assault on the Second Amendment itself – a frontal assault on the exercise of a fundamental right of every law-abiding American. The only outrage and national disgrace here is The New York Times itself that would undercut our Free Republic and undermine the Bill of Rights that is the bedrock of our Free Republic.If the Second Amendment is frontally assaulted by the very Government -- the federal Government that is supposed to defend and preserve it, since it is a component of our Constitution – indeed a fundamental part of it -- then the People must defend it because  a quiet coup d’etat of the federal government is already underway. Thus, The New York Times isn’t preventing insurrection, it is fomenting it, inviting it, daring Americans to take arms against the very federal Government that was created to serve the People, as that same federal Government  now boldly asserts its dominion over the People – with the devout blessing of, and encouragement of, a member of the “Fourth Estate,” that the founders had themselves blessed with protection through the language of the First Amendment, guaranteeing the freedom of the Press. That same Press is now working with the federal  Government -- not as a check against it but as a tool of it -- against the American people.The New York Times has, in its front page editorial, insidiously suggested, through a very thin veil, that any American who would fight to preserve that “peculiar” Second Amendment is an American who must be treated no differently than a lunatic, criminal, or Islamic jihadist. And, as if the incendiary nature of that front page editorial were not enough, the Times continues feeding the American public with copious amounts of nonsensical fodder inside that same Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition.In another article, appearing on page 5 of the Saturday edition of the New York Times, the newspaper cites to Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama’s emulation of Australia’s gun laws. The New York times says, “President Obama has cited the country’s gun laws as a model for the United States, calling Australia a nation ‘like ours.’” The newspaper also mentions Clinton’s statement that “the Australian approach is ‘worth considering.’” Actually, Australia is anything but a nation like ours. In our article posted on December 1, 2015, in the Arbalest Quarrel, and which was also posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News in condensed summary, we emphasized that Clinton’s support for a national gun confiscation program, if actually implemented, would be patently illegal. The mainstream news media did not, at that time, give wide coverage of her remarks at last month’s Town Hall Meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, as Clinton’s remarks were seen as too farfetched even for the mainstream news media, as her remarks show a callous disregard and disrespect for the U.S. Constitution – this coming from a person with legal training who was educated at an elite university – and most Americans would clearly take serious exception with those remark if they were subject to widespread coverage and her chances of securing the U.S. Presidency in 2016 would be jeopardized. The mainstream news media did not, apparently, wish to ruin Clinton’s chances. Apparently, the New York Times, as one mainstream news media source, has, almost two months since that Town Hall meeting, reconsidered and decided to fully support Clinton’s position on gun ownership and possession, extreme as it is and trust that, by adopting that extreme position, itself, make it appear less extreme to the American people. Of course, The Times is well aware that it is actively creating dissension in the American populace, but it is betting that most Americans will side with Clinton on Second Amendment issues. Supposedly, public addresses by the current U.S. President will also serve to make assaults on the Second Amendment less “off-putting” to most Americans. At least that is the grand design of the international globalists and socialists, who control the mainstream media and who pull the strings of many Government Officials, including those of the present U.S. President, Barack Obama.The Times newspaper is clearly setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency. But that Presidency will pave the way for the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution by way of a full frontal assault on the Second Amendment. A Republican Congress would never allow the Second Amendment to be defeated. But, assuming arguendo, Congress were to enact a law requiring confiscation of guns on an unprecedented scale, the law would not withstand judicial review under a strict scrutiny standard. The U.S. Supreme Court would be the last Branch of Government called upon to protect the U.S. Constitution. For, if federal courts applied a lesser standard of scrutiny to a massive national gun confiscation law, such as ‘reasonable regulation,’ that the New York Times is asking for, Congress would be defying the U.S. Supreme Court which has the last word on the constitutionality of a Congressional Act. For a massive gun confiscation scheme would effectively nullify the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in the 2008 Heller case and, so, would be unconstitutional on its face. That, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would not allow.For this reason, in yet a third article appearing in the Saturday edition of the NY Times, there is posed the possibility of the U.S. President defying both Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court by imposing a massive gun confiscation scheme through executive order. Of course the NY Times would like to see this but even the Times recognizes that such an action by a U.S. President would be patently illegal. Still, if Barack Obama dared to do that – attack the Second Amendment head-on – such unilateral action by the Chief  Executive, who is not reluctant to use executive orders would, in this instance, amount to an impeachable offense. But, if the Democrats take control of Congress and if Clinton secures the “Oval Office,” then Americans have much to worry about. For Clinton would certainly make several federal district court and appellate court appointments and U.S. Supreme Court nominations and such people, whom she would appoint to the federal courts and nominate to the highest Court of the Land would generally support unconstitutional executive orders, designed to weaken the Second Amendment. Ultimately, a Clinton Presidency could very well pave the way for de facto, revocation of the Second Amendment, if not outright repeal of it. Other rights under the Bill of Rights would fall like dominos.If the New York Times would manifest a concern over an assault on the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press, it is disheartening that it would demonstrate such a callous disregard for the Second. The Bill of Rights is not to be thought of like so many flavors of ice cream. One doesn’t pick and choose which ones to approve of and which ones to disapprove of. Thus, one must ask the publishers and editors of the New York Times, who, in this front page editorial, have attacked the Second Amendment without even a semblance of restraint: "have you lost your minds?" They may think that the American public is behind them on this. The Times is clearly directing its attention to the frightened and ignorant among us, who see in a Clinton Presidency what the Times says the public needs: protection that only Big Government can provide. What the Times fails to see, though, is that, if most Americans perceive a threat to their sacred rights and liberties, they will defend those rights and liberties at whatever cost, not merely from lunatics, criminals, and foreign invaders, but from an overreaching government itself. Indeed, the threat to the rights and liberties of the American People posed by the federal government itself is significantly more dangerous – infinitely more dangerous – than acts of gun violence perpetrated by lunatics, criminals and, of late, from radicalized Islamic sociopaths. The New York Times is hoping and trusting that most Americans do not -- and will not -- realize what it is they are being asked to sacrifice in the name of feigned security.So it is that the real threat to America is becoming increasingly plain to most Americans. That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State, and they are using, through the New York Times newspaper, the bugaboo of Islamic jihadists to frighten the American public into forsaking its sacred rights and liberties. The New York Times is obviously the sounding board that gives voice to the propaganda such powerful, ruthless individuals and groups seek to use against the American People – that the People will give up their rights and liberties, unknowingly, through subterfuge, possibly, and, if that fails, then through coercion. As these un-American interests so dare to bring America to its knees, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day of reckoning is fast approaching.[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.

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.