WHERE DOES THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS REST? FROM CONGRESS? FROM THE PRESS? FROM THE PRESIDENT? FROM ALL THREE TAKEN TOGETHER? THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU!

KOLBE VS. HOGAN:

INTERIM REMARKS

The Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadily on a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the Kolbe case. We are taking a short timeout with this segment, subtitled, “Interim Remarks,” to place the substantial time we are devoting to Kolbe in proper perspective. We feel our analysis has singular importance now with the Senate Judiciary Hearings on the Gorsuch confirmation that took place these past few days, and which have concluded. Senate Democrats are now filibustering, to prevent a vote on the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.The Arbalest Quarrel will continue its comprehensive, analytical exposition of the Kolbe case, considering its negative impact on the Second Amendment and considering, as well, the failure of the Fourth Circuit to take proper note of and abide by the rulings and reasoning of the high Court in the seminal Heller case. The high Court provided clear guidance to the lower Courts for the proper handling of Second Amendment cases where government action attacks the core of the Second Amendment.What is unfortunately abundantly clear now is that lower federal Courts will, at times, ignore rulings and reasoning and guidance of the U.S. Supreme Court if those lower federal Courts do not agree with the methodology, the rulings, the reasoning, and the jurisprudential underpinnings of the law as reflected in specific cases. So it is that we see some United States Circuits ignoring the precepts of Heller. But, regardless of a jurist’s political and social philosophy, precedent must not be ignored. Precedent must never be ignored. All too often as we see, though, judicial precedent is ignored, and it is, not infrequently, ignored in the most important cases: those cases negatively impacting our most sacred rights and liberties.If anything came out of the Neil Gorsuch confirmation hearings —where Judge Gorsuch had to suffer through days of torturous questioning and insufferable pontificating of Senate Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee—the public has come to see that Judge Gorsuch believes fervently in the importance of legal precedent as the cornerstone of our system of laws. This is necessary if our system of laws is not to be reduced to a set of discordant, inconsistent body of law, providing no guidance on which Courts may reasonably rely.The public has also seen that Judge Gorsuch gives credence to the law enacted by Congress, as written. Judge Gorsuch does not allow personal feeling to sway his rulings. That seems to bother some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It should, though, give the public hope. For, the public can rest assured that Judge Gorsuch, sitting on the high Court as an Associate Justice, will demonstrate proper restraint—applying the law to the facts as that law exists, and not as he may, perhaps, rather like the law to be.What the law ought to be is subject matter for legal and political philosophical musings set down in essays. When a judge opines on a case before that judge, the jurist is not to render judgment on what the law ought to be but must predicate his or her rulings on what the state of the law is, and elucidate findings of fact and conclusions of law on that basis and on that basis alone. Frankly, all too often we do not see this. The worst and most dangerous example of improper legal judgment is judgment reflected in personal feeling peppered, if only tacitly, but unmistakably, in legal opinions—personal feeling overriding judicial restraint in matters directly impacting the Bill of Rights, not least of which, we see on the continued assault against the clear meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment.The rabid assault on the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution continues unabated notwithstanding the clear reasoning of and holdings in the Heller case. But, where do the greatest and gravest threats rest?Contrary to popular opinion on the matter, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests less upon the assertive, pretentious, sanctimonious, noxious rhetorical flourishes and rancor of some elected officials who disdainfully, arrogantly voice their antipathy toward the Second Amendment—even if that rancor is masked through the obligatory assertion, “but of course I support the Second Amendment,” as if, through the addition of that assertion to the official’s polemic, the elected official may effectively hide his or her clear distaste toward the very idea that the average, law-abiding, rational, American citizen—not working as a policeman, or as a soldier, or as a licensed bodyguard, or as a government or private security officer, or in some unknown, secretive governmental capacity, but merely, solely as a civilian—should actually ever be armed with—horror of horrors—a firearm.And, contrary to popular opinion on the matter, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests less upon the loud, vociferous, discordant voice of writers, editors, and owners of mainstream media whose antipathy toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms is well-known by the public, and is at once both longstanding and supremely malevolent.Rather, the greatest threat to our Bill of Rights, generally, and the gravest danger to our Second Amendment, particularly, rests more on the actions of activist Jurists of the federal District and Circuit Courts whose arcane opinions, seemingly well-learned and well-reasoned, merely obscure an intent to defeat the Second Amendment despite clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court.The threat posed by an activist Judiciary to the preservation of our basic liberties, as envisioned by the founders of our Free Republic is very real, not to be reasonably denied. And that threat posed to our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is ultimately greater than that posed by either a recalcitrant Congress or a derelict Press.The danger posed by an activist Judiciary is greater and graver to our sacred rights and liberties because the Judiciary is the final arbiter of what our law means and, therefore, how the law impacts our lives.As our Constitution sets forth, Congress makes the law we live by. The Executive enforces the law that Congress enacts. But, as the grand interpreter of the law—what the law means and whether the law is consistent with the U.S. Constitution—whether a law shall operate at all, and, if so, the effect it has on our lives—it is for the Judiciary to say. It is not for Congress to say; and it is not for the U.S. President to say; and it is certainly, not for the Press to tell the American people what the law of the Land is.No! The Judiciary, alone, is the final arbiter of what the law is. Some may think the Judiciary wields less power than the two other Branches of Government. After all, the Judiciary does not have the power of the purse, which, along with the unequivocal and singular power to make law, exists in Congress alone. The Judiciary does not wield power over the military, or over the federal police agencies, or over the vast intelligence apparatuses, all of which fall within the direct purview of the Executive. But, as the final arbiter of our law—what the law means and how the law is to be applied—assuming we remain a Nation ruled by law, truly ruled by law, and not by men—no American should underestimate the power the Judiciary wields over our lives.Even the most uninformed citizens among us knows full well the power of the Judiciary in the matter of immigration. That has been on full display. That power can and, most recently has tied the hands of the U.S. President, as Commander in Chief of our Nation, taxed with the singular duty to protect the People of our great Nation from all threats both foreign and domestic.President Donald Trump, promising to do his best to defend this Nation against imminent and serious threat posed by Islamic terrorists —clearly among his most important duties as U.S. President—has been constrained and frustrated in that effort due to the machinations of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and thereafter by the U.S. District Court of Hawaii—Courts that have, through their actions, placed the welfare of this Nation and the physical safety of its citizens at considerable risk as those Courts, through their opinions, demonstrate that the wishes of non-citizens who seek to emigrate to America from failed States are to be given more consideration than are the health and well-being of this Nation and the physical safety of American citizens. And, it doesn’t stop there, with immigration.Activist U.S. District Court and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges express their disdain of the Second Amendment and their continued defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court through decisions that rein in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They denigrate the import and purport of our Second Amendment through manipulation of legal doctrine.If our pronouncement be undiplomatic, untactful toward the Judiciary, so be it. This is not a time for niceties. For the decisions of the Judiciary—the words expressed in opinions—are proof of political activism that strike at the heart of the health, welfare, and safety of our Nation and at the import and purport of our Bill of Rights.No less has the Fourth Circuit, in our estimate, manipulated legal doctrine, in denigration of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Obscuring opinion in arcane legalese does little to disguise the fact that legal opinions coming out of this Circuit in the recent Kolbe case are antithetical to and involve a misunderstanding—whether consciously deliberate or incautiously but honestly mistaken—of the rulings and reasoning of the Heller Court.The Fourth Circuit relies for support, in part, on similar rulings of its sister Courts, most notably, those of the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits. By relying for support on opinions of their sister Courts, the Fourth Circuit aims, it seems to us, to deflect honest criticism away from itself, thereby suggesting that similar rulings of these other Courts that belie the rulings, reasoning, and clear guidance of the majority opinion, penned by Justice Scalia, in Heller, do somehow demonstrate that the Fourth Circuit does give due consideration to the holdings and reasoning of Heller, rather than contradicting the holdings and reasoning of that seminal Second Amendment case. But that is not the case at all.We firmly believe—as we have explained and will elucidate yet further—the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, having taken its cue from the U.S. District Court of Maryland and from the opinions of various sister Courts, strained to find a loophole in the Heller case to justify finding Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act to be legal. There isn’t any. So, the Fourth Circuit created one out of whole cloth.The gravest error of the Courts of the Fourth Circuit consists in the application of a standard of review that the Heller Court specifically rejected. Proceeding from an improper footing, an erroneous decision—but one the Fourth Circuit obviously wanted—could not but follow from the application of the wrong standard.Happy the Fourth Circuit would be, as would other United States Circuit Courts that elicit similar sympathies, if Heller were simply overturned. Were Judge Merrick Garland to have sat on the high Court, that pipedream for the antigun movement would come to pass. There is no doubt about that. Clearly, that was one end that Barack Obama had in mind which is why he nominated Merrick Garland to Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was one end that Hillary Clinton would have had in mind were she to have been elected U.S. President. For, she would certainly have been elated to sit Judge Garland on the high Court. Thankfully, neither the previous U.S. President or the one who would be Queen will never get their wish.If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed and he should be and undoubtedly will be—despite a Democratic threat of filibuster of his confirmation which is now unfolding—the Heller case should remain untouched—even if ignored by various Circuit Courts as we see in Kolbe. Heller is the first case that extends—albeit tacitly—the idea that, where the very core of a fundamental right is attacked in a government action—a facial challenge to that governmental action will be given proper consideration.The U.S. Supreme Court made clear enough in Heller, to the surprise and, we are sure, much to the consternation of the D.C. Government and to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, that the U.S. Supreme Court would not shrink from applying facial challenge methodology to an action by government that attacks the core of the Second Amendment even if that had not previously been done. We should see that methodology applied as well in Kolbe if Kolbe or a similar case is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. We hope and trust and pray that Judge Gorsuch sits on the high Court as the Ninth Justice when this happens.We continue with our analysis of the Kolbe case with Part Five of our multi-series article, to be posted shortly._________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND IGNORES U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, OPENLY AND BLATANTLY DEFYING HELLER.

PART FOUR

The Maryland District Court incorrectly and improperly interpreted Justice Scalia as saying: “the Supreme Court held in Heller I* that a heightened level of scrutiny applies to regulations found to burden the Second Amendment right, 554 U.S. at 628 n.27, but did not further articulate whether and when strict or intermediate scrutiny applies.” Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768, 789 (U.S. Dist. Ct. Md. 2014), affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the District Court by the three Judge Panel in Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. Md., 2016). It was not by accident that the high Court in Heller refrained from articulating when intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny, as a legal standard, applies to test the constitutionality of legislation impinging on the Second Amendment. The Heller Court deliberately refrained from doing so.The high Court intentionally refrained from articulating any standard of review—whether rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, some hybrid standard, or a completely new and novel standard of review, such as the one Justice Breyer devised for Heller, in his dissenting opinion—because Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority’s opinion, knew that any standard a lower court or the U.S. Supreme Court utilized to test the constitutionality of legislation, impinging upon and directly infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, would likely fail if a lower Court—antithetical to the very existence of the Second Amendment—wished to uphold an unconstitutional law. The decision and reasoning of the U.S. District Court of Maryland in Kolbe vs. O’Malley demonstrably bears out Justice Scalia’s concern.Justice Scalia knew full well a lower Court would foreordain the result it wanted, through any standard of review the high Court might articulate. Thus, a lower Court could cloak a wrongly decided case by simply pointing to the standard the high Court happens to tell a lower Court to use, and, in so “applying” that standard, uphold a facially unconstitutional law, finding the law to be perfectly valid and, hence, lawful, when in fact it isn’t.Justice Scalia apparently felt confident that, by refusing to articulate a standard of review for testing the constitutionality of a government action that directly impinges and infringes the core of the Second Amendment, a lower Court will draw the right conclusion and strike down such government action—even if a lower Court does so reluctantly because it happens to harbor animosity toward the Second Amendment. But, Justice Scalia did not, apparently, realize the lengths to which a lower Court would go to defend governmental actions directed to the core of the Second Amendment even if such Courts flirt with injudicious defiance of clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent.The District Court of Maryland extrapolated from a totally erroneous interpretation of Heller, relying on exposition from an earlier Fourth Circuit case that reflects law decidedly and decisively overridden by Heller. The District Court of Maryland said, “From the Court’s holding in Heller I, the Fourth Circuit has subsequently determined that whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies requires the court to consider ‘the nature of the person’s Second Amendment interest, the extent to which those interests are burdened by government regulation, and the strength of the government’s justifications for the regulation.’” Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d at 789, relying for support on United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 470 (4th Cir. 2011).The District Court’s understanding of Heller is flat-out wrong. The District Court points for support, for its reasoning and for its decision, to parenthetical material, dicta, appearing in Heller. Dicta, though, does not constitute the salient ruling of the high Court—hence the reason that such material appears in a footnote and not in the body of the high Court’s opinion.In that footnote to the Heller Opinion, Justice Scalia was doing nothing more than responding to Justice Breyer’s comment—a comment that appeared in Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia was simply agreeing with Breyer that rational basis—the lowest standard of review to test the constitutionality of government action—is never an appropriate standard when that government action directly and clearly and fatally impinges on and infringes an enumerated right, such as the Second Amendment. What Justice Scalia said in “fn27,” which the District Court refers to, and as we pointed out in Part Three of this series, and which bears repeating is this:“Justice Breyer correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny [citation omitted]. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. [citation omitted]. In those cases, ‘rational basis’ is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n 4, 58 S. Ct. 778, 82 L. Ed. 1234 (1938) (‘There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . . .’ If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."From these remarks the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland felt justified, nonetheless, to apply some standard of review—when the Heller majority did not warrant use of any standard of review to test the constitutionality of governmental action that impinges on and infringes the very core of the Second Amendment. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, made abundantly clear that all standards of review are inadequate when the core of the Second Amendment is attacked.Justice Scalia therefore refused to be pinned down to elucidating a test to be used by the courts when analyzing whether a given law that operates to ban an entire category of weapons that the public commonly uses for self-defense might feasibly survive a constitutional challenge. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, refused to be pinned down because he realized that, under any of the standard tests Court’s employ to test the constitutionality of a legislative act—specifically where a legislature attacks a core component of the Second Amendment—will often be found to be constitutional if the Court and an antigun government are of like mind.Responding to Justice Breyer’s criticism of the majority for not elucidating a standard of review, Justice Scalia said this:"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.’ [citation omitted]. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: Because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED. We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—and the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.”Curiously, Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, makes Justice Scalia’s point for Scalia’s refusal to articulate a standard of review—even strict scrutiny. Justice Breyer says:“. . . adoption of a true strict-scrutiny standard for evaluating gun regulations would be impossible. That is because almost every gun-control regulation will seek to advance (as the one here does) a ‘primary concern of every government—a concern for the safety and indeed the lives of its citizens.’” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987). The Court has deemed that interest, as well as "the Government's general interest in preventing crime," to be "compelling," see id., at 750, 754, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, and the Court has in a wide variety of constitutional contexts found such public-safety concerns sufficiently forceful to justify restrictions on individual liberties, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969) (per curiam) (First Amendment  free speech rights); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403, 83 S. Ct. 1790, 10 L. Ed. 2d 965 (1963) (First Amendment religious rights); Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403-404, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 164 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2006) (Fourth Amendment protection of the home); New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655, 104 S. Ct. 2626, 81 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1984) (Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)); Salerno, supra, at 755, 107 S.  Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (Eighth Amendment bail rights). Thus, any attempt in theory to apply strict scrutiny to gun regulations will in practice turn into an interest-balancing inquiry, with the interests protected by the Second Amendment on one side and the governmental public-safety concerns on the other, the only question being whether the regulation at issue impermissibly burdens the former in the course of advancing the latter. I would simply adopt such an interest-balancing inquiry explicitly.” And, in so doing, Justice Breyer made a glaring mistake. Justice Breyer was so convinced that a test of some sort must be used, he failed to realize that, in some instances, as in Heller, a governmental action that effectively neutralizes a fundamental right does not require application of some sort of Court devised test, as the governmental action is per se invalid. A governmental action must be struck down if it is directed to the core of a fundamental right. If a governmental action is directed to the core of a fundamental right, that means the governmental action is invalid on its face, i.e., facially, or per se, invalid. That is a salient, if tacit point of Heller. The point made is really nothing new. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down facially unconstitutional laws, repeatedly, in the past, bypassing application of any test to ascertain constitutionality of a governmental action when the governmental action attacks the very core of the right protected by the Bill of Rights. For a general review of and good discussion of cases involving laws that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down on the ground of facial invalidity, see, e.g., two academic articles, written by an expert on the issue of facially unconstitutional laws, Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Professor of Law at Harvard university, "Fact and Fiction About Facial Challenges," 99 California Law Review 915 (August 2011); and, "As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third Party Standing," Harvard Law Review (April 2000). There are a plethora of academic articles on this subject.Granted, Heller appears to be the first and only Second Amendment case, to date, where the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a governmental action on the ground of facial invalidity—Justice Scalia finding application of any standard of review either to be redundant or possibly eliciting the wrong conclusion if applied--even if the words, "facial invalidity" do not appear expressly in Scalia's Heller opinion.Courts should seriously consider the reality and enormity of government transgression as government, at the federal, State, and local levels, callously enacts laws and regulations that attack the core of the Second Amendment, albeit doing so under the obvious guise of promoting public safety. Courts of competent jurisdiction should call out such patently unlawful government actions for what they are--scarcely covert attempts to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Laws and regulations, such as Maryland's Firearm Safety Act, should be found to be facially invalid as such laws and regulations are designed and implemented for no real purpose other than to prevent an American citizen from exercising his natural right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. Courts should strike down such laws and regulations, unequivocally, peremptorily, totally, thereby sending a clear message to Congress, to the State Legislatures, and to local governments, that the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary will not sit idly by as government seeks to legislate away the American citizen's fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified under the Second Amendment. We continue with our analysis of Kolbe in Part Five of this series._________________________*Occasionally, Courts will use a Roman numeral as an informal designation for a case, if a plaintiff in an older case files a new action, raising a similar issue in the new case, against the same defendant. In fact, the principal plaintiff, in the seminal Heller case—a case subsequently and often referred to, as the U.S. District Court of Maryland refers to it, as Heller I—filed a new action against the District of Columbia, challenging the District of Columbia’s registration requirement on handguns and long guns and also challenging the District of Columbia’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and so-called large capacity magazines—the same sort of challenge that Plaintiffs make to the Maryland Firearm Safety Act, in the Kolbe case.The citation of the recent Federal Circuit Heller case is, Heller vs. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This more recent case is often referred to, informally, as Heller II. We will be taking a close look at this case, as we continue with this important series of articles.Note: it isn’t coincidence that antigun Courts all use the same faulty reasoning when ruling that facially unconstitutional laws, infringing the Second Amendment, nonetheless pass constitutional muster. These Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal—notably, the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth—dealing with the same or similar fact patterns, are, we believe, clearly working in concert, having created an unholy alliance to uphold laws unconstitutionally infringing the core of the Second Amendment. These Courts, an important component of the  Judiciary—that should rise above the fray--above political and social dissension, exercising independent legal judgment—become, all too often, a lackey of political forces, doing nothing, really, to disguise that fact and doing nothing to disguise the fact, too, that they will ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent when they wish to impose their own social and political will on society. What makes the actions of these Courts particularly reprehensible is that their actions always have the pious imprimatur of the law—falsely suggesting that their conduct is forever above the fray of politics when it really isn't as they are merely masking, in their judicial orders, what it is they are really doing--what they have done all along--making political and legislative pronouncements, becoming a servant of the Press and of the First Branch of Government--the Legislature--rather than operating as a co-equal Branch of Government as the Founders of our Republic intended for them to operate--namely as the grand interpreter of the law that the Constitution has given them the singular power and authority to oversee._________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: WILL THE CORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW IN A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE PLEASE STAND UP!

PART THREE

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND EMPLOYED THE WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW IN FINDING THAT MARYLAND’S DRACONIAN FIREARM SAFETY ACT IS LAWFUL.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), wrestled with the legal test to be applied when determining if a law, impacting the Second Amendment, would pass Constitutional muster. The U.S. Supreme Court has, through time, in its great body of case law, developed three salient standards of review, or tests, one of the three which a court of competent jurisdiction must apply when testing the constitutionality of government action. But which test a court must apply to test the constitutionality of a particular government action depends on the nature and importance of the right protected, the extent to which a government--local, State, or federal--infringes that right, and the class of persons impacted by that governmental action.Apart from the high Court's three seminal holdings on the Second Amendment, in Heller, the Heller case is notable for explicating problems associated with all of those standard tests previously employed—and with problems associated with a new one that the dissenting Justice, Stephen Breyer, would like to have applied—when government enacts a law directly impinging on and infringing the very core of the Second Amendment. The late Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, discussed the problems of each  of these standard tests, concluding that none of the traditional tests, including the balancing of interests test proposed by Justice Breyer, are adequate to protect the core of the Second Amendment, when a government deliberately, unabashedly attacks the very core of it.Justice Scalia began by pointing out that the weakest standard of judicial scrutiny, “rational basis,” should never be used to test the constitutionality of legislation, that, on its face, is directed against the exercise of a fundamental right, especially when legislation negatively impacts the Second Amendment. “Rational basis” is an unacceptable standard to be used because, if it is used, a governmental entity--be that a local, State, or Federal governmental entity—need only demonstrate that the governmental legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Where the Second Amendment is impacted, this generally means that a governmental entity need only demonstrate that the governmental action is rationally related to a legitimate goal such as promoting public safety in order for that governmental entity to successfully defend against a challenge to the constitutionality of the governmental action.Rational basis, as a standard of review, to test the constitutionality of governmental action, where, as here, the Second Amendment is negatively impacted, is categorically inappropriate. Even the left-wing Justice, Stephen Breyer, agreed. As Justice Scalia stated, in Heller, “Justice Breyer correctly notes that this law [Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act] like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. [citation omitted]. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. [citation omitted]. In those cases, ‘rational basis’ is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee.” Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms [citation omitted].” District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628, fn.27.Justice Scalia points out clearly, categorically the inappropriateness of rational basis in testing the constitutionality of legislation negatively impacting the Second Amendment. For a Court using that lax standard could easily find that laws that unconstitutionally impinge on and infringe fundamental rights would, nonetheless, pass judicial scrutiny every time unless the governmental action is determined, by a court of competent jurisdiction, to be arbitrary and capricious—a notoriously difficult burden for a challenger to overcome, and something which a Court very rarely finds in governmental actions.On Second Amendment matters, where public safety is always asserted as the, or certainly a, salient reason for restrictive gun legislation, it is highly unlikely that a Court of competent jurisdiction would ever find any restrictive gun legislation—even an absolute gun restriction—to be arbitrary and capricious when public safety is asserted as at least one of the primary bases for the legislation. Of course, drafters of restrictive gun legislation, and the mainstream media that always trumpets such legislation, invariably assert “public safety” as the salient, predicate basis for enacting such legislation in the first place. Courts rarely, if ever, look beyond and behind the assertion to determine whether “public safety” is truly the basis for restrictive gun legislation and not simply a makeweight employed for the specific purpose of defeating any challenge made to it.Thus, a challenger—who, under rational basis, always bears the burden of proof, at the get-go, to demonstrate that a particular government action is unconstitutional—would have a very difficult time, demonstrating, to the satisfaction of a court of review, that such restrictive legislation is, under law, unconstitutional. This means, of course, that, under rational basis, any infringement of an American's fundamental right to keep and bear arms always passes constitutional muster. This isn’t an academic consideration. For New York Courts routinely use rational basis as a standard of review and have found, not unsurprisingly, the New York Safe Act—one of the most restrictive and notorious gun enactments in the Nation, that clearly, negatively impacts the core of the Second Amendment—to pass constitutional muster.But, would application of the highest standard of review, strict scrutiny, defeat restrictive gun legislation that hides behind the cloak of promoting public safety? Justice Scalia didn’t think so, notwithstanding the import of such heightened scrutiny.

WHAT DOES JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER STRICT SCRUTINY MEAN?

What does review of legislation, under “strict scrutiny,” entail? Under strict scrutiny, a governmental body must show, one, that legislation impinging upon and infringing upon a constitutional right, must serve a “compelling governmental interest” and, two, that the law that ostensibly serves a compelling governmental interest, is, in fact, the least restrictive means government has available to it for achieving its stated goal.Such a test, properly used, would, one might reasonably think, preclude implementation of--or if implemented, would require a Court to strike down--devious  antigun legislation, designed primarily to curtail the legitimate right of gun owners to own and possess firearms by unconstitutionally, and, therefore, unlawfully, divesting them of that right. For, the mere and obviously false and ridiculous assertion by government that restrictive gun legislation is not designed to divest gun owners of their guns--as government doesn’t really wish to deny average law-abiding, rational Americans their right to own and possess firearms--but is designed merely to promote public safety--will not, by itself, satisfy strict scrutiny.The mere trivial claim of government--adequate to satisfy rational basis--is not enough to satisfy strict scrutiny. Such legislation would, it is reasoned, fail such severe judicial scrutiny, time and time again. That, of course, is what application of strict scrutiny is designed to do. But that is not always what happens--especially where legislation impinging on and infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists. Justice Scalia knew this. He wasn’t fooled by the promise that strict scrutiny sought to engender. Justice Scalia saw the fallibility in the test of strict scrutiny—in any test or standard, really, that a Court may be called upon to employ when testing the constitutionality of restrictive gun legislation—even the test of strict scrutiny as applied to test the constitutionality of governmental enactments.Justice Scalia reasoned, in the Heller opinion, that, if the Courts use the most stringent standard, strict scrutiny, then government action, negatively impacting the right of the people to keep and bear arms—a fundamental right as codified under the Second Amendment—could still feasibly pass Constitutional muster.He said in Heller, “Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home ‘the most preferred firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and family,’” [citation omitted] would fail constitutional muster. District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628, fn.27.Academicians concur. One legal scholar writes, “Strict scrutiny must be worthy of its name; ‘strict’ should be truly ‘strict,’ not merely ‘significant.’ It should take more than a good college try to satisfy strict scrutiny. Otherwise aspects of liberty encapsulated in fundamental rights will lack the vigor the Supreme Law of the Land should command in a free society. That is why strict scrutiny is ‘the most demanding test known to constitutional law.’” “Making Second Amendment Law with First Amendment Rules: The Five-Tier Free Speech Framework and Public Forum Doctrine in Second Amendment Jurisprudence, Kenneth A. Klukowski, University of Notre Dame Law School, J.D., 93 Nebraska Law Review 429, 444 (2014). The author says, unabashedly, that the courts have “emasculated strict scrutiny.” Certainly, Justice Scalia was aware of this “emasculation” of the strict scrutiny test. It was for this reason that he was skeptical of asserting a standard of review for Second Amendment cases at all. Justice Scalia knew that many courts, federal and State, frown on the very existence of the Second Amendment. Given the chance, judges that despise the Second Amendment would find a restrictive gun law constitutional using any articulated standard of review. Justice Scalia also obviously knew that, to enhance the effectiveness of Heller, it was necessary to make clear to courts of inquiry that outright bans on entire categories of guns that the public has traditionally and commonly used for self-defense are per se unconstitutional. “There are situations in which even strict scrutiny proves insufficient to vindicate constitutional rights. Those are (1) categorical bans on firearms, and (2) firearm confiscations. . . . Per se rulings will . . . take off the table certain questions wherein courts are giving short shrift to the Second Amendment. The Second and Fourth Circuits have held that near-absolute bans on carrying firearms outside the home are constitutional, applying a faux intermediate scrutiny that more resembles rational-basis review.” “Making Second Amendment Law with First Amendment Rules: The Five-Tier Free Speech Framework and Public Forum Doctrine in Second Amendment Jurisprudence, 93 Nebraska Law Review at 446-447.

WHAT STANDARD OF REVIEW DID THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT OF MARYLAND USE IN DECIDING KOLBE?

But, what did the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland, in Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110976 (D. Md. 2014), do? The lower Court didn’t apply strict scrutiny, nor did it apply rational basis. The U.S. District Court applied another standard of review—intermediate scrutiny, and, having done, the Court, held, not surprisingly, that facially unconstitutional legislation nonetheless passes judicial inquiry into the constitutionality of that legislation--namely, that the Maryland Firearm Safety Act is lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Under “intermediate scrutiny,” a standard of review created by the U.S. Supreme Court, that ostensibly falls between the very lax “rational basis” standard and the seemingly strong “strict scrutiny” standard, a Court, using the intermediate scrutiny test, commences by asking whether legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government goal. That of course is the rational basis test; and, under that test, if the government action meets that liberal test, as it almost invariably does, the Court must need go no further in determining the constitutionality of the government action. But, rational basis is only the first step when a Court employs intermediate scrutiny. The Court then proceeds to the next step, and asks whether the legislation is substantially related to the governmental interest in achieving that goal. How did intermediate scrutiny come to pass? Originally, intermediate scrutiny was devised by the U.S. Supreme Court for use in gender discrimination cases. Intermediate scrutiny, though, has increasingly been used by Courts, in lieu of the heightened strict scrutiny, in cases where fundamental rights are at stake—most notably under the First and Second Amendments.Antigun Courts that are generally restrained from using rational basis—apart from the Courts of New York that have systematically gotten away with use of this altogether inapt standard of review—the standard of review of choice of these antigun Courts, tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of a government action that negatively impacts the Second Amendment, is intermediate scrutiny.But there is a problem with this standard of review. The problem with “intermediate scrutiny” is that it is difficult to get a handle on it. What does “substantially related” mean? It means different things to different Courts.Understand, if, as Justice Scalia pointed out in Heller, strict scrutiny is not an appropriate test to be used in testing the constitutionality of government action that infringes the core of the Second Amendment, intermediate scrutiny, as with the lax test, rational basis, is clearly not the appropriate test for a Court to use either. The U.S. District Court of Maryland used the test of intermediate scrutiny, anyway.Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, operating as a total ban on an entire category of firearms that the law-abiding citizenry traditionally and commonly uses for self-defense—namely, those firearms the State arbitrarily defines as “copycat weapons” or “assault weapons” or “military style weapons” and ammunition magazines classified as “LCM” (Large Capacity Magazines)” commonly used for those weapons—passes constitutional muster on a standard of review the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decided to use—a standard of review to test the constitutionality of the Maryland Firearm Safety Act that the Heller majority discussed—along with rational basis and strict scrutiny—and summarily rejected.Why did the U.S. District Court of Maryland use a standard of review in clear contravention to Heller in testing the constitutionality of the Maryland Firearm Safety Act—that so blatantly infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms? What was the U.S. District Court of Maryland thinking? Did the U.S. District Court of Maryland really believe that it could so easily snub the U.S. Supreme Court? What was the reasoning of the U.S. District Court? We deal with these questions in Part Four of this multipart series on Kolbe.__________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK PUSHES FOR LAW REQUIRING GUN OWNERS TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE

On January 17, 2017, Assistant Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Felix W. Ortiz, a Democrat, introduced a bill in the New York State Assembly aimed directly at gun owners. The bill, A2260, if enacted, would require all firearm owners to purchase liability insurance for their firearms. The bill would amend the Insurance Law of the State. A2260 would require gun owners to obtain and to maintain liability insurance in an amount not less than $250,000.00 to cover damages resulting from the negligent use of that firearm. Failure to hold such insurance would result “in the immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own such firearm.” The bill exempts peace officers.This bill is nothing new, really. It is simply a repackaged version of earlier bill that State Assemblyman, Ortiz, introduced to the New York State Assembly in 2013: AB 3908. The earlier bill was even more ambitious. Had the New York State Legislature enacted the earlier bill, the owner of a firearm would be required to obtain and maintain liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars. Moreover, the insurance would have had to cover damages for both negligent and willful acts involving use of a firearm owned by the policy holder.You will note that nothing in either bill addresses the party who might be responsible for causing negligent or intentional harm.The 2013 bill went nowhere. Ortiz made changes, reflected in the newer version of the bill, to exclude liability for intentional acts—a matter obviously of great concern to insurers.As of this date, to the best of our knowledge and belief, no State has successfully enacted legislation mandating that gun owners purchase and maintain liability insurance on the firearms they own.There is a good reason for this. Insurance companies don’t want to be embroiled in gun liability. It is an expensive proposition for them. If so, insurance companies won’t wish to provide such insurance. That raises another problem. Suppose a State, such as New York, does enact such legislation, requiring all gun owners to obtain and to maintain liability insurance. There is nothing in the bill—A2260 or AB3908—that requires insurance companies to provide such coverage. And, if insurance companies refuse, en masse, to provide such coverage, where does that leave gun owners? Not in a good place, for sure. For this would mean that law-abiding gun owners could not lawfully retain the guns they presently own. And, if they are required to show a gun dealer that they have gun liability insurance coverage as a condition to purchasing a new firearm, New York gun owners would not be able to purchase an additional firearm as they would not be able to obtain gun liability insurance. They would not be able to do so because insurance companies wouldn’t provide gun owners with gun liability coverage.Liability insurance is simply another gimmick, conceived by antigun groups, to make gun acquisition a difficult and expensive, if not altogether impossible, process for the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen. Antigun groups won’t say this, of course. They analogize gun liability insurance to auto insurance. They argue that the purpose is to promote safe handling of firearms and to compensate injured parties. But insurance companies that offer casualty insurance are not likely to wish to get into the business of insuring against negligent, much less intentional, harm resulting from misuse of firearms.But, suppose States, through legislation, required insurance companies to offer gun liability coverage if insurance companies wished to continue to do business in the State. Some insurers may very well simply leave the State. But, those companies that remained would find themselves in the gun business and in the gun business in a way they certainly wouldn’t want to be. To reduce risk to their “bottom line,” companies would likely institute rigorous, draconian screening procedures for prospective policy holders.Screening procedures could include requirements that policy holders undergo extensive mental and physical examinations. Insurers may mandate that policy holders undertake firearm safety training on a regular basis. One academician writes: “encouraging or mandating liability insurance to cover more firearms-related injuries would shift some of the costs associated with this harm to property casualty insurers, thereby creating greater financial incentives for them to utilize their expertise in classifying and spreading risk, promoting gun safety, and engaging in other risk mitigation strategies. Within the insurance world, health, life, and disability insurers currently bear the financial costs of firearm violence, at least to the extent that victims have such insurance coverage.” Liability Insurance and Gun Violence, 46 Conn. Law Review 1265, 1271 (May 2014), by Peter Kochenburger, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Executive Director, Insurance Law Center, University of Connecticut School of Law.Another Academician, writing in the same periodical, points out that, “Proponents of compulsory liability insurance for gun owners hope that insurance would provide a source of monetary compensation for shooting victims and their families, while serving as a source of private regulation that would determine who may have a firearm, create incentives for insurers to require firearm owners to take care that their weapons are not involved in gun crime, and place the costs created by guns onto their owners.” Insuring Against Guns? 46 Conn. Law Review 1209, 1211 (May 2014), George A. Mocsary, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois School of Law. Mandating firearm liability insurance is clearly problematic. The same writer says, “Opponents, including insurers, have argued that, instead of achieving its stated goals, compulsory insurance would likely compensate only a few shooting victims, would not impact gun possession by those who misuse firearms, would create incentives for gun owners to be less careful with their weapons, and would be problematic to implement. Some also raise concerns that forcing firearm owners to insure themselves and their weapons may suffer from constitutional infirmities. Id. At 1212.Lost in the discussion of guns and insurance is the fact that gun owners do often obtain insurance for the firearms they own. But, they do so, voluntarily, to protect their guns from risk of loss. They don't do so to insure against possible harm caused through misuse of one's firearm by a thief who has stolen it; nor should they be compelled to do so. “Although homeowners’ insurers ask about gun ownership in the course of their underwriting, they do not ask that question for purposes of liability underwriting. Rather, they ask to evaluate whether the applicant needs a special rider to cover the theft or damage of a valuable gun. Insurers selling commercial insurance policies to gun retailers do consider loss prevention during their underwriting, but they are more concerned with safeguarding guns and weapons from theft or other property damage than with reducing liability risks.” “Twenty-first century litigation: pathologies and possibilites: a symposium in honor of Stephen Yeazell: regulation by liability insurance: from auto to lawyers professional liability, 60 UCLA Law Review 1412, 1432.Antigun groups—fast to enact draconian new antigun laws—remain unconcerned about pragmatic considerations, or even ethical ones; and they are altogether oblivious to Constitutional constraints. Their single-minded obsession with guns is directed to making it exceedingly onerous for the average person to own and possess them.Restrictive gun bills that are drafted and restrictive gun laws that are ultimately enacted are done so with a feverish intensity with little if any regard to the negative impact such legislation has on the rights and liberties of individuals living in a free Republic; and with little or no regard to the administrative burdens such legislation places on public agencies, taxed with carrying out the legislation; and with little or no regard to the negative impact such legislation has on business and, therefore, on the economic well-being of our Nation.New York’s latest ridiculous antigun legislation—A2260—mandating that all gun owners in New York purchase and maintain liability insurance for their firearms will, as with the previous bill, go nowhere. Nor should it go anywhere. NYS Assemblyman Ortiz has drafted his bill with no comprehension of how the casualty insurance industry operates. He has no conception of the import of our Nation’s Bill of Rights. And, he obviously has little if any regard for the rights of law-abiding gun owners.Someone might suggest to Ortiz that he take a refresher course on the meaning and purpose of our Constitution. Were he to take a course in freshman economics and bone up a bit on casualty insurance basics, that wouldn’t hurt either.__________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

KOLBE VERSUS HOGAN: A CASE AT ODDS WITH HELLER

PART TWO

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE CASE

The Plaintiffs in Kolbe, include two American citizens and residents of the State of Maryland, a gun club, a gun dealer, and several gun associations. The Plaintiffs filed an action in Maryland District Court, in 2013, against several Maryland State Officials: Martin J. O’Malley, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Maryland, Douglas F. Gansler, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Marcus L. Brown, Col., in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of State Police and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, Maryland State Police, Defendants.The citation for the original case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, with a slightly different case name is: Kolbe vs. O’Malley, 42 F. Supp. 3d 768; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110976 (D. Md. 2014). On appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the caption of the case was changed to reflect the new Governor, as party Defendant, Larry Hogan, who superseded Governor Martin O’Malley.In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Maryland’s restrictive gun legislation, titled “The Firearm Safety Act of 2013,” is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs alleged specifically that the Maryland Firearm Safety Act infringes the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Act should be declared void for vagueness.The Firearm Safety Act is codified, in substantial part, in the Maryland Penal Code, Crim. Law (“CR”) §§ 4-301(d), 4-303(a)(2), and § 4-305(b). What does The Firearm Safety Act of 2013 say? The Act says that, “after October 1, 2013, no person may possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive ‘assault pistols,’ ‘assault long guns,’ and ‘copycat  weapons.’ These banned weapons are, collectively, defined as ‘assault weapons’ under the Act. In addition, the Act states that a person “may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a detachable magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition for a firearm.” The focus of Plaintiffs’ Complaint was on challenging the constitutionality of Md. Criminal Law Code § 4-403, titled, Assault Weapons—Prohibited.  § 4-403(a) says: “Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may not transport an assault weapon into the State or possess, sell, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, or receive an assault weapon.”What constitutes an ‘assault weapon’ under Maryland law? An ‘assault weapon’ is no more than a legal fiction. Md. Criminal Law Code § 4-401, titled, simply, Assault Weapons, defines ‘assault weapon’ as an ‘assault long gun’ or ‘assault pistol’ or a ‘copycat weapon.’  Those three expressions are, in turn, defined as follows:“‘Assault long gun’ means any assault weapon listed under § 5-101(r)(2) of the Public Safety Article.‘Assault pistol’ means any of the following firearms or a copy regardless of the producer or manufacturer:AA Arms AP-9 semiautomatic pistol;Bushmaster semiautomatic pistol;Claridge HI-TEC semiautomatic pistol;D Max Industries semiautomatic pistol;Encom MK-IV, MP-9, or MP-45 semiautomatic pistol;Heckler and Koch semiautomatic SP-89 pistol;Holmes MP-83 semiautomatic pistol;Ingram MAC 10/11 semiautomatic pistol and variations including the Partisan Avenger and the SWD Cobray;Intratec TEC-9/DC-9 semiautomatic pistol in any centerfire variation;P.A.W.S. type semiautomatic pistol;Skorpion semiautomatic pistol;Spectre double action semiautomatic pistol (Sile, F.I.E., Mitchell);UZI semiautomatic pistol;Weaver Arms semiautomatic Nighthawk pistol; orWilkinson semiautomatic ‘Linda’ pistol. ‘Assault weapon’ means:an assault long gun;an assault pistol; ora copycat weapon. ‘Copycat weapon’ means:a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has any two of the following:a folding stock;a grenade launcher or flare launcher; ora flash suppressor;a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches;a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;a semiautomatic shotgun that has a folding stock; ora shotgun with a revolving cylinder.‘Copycat weapon’ does not include an assault long gun or an assault pistol.”Penalties for violation of the law are harsh. A person who violates the Act “is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both.” Does the Act apply evenly to everyone? No. The law exempts retired law enforcement officers.

THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION

In ruling for the Defendants, upholding the constitutionality of a highly restrictive Firearm Safety Act, amounting essentially to a gun ban on an entire category of firearms, the lower Court said this: “the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State’s legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government's interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.’”The ruling, far from clarifying the purported constitutionality of Maryland’s restrictive Act, begs the very question at issue: does the Act, banning citizen ownership of an entire category of firearms, violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution precisely because the Act precludes to law-abiding citizens the right to own an entire category of firearms they have owned for decades; and does the Act violate, as well, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as it extends to retired law enforcement officers a right to own a large category of firearms the Act denies to everyone else?

THE DECISION OF THE LOWER, U.S. DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLDING, REASONING, OR METHODOLOGY OF HELLER

Whenever a Second Amendment challenge is raised, courts of competent jurisdiction must consider the impact of and import of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), made applicable to the States in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). To most people—those who have at least an inkling as to the import of Heller—the Heller case stands for the proposition that “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.” Upon acknowledging that holding as they must, Courts, such as the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, that profess an open dislike for the Heller case generally and for the Second Amendment particularly, proceed on their merry way to misread Heller. They do so to uphold draconian gun laws that are clearly inconsistent with Heller.Is Heller so difficult to understand? No! Even through a cursory reading of Heller, one can see that Justice Scalia, who wrote for the majority, provided specific, clearly articulated guidance for Courts to follow when a Second Amendment challenge to restrictive gun legislation comes before a Court.The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller, laid out, succinctly, the Court’s findings in its Syllabus. The Court Syllabus precedes discussion of the facts and issues of a case, and law applicable to a case. The Syllabus is not part of the main opinion but provides, for judges and attorneys, an abbreviated roadmap for getting a handle on a case.From the Syllabus in Heller, we see that the majority in Heller sets forth three distinct holdings. Apart from the first holding—namely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right that accrues to the individual and, so, unconnected to that individual’s service in a militia—there are two other holdings that must be considered, along with the reasoning of the majority in Heller.The failure of the lower U.S. District Court and the failure of the higher Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to adhere to the holdings of Heller and to apply the reasoning and methodology of the Heller Court, led to wrong decisions—decisions grounded on poor legal reasoning.Apart from holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller held that: “The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.”It is precisely on the issue as to whether a complete ban on “an entire class of ‘ arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense,”—weapons that Maryland and several other jurisdictions define as ‘assault weapons’— does or does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of the American citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit should have focused their inquiry.Instead the lower U.S. District Court and the en banc Fourth Circuit meander into political discussions of whether this or that weapon that a citizen commonly owns constitutes a weapon of war and finding that this is so, deliver their rulings, namely, that the Maryland Firearm Safety Act, banning a very large category of weapons that the public commonly uses for self-defense, does not infringe the Second Amendment in an unconstitutionally impermissible way.Moreover, the lower District Court and the Fourth Circuit’s en banc majority admitted that the weapons the State of Maryland seeks to ban are not really weapons of war at all but are merely like military weapons—weapons the State refers to as “military-style weapons,” namely, “assault weapons”—weapons, nonetheless, similar enough to actual military weapons, according to these Court opinions, so as to be construed as military weapons and therefore not within the scope of the Second Amendment. But, assuming, for purpose of argument, that so-called “military-style weapons” or “copycat weapons” or “assault weapons” were true military weapons that the military does use—which, in fact, the military doesn’t—still, that doesn’t ipso facto mean such weapons do not deserve constitutional protection.After all, the Second Amendment, as written, and as intended by the founders of our free Republic, sought specifically to place military weapons in the hands of the citizenry, that citizens may protect themselves and the States from foreign aggression—threats outside the United States—and from a tyrannical federal government—threats to our individual liberty inside the United States. Thus, even if the Court in Heller didn’t rule directly on whether  American citizens may lawfully keep and bear true military arms for self-defense, this does not mean lower Courts may willy-nilly rule they can’t. The high Court, in Heller, left that issue open as the issue wasn't directly before the Court; but, in raising the issue at all, in dicta, the high Court was at least laying the foundation for considering the constitutionality of whether American citizens, in their individual capacity, unconnected with service in a militia, may keep and bear military arms. Yet, in all too many Court opinions today, antigun judges are quick to pass judgment on matters not before it--assuming, as if the matter were self-evident that the public is not permitted, under the Second Amendment, under any circumstances, to keep and bear military arms and, from that premise  which they take to be axiomatic--holding that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to keep and bear arms that, in a Court's judgment, are like military arms, even if they aren’t actually military arms and, notwithstanding that such weapons that are like military arms are those that are commonly used by American citizens for self-defense--a salient test for whether such weapons are protected under the Second Amendment at all.Again, keep in mind and burn into your memory: What the Heller Court did point out is that weapons that the public commonly uses for self-defense are weapons that do fall within the scope and protection of the Second Amendment.Now, such weapons that the Maryland Legislature, and several other State Legislatures, define as prohibited ‘assault weapons’ are those that the public commonly uses for self-defense. And, if so, such so-called “assault weapons” are a category of weapons, like handguns, that no Legislature may lawfully ban. To do so constitutes an impermissible infringement of an American citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and constitutes an action by State government that is at loggerheads with the Heller decision.We continue with our analysis of Kolbe in Part Three of this series.______________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

KOLBE VS. HOGAN: KILLING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

“Bubble Guns" In The Fourth Circuit Take Pot Shots At Heller In The Circuit's Poorly Reasoned Opinion

PART ONE

THE KOLBE CASE: INTRODUCTION

On February 21, 2017, antigun establishment judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided a case—one directly and negatively impacting the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. The case, Kolbe vs. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2016, rev'd, Kolbe vs. Hogan ____ F.3d ____ (4th Cir. 2017) (en banc), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2930, is the latest in a slew of badly decided and badly reasoned cases coming down the pike since the late Justice Antonin Scalia penned the majority opinion in the seminal Second Amendment U.S. Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008). What we are seeing are U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals openly defying the clear import and purport of Heller. We are seeing U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—the Second, Fourth, and Seventh U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—operating in open revolt to the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment cases.The high Court, in Heller, made abundantly clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right—a right unconnected to a person’s connection with a militia. Two years later, question arose whether the Heller decision applies to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito writing for the majority in the case McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), held that the individual right to keep and bear arms applies to the States no less so than to the federal government. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit obviously has clear disdain for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, concomitantly, disaffection for the Heller and McDonald cases that provide a firm foundation for the Second Amendment’s preservation and provide welcome relief to those Americans who wish to exercise their right under it.

WHERE TO BEGIN?

Where do we begin on our analysis of the atrocious decision of the Fourth Circuit in Kolbe. The import of this awful decision rests, first, upon the majority’s disregard for the precedential holdings of Heller and McDonald. The majority shreds the legal principle of stare decisis, which requires courts to uphold prior decisions lest the foundation of our system of case law fall apart. The import of this absurd decision rests, second, on the Court’s clear contempt for the explicit fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, this atrocious decision rests, third, on the majority’s clear rebuke of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s legacy.

WHY IS THE KOLBE CASE, IN PARTICULAR, CRITICAL TO THOSE WHO WISH TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT?

Since 2008, when the Heller decision became the Law of the Land, there have been several cases wending their way up through the various Circuit Courts that have dealt directly or tangentially, and disparagingly, with the Second Amendment. What makes the Kolbe case so important to those Americans who hold dear the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the decision openly defies Heller.One, the Kolbe decision amounts to a direct, frontal assault against the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two, the decision is a disrespectful and unrestrained attack on the methodology that Scalia employed when the Justice wrote his opinion for the majority in Heller. Now, the Fourth Circuit, writing its damning opinion in Kolbe, won’t admit its denigration of the Second Amendment and, by extension, its disrespectful attitude toward Justice Scalia. After all, the decisions of the high Court are the Supreme Law of the Land, and lower courts, State and federal, are legally bound to respect and to apply rulings, holdings, and reasoning of the high Court.

HOW DO LOWER COURTS UNDERMINE RULINGS AND HOLDINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES THEY DO NOT LIKE?

If a lower court doesn’t like a holding of the U.S. Supreme Court, it has weapons in its arsenal. Lower courts use these weapons against a U.S. Supreme Court holding if, one, the lower court disagrees with the decision of the high Court, and, two, if a lower court disagrees with the philosophy of law underlying the ruling of the high Court, and, three, if a lower court disagrees with the legal and logical methodology employed in support of the high Court’s ruling in a case.One technique a lower court uses to undercut a high Court ruling is to argue a distinction in fact patterns. We see this in Kolbe. Of course, a reputable* court would attempt to discern similarities in the facts of a case before it, before the court goes hither and yon, denying obvious similarity in fact patterns. A lower court should give maximum effect to a ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court but may feel less compelled to do so if it can, plausibly, demonstrate a distinction in fact patterns between the facts as presented in a case before the high Court and the facts as presented in a case being heard in a lower court.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Kolbe opined that the facts of the Heller case are wholly unlike those in Kolbe. The Court is wrong.Why do we say that the Fourth Circuit is wrong? First, the critical facts in Kolbe are in several critical ways, identical to those in Heller. A couple of Plaintiffs in Kolbe, as with the Plaintiffs in Heller, are individuals who are under no disability. They are average law-abiding, rational, sensible, sane American citizens whose right to own and possess firearms is undeniable. Second, the D.C. Government in Heller, and the Maryland State Government in Kolbe, both enacted laws to ban outright an entire category of firearms that American citizens traditionally and commonly employ for self-defense. In our analysis of the Kolbe case, to follow, we will demonstrate how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attempts to skirt clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent to ignore and undercut Heller and, in so doing, allows stand a restrictive Maryland firearms law that is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Heller decision. The sad result is that average, law-abiding, sane American citizens who seek to own and possess firearms they had traditionally owned and possessed for decades, can no longer do so. Thus, notwithstanding that the gun ban enacted in Maryland applied originally only to residents of the State of Maryland and to those passing through the State, the Fourth Circuit decision directly impacts the right of American citizens in the five States that comprise the Fourth Circuit: North and South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia, and Maryland. All individuals of these five States are now denied their right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed under the Second Amendment because they are denied their right to keep and bear an entire category of firearms they had traditionally owned—firearms that the American public commonly owns and possesses for self-defense.Second, lower courts that harbor a strong disdain for the ruling in Heller and who thereby harbor a disdain for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misconstrue—whether deliberately and callously or, if not deliberately and callously, then certainly carelessly and recklessly—the reasoning of the high Court. The lower court substitutes for the high Court’s reasoning, its own flawed reasoning—reasoning, that lends support to a conclusion the lower court seeks, rather than to the conclusion the high Court requires that the lower court reach.In Kolbe, the Fourth Circuit applied a standard of review that the majority in Heller, and, in particular, Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion, had rejected outright. We explain this in detail when we proceed with a comprehensive case analysis of Kolbe.Third, lower courts that harbor a strong dislike for the Second Amendment and who attempt to meander around the clear and cogent reasoning, rulings, and holdings of the high Court often, in our estimate, consider matters wholly outside the purview of the law, namely political matters. If so, this clouds judicial judgment, as application of the law to the facts of the case is colored by personal biases and feelings rather than by reasoned, seasoned, Judicial thought. In the process, judicial neutrality and integrity is lost as partiality enters into judicial decision-making. Thus, the rule of law is denied one or the other party to a lawsuit.As we proceed with our analysis, we make abundantly clear the extent to which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considers matters, it appears to us, outside of legal constraints—matters that have no legitimate, legal, or, for that matter, logical connection to or bearing on how this Second Amendment case ought to be decided.The dreadful decision in Kolbe, also operates as a warning to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee better get cracking on holding a confirmation hearing of the President’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. It must do so because the Kolbe case must not stand unchallenged. The antigun forces have slowly chiseled away at Heller through other poorly reasoned and decided cases. But, Kolbe is most dire because this decision, more so than other Second Amendment cases coming down since Heller and McDonald, constitutes a direct assault on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and, if allowed to stand, unchallenged, severely weakens the Second Amendment and will undoubtedly embolden other antigun federal Circuit Courts that wish to chisel away at Heller.Make no mistake, Plaintiffs in Kolbe vs. Hogan will take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. They must, for the decision here is antithetical with the holdings set forth and reasoning evinced in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases.With Gorsuch on the high Court, the Justices will likely vote to hear this case. The Justices must hear this case. The case must be overturned, lest the legal precedents of Heller and McDonald be continually ignored by State Governments.What is Kolbe vs. Hogan really all about and why are the issues presented in it critical to the safeguarding of our Bill of Rights? We explain in Part 2 of this series.______________________________________*CLARIFICATION AND QUALIFICATION: The Fourth Circuit Courts, as with Courts of any other federal Circuit, are Courts of competent jurisdiction and, therefore, is competent to rule on the legal and factual issues that come before it. The authors of this article do not intend to assert expressly or impliedly that the Fourth Circuit Courts or that the Courts of any other Federal Circuit are not competent to rule on the cases that come before them. The term, 'reputable,' is not and was not used here to impugn the honor of Fourth Circuit Courts and is not and was not directed to impugn the honor of any other federal Court.  While we disagree vehemently with the decision and reasoning of the majority in the Kolbe case, we do admit that use of a term that would suggest that a Court might act dishonorably was wrong on our part, and for that we admit error and apologize for even suggesting the casting of aspersion on any Court. That said, we believe, as we will illustrate through a comprehensive analysis of the Kolbe decision and, eventually, in an analysis of similar decisions of various sister Courts--that political and ideological considerations pepper the reasoning and conclusions of many Courts as they wrestle with the core of the Second Amendment. The fact of the matter is, and we take this to be axiomatic, that every individual--whether judge, attorney, or layman--has a political philosophy, and it is clear to us that political philosophies are interjected into judicial opinions. We firmly believe, as we will show, in this multi article series, that legal precedent, which should be adhered to, often is not. Yet, if a Court wishes to overturn precedent, it should say so. Obviously, only the U.S. Supreme Court can legally overturn its own decisions. Lower Courts, State and Federal, must adhere to legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. We feel that the Fourth Circuit, in Kolbe, and certain decisions handed down by federal Courts in other Circuits, most prominently, in the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, as well as the Fourth, have not abided by the holdings and reasoning of Heller and that this can only, and ultimately, be attributed to the insinuation of political philosophy into decision making--as much in judicial opinion, where we, unfortunately see it, as anywhere else. Since insinuation of political philosophy pervades Kolbe, and similar cases coming out of other Circuits, controversial though that statement may be, and as that is the underlying point of our criticism of Kolbe, we do not walk away from it, but embrace it.Our Second Amendment is not to be toyed with. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the defining feature of our American heritage, for it is the primary safeguard against tyranny, and it informs our Government that the American people control their destiny. Our destiny is not controlled by those who have been given, for a time, extensive authority. For they govern in our name, for our benefit. They do not govern in their own name, for their own benefit. Somewhere along the line, in the years that have gone by, that idea has been lost. It should be found. The Second Amendment encourages those who govern us that ultimate authority rests with the American People, and the Second Amendment is a constant reminder to those who govern us where it is that true authority rests. It is not through the First Amendment, as the Press has, itself, lost its way. It is not through the Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches and seizures clause, as that has been blatantly ignored, even unconscionably refuted by Government, as illustrated through Government's actions. It is not through the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which have grown more tenuous, through time. It is only through the continued existence of the Second Amendment. And even the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is slowly but inexorably being whittled away, in spite of Heller--a case that exists to remind Government that some members of the U.S. Supreme Court intend for the American People to retain ultimate authority over Government and responsibility for their own lives.______________________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE STATISTS SPEARHEAD ATTACK AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER THROUGH THE COURTS

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision, Enjoining the President’s Executive Order, Temporarily Suspending Refugees from Entering Our Country Who Reside in Failed States, Was Legally Wrongheaded. Who Really Was Behind the Filing of the Lawsuit? What Is the Basis for The President's Order? And, Why Did the Ninth Circuit Block Implementation of The President's Order?

PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM.

President Trump has promised to get our House in order. This is no small task given years of disassembling through the insidious machinations of Bill Clinton, George Bush Senior, George Bush Junior, and Barack Obama. These lackluster U.S. Presidents of the past decades have supported doctrines of liberal democracy, globalization, multiculturalism, and debilitating military interventionism and entangling alliances—all of which have, together, devastated the financial well-being of our Nation, and have denied to hard-working, proud Americans the financial and physical security they deserve—the financial and physical security they might have had but through the implementation of destructive trade policies and through seditious collusion with foreign Countries to keep our borders open; and through seductive psychological conditioning and indoctrination, designed to produce mass confusion in the public psyche—inverting and substituting the ideal of nationalism for the flawed notion of internationalism; the ideal of protectionism for the corporatists’ dream of globalization; the ideal of individualism for the morass of mass conformity and alien inclusiveness; the ideals expressed in Judeo-Christian morality for amorphous cultural and moral relativism.Through incessant, monotonous, repetitive sloganeering and messaging by the mainstream media, Americans are urged, even cajoled, to view patriotism as jingoism, national pride as nativism and racism, and love of Country and concern for one’s Nation and one’s Countrymen, first and foremost, as selfish parochialism.These past U.S. Presidents support the precepts of utilitarian consequentialism, an ethical position anathema to the Founders of our Republic and inconsistent with the import of the Bill of Rights. These Past U.S. Presidents worked to undermine our free Republic and worked to undermine the U.S. Constitution even as they declared, disingenuously and hypocritically, to support our free Republic and our Constitution. They have forsaken the American public, implementing policies that benefit a small, exceedingly powerful and ruthless, cunning and duplicitous, secretive and sinister, extraordinarily wealthy, elite coterie of internationalist globalist benefactors, hell bent on undermining and ultimately destroying the very  concept of the Nation State—our Nation State—working vigorously behind the scenes to dissolve our Nation’s sovereignty; weakening our Nation’s laws; doing nothing to secure our borders against waves of illegal migrants and criminal gangs and refugees and Muslim terrorists; spending frivolously on wars they have no intention of winning; involving our Country in innumerable foreign escapades that have nothing to do with our national security; throwing billions of our tax dollars to foreign countries that give us nothing in return except millions of their own wretched citizens who drain our own wealth and resources; and slowly moving our Country in the direction of an EU style social, political, economic construct through implementation of secretive international trade deals that harm our small businesses, destroy our manufacturing base and leave millions of hard-working Americans destitute. Not surprisingly they, and their international benefactors, are yet working, behind the scenes, taking every opportunity to frustrate the policies of President Donald Trump, sowing dissension, creating discord, inciting violence, vilifying our President, blocking our President at every turn—doing everything in their power to prevent him from doing his job, to prevent him from succeeding on behalf of our Nation and on behalf of its citizenry.The quick, violent, and virulent assault on the President’s January 27, 2017 Executive Order is a case in point. President Trump implemented this Executive Order for the legitimate purpose of protecting this Nation and its citizenry from acts of Islamic terrorism, sweeping across Western Europe, lest the unmitigated horror descending upon the EU work its way into the U.S.The title of the President’s Executive Order is: “PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES.” What does the January 27, 2017 order say? The principal purpose of the President’s Executive Order is laid out clearly, comprehensively, cogently, and candidly in the first three paragraphs:“The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States.  Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans.  And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States.  The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.” The President should be commended for issuing this Order. The danger our Nation and our People face from Islamic terrorism isn’t hypothetical. It is real. The President of the United States has a duty to secure our borders against threats to our National Security and threats to the American citizenry.The duty of a U.S. President does not extend to salving a person’s feelings where demonstrable threats exist to the security of our Nation. President Trump has demonstrated a conscientious desire to protect this Country from harm—to protect this Country against the very harm destroying the fabric of social and political order in the EU. Yet, instead of standing behind Trump, Democrats in Congress attack this Order, and they blast the President for implementing it.Internationalist globalist forces drum up public resistance to the U.S. President’s Executive Order with the avid assistance of the insistent, quarrelsome and vocal mainstream media. Where are the Republicans in all of this? Most are staying acutely silent, apparently afraid to show backbone. Instead of actively supporting the U.S. President, Republicans remain, for the most part, complacent, thereby lending support to those who would place this Nation’s security at risk—a risk that the Democratic Party candidate, Hillary Clinton, deemed perfectly acceptable. Other Republican members of Congress openly castigate the President, rather than come to his defense. As for the Democrats, they are rabble rousing, unabashedly inciting the unruly ignorant mob to agitate. The mainstream media, not content to report the news, has declared war on our President, using every opportunity to engage in confrontation with the President, castigating him, and disrespecting him, attempting to demean both him and his policies.Some elements within the federal bureaucracy—diehard fans of Barack Obama, still raging over Hillary Clinton’s defeat, are skirting with subversion and sedition because they have pointedly said they will not work with and on behalf of the United States President. That is reprehensible. Openly confronting the U.S. President cannot be condoned, much less encouraged. If Government bureaucrats disagree with the President, they should at least keep their mouths shut. They should not use their position as a soapbox to openly defy the President of the United States. If they cannot or will not work with the U.S. President, then they should resign from Government employment. That is the honorable thing to do. It is the only correct and proper thing to do if they do not wish to work with the President. Imagine an individual in the private sector openly defying his or her superior. How long do you think that person would remain at their job?

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IS LAWFUL, CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT.

This Executive Order is lawful. The principal duty of the U.S. President is mentioned in the oath he takes as set forth in the Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “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.’”Two of the laws the U.S. President must faithfully execute, which provide the impetus and legal ground for this Executive Order involve immigration. One is 8 U.S.C. § 1182, titled, “Inadmissible Aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) says, in pertinent part, “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”This Statute gives the President clear authority to suspend the refugee program and to take any action he deems necessary to prevent individuals who may pose a threat to our national security from entering our Country. That action includes precluding from entering our Country those denizens, residing in Countries that are failed States and otherwise openly hostile to our Nation and its citizens. Such failed States pose a true threat to the safety and the security of our Country and its People and to our National interests. Terrorists can and will infiltrate into this Country through the waves of refugees whom they follow, if these terrorists are given the opportunity.Another Statute, 8 USCS § 301, titled, “General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations,” authorizes the U.S. President to delegate responsibility for implementing his Executive Order to, inter alia, appropriate officials in the Executive Branch. In this instance, the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is tasked with carrying out the Executive Order, suspending penetration of our Country by denizens of Countries adverse to our interests.8 USCS § 301, says:“The President of the United States is authorized to designate and empower the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official thereof who is required to be appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to perform without approval, ratification, or other action by the President (1) any function which is vested in the President by law, or (2) any function which such officer is required or authorized by law to perform only with or subject to the approval, ratification, or other action of the President: Provided, that nothing contained herein shall relieve the President of his responsibility in office for the acts of any such head or other official designated by him to perform such functions.” Now, the internationalist globalist elites don’t like this Executive Order because it conflicts with their goal to seed disruption in our Country as they have seeded disruption in the EU. They seek to undermine the security of the United States, slowly whittling away at our National Sovereignty, paving the way for ultimate dismantling of our Nation and its Constitution, eventually surreptitiously taking over our Country. Still, these internationalist, globalist elites have little power to harm this Nation and its citizenry now that their puppet, Hillary Clinton, lost the U.S. Presidential election and is politically dead. Where, then, does the power of these singularly powerful, immensely wealthy, abjectly ruthless, and intensely private, secretive, sinister creatures lie?These “elites” still control the mainstream media. What does the mainstream media comprise? The mainstream media comprises major newspapers, including, inter alia, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Financial Times, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. It includes major broadcast networks like ABC, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, and PBS, and, yes, FOX network too—various gatekeepers on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. Yet, with the election of Donald Trump, this same mainstream has now fallen out of the mainstream. It has devolved into the voice of the extreme. As it has castigated the weblogs that supported Trump during the election cycle as being unruly, this same mainstream media has itself grown unruly. It has become increasingly boisterous, vituperative, obstreperous, sanctimonious.This mainstream media has lost any semblance of dignified restraint and measured tone in reporting. It disrespectfully denigrates the Office of the U.S. President at every turn because its owners, the internationalist globalist “elites” who rule the EU quietly with an iron fist behind the scenes, failed—which, for them, was an unbelievable turn of events—to seat their puppet, Hillary Clinton, in the White House. But, the American people have turned a deaf ear to the nonsense spouted by the mainstream media.What else do these internationalist, globalist “elites” have up their sleeve? They can, as we have seen, orchestrate mass marches and they can foment violence and chaos through the use of agents provocateur, buttressed by legions of ignorant Americans quick to jump of the cliff like willing lemmings as soon as they hear the appropriate buzzwords that flood the soft tissue of their mush-filled brains. These internationalist, globalist elites work hand in hand with subversive political groups like the George Soros Group, MoveOn.org, and the Groups, Code Pink, and Black Lives Matter.But, the American people have really nothing to fear from an unruly mob. For, the police, and the military, and, most importantly, an armed citizenry can contain an unruly mob. The Second Amendment still exists much to the chagrin of those that seek to do away with the Bill of Rights. And the American people need not fear the lurid nonsense spouted by the mainstream media that is growing increasingly unimportant and extraneous as the messages it conveys are clearly out of the mainstream.But the internationalist globalist elites can still manipulate the Judiciary. That is problematic. The mainstream media and an unruly mob do not constitute a Branch of Government. But, the Judiciary does. While the internationalist globalist elites won’t be able to compromise the U.S. Supreme Court once the U.S. Senate confirms Neil Gorsuch, still the third Branch of Government encompasses, today, more than the U.S. Supreme Court. The Judiciary comprises eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal and over ninety lower U.S. District Courts. The Judiciary also includes a few specialized lower federal courts and several federal administrative boards.

FORUM SHOPPING DISPOSSESSES THE U.S. PRESIDENT OF HIS ABILITY TO PROTECT THIS NATION AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY FROM THREATS TO NATIONAL SECURITY AS THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAMSTRINGS THE PRESIDENT.

Less than a week had passed from the date of the signing of the President’s Executive Order to protect this Nation against intrusion into our Nation by Islamic terrorists, when the State of Washington—apparently at the behest of outside influences—filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.The U.S. District Court issued a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order), placing an immediate hold on execution of the Executive Order. A TRO is an extraordinary legal remedy. It is one Courts do not routinely issue. Courts do not routinely issue injunctions because Courts wish to give each side an opportunity to present facts and law in support of their position. In the absence of a full adversarial trial on the merits, injustice may occur. Therefore, a party seeking immediate relief—through preliminary injunction or TRO—must satisfy stringent tests.

POLITICAL MATTERS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE MATTERS OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IS NOT CONTENT ON TELLING PRESIDENT TRUMP WHAT THE LAW IS; IT TELLS THE U.S. PRESIDENT HOW TO DO HIS JOB!

THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE DECISION OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE U.S. DISTRICT IN PLACE.

The State of Washington, evidently taking its cue from the internationalist globalist elites who seek to undermine our free Republic, our Constitution, and our National Security, lost no time in preparing and filing a formal Complaint, seeking to preclude President Trump from implementing his travel ban. The Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on February 1, 2017.The Plaintiff State of Washington was joined, in the First Amended Complaint, by the Plaintiff State of Minnesota. The State of Washington, alleged, in principal part, that the President’s Executive Order is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The State of Washington also alleged that the President’s Executive Order violates The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1152(a)(1)(A), because that Act, as Plaintiff alleges, prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence. The State of Washington further alleged that the President’s Executive Order is discriminatory, violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The State of Washington also alleged the President's Executive Order violates the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 706(2)(D), because, as the State of Washington asserted, federal agencies must conduct formal rule making before engaging in action that impacts substantive rights. Lastly, the Plaintiff, State of Washington alleged the Executive Order violates the Tenth Amendment because, as the State of Washington asserted, “the Constitution prohibits the federal government from commandeering state legislative processes.”But, notwithstanding the bare recitation of these naked allegations, how is the State of Washington, as Plaintiff, in the suit, specifically harmed? Let’s see. The State claims:

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ALLEGES THAT THE PRESIDENT’S EXECUTIVE ORDER HARMS THE STATE IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

“Washington’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, including protecting its residents from harms to their physical or economic health, is a quasi-sovereign interest.Washington also has an interest in ensuring that its residents are not excluded from the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system, including the rights and privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Washington’s interest in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health, safety, and well-being extends to all of Washington’s residents, including individuals who suffer indirect injuries and members of the general public.Immigration is an important economic driver in Washington. Many workers in Washington’s technology industry are immigrants, and many of those immigrant workers are from Muslim-majority countries. Many companies in Washington are dependent on foreign workers to operate and grow their businesses.The technology industry relies heavily on the H-1B visa program, through which highly skilled workers like software engineers are permitted to work in the United States. Washington ranks ninth in the U.S. by number of applications for high-tech visas.Microsoft, a corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, is the State’s top employer of H-1B visa holders and employs nearly 5,000 people through the program. Other Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands of H-1B visa holders.   Washington-based companies, including Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks, employ thousands.The market for highly skilled workers and leaders in the technology industry is extremely competitive. Changes to U.S. immigration policy that restrict the flow of people may inhibit these companies’ ability to adequately staff their research and development efforts and recruit talent from overseas. If recruiting efforts are less successful, these companies’ abilities to develop and deliver successful products and services may be adversely affected.Microsoft’s U.S. workforce is heavily dependent on immigrants and guest workers. At least 76 employees at Microsoft are citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, or Yemen and hold U.S. temporary work visas. There may be other employees with permanent-resident status or green cards. These employees may be banned from re-entering the U.S. if they travel overseas or to the company’s offices in Vancouver, British Columbia.”The State thereupon asks, inter alia, for the Court to enjoin the Defendants, Donald Trump, President of the United States, and John Kelly, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, from implementing the Order. This means the State requests the U.S. District Court to issue its own Order preventing the President from exercising the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws of the U.S., prior to an adversarial proceeding that would give the President and the Secretary of DHS an opportunity to be heard in open Court.

THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NEVER HAVE ISSUED A TRO, ENJOINING THE U.S. PRESIDENT FROM CARRYING OUT HIS EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS DESIGNED MERELY AND ONLY TO PROTECT THIS NATION AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM REAL HARM POSED BY THOSE INDIVIDUALS ENTERING THIS COUNTRY FROM SEVERAL NAMED COUNTRIES THAT HARBOR TERRORISTS.

The U.S. District Court should have summarily denied issuance of an injunction. Why? Injunctions are extraordinary remedies.Courts generally frown on issuing injunctions because injunctions amount to ex parte action. That means a Court renders an injunction prohibiting a Party against whom the injunction is issued from engaging in a particular action. The Court that issued an injunction is operating on the say-so of one party without bothering to hear from the other party against whom the injunction is issued. That is not how our legal system is meant to function. Our system is an adversarial system of justice. This means that each Party to a lawsuit is promised an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence in his or her behalf, and to have an opportunity to challenge the veracity of the allegations made against that Party. When a Court issues an injunction on the allegations proffered by one Party before the other Party has had an opportunity to be heard, the adversarial system of justice is dispensed with, and justice is denied the Party whose rebuttal arguments are never heard. This is bad enough where individuals stand to lose much in the way of their individual rights under the law. It is absolute insanity where, as here, the entire Nation and its citizens are placed at risk due to the action of one judge, operating out of one Court who orders that his injunction be given nationwide effect.

WHAT IS THE LEGAL MECHANISM FOR ISSUING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION?

In the Ninth Circuit, A Court will issue an injunction—in the instant cast—the most extraordinary injunction—a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)—when the Court is satisfied: one, that a Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction isn’t issued immediately, and, two, the Party that seeks an injunction is likely to win on the merits, and, three, the equities tip in favor of the Party seeking an injunction, and if, four, issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. All four factors must be present. But, looking at just one factor here, namely, that Plaintiffs here, the State of Washington and the State of Minnesota, will, as the Court has determined, be irreparably harmed if the Court does not immediately prevent implementation of the U.S. President’s Order, the Complaint is devoid of anything concrete that so much as suggests the States would suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not enjoin the U.S. President and DHS from implementing the Executive Order. Yet, the District Court itself acknowledged, in Washington v. Trump, 2:17-cv-00141 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 3, 2017) that a preliminary injunction—of which the TRO is one type—is an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that a Plaintiff is entitled to such relief, prior to a full-blown trial on the merits. But where in the Court’s Opinion ordering a TRO, in the context of the allegations of the Complaint, is there any indication that the Plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if the TRO isn’t issued?There isn’t any and that is reason enough for the Court to refrain from issuing a TRO. Then, too, there is nothing in the Court Opinion to buttress the Court’s finding that the State of Washington is likely to win the case on the merits. Moreover, the idea that the equities tip in favor of the Plaintiff is absurd on its face. How can one State possibly argue, with a straight face no less, that its claimed economic interests—not so much its own but that of a private Company, namely and especially that of the technology Company Microsoft—and that its claimed interest in protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals, who are not even citizens of the United States, and its claim of a public interest that is purportedly harmed by the U.S. President’s Executive Order, are all greater than the concern the President of the United States has for the security of the Nation and for the life and safety and well-being of the citizens of this Nation as a whole, thereby warranting, according to the U.S. District Court Judge, the awarding of an injunction, enjoining the U.S. President from carrying out his duties, under Article II of the Constitution, on behalf of this Nation and on behalf of its People?

THE U.S. PRESIDENT RESPONDS TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE’S ISSUANCE OF AN INJUNCTION

On February 3, 2017, the President of the United States filed his emergency motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking the Ninth Circuit to overturn the District Court’s issuance of a TRO. The President made clear that his Executive Order was a lawful exercise of his complete and absolute control over the admission of aliens into this Country. The President pointed out that the District Court had issued a sweeping injunction in the absence of any legal analysis. Essentially the District Court simply mouthed the platitudes for issuance of its TRO without explanation of how the State of Washington and Minnesota met their burden of proof, thereby begging the very question at issue: whether the Plaintiff States had provided a convincing showing of hardship in the absence of issuance of an injunction. Indeed, rationally, sensibly, one would think that the U.S. President’s Executive Order, predicated on his duty to protect the Nation against outside threats to this Nation and to its citizenry, would outweigh the States’ insistence that its personal economic interests and the economic and financial interests of a few private businesses, and the interests of non-citizens are harmed by the President’s Order and therefore must be protected. The State of Washington is essentially saying: “The United States be damned. The economic concerns of Microsoft and the concerns of non-citizen refugees count for more than the safety and well-being of the Nation and its people as a whole.” Certainly, more serious interests are at risk when a Court enjoins a U.S. President from acting on behalf of the Nation and the American People, which, after all, was the reason the President issued his Executive Order in the first place. Evidently, the Ninth Circuit didn't think so.The President also argues in his Motion that the Plaintiffs have not even presented a convincing argument that they have standing to present a case against the President and the Secretary of DHS, apart from the naked claim that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The District Court itself proclaimed subject matter jurisdiction over the case when the Court should properly have questioned its jurisdiction because a State cannot properly bring suit to enforce purported rights on behalf of its citizens based on a State’s estimate of its citizens’ relationship with the federal government. In other words, it is for the citizens themselves to bring suit against the federal government, to vindicate rights, if they feel the federal government has violated their Constitutional rights. But, the U.S. District Court never questioned its own jurisdiction in the case. At the very least the Court could have and should have asked each of the Parties to the action to submit briefs on the standing issue. Instead the Court assumed it had subject matter jurisdiction and obligingly gave the State whatever it wanted, irrespective of the law.It must be pointed out that, in the first instance, a Federal Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to even hear a case brought by a plaintiff before it--as required under Article III of the U.S. Constitution--before that Federal Court proceeds pell-mell to hear a case at all. In the matter before the Court, the Court assumed the State of Washington had standing and accepted at face value the allegations made in support of enjoining the United States President from carrying out his duties under Article II of the Constitution. A hearing on standing should have at least have been ordered prior to any consideration of issuance of an injunction against the U.S. President. The Court did not do this, and the President properly brought up the issue of standing in its Motion asking for emergency relief from the effect of the TRO, when it filed its Motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Citing United States Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. President correctly pointed out, in the Motion, citing legal precedent, that, “an order barring the Executive Branch from enforcing a Presidential Executive Order inherently imposes harm on the public, by thwarting the legal effect of the public’s chosen representative.” Yet, the U.S. District Court, in awarding Plaintiff States a TRO, opined that, the “States have met their burden of demonstrating that they face immediate and irreparable injury as a result of the signing and implementation of the Executive Order. The Executive Order adversely affects the States' residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders.” Think about that for a moment. The Court is saying that an inconvenience to a State’s residents in the areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel, count for more than the life, well-being, and safety of the citizenry of the entire Nation.You would think the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit would not only reverse the lower Court’s awarding of the TRO to Plaintiff States but would have chastised the District Court for awarding the TRO at all. Instead, the Ninth Circuit, in State of Washington vs. Trump, No. 17-35105 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2017), denied the Defendants' Emergency Motion for a Stay pending appeal, the effect of which was to affirm the District Court's awarding of a TRO to the Plaintiff States, Washington and Minnesota. The Ninth Circuit said, citing a U.S. Supreme Court case: “A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926)). “It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion,’ and ‘the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’” Id. (quoting Virginian, 272 U.S. at 672-73) (alterations omitted). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34. The Nken vs. Holder case dealt with the meaning of 8 USCS § 1252(f), titled, “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” The Nken vs. Holder case has nothing to do with the present case. In Nken, the Petitioner, an alien, sought to stay his removal from the U.S., pending review of the removal order, but the Respondent, Attorney General, asserted that the alien could not meet the stringent requirements for a stay under 8 USCS § 1252(f). The alien appealed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which denied the stay and the alien then appealed the adverse ruling to U.S. Supreme Court. The high Court affirmed the decision of the Fourth Circuit, denying the alien’s motion for a stay, pending the appeal of his removal from the United States.

THE NKEN CASE IS INAPPOSITE AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT MISUNDERSTANDS AND MISAPPLIES FEDERAL STATUTE, WHEN IT REFUSES TO ISSUE A STAY OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT’S RULING, ENJOINING THE PRESIDENT FROM IMPLEMENTING HIS SUSPENSION OF REFUGEE, SEEKING EMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES FROM HOSTILE COUNTRIES.

The Ninth Circuit misapplies 8 USCS § 1252(f), titled, “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” The applicable section, titled, “Limit on injunctive relief,” says, “(1) In general. Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of the provisions of chapter 4 of title II [8 USCS §§ 1221 et seq.], as amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such chapter have been initiated. (2) Particular cases. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court shall enjoin the removal of any alien pursuant to a final order under this section unless the alien shows by clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of such order is prohibited as a matter of law.” The prohibition on Courts against use of a stay here, even where hardship exists, applies to aliens who seek to prevent a Court from removing them from this Country, pending their appeal of a final removal order. In other words, aliens can’t claim hardship to prevent their removal from this Country on a final order in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that execution of the removal order is prohibited by law.In the instant case the President’s Motion for a stay of the District Court’s TRO has nothing whatsoever to do with the import of the Statute, 8 USCS § 1252(f). And the Nken case has nothing to do with the case before the Ninth Circuit, here. An alien isn’t seeking to prevent his or her removal from this Country. Rather, the President is precluding, temporarily, aliens, citizens of failed States that are known to harbor Islamic terrorists, from entering our Country. Moreover, even if 8 USCS § 1252(f) did extend to the President’s Executive Order, which it doesn’t, the District Court’s TRO is not a final order.By its nature preliminary injunctions, such as a TRO, are interim orders—they are not final orders on the merits. And this TRO deleteriously impacts the security of this Nation and the security of its citizenry. The Ninth Circuit is grasping at straws, citing law that has no bearing on the issuance of a TRO against a U.S. Presidential Executive Order, as the Ninth Circuit has, apparently, made up its mind before the fact to allow the U.S. District injunction to stand.Furthermore, constitutional rights do not apply to aliens. Aliens are, by definition, individuals who are not citizens. Due process concerns and equal protection concerns do not apply to non-citizens. No one who is not a citizen can claim legal right, under the Fifth Amendment, to enter our Country. Yet, the Ninth Circuit makes this very determination, essentially deciding the case on the merits to justify and sanctify the lower Court’s awarding of a TRO, with nationwide affect, on behalf of two States whose standing to bring suit against the U.S. President is tenuous at best.

IT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS INTRUDED UPON THE DOMAIN OF THE JUDICIARY IN VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, BUT RATHER, IT IS THE JUDICIARY, HERE, THAT HAS BY ALL ACCOUNTS, IMPROPERLY INTRUDED UPON THE DOMAIN OF THE EXECUTIVE AND, IN SO DOING, HAS UNDERMINED THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE AND HAS MADE DIFFICULT THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS OF THIS NATION, AND, HAS, AS WELL, JEOPARDIZED THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION AND THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF ITS CITIZENS.

In a seminal case, decided well over two hundred years ago, Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 CRANCH 137 (1803)—a case that all first year law students of accredited law schools study in depth, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made clear the role of the Judiciary in our THREE BRANCH SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. The Chief Justice, John Marshall, made clear the defining role of the Judiciary. He said, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”  Thus, the Chief Justice made clear that while Congress shall make the laws of this Nation, and the President shall faithfully execute the laws of this Nation, it is the role of the Judiciary—and the role of the Judiciary alone—that shall determine what the law is. That specific role clearly demarcates a singular prerogative of the Judiciary if any doubt had previously existed as to the specific singular prerogative of the Judiciary.But, Marbury vs. Madison does not stand merely for the proposition that, in so asserting a specific defined role for the Judiciary upon which neither the President nor Congress may lawfully tread, there are not also areas in which the Judiciary, for its part, must not tread.  Clearly, when laying out the scope of judicial inquiry Chief Justice Marshall was also circumspect in laying out the limits of Judicial inquiry—the parameters beyond which the Judiciary must not tread. The Chief Justice stated, “Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Expounding further, the Chief Justice stated, “By the constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders. In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This office, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.”It is a curious matter today that the Press, which isn’t a Branch of Government at all, often operates as if it is one, explaining as the voice of conscience—which it has little of—and the voice of reason—which has none of—how it is that, in its opinion, the U.S. President has overstepped his bounds of legal authority. The Press can, perhaps, be excused its excesses. It has long since lost credibility. But, the Ninth Circuit, for its part, should know better. It would have done well to read Marbury vs. Madison before rendering its decision in the latest case on the U.S. President’s temporary travel ban. Had the Ninth Circuit done so, it would have realized that it had transgressed the bounds of propriety by telling the President what his duty is, rather than more ably considering what its own duty is. Had the Ninth Circuit given more thought of the limits of judicial inquiry, it would have refrained from engaging in political matters where it has no business going, having no cognition of the dangers this Country faces from the outside—to which the U.S. President is particularly able to deal with and is charged to deal with—and unmindful of the dangers to the Constitution itself creates, on the inside, having failed to heed to its rightful purpose—namely, interpreting the laws of this Nation, and not telling the President what his job is and how he is expected to do that job and what he is expected to refrain from doing.The issuance of a TRO by the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Washington, in the absence of any demonstrative legal basis to do so, is an example of a Court improperly intruding on the legitimate authority of the Executive to faithfully execute the laws of the Land. The Ninth Circuit would have done well to remind the U.S. District Court not to intrude on Presidential prerogative. Instead, the Ninth Circuit makes matters worse by affirming the lower Court’s decision. The decision isn’t just wrongheaded from a legal standpoint, having misinterpreted the law. It is wrongheaded in another sense entirely. For the Ninth Circuit has taken a political matter—one wholly outside the purview of the Courts—and has turned it into a legal one, thereby improperly intruding on a domain completely outside Judicial review and outside Judicial prerogative. The President is right.The President’s Executive Order, faithfully executing the laws of Congress is unreviewable. The Ninth Circuit, in defiance, of the clear separation of powers, decided to review the Executive Order anyway. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit takes into account matters wholly outside the allegations of the Complaint, relying, in great part, on biased newspaper accounts and editorials to support the District Court’s issuance of a TRO. The Ninth Circuit also improperly considers remarks the President made in his campaign—essentially nothing more than rhetoric. But, the Ninth Circuit then uses those remarks against the President, arguing that the Executive Order follows from religious bias toward Muslims. That is patently ridiculous.The purport of the President’s Executive Order, on its face, is designed to protect this Country and its citizenry from the very problem facing the EU as a result of having taken in waves of refugees from the Middle East—many of whom have engaged in acts of terrorism across Europe. The President has taken a proactive stance, rather than a reactive stance, to protect American citizens from physical harm. The Ninth Circuit gives that matter no thought.The mainstream media, for its part, shows its abject ignorance of our laws and jurisprudence, and ignorance of the separation of powers doctrine by asserting bombastically that President Trump’s Executive Order is unconstitutional and that the President, rather than the Judiciary, has ignominiously encroached on the powers of the Judiciary by referring to the U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington as a “so-called Judge.” The admonition on the part of the President hardly constitutes encroachment on the Separation of Powers. Improper issuance of a TRO, made all the worse through affirmance of the District Court’s Order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, does.Hopefully, Judge Gorsuch will soon be confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. Supreme Court will put matters right. For this Country teeters on the brink of anarchy wrought by those who would insinuate odd notions of morality into the framework of our Constitution and thrust into the public’s psyche alien ideas, devoid of reasoned, sensible reflection.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

CONNECTICUT PROCEDURE FOR UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

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

The Adventures of One Law-Abiding American Citizen as He Traverses the Minefield of Firearms’ Laws, Attempting to Secure for Himself Multiple Concealed Handgun Carry Licenses from A Multitude Of Jurisdictions That He May Exercise His Fundamental Right To Keep And Bear Arms Under The Second Amendment To The U.S. Constitution For The Purpose Of Self-Defense

A Comprehensive Analysis of The Procedures for Obtaining a Concealed Handgun Carry License in Various States for The Layman

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE: THE APPLICATION PACKET

SUBPART FOUR OF THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PROCESS APPLICATION

INTRODUCTION

If you have arrived at our website for the first time, and this is the first article you have come across on our ROAD TRIP series, the Arbalest Quarrel has been discussing, in the last few articles, the application process for securing a Connecticut handgun carry license.The State’s licensing Statute refers to the handgun carry licenses its Division of State Police issues to qualified applicants as: “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.” In this discussion, for brevity, we will refer to the type of license a qualified handgun permit holder must carry with him on his person—when also carrying a pistol or revolver on his person—as a ‘handgun carry permit.’ The reader should understand that this shortened expression does not appear in the State Statute and that the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESSP) does not use this expression either. Still, the shortened expression carries the essential meaning of the longer, statutory, expression and will be a useful for our purpose.If you haven’t read SUBPART ONE through SUBPART THREE of the ROAD TRIP series of articles on CONNECTICUT’S PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR HANDGUN LICENSING, we suggest you do so before reading the instant article as our articles follow a straightforward linear progression and we place the licensing scheme of this State, and others that we discuss, in appropriate context.

WHY ARE WE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE SERIES OF ARTICLES EXPLAINING THE LAWS AND PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES FROM REPRESENTATIVE JURISDICTIONS?

One reason we are doing this series is to bring to the reader’s attention the costly, time-consuming, frustrating, and often confoundingly complex process of obtaining multiple handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions. The Arbalest Quarrel has commenced this formal series of articles with the aim of systematically laying out the handgun licensing procedures of selected jurisdictions. We hope and trust that these articles will save our readers considerable time if they are contemplating applying for and securing a handgun carry license from any one or more of the jurisdictions that are the subject of our attention in the ROAD TRIP series of articles.There is, however, another reason the Arbalest Quarrel is doing this ROAD TRIP series  and in the specific manner presented—through the experiences of an actual individual, an American citizen and successful businessman whom we refer to as Mr. Wright, to protect his identity. By personalizing the process, we emphasize how an otherwise dry subject has a real-world impact on a living person, a law-abiding American citizen who has been forced to engage in the time-consuming, costly, often frustrating process of having first to obtain and then to renew on a continuous basis multiple handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions. He must do this even as he seeks nothing more nor less than to exercise his fundamental, sacred right to keep and bear arms for the lawful, recognized purpose of self-defense.The application process for securing any firearm license, let alone an unrestricted “full carry” permit, is not an easy process. It requires considerable time and attention to detail. If an application is incomplete or completed improperly, those governmental authorities tasked with processing an applicant’s handgun or long gun application will cease doing so and whatever time and money the applicant has spent in the process will be for naught.Understand, too, as we here emphasize, and as the ROAD TRIP series clearly illustrates, firearms’ application and processes and procedures are generally time-consuming, often confusing, ever duplicative, inevitably tedious, and invariably expensive. In several jurisdictions the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is only available to those American citizens who can afford the expense of securing gun licenses—an expense that one must bear beyond the cost of handguns, long guns, supplies, tools, and ammunition--and those American citizens who have the fortitude and stoic resolve to follow through with the lengthy application process. Renewing one's firearms’ licenses involve yet more time and expense, and create additional aggravation for the law-abiding gun license or permit holder.Furthermore, in “MAY ISSUE” States, one’s application for a handgun carry license may be denied even if the person is not otherwise prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, which is to say, the applicant for a handgun license is not under a disability—defined in State and Federal Statute—that operates as an automatic exclusion from possessing firearms.In “MAY ISSUE” States an applicant for the most coveted gun license—and the one generally most meaningful to the notion of self-defense, namely a concealed handgun carry permit or license—must demonstrate “NEED” sufficient to support issuance of a handgun license.The mere fact the applicant is not under disability is insufficient to warrant issuance of a handgun carry license to that applicant in “MAY ISSUE” jurisdictions. The applicant must present a case for issuance of the handgun license, to the satisfaction of the official tasked for issuing those licenses or permits. That means the applicant must present a convincing case for issuance of a concealed handgun carry permit or license to that applicant beyond the mere recitation of the fact that and proof of the fact that he or she is under no disability.But, what constitutes “NEED” sufficient to support issuance of a handgun license to a person not under disability often differs from one jurisdiction to the next. Contrariwise, in “SHALL ISSUE” States, a showing of need to carry a handgun isn’t required. So long as a person isn’t under disability, the licensing authority will issue a handgun carry permit or license to that person. The licensing authority doesn’t have discretion in the matter to deny a person, not under disability, from lawfully carrying a handgun in “SHALL ISSUE” jurisdictions. That means the licensing authority will issue a person a handgun carry license or permit to that person as long as that person is under no federal or State disability.

IS CONNECTICUT A “MAY ISSUE” OR A “SHALL ISSUE” JURISDICTION?

Is Connecticut a “MAY ISSUE” State or a “SHALL ISSUE” State? You might think the matter would be clear enough from a review of the firearms’ licensing laws of a State and, from a purely logical point of view, you might think a State has to be either one or the other; not both; and not neither. In Connecticut, however, fuzzy logic takes over. It isn’t clear, as you will see as we discuss the actual application process.

ONCE A PERSON RECEIVES HIS OR HER COVETED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE, THAT PERSON MUST ALWAYS BE ON GUARD NOT TO FORFEIT IT.

Even after a person secures a license, he or she must be mindful of the laws governing firearm’s use. Keep uppermost in mind: What is so very difficult to obtain is, on the other hand, extremely easy to lose. As in any other jurisdiction that issues handgun carry permits, the holder of Connecticut handgun carry permit will forfeit the handgun carry permit, and his firearms, if that handgun carry permit holder violates Connecticut firearms laws in any manner. Violations may be as innocuous as failing to meet renewal of handgun carry permit deadlines. Or, violations may be as serious as mishandling or misusing firearms or falling into one or more disability categories, after issuance of the handgun carry permit, such as conviction for domestic violence.Keep in mind, too, that many jurisdictions do not wish for civilians to own and possess firearms. Those jurisdictions argue that firearms in the hands of the average law-abiding, rational citizen, notwithstanding, serves only to reduce public safety—and public safety is, ostensibly at least, the primary concern of State legislatures when they enact firearms' laws. The right of the individual American citizen to keep and bear arms often takes a back seat to and is often perceived as inconsistent with the State's concern to maximize public safety, even though, in truth, there is no inconsistency between firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens and public safety. In fact, firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens promotes public safety as many scientific studies demonstrate. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens, then, does not detract from public safety, contrary to those who assert that it does. Such jurisdictions that abhor the presence of firearms in the hands of the average law-abiding citizen, and, so, are openly averse to the notion of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet assert inconsistently and hypocritically the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their State Constitutions or otherwise assert that right in State Statute--mirroring the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--even as they enact laws to constrain and constrict and restrict its application. How often does the public hear antigun zealots in State Legislatures and in Congress assert speciously and incongruously, that "of course we support the Second Amendment," even as they roll out another set of purported "common-sense laws" to curb the exercise of that very right--as if to convince the public that the assertion of the right is enough to dampen criticism that they mean no less than to restrict the exercise of that right and, eventually, to destroy it altogether.Since the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as a codification of the natural right to keep and bear arms cannot be denied, those jurisdictions that rather not issue firearms' licenses and permits, do so only grudgingly, if at all. Thus, they have no desire to make the process simple, or painless, or cheap, or quick. The firearm licensing process, across the Country, must be simplified. Congressional enactment of an effective national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law would go a long way in simplifying the process.This takes us to the third reason we are doing this series. As Donald Trump has now taken the oath of high Office—he is no longer simply President-elect Donald Trump; he is President Donald Trump. There is a high probability that Americans will see national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation enacted in the foreseeable future, in some form. If so, the present tortuous exercise one must engage in, applying for and obtaining multiple handgun carry licenses from multiple governmental jurisdictions, will no longer be necessary. A law-abiding citizen will have in his or her possession, then, one license that will permit the handgun license holder, to carry, lawfully, a handgun, concealed on that person, in every jurisdiction—or, at least, will allow that person to carry a handgun lawfully in many more jurisdictions than is currently the case as several jurisdictions have established reciprocity agreements with one or more other jurisdictions. Many, though, have not.Ideally, the issuance to a person of one valid concealed handgun carry license would work much like a motorist’s license. One valid motorist’s license or operator’s license issued in one State, allows the holder of said valid license to drive his vehicle lawfully in every other State. Of course, driving an automobile on State roads and highways is a privilege, not a fundamental, inherent right. Yet, the ease by which one applies for and obtains a motorist’s or operator’s license would suggest that driving a vehicle on State or interstate roads and highways is a right. Owning and possessing firearms is, on the other hand, a fundamental, inherent right, preexistent in the people. There’s no question about it. But the difficulties in obtaining a license to exercise that fundamental right coupled with the fact that one must, in virtually all jurisdictions, obtain a firearms’ license or permit, issued by a governing body, to fully enjoy that right in the broadest possible sense, reduces a right to a mere privilege, bestowed by government on the individual. Of course, any privilege given is one that can easily be taken away.Let’s now explore, further, the time-consuming, costly, and, often difficult process of obtaining a handgun carry permit that allows one lawfully to carry a pistol or revolver in Connecticut.

THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY APPLICATION PACKET

NOTE: CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NON-RESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FOR THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE STATE: NON-RESIDENTS MUST SECURE A VALID HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED

Mr. Wright’s attorney, working together with a professional security consultant, has done the legwork for Mr. Wright. The attorney first perused the State website. He determined that a non-resident must contact the DESSP for application materials. The initial forms are not provided online. Mr. Wright’s attorney then contacted, by phone, the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP.  The phone number of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police is provided on the State website.Mr. Wright’s attorney spoke with an Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of the DESSP, requesting handgun carry application materials. The Officer was diligent and did respond immediately to the telephone request as Mr. Wright’s attorney received the application materials a few days later. The application materials consisted of the following: The first document that Mr. Wright’s attorney saw when he retrieved the documents from the manila envelope, was a green sheet, titled, "CONNECTICUT STATE PISTOL PERMITS," subtitled, “OUT OF STATE RESIDENTS.”The sheet listed “mandatory requirements.” They are as follows:1) Copy of permit to carry a pistol or revolver, issued by another jurisdiction. 2) DPS 46 Application Card for State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, signed and completed 3) DPS 799-C Application for non-residents, completed, signed and notarized 4) DPS 129-C, completed, signed and notarized with 2 by 2 color passport photo attached 5) Fingerprint card, signed and completed, including fingerprints 6) Cashiers check or money order for $70.00 payable to: “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”—for Application7) Cashier’s check or money order for $50.00 payable to: “Treasurer, State of Connecticut”—(for CT fingerprint processing) 8) Cashiers check or money order for $12.00 payable to “Treasurer, State of Connecticut” (for FBI fingerprint processing) 9) Documentation of successfully completing a Firearms Safety course for pistols and revolvers that has been “approved” by the Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection as required by CT State Statute 29-28(b). 10) A copy of citizenship (birth certificate or United States Passport). Send a copy, do not send original. 11) Legal Aliens Residents need to provide a copy of their Alien Registration card and 90-day proof of residency within their state. If applicable, a copy of naturalization papers should be sent with application.12) If applicable, include a copy of form DD214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty from military which MUST specifically state discharge status.ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED IN ORDER FOR YOUR APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED. FULL LEGAL FIRST NAME, MIDDLE INITIAL AND LAST NAME REQUIRED. ****INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS PACKAGES WILL BE RETURNED!!!!!*** Questions can be directed to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit at the address or number below. Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Division of State Police 1111Country Club Road Middletown, CT 06457Telephone: (860) 685-8494 Fax: (860) 685-8496_____________________________________Along with the green cover sheet, the Connecticut Application for State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers, included the following:1) A small, indexed size orange card, titled, “APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS." 2) A blue four page folded instruction sheet, the first page of which has three columns: the first column provides “Instructions for State Pistol Permits” for residents of Connecticut; the second, middle column, provides “Instructions for Non-Resident State Pistol Permits”; and the third column provides instructions for “Eligibility Certificate to Purchase Pistols or Revolves and/or eligibility Certificates to Purchase Long Guns.” The interior two pages and last page of the blue four page instruction sheet is the comprehensive application form proper. 3) In the application packet is a white sheet on which the applicant is to attach a recent passport photograph. Note: the passport photograph must have been taken within six months of the application. 4) There is also included a white Fingerprint Card.Mr. Wright, together with his attorney, and with his professional security consultant looked over the documents and prepared to complete them.Mr. Wright’s attorney first made certain that he had in front of him Section 29-28 of the Connecticut State Statute. The Statute is critical. If in doubt about anything in the application, the Statute is the first critical “go-to” information source to get a handle on Connecticut’s handgun licensing procedures. Beyond State Statute, regulating the issuance of handgun carry licenses,We have provided you, the reader, with the critical portion of this document for non-resident, Section 29-28(b), below, since Mr. Wright isn’t a resident of Connecticut. Note: we have also made a copy of this Statutory section in SUBPART THREE of this Article.The pertinent portion of the Statute reads:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association, (2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d, (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120, (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13, (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court, or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing, (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or (10) is less than twenty-one years of age. Nothing in this section shall require any person who holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver on October 1, 1994, to participate in any additional training in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. No person may apply for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver more than once within any twelve-month period, and no temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued to any person who has applied for such permit more than once within the preceding twelve months. Any person who applies for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall indicate in writing on the application, under penalty of false statement in such manner as the issuing authority prescribes, that such person has not applied for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the past twelve months. Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”

COMPLETION OF THE DOCUMENTS

Mr. Wright intended to stop by the NYPD Licensing Division headquarters to have his fingerprints taken and he realized that he would need to obtain another colored passport photo since his original passport photo was more than six months old. He would attach the up-to-date photograph to the White Passport Photo sheet that was included in the application packet.Mr. Wright’s attorney, along with his professional security consultant and expert made certain that Mr. Wright had in his possession a certificate that demonstrated that Mr. Wright had in fact successfully passed an approved firearms safety training course that Connecticut law mandate. He would include the necessary documentation that he would be returning to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police. The “Green” instruction sheet indicated that he can submit a copy of his certification. Prior successful completion of an approved firearms safety training course is a condition precedent to further processing of one’s application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit.Some jurisdictions that issue concealed handgun carry licenses, such as New York, do not require that the applicant successfully complete s firearm’s safety training course as a precondition to the issuance of the license. That is curious. One would think that a jurisdiction that has instituted a substantial number of stringent requirements for issuance of a concealed handgun carry permits or licenses would have instituted, as one requirement, evidence of satisfactory completion of a firearm’s safety training course. This is not to suggest that the Arbalest Quarrel is mandating that a jurisdiction ought to require satisfactory evidence of having completed such training; for, any responsible, rational person ought to understand how to properly use a firearm if that person expects to rely on it for self-defense. But personal responsibility is something one would expect from a law-abiding, sane person and citizen, living in a free Republic. Personal responsibility is not, we believe, something that should be imposed on the citizen by government, State or federal. In New York, though, it is unlikely the State Legislature dispensed with the requirement that an applicant for a concealed handgun carry license must have successfully completed a firearm’s safety training course as a precondition for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license because the New York State Legislature felt an applicant would invariably obtain that training anyway. More likely, given the draconian laws and codes in place for issuance of such licenses, one might logically conclude that New York abhors the idea that civilians should be allowed to possess firearms. By dispensing with the requirement that an individual show evidence of having successfully completed a firearm’s safety training course and, further, by avoiding providing the applicant with information on how to obtain that training, if a concealed handgun carry license is issued—perhaps even if a licensee requests that information—New York essentially washes its hands of its own responsibility for any potential mishap that might later occur as a result of an individual’s accidentally harming him or herself or others with a firearm.

THE CONNECTICUT FINGERPRINT CARD

Perusing the other documents, Mr. Wright’s attorney saw that only one fingerprint card was included in the packet, even though Mr. Wright’s fingerprints would be processed by the Connecticut Division of State Police and by the FBI. Mr. Wright must cut two checks for fingerprint processing: one for the State of Connecticut’s fingerprint processing and one for the FBI. Mr. Wright’s attorney thought the application packet should include two cards and since only one fingerprint card was provided in the application packet, Mr. Wright’s attorney wondered whether the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit had forgotten to include an additional fingerprint card. Mr. Wright’s attorney thereupon phoned the Special Licensing and Firearm’s Unit of the Division of State Police for clarification. The Officer with whom Mr. Wright’s attorney spoke informed the attorney that only one fingerprint card was necessary. The Special Licensing and Firearm’s Unit made no mistake. There was no oversight. The Officer acknowledged that, previously, two fingerprint cards were provided in handgun carry permit application packet, but that this was no longer done because it was unnecessary now that one fingerprint card was duplicated electronically for the FBI. Apparently, precision copies of the Fingerprint card are now technologically feasible. So, only one fingerprint card is included in the application materials.Mr. Wright would arrange for the NYPD to take his fingerprints since the NYPD Licensing Division was within the vicinity of Mr. Wright’s main business offices, and Mr. Wright already holds a valid unrestricted New York City handgun carry license. Mr. Wright was aware the NYPD would probably charge him a fee for having his fingerprints taken. Once they were taken, Mr. Wright would return the fingerprint card, together with the other completed documents, to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police.Mr. Wright, together with his attorney and security expert then perused those portions of the application that Mr. Wright could complete by pen at his desk.

“THE APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS”—AN ORANGE, INDEXED SIZE CARD

Mr. Wright’s attorney and professional security consultant took out the orange, index sized, titled, “APPLICATION FOR STATE PERMIT TO CARRY PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.” Mr. Wright commenced to complete the card. Mr. Wright was instructed to list his residence address information, including his SSN and MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE NUMBER. Mr. Wright was also required to list his vital statistics, namely: DOB, SEX, RACE, EYE COLOR, HEIGHT, and WEIGHT. The orange index card also included a box with the heading: “REASON FOR PERMIT.” This gave Mr. Wright and his team of experts pause.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUFFICIENTLY GOOD REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF A VAILD HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT TO A QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL WHO WISHES TO CARRY A HANDGUN LAWFULLY IN CONNECTICUT?

IS CONNECTICT A “MAY ISSUE” OR “SHALL ISSUE” STATE?

Mr. Wright thought the requirement that he state a reason for obtaining a handgun carry permit to carry a handgun lawfully in Connecticut should not be a cause for alarm or consternation. After all, the NYPD Licensing Division required Mr. Wright to provide the Division with a sufficiently good reason to issue Mr. Wright an unrestricted handgun carry license that would allow him to carry a handgun lawfully in the City.The NYPD Licensing Division considered that, if a business person explains he carries substantial amounts of cash to deposit in his or her bank account, on a regular basis on one or more days, during any given week, and, if the business person can satisfactorily prove that he carries substantial amounts of cash to deposit in a bank—which is established through voluminous documentation—and if the NYPD Licensing Division Officer determines to his personal satisfaction that the amount of cash a business person has on his person that he carries to a bank on a regular basis, in the regular course of his business, is substantial, then, in that case, the Licensing Division Officer may determine that sufficient cause exists for the issuance of either a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. The issuance of a restricted or unrestricted New York City concealed handgun carry license by the Licensing Division Officer is not a simple, pro-forma checklist procedure. It is always, case-by-case. So, the Licensing Division Officer is given substantial discretion in the matter of issuing a concealed handgun carry license that allows a person to lawfully carry a concealed handgun on his person in the City. Essentially, the NYPD determines that the carrying of substantial cash places a person at more than usual risk of attack. But, what constitutes a substantial amount of cash is not predetermined.Mr. Wright wondered whether the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police of Connecticut was looking for a similarly sufficiently good reason to issue a permit to an otherwise qualified individual. Mr. Wright’s attorney was not so certain. A small block on a small index sized card was hardly room enough to explain in detail the assets that Mr. Wright carried with him on a daily basis that placed his life in jeopardy of assault. And, from a review of the materials in the application packet, there was no indication that Mr. Wright must provide substantial documentation pertaining to his business operations, unlike the voluminous documentation he had to provide to the NYPD Licensing Officer. What, then, was the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit looking for? Was this a “trick” question? Would it be enough for one simply to posit: “self-defense?”Clearly, if a person were applying for a handgun carry license to lawfully carry a handgun in New York City, “SELF-DEFENSE” would be a patently insufficient reason for issuance of a concealed handgun carry license in New York City. If that was the best reason for issuance of an NYPD concealed handgun carry license an applicant for a handgun license could come up with, then that person should spare him or herself the time, and energy, and expense of bothering to apply for a concealed carry license. The NYPD Licensing Officer would perfunctorily deny issuance of the license to that person.An applicant for a handgun carry license must demonstrate need to carry a handgun. Self-defense isn’t considered sufficient need to carry in New York City and in several other jurisdictions in the State of New York, for New York is a “MAY ISSUE,” State and “MAY ISSUE” in New York and especially in New York City and in many other jurisdictions in New York, and that means very few individuals will obtain a valid concealed handgun carry license. Indeed, Mr. Wright’s attorney was told, bluntly, when he spoke with one licensing Officer for  Nassau County, Long Island, New York, that the only individuals who can truly hope to obtain a concealed handgun carry license are judges and politicians. That is quite an admission! Such blatant comment implicates due process and equal protection concerns. But, we have to commend the officer's blunt honesty for admitting the truth. We suspect the officer wasn't pleased with what he evidently received as orders from superiors to deny issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses to law-abiding American citizens who are deemed to be mere ordinary folk.  But, concerning Connecticut, what was the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police looking for in the way of proof of need to carry a handgun?Mr. Wright’s attorney was concerned that improperly setting forth an acceptable reason in an otherwise seemingly innocuous portion of documentation materials could preclude Mr. Wright from obtaining a Connecticut handgun carry permit. The issue boiled down to whether Connecticut is a “MAY ISSUE” State or a “SHALL ISSUE” State.If Connecticut is truly a “MAY ISSUE” State, this means that no applicant is issued a handgun carry permit as a matter of right. In other words, THE STATE MUST LOOK TO NEED BEYOND THE MERE DESIRE TO CARRY A GUN, and the licensing official is generally given substantial discretion in the matter. Would this present a problem for Mr. Wright? How should he “fill-in” the box on the orange card that asked Mr. Wright to state a reason for applying for a Connecticut concealed handgun permit? Mr. Wright’s attorney decided he wouldn't second-guess what may constitute an appropriate response and, so, realized that the best course of action would be to contact the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Division of State Police, directly, and ask the question, point-blank, to ascertain what it was, exactly, that the State was looking for in terms of recognizing sufficient need for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified applicant—an applicant who is not otherwise under some disability--a disability that would preclude that person from possessing a firearm and therefore mandates rejection of one's application for a Connecticut handgun carry permit.Mr. Wright’s attorney learned through his discussion with the Officer with whom he spoke that, unlike New York City, the stated need of “SELF-DEFENSE” is an adequate reason for issuance of a handgun carry permit to a qualified individual in Connecticut. In fact, Mr. Wright’s attorney surmised, from the brief conversation he had, with the Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, that, going into detail or setting forth any reason other than “SELF-DEFENSE” might raise a red flag as to one’s mental stability. One should not say—indeed one should never say on an application for an kind of firearm's permit or license that: “I FEEL THREATENED BY AFRICAN AMERICANS,” or “I FEEL THREATENED BY WHITES,” or “I FEEL THREATENED BY PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM.” In other words, KEEP IT SIMPLE. IF  “SELF-DEFENSE” IS REASON ENOUGH FOR ISSUANCE OF A HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT IN CONNECTICUT, THEN DO NOT ATTEMPT TO EMBELLISH THAT REASON. In fact, “SELF-DEFENSE” is a salient reason any law-abiding American citizen would have for carrying a handgun.No more need be said in respect to one’s NEED for a handgun and no more ought to said than “SELF DEFENSE,” as one’s stated and real need for a handgun carry permit. Indeed, we wonder that, if ‘SELF-DEFENSE’ is the one primary, adequate reason for carrying a handgun, why would a jurisdiction instruct a person to state a reason that is obvious on its face--redundant really? It may be that Connecticut is looking to weed out individuals who do not have a documented history of mental illness but who might nonetheless set forth a need to carry a handgun in Connecticut that, once again, raises a red flag as to their mental stability. Or, it may be based on nothing more than an understanding that, because Connecticut is technically a “MAY ISSUE” State--as the firearm licensing statute specifically states that the Commissioner MAY ISSUE a license--so he doesn't have to, notwithstanding that a person is qualified to carry a weapon because that person is under no disability and meets all other procedural requirements--the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police must instruct an applicant to clearly and categorically assert a reason, on an application document for applying for a handgun carry permit, even if a response is pro forma and perfunctory and even if no further investigation into the stated need is carried out by the governmental authority--the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police--tasked with the processing of all applications for handgun carry permits in Connecticut.Again, the language of the Connecticut State firearm licensing Statute, as the language of the firearm licensing Statutes of all States, dictates whether the State is officially considered a “MAY ISSUE” or “SHALL ISSUE” State.Let’s look at the pertinent language of the handgun carry permit Statute of Connecticut once again:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. . . . Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”The “MAY ISSUE” language in the Statute is clear and categorical and sets forth that the applicable licensing authority MAY ISSUE a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” and, within sixty days of issuance of the “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” the applicable licensing authority “MAY ISSUE” “THE “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER WITHIN THE STATE.”--THE PERMANENT PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER WITHIN THE STATE.So, the Statute is saying that the CHIEF OF POLICE, WARDEN OR SELECTMAN may issue a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT” but he doesn’t have to, and thereafter, within sixty days, if the applicant does receive a “TEMPORARY STATE PERMIT,” the applicant must apply for the “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER” and the Commissioner, for his part, may issue the “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVERS, but the State Commissioner, too, is not required to issue the Permit. What does this REALLY mean? We think this means that, if a person, who is not under any disability asserts that he desires a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER in Connecticut, for no other reason than “SELF DEFENSE” and, if “SELF DEFENSE” is, as the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit Officer honestly says that “SELF DEFENSE” is a perfectly adequate reason for issuance of a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER in Connecticut, without any further explanatory reason required, and, if the Commissioner thereupon issues a “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER,” without further ado, then, in effect, and for all practical purposes, Connecticut is a “SHALL ISSUE” State and this is a good thing. That would suggest that the only reason the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police requires an applicant for a handgun carry permit to assert a reason for making application for a handgun carry permit at all is simply to comply with the stated language of the State Statute, and nothing more, because such permit will, it is reasonably presumed, always be issued.However, if the Commissioner can, at will, and at whim, issue or refrain from issuing a “STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER” at his discretion, then Connecticut is, as State Statute makes plain, a TRUE “MAY ISSUE” State, and a person has no understanding of and can have no understanding of a true reason for denial of his or her application for a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER because the Statute doesn’t require the Commissioner to give a reason for denying a person issuance of a PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER. The only ultimate recourse for an individual who has been denied issuance of a Connecticut handgun carry permit is to appeal to the Court, arguing bad faith and arbitrary and capricious denial of a PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER. “MAY ISSUE” States always pose “RED HERRINGS” for the law-abiding citizen, who is not under disability, who desires to carry a handgun lawfully in a State.So, until Mr. Wright’s application for a Connecticut PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER is processed, we cannot say whether Connecticut is a true “MAY ISSUE” STATE where the ultimate licensing official has absolute discretion for issuing or refraining from issuing a handgun carry license or permit with little recourse for the applicant apart from administrative review and further court review of denial to issue, or Connecticut is, in effect, a “SHALL ISSUE” State, despite the language of Statute, because a law-abiding citizen, not under disability who complies with all administrative requirements, will invariably be issued a STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A PISTOL OR REVOLVER.In the next segment of this article, we will continue our analysis of the application process, when Mr. Wright, with the assistance of his attorney and his professional security consultant and expert complete the detailed, “PISTOL PERMIT/ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION” and we look, as well, at the renewal process in Connecticut._______________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

IS USE OF ‘CCW,’ IN REFERENCE TO CONNECTICUT’S PERMIT TO CARRY HANDGUNS APPROPRIATE?

In the latest set of articles in the continuing ROAD TRIP series, the Arbalest Quarrel discussed the handgun permit schema of Connecticut. The State Legislature has tasked to the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of Connecticut’s Division of State Police the processing of applications for permits to carry pistols and revolvers. The Division of State Police is a component of The Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESSP).In analyzing Connecticut gun permit laws and procedures the Arbalest Quarrel has used the acronym ‘CCW’ (‘Concealed Carry Weapon’) as a shorthand notation for the lengthier phrase, “Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers,” which is the official, statutorily correct phrase.The acronym ‘CCW’ doesn’t appear in Connecticut State Statute and it isn’t an acronym that the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Division of State Police uses to describe handgun permits.The question is whether our use of the acronym ‘CCW’ is acceptable shorthand notation for the lengthier official phrase, “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.” The specific phrase, ‘permit to carry pistol or revolver’ appears in  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28, titled, “Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents.”

WHY HAVE WE BROUGHT THIS MATTER UP?

Upon reading our latest article on Connecticut firearms’ laws and licensing procedures, an expert on Connecticut gun laws contacted the Arbalest Quarrel, yesterday, January 18, 2017, exclaiming that we should not have used the acronym, ‘CCW,’ in reference to Connecticut handgun permits because, as this party said, in part, “Connecticut does not have a 'ccw'. We have a Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.”The Arbalest Quarrel is sensitive about the information it provides to its readers. Our goal is to provide the reader with comprehensive, detailed, and accurate information about State and federal firearms’ laws. We therefore undertook an investigation of the points made by this individual to ascertain whether the acronym, ‘CCW,’ as a shorthand descriptor of the lengthy statutory phrase, 'Permit to Carry Pistol or Revolver,’ is inappropriate because, 'CCW,' misconstrues the kind of handgun permit or license the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police issues to qualified applicants.To be sure, every State has its own nomenclature apropos of the handgun licenses and permits it issues to qualified applicants.The party who took exception with our use of the acronym, ‘CCW,’ also said, “There is no such thing as concealment in Connecticut as far as the law is concerned.” Now this assertion raises a bone of contention.  The Arbalest Quarrel takes the position that the point is not precisely true because, while a holder of a valid Connecticut Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers may carry a handgun openly, the holder of a valid permit to carry may also carry a handgun concealed. How do we know this? We know this to be true because we had contacted the Division of State Police before posting our articles on Connecticut handgun licensing and we spoke directly with an Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police. The Officer of the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit told us matter-of- factly that the Connecticut handgun permit holder may carry his weapon either openly or concealed on his person as the permit holder wishes. Ostensibly, the expert on Connecticut gun laws who contacted us, knows this, but then his assertion that “There is no such thing as concealment in Connecticut as far as the law is concerned” is not consistent with the clear import of the statement he makes. It may be that this party meant nothing more than to point out to us that Connecticut law is silent about how the holder of a valid Connecticut handgun carry permit may carry a handgun. But, then, if there is no such thing as concealment in Connecticut as far as the law is concerned because Connecticut law is silent on the subject, then there is no such thing as open carry in Connecticut either, as far as the law is concerned, as Connecticut law, to the extent that our research has shown, appears to be silent on that as well. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-35b, says, simply, "The holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 29-28 shall carry such permit upon one's person while carrying such pistol or revolver." The Statute simply doesn't specify the manner in which the pistol or revolver is to be carried on one's person--whether, only openly, or only concealed, or either openly or concealed, as the permit holder wishes.Of course, assuming, as is the case, according to the licensing Officer with whom we spoke that the holder of a valid handgun permit may carry a handgun, in Connecticut, openly or concealed, as the permit holder wishes, why it is that anyone, who is not otherwise out hunting in the wild, would want to carry a handgun openly, strikes us as odd to say the least. But, the question here is whether the acronym, 'CCW,' is an appropriate and fair shorthand descriptor for handgun permits the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police issues to qualified applicants.Now, some jurisdictions that issue handgun weapons’ permits or licenses do not allow one to carry a handgun openly. In that case, use of the acronym, ‘CCW,’ is arguably an appropriate descriptor for handgun permits or licenses issued by the jurisdiction whether the jurisdiction uses the acronym, ‘CCW,’ or not; and we trust no one would take issue with us for using the acronym, ‘CCW,’ in that instance in respect to those jurisdictions that do not allow the carrying of a handgun openly--that is to say--do not allow a handgun license holder to carry a weapon on his or her person, in plain sight.But, if the expression, 'CCW,' connotes a permit or license to carry a handgun openly or concealed where the disjunctive, 'or,' is used in the inclusive, not exclusive sense—the question is whether we have been remiss in using the abbreviation, ‘CCW,’ to describe Connecticut’s Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers” since the holder of a valid Connecticut handgun permit can carry his handgun either concealed or openly.A more apt acronym here might be “RTC” (‘Right to Carry’) as that acronym does not specify that the holder of a gun permit or gun license must carry a gun in any particular way. That said, if the notation, ‘CCW,’ is used connotatively to suggest a person may but is not required to carry a handgun concealed--which is what we surmise most, if not all, individuals who hold a valid handgun permit or license to carry would wish to do if they were in fact carrying a handgun in public, so as not to alarm other members of the public and to preserve one's privacy and security--then the fact that one may carry a gun openly in public, in lieu of carrying a weapon concealed, is beside the point and essentially irrelevant.This is not just our thought about the matter. Through our research, we found a Connecticut Court that, when discussing Connecticut’s gun permits, made use of the phrase “concealed carry permit” expressly to refer, as a shorthand phrase, to Connecticut’s Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. The acronym “CCW” is functionally equivalent to the phrase, “concealed carry permit.” So, from a legal standpoint, the Arbalest Quarrel has some legal support for using the acronym, 'CCW,' as a shorthand descriptor for the longer, statutorily precise expression, “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.”See, Higbie vs. Higbie, 2016 Conn. Super. LEXIS 810*; 2016 WL 2602653 (Superior Court, Conn., Decided April 16, 2016). This is a recent dissolution of marriage case. One of the issues was, “whether there should be any restrictions on the plaintiff's right to possess firearms while in the presence of the parties' child.” The Court said, ‘The defendant/mother (age 31) is a hospital emergency room nurse who has experience with firearms as well. When the parties lived together in Virginia, during the early years of their marriage, she was trained in firearms and obtained a concealed carry permit. She testified that she never carried a firearm on her person but she did participate in the activity of shooting with her husband and others.” For our purposes, further discussion of and disposition of the case is unimportant. What is important here is that the Superior Court itself used the phrase, “concealed carry permit,” in lieu of the Statutory phrase, ‘State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers’ in reference to the Defendant’s Connecticut handgun permit. The operative word in the Court’s opinion is ‘concealed carry.’Similarly, in the case, Carabetta Mgmt. Co. vs. Borsari, 2014 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1597*; 2014 WL 3893163 (Superior Court, Connecticut, decided July 3, 2014), the Superior Court said that the Defendant, “Borsari has been a gun and target shooting enthusiast since the age of sixteen. He has taken firearms safety training courses, most recently five years ago, and possesses a concealed carry permit. On the date of the incident subject of Carabetta's complaint, January 21, 2014, he legally owned three handguns, one shotgun and an air pistol, all of which he had in his possession in his apartment.” Given these Connecticut Court opinions, we feel that the party who told us, “There is no such thing as concealment in Connecticut as far as the law is concerned,” has made a statement that is on weak legal ground on any reasonable interpretation of his comment.If a Court in Connecticut uses the phrase, ‘concealed carry permit,’ we are not far afield in having used the acronym 'CCW.' For the acronym, ‘CCW,’ and the phrase, ‘concealed carry permit’ mean essentially the same thing. The operative word in both is ‘concealed.’ So, if our use of ‘CCW’ to refer to the handgun permits issued by the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Division of State Police is not technically precise, it is not clearly and irreverently wrong either given use of the phrase, ‘concealed carry permit,’ by at least one Connecticut Court in its opinions. If it is wrong to use the one expression, then it is just as wrong to use the other.Since Connecticut does allow for both open and concealed carrying of handguns—assuming one has a valid Connecticut permit to do so—the question is what shorthand phrase can one use or should one use if a shorthand phrase can justifiably be used at all to describe the State's    "Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers"? Since objection has been made to our use of the acronym, 'CCW,' in reference to Connecticut handgun permits, and, since that nomenclature is not precisely correct even if at least one Connecticut Court uses the expression, ‘concealed carry permit,’ we will henceforth refrain from further use of the expression, ‘CCW,’ when discussing the Connecticut handgun permit scheme and we will be circumspect hereafter when using that expression when discussing the licensing of handguns in other jurisdictions as well, unless the jurisdiction uses that acronym.We will use the expression “handgun carry permit” as a shortened phrase for the longer, statutorily correct phrase “State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.” Whatever fault exists in our use of the phrase ‘handgun carry permit,’ we trust we won’t,  for the sake of expediency, offend those who seek absolute precision.Again, we wish to emphasize that the Arbalest Quarrel strives for accuracy as well as completeness in its discussion of State and Federal firearms’ laws and procedures, and we understand our readers have come to expect that of us and have the right to demand that of us.By using the phrase, ‘handgun carry permit,’ here we are leaving open the manner of carry—whether concealed or in plain sight—and that is in fact in keeping with the present status of Connecticut law on the subject.We take the comments of our readers seriously. So, we have taken time to respond carefully and fully to the concern raised as to our use of the notation, ‘CCW,’ in respect to Connecticut’s State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers.If anyone has further comment to make in respect to this matter, please feel free to contact us._______________________________Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CONNECTICUT HANDGUN CARRY PERMIT: BASIC PROCEDURES

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT PROCEDURES FOR NON-RESIDENTS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FOR THOSE WHO RESIDE IN THE STATE: NON-RESIDENTS MUST SECURE A VALID CCW FROM ANOTHER JURISDICTION BEFORE AN APPLICATION FOR A CONNECTICUT PISTOL PERMIT WILL BE CONSIDERED

THE ADVENTURES OF ONE LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN AS HE TRAVERSES THE MINEFIELD OF FIREARMS’ LAWS, ATTEMPTING TO SECURE FOR HIMSELF MULTIPLE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES FROM A MULTITUDE OF JURISDICTIONS THAT HE MAY EXERCISE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF-DEFENSE

A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN VARIOUS STATES, FOR THE LAYMAN

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT FIREARM APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR ACQUIRING AN UNRESTRICTED CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE

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

SUBPART THREE

RECAP AND ASIDE

As we continue to work through a detailed examination of the licensing schemes of a few States, we do so following in the footsteps of Mr. Wright, an American citizen, a successful business owner, and fervent supporter of our “Bill of Rights”— all ten of them, including then, our sacred Second Amendment. Mr. Wright, travels regularly on business throughout the United States. The nature of Mr. Wright’s business requires him to carry valuables, consisting of products associated with his business and, as well, valuable negotiable instruments, and substantial amounts of cash. As he travels throughout the U.S. on business, Mr. Wright is an obvious target of assault. And, since Mr. Wright carries products and negotiable instruments of significant and substantial value, he is, as well, a tempting target.Mr. Wright had first sought to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for Nassau County. The licensing of firearms is handled exclusively by the Nassau County Police Department. Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. We discussed, in previous articles in the ROAD TRIP series, the onerous steps involved in attempting to secure handgun carry licenses in New York. In fact, various jurisdictions, County and City, within the State of New York, such as New York City, have instituted their own requirements for obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. That means, for example, the NYPD, that has exclusive authority for issuing all firearms’ licenses for the City, won’t recognize a handgun carry license validly issued from any New York jurisdiction other than its own. A New York resident who seeks, then, to exercise his or her fundamental right under the Second Amendment to carry a handgun concealed for self-defense anywhere in the State, but who doesn’t reside or work in any one of the five Boroughs of New York City, must obtain an additional CCW issued by the Licensing Division of the NYPD if he or she wishes to carry a concealed handgun, lawfully, in any one or more of those five Boroughs that comprise the City.Our intrepid citizen, Mr. Wright, holds valid handgun licenses issued by the appropriate licensing official of Maine, of Nassau County, Long Island, New York, of New York City, and licensing officials of other jurisdictions.State laws governing firearms ownership and possession are constantly changing. For the ROAD TRIP series, we will present you with the latest firearms’ licensing procedures as of the date of posting of the respective article.Each State, and the District of Columbia, has its own set of firearms’ laws including its own laws pertaining to the licensing of firearms to citizens. Those laws are often changing and they are often complicated, sometimes exceedingly so. That is the case, especially, in those jurisdictions that don’t desire American civilians to own and possess firearms—and there are more than a few of those.Since State firearms’ laws do change—sometimes quickly and often drastically, subject to the whims of Legislatures operating on the latest “gun news” story of the day—the Arbalest Quarrel will keep abreast of the changes of the law in the jurisdictions—local, State, and federal—that we discuss. As we go through the steps Mr. Wright went through to secure his handgun licenses, we will take some liberty. We will discuss the firearms’ laws and procedures as those procedures exist today, which may be different in small or large part from the time Mr. Wright applied for and received his handgun permits and licenses. We will also discuss, as they pertain to the often frustrating circumstances surrounding Mr. Wright’s experiences, what one might expect as he or she attempts to secure a concealed handgun carry license for one’s self. The actual tortuous hurdles are not exemplified in the droll and dry application papers themselves. Real world circumstances illustrate plainly and painfully, just what a person must go through simply to exercise his or her fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.As we have pointed out both here and in previous articles, Mr. Wright applied for and received his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago, albeit he periodically must renew those licenses to keep them in force, and he does so. You might think that renewals of one’s licenses would be a relatively simple and straightforward process, compared to the lengthy process of securing a concealed handgun carry license for the first time. But, that is not always the case. Moreover, even where renewing a license is a relatively simple and painless process, it still involves the laying out of additional sums of money, and each jurisdiction has its own timetable for renewing a license. The timing of renewals is not consistent from one jurisdiction to the next and, if a handgun licensee should miss the renewal period, there is no grace period, and licensing officials do not excuse a mistake in missing a deadline. That means an individual must go through the entire process to secure a concealed handgun carry license again, as if for the first time. That means: do not miss a deadline for renewing your handgun license!We will provide you with accurate gun licensing information as of the date of the posting of the article as if Mr. Wright were applying for a concealed handgun carry license at this moment in time, noting differences in past and present laws to the extent we believe those differences critical in understanding the reason jurisdictions have made the changes in firearms’ laws that they do and to point to ambiguities and vagueness in gun laws as we see them.The steps involved in securing a concealed handgun carry license are time-consuming and expensive. Don’t think they aren’t. In some jurisdictions, the application procedure is extremely extensive and tedious, sometimes confoundingly complex or confusing, and any two processes are invariably duplicative. Jurisdictions will require the applicant to present fingerprint cards, signed and completed. Many questions as to one’s physical and mental health, and criminal record, if any, will be duplicative, if somewhat nuanced from one jurisdiction to the next. Photographs and proof of citizenship will likely be standard from one jurisdiction to the next.The ROAD TRIP series should demonstrate to you, if nothing else, the need for simple, straightforward, streamlining of the application process—keeping in mind that, after all, the law-abiding American citizen who seeks to obtain a handgun carry license for self-defense is undertaking a task that should not be inconsistent with the customs and values of our Nation. Yet, the procedures in place today, in many jurisdictions, are reminiscent of or suggestive of values and customs and traditions of other nations or groups of nations, such as those that comprise the EU. Understand: no other Country on Earth recognizes the singular right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms as accruing in and existent in the individual. Yes, the cantons of Switzerland permit, perhaps—at one time—may even have required citizens to own firearms, including machine guns. That may no longer be the case as Switzerland, being pressured by the “elites” who had created the EU, have a strong distaste toward the average citizen owning firearms. Switzerland has acquiesced somewhat to the dictates of the EU even though it isn’t formally part of the EU.Israeli citizens, too, may apply for and readily obtain a permit to own and possess firearms, including machine guns. But the right of the Swiss citizen or the Israeli citizen to own and possess any firearm doesn’t accrue to the individual—that is to say, the right is not intrinsic to the individual, as a natural right, preeminent in and preexistent in the individual. It is a privilege bestowed on the citizen by the government—bestowed easily and routinely, but a privilege nonetheless.The United States is the only Nation on the face of the Earth that recognizes, in the Country’s Second Amendment, that the right of self-defense is basic, natural, primordial and that the right accrues to the individual. It is not something that is bestowed upon a person by government. That right is not to be denigrated or denied. No better means for defending one’s life and well-being against physical threat exists than that of a firearm in the hands of one properly trained in its use. Yet, why is it that the average law-abiding American citizen must jump through hoops simply to exercise that right?The right of self-defense is, after all, embedded in the Second Amendment. The federal Government does not bestow that right upon American citizens. It cannot bestow that right because the right preexists in each American citizen. Antigun groups either don’t realize this basic incontrovertible fact or otherwise choose to ignore it. They claim the right to keep and bear arms exists merely as a collective right in the context of militias, suggesting that the right has no meaning except in the context of the collective need of the State to protect itself against threats from outside the State—outside the Nation.We see this idea echoed constantly in innuendos, in suggestions, as exemplified in policies, that rights and liberties are tied not to Americans as individuals, but to American citizens as nameless components of society; to Americans as they exist as part of a huge collective; as part of a hive, as so many nameless cogs in a wheel. That, of course, is a false notion, one the founders had not and would not ever ascribe to. But, it is a myth presented to the public, as perpetrated by and engrained in the public through the mainstream media, at the behest of those ruthless forces that seek an end to the Republic and an end to this Country as an independent, sovereign Nation.

A WORD OF ADVICE FOR THOSE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SECURE ONE OR MORE CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSES

The first step an American citizen should take when seeking to acquire a concealed handgun carry license is to peruse the website of the gun licensing authority closely. Each of the jurisdictions we have examined, during our research, maintain a website through which one may find information pertaining to firearms’ laws applicable to the jurisdiction. The information provided is basic, but it is a good starting point. The websites we have looked at provide, as well, information pertaining to the licensing of firearms in the subject jurisdiction. The information we found to be presented in an honest and forthright manner in even if you must, in some instances, have to dig deep to uncover that information through several layers of menus and through more than a few web pages.The website will plainly lay out the governmental authority that has primary or exclusive authority for licensing of firearms in the jurisdiction. Often, but not invariably, this will be the duty of police authority in the jurisdiction. The applicant for a firearm’s license should familiarize himself or herself with the applicable licensing procedures. Sometimes, it will be relatively easy to do this as the menu items directed to firearms’ licensing are easy to locate and decipher. At other times that can be difficult. We find this to be true for those jurisdictions that have had a history of draconian gun laws and that are antithetical to the notion of an armed citizenry. Thus, you may need to drill down through several menu options to obtain the information you need.You should contact the issuing authority directly if you have any question or seek confirmation of how you are to proceed in acquiring a firearm’s license or permit. We have, in our work, found the licensing authorities to be helpful, knowledgeable, and attentive in responding to questions about firearm’s licensing, and have found these officials to be, as well, forthright about the prospects of obtaining a firearm’s license—especially about the prospect of securing a concealed handgun carry license in the particular jurisdiction for one’s self. Although Mr. Wright has applied for and obtained his concealed handgun carry licenses many years ago—subject, of course, to jurisdictional renewal requirements—keep in mind, once again, that we will provide you, the reader of this article, with current licensing standards and procedures for the jurisdiction we are covering.Bringing the procedures and standards up-to-date will serve two purposes. First, doing this will provide the reader with a useful vehicle for understanding the salient laws and procedures of the jurisdiction in question, as they exist presently. This will save the reader time and energy he or she would otherwise have to expend were that person to research the laws and procedures on their own.We have, in a previous article, when discussing changes in concealed handgun carry laws for the State of Maine, spent time looking at changes in Maine law. This, we felt, was necessary to explain apparent inconsistencies or ambiguities existent in the present law and to provide context for the changes. We will continue to do this in forthcoming “ROAD TRIP” articles where we feel explanatory information would be helpful to individuals who may wish to acquire a concealed handgun carry license in the jurisdiction we happen to be covering.Second, in our ROAD TRIP articles, we aptly demonstrate the difficulties attendant to acquiring a concealed handgun carry license in a State or City or County jurisdiction.What an individual must go through--indeed, suffer--merely to exercise his natural right of self-defense will not, then, and should not,  be lost on anyone. It is ironical, even shameful, that citizens of a free Republic should have to expend substantial time and exorbitant sums of money simply to exercise the natural right guaranteed to them, codified in the Bill of Rights. But, that is the case and has been the case for some time. Effective, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would do much to end the need to acquire more than one valid concealed handgun carry license. Thus, an individual will be spared the needless, senseless, duplicative, wasteful expenditure of time and money presently required to obtain and renew multiple licenses issued by multiple jurisdictions.Note: if one has any doubt as to how to proceed to acquire a concealed handgun carry license, one should contact a licensed attorney and/or respected professional security consultant and expert in firearms’ laws and procedures. This can save one time and, more importantly, preclude the possibility the applicant for a concealed handgun carry license fails to fill out an application completely, or fills an application out improperly or includes the wrong information on the application form, or includes more information than the information that is required and thereupon jeopardizes one’s chances for securing a license.As to the last point, this is not to say or suggest an applicant should lie on an application or be less than forthright. One should never lie or ever be less than forthright, especially when completing an application for a firearm’s license or permit. You will never fool the licensing official and if you attempt to do so, you will fail. If one isn’t honest, that is the surest way to be denied issuance of a concealed handgun carry license.Moreover, attempting to obtain a firearm license if you are not permitted to own and possess a firearm—for example, if you have been convicted of a felony or if you were in the military and you received a dishonorable discharge, or if you have renounced your citizenship, or if you have a history of serious mental disorder, psychosis, or if you have been convicted of domestic violence, to name a few bases for disqualification— you may open yourself up to civil or even criminal liability by applying for a handgun license and failing to include these matters if an application asks for information pertaining to these matters—and, make no mistake, an application for a concealed handgun permit or, for that matter, an application for issuance of any firearm will require to respond honestly to any of these. That said, one doesn’t have to include in his or her application and ought not voluntarily include anything more or other than the information the application specifically asks for. If, after completing and submitting the application for processing, the licensing officer contacts the applicant to request additional information, the applicant must comply. If again, the applicant has any question as to what information is sought or has concern about the information sought, the applicant should contact a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction in which he or she seeks the license or should contact a security consultant whose expertise rests in or includes application for possession of firearms.Let’s now begin on the matter of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license. Below, we discuss the procedures that Mr. Wright had to follow to obtain a license permitting him to lawfully carry a handgun concealed in the State of Connecticut.

PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING A CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE IN CONNECTICUT

The basic Connecticut firearms’ licensing procedures are available for perusal on the State's website.We note that, in Connecticut, the Department responsible for licensing of firearms is the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) of the State Police.There are several menu options. The one we want and the one Mr. Wright wants is this one:Special Licensing and Firearms.There are distinct procedures depending on whether one is a resident of Connecticut or not. Mr. Wright does not reside in Connecticut. You cannot obtain an application on-line. Mr. Wright isn’t a resident of Connecticut. He is a resident of New York. A non-resident must obtain an application by contacting the State Police directly. However, important information exists on the website and a non-resident should peruse that information before contacting the Connecticut State Police for an application packet.On the website, Mr. Wright drills down to the application process for preliminary information for both residents and non-residents. He comes to this:FIREARMS AND PISTOL PERMITSHow do I get a permit to carry a gun in the State of Connecticut?Out of state residents may apply for a non-resident Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Non- residents apply directly to the Connecticut State Police.  Call 860-685-8494 to have an application mailed out.”For Residents of Connecticut, the preliminary procedure is different. Residents of Connecticut must first apply for a Temporary State Permit.The Procedure is as follows:“How do I apply for a Temporary State Permit?You must go to your local Police Department or First Selectman’s office to obtain an application. The application has all the instructions necessary to obtain the permit. The cost of the permit is $70.00, and it generally takes eight weeks to obtain.”After the Connecticut Resident obtains a Temporary State Permit, he or she can then apply for a permanent, “Connecticut State Permit.The information on the website sets forth: Once I have received a Temporary State Permit, how do I apply for a Connecticut State Permit?You can apply at the following locations to fill out the state application and have your photo taken. You must bring a copy of your Temporary State Permit, a check, money order for $70.00, made payable to Treasurer State of Ct. or cash,  proof you are legally and lawfully in the United States (i.e., Birth Certificate, U.S. Passport, Naturalization Certificate or Alien Registration Card issued by I.C.E.) and a current photo I.D., such as a driver’s license.  Applications are available at:

• Troop G in Bridgeport - Tuesday through Saturday

• Troop E in Montville - Tuesday through Saturday

• Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in Middletown

Office Hours and Locations:How do I change my address on my State Pistol Permit?You can either call (860) 685-8290, or mail a letter to the Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police, Special Licensing and Firearms Unit, 1111 Country Club Road, Middletown, CT, 06457. Change of address is required within 48 hours, and the letter should include pistol permit number, name, and date of birth, old address, and new address.”Further information given is applicable to residents and non-resident holders of Connecticut State Pistol Permits alike:“May I keep my State Pistol Permit if I move out of state?Yes, providing you notify the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the change of address, and continue to renew your permit.How long is a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers good for? The permit is valid for 5 years from date of issue unless revoked or suspended.  Who may purchase a handgun?  Only those people who are Permit holders, Eligibility Certificate holders, or sworn Police Officers may purchase a handgun.Mr. Wright knows he regularly visits Connecticut on business and wonders if he could just stop into a local police department when he is in the State. He phones his attorney. His attorney takes a look at the website and phones the DESSP. Mr. Wright’s attorney determines that Mr. Wright must obtain an application through the mail. There is no way around this, and he requests an application for Mr. Wright. The DESSP official says he will send an application out forthwith to Mr. Wright’s attorney on behalf of Mr. Wright.Upon receipt of the application papers, Mr. Wright and his attorney look through the documents. In the first few sentences of the first page of a green sheet, titled, “Connecticut State Pistol Permits,” and subtitled, “Out of State Residents,” one thing becomes immediately apparent. A non-resident cannot apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit prior to securing a valid concealed handgun carry license from another jurisdiction.The non-resident must already have a valid CCW license issued from another jurisdiction before he can apply for a Connecticut State Pistol Permit. Thus, having a CCW in hand from another State is a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut Pistol Permit. Mr. Wright’s attorney learns that Connecticut does not require that the non-resident secure a CCW license from a particular jurisdiction or jurisdictions. The non-resident must simply have in his or her possession a valid CCW license, issued from any State. Mr. Wright has a valid unrestricted CCW issued to him by the NYPD, and a second valid CCW issued to him by the State of Maine. Either one of those two valid CCW licenses satisfies the condition precedent for further processing of Mr. Wright’s application.

CONNECTICUT CONCEALED HANDGUN LICENSING PROCEDURES

Mr. Wright’s attorney took a look at the applicable Connecticut pistol licensing Statute. Below is the Statute stated in full:Sec. 29-28. Permit for sale at retail of pistol or revolver. Permit to carry pistol or revolver. Confidentiality of name and address of permit holder. Permits for out-of-state residents. (b) Upon the application of any person having a bona fide permanent residence within the jurisdiction of any such authority, such chief of police, warden or selectman may issue a temporary state permit to such person to carry a pistol or revolver within the state, provided such authority shall find that such applicant intends to make no use of any pistol or revolver which such applicant may be permitted to carry under such permit other than a lawful use and that such person is a suitable person to receive such permit. No state or temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued under this subsection if the applicant (1) has failed to successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association, (2) has been convicted of (A) a felony, or (B) on or after October 1, 1994, a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279 or section 53a-58, 53a-61, 53a-61a, 53a-62, 53a-63, 53a-96, 53a-175, 53a-176, 53a-178 or 53a-181d, (3) has been convicted as delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense, as defined in section 46b-120, (4) has been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect pursuant to section 53a-13, (5) (A) has been confined in a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding sixty months by order of a probate court, or (B) has been voluntarily admitted on or after October 1, 2013, to a hospital for persons with psychiatric disabilities, as defined in section 17a-495, within the preceding six months for care and treatment of a psychiatric disability and not solely for being an alcohol-dependent person or a drug-dependent person as those terms are defined in section 17a-680, (6) is subject to a restraining or protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person, (7) is subject to a firearms seizure order issued pursuant to subsection (d) of section 29-38c after notice and hearing, (8) is prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing or receiving a firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(g)(4), (9) is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States, or (10) is less than twenty-one years of age. Nothing in this section shall require any person who holds a valid permit to carry a pistol or revolver on October 1, 1994, to participate in any additional training in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. No person may apply for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver more than once within any twelve-month period, and no temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall be issued to any person who has applied for such permit more than once within the preceding twelve months. Any person who applies for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver shall indicate in writing on the application, under penalty of false statement in such manner as the issuing authority prescribes, that such person has not applied for a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the past twelve months. Upon issuance of a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver to the applicant, the local authority shall forward the original application to the commissioner. Not later than sixty days after receiving a temporary state permit, an applicant shall appear at a location designated by the commissioner to receive the state permit. The commissioner may then issue, to any holder of any temporary state permit, a state permit to carry a pistol or revolver within the state. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall make available to the permit holder a copy of the law regarding the permit holder’s responsibility to report the loss or theft of a firearm and the penalties associated with the failure to comply with such law. Upon issuance of the state permit, the commissioner shall forward a record of such permit to the local authority issuing the temporary state permit. The commissioner shall retain records of all applications, whether approved or denied. The copy of the state permit delivered to the permittee shall be laminated and shall contain a full-face photograph of such permittee. A person holding a state permit issued pursuant to this subsection shall notify the issuing authority within two business days of any change of such person’s address. The notification shall include the old address and the new address of such person.”There are several important items for consideration in the above Connecticut Statute. The Statute sets forth, one, the requirement that a person “successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers including, but not limited to, a safety or training course in the use of pistols and revolvers available to the public offered by a law enforcement agency, a private or public educational institution or a firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and a safety or training course in the use of pistols or revolvers conducted by an instructor certified by the state or the National Rifle Association”; and, two, the applicant must not fall within one or more of the categories that constitute automatic disqualification. You will waste your own time and money and that of the licensing official if you have either failed a firearm’s safety training course or if you fall into one or more categories of individuals who are prohibited from owning a gun.If, however, you have passed and have documentation to prove that you have successfully passed an appropriate firearm’s safety training course and you do not fall within one or more of the categories that disqualify one automatically from possessing any firearm, then you may proceed to the next step of the application process.In the next segment of this article, we will go into further detail of the application process as Mr. Wright seeks to secure a valid DESSP issued Pistol Permit that will enable him to carry a handgun, lawfully, in Connecticut.Before concluding this segment of the article on Connecticut CCW licensing, we address a few matters that individuals who are contemplating obtaining a Connecticut Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers might have in connection with the foregoing discussion:

FINAL NOTE PERTAINING TO CONNECTICUT PISTOL LICENSING STATUTE: TWO POINTS IMPORTANT TO NON-RESIDENTS THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO QUESTIONS THE READER MIGHT HAVE, AS THEY ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE ARBALEST QUARREL HAD, AS WELL; AND ONE GENERAL POINT APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTS OF CONNECTICUT AND NON-RESIDENTS ALIKE.

Connecticut law, as we said, requires non-residents to have in hand a valid concealed handgun carry license as a condition precedent to obtaining a Connecticut CCW permit. Some readers of this article may wonder whether a Connecticut CCW is necessary at all to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut if they hold a valid CCW from another jurisdiction. As of this writing, the answer is an unequivocal, “no.” Connecticut does not maintain reciprocity with any other jurisdiction. A CCW issued by another jurisdiction is required, as we have said, as a condition precedent, for obtaining a Connecticut CCW if and only if the person seeking a Connecticut CCW is a resident of another State. This means that a non-resident must invariably hold at least two CCW licenses in order to be able, lawfully, to carry a handgun concealed in Connecticut: a valid CCW issued by another State, as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW issued by the appropriate firearms’ licensing authority in the State of Connecticut, the DESSP. Obviously, this condition does not apply to residents of Connecticut.Second, for both residents of Connecticut and non-residents alike, those who seek a valid Connecticut CCW permit, must successfully complete a course approved by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection in the safety and use of pistols and revolvers. Now, some jurisdictions outside of Connecticut do issue CCW licenses without the requirement that a holder of a valid CCW license or permit first successfully complete. New York City, curiously enough, is one of these. It is exceedingly difficult for the average law-abiding person to obtain an unrestricted, “full carry,” concealed handgun license. But, the City doesn’t require and the NYPD itself does not provide a safety training course for holders of concealed handgun carry licenses. One may speculate as to the reason for this. One possible and plausible explanation for this is that the City officials do not wish for any civilian to possess firearms. It isn’t a secret that the previous Mayor or New York City, Michael Bloomberg, benefactor and sponsor of the antigun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, is virulently opposed to the average law-abiding citizen from owning and possessing firearms. The present Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, is no less a zealous advocate for disarming Americans. The website, OntheIssues says this concerning de Blasio’s position of firearms’ possession and ownership. “Bill de Blasio has pushed for strong gun safety laws at the state level and for the promotion of industry-wide standards in gun safety, including micro-stamping. De Blasio also led the effort to divest public pension fund holdings in companies that manufacture the most dangerous weapons and launched the 'Wall Street for Change' campaign to support gun divestment of prominent hedge funds and money managers nationwide.” New York City officials apparently feel that by requiring holders of restricted and unrestricted concealed handgun licenses to successfully complete a firearms’ safety training course, whether provided by the NYPD or another organization, this would suggest that the City encourages the average citizen to own and possess firearms. This is convoluted thinking but it pervades the thinking of those New York City officials who are behind the draconian New York Safe Act. It is as if City officials are saying, “we don’t believe any American citizen should own and possess firearms. Those New York residents who seek to own and possess firearms must receive the appropriate licenses and permits to do so; and we will not make it either easy or cheap for those that wish to do so. Moreover, we will not provide access to firearms’ training courses or provide any information as to where a firearm’s licensee or permit holder may obtain that training, for to do so would mean that we believe in the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; and we do not wish to give anyone that impression; for we don’t.”Now the Arbalest Quarrel is not taking the position that a government body should require a person to take a firearms’ safety training course because we do not believe that the government should be in the business of bestowing on law-abiding American citizens what is their natural right anyway: the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Arbalest Quarrel does feel that, if a person does own and possess firearms, he ought to have the good sense of obtaining training in their proper use and function. A sane, rational person should have proper training in the use of any implement that, if used or handled improperly, can cause serious injury or death. But one’s responsibility for the handling of any instrument devolves on the individual. It should not be a mandate of the State. If a jurisdiction does require the law-abiding citizen to first obtain a handgun license before that person is lawfully permitted to carry a handgun concealed on his or her person within the jurisdiction, that governmental body should make available to the person the means whereby a person can obtain proper training or provide a person with a list of recommended organizations such as the NRA that have well over a century of experience on the proper handling of firearms. New York City doesn’t have anything to say about this. It is as if the City Government through the NYPD Licensing Division--the City Government's authorized body for issuing firearms' licenses and permits to individuals--simply wishes to wash its hands of the matter. That is bizarre to say the least.The City has draconian, arbitrary standards in place for issuing firearms' licenses and permits and puts the New York resident through an ordeal to obtain a firearm's license or permit, but then expresses a complete disinterest in providing firearms' training for the license or permit holder, or even suggesting venues through which the licensee or permit holder may obtain training once the license or permit is issued to him. Can you imagine the NYPD giving its officers a badge and a gun and leaving it up to the officer to find some means or other on their own to obtain training in the proper use of the firearm--caring not one whit whether the officer obtains proper training in the handling of the firearm or not, and offering no suggestion as to where an officer might obtain training? Yet, that is precisely the situation in which the City and the NYPD leave the civilian upon whom they deign, grudgingly, to issue a firearm's license or permit. It is almost as if the City is inviting a mishap with a gun; indeed almost as if it is expecting a mishap with a gun; perhaps even wanting one; and thereupon being in a position to say, "there, we told you so; you should never have had a gun in the first place. But you wanted a gun; and we gave you a license so you could buy one. And, now that you have 'messed up,' as we fully expected you would do, we are taking away your gun, we are taking away your gun license, and we charging you with a misdemeanor for misusing your gun. We hope you learned your lesson. We are never again going to issue you a firearm's license. So, don't bother applying for one. Guns belong in the hands of responsible individuals only, such as the police, and politicians, and judges, and movie stars, and other VIP; in other words, 'connected' individuals. The average, ordinary, law-abiding person such as yourself has no business with a gun. Guns are for 'elites,' in society--for important people, intelligent people; people with money; guns are not for the hoi polloi, such as you! If you need protection, you have your cell phone; call 911; or get yourself a whistle, and wait for help. It's on the way!"

CONSIDER THE ABOVE "CHASTISEMENT" BY THE NYPD FIREARMS' LICENSING OFFICER APROPROS OF THE FOLLOWING:

An old story goes that a semi-blind businessman, an industrious hard working man, who spent many years working to create a small but successful cash business but a man who has had no formal or informal training in the handling of firearms goes to the Licensing Division of the NYPD, applying for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the businessman why he thinks he needs a handgun for self-defense. The businessman explains that his business is a cash business and that he handles substantial sums of cash as he conducts his business and he has been mugged on more than a few occasions and his money stolen on numerous occasions. The businessman explains, further, that he is tired of being mugged and threatened and losing money that he has worked hard earning and he needs a gun for self-defense when he walks several blocks to the bank, or takes the subway, or a bus, or a cab to deposit the cash at his bank. He is surrounded by many people—some of whom would love to get their hands on the substantial sums of money he has on his person and several thugs have done so in the past.Now, the NYPD has set an arbitrary standard for proof of the necessity for issuing a CCW license to a person. The NYPD Licensing Officer determines whether a person, in the normal conduct of his business, happens to transport substantial sums of cash to or from a bank. The NYPD considers, without explicitly saying, whether a business operates, in part at least, like a mini Brinks security service. If an applicant for a CCW license can make a good case for issuance of a CCW to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, this amounts to an applicant arguing that his business duties involve in part, at least, working like a Brinks security guard, transporting canvas bags full of money. Of course, what constitutes the carrying of substantial cash is determined by the NYPD and on a case-by-case basis. In this story, the NYPD determines the semi-blind businessman does carry substantial cash to or from a bank a few times a week. That the man has been mugged on numerous occasions, and seriously hurt, in part, at least, because the man's business happens to be located in a particularly dangerous part of the City, is not reason enough to issue the man a CCW license, according to the NYPD License Division standards. Indeed, that sad circumstance is beside the point. After all, a lot of law-abiding New York residents are mugged on a daily basis and these individuals do not have firearms to protect themselves. So being mugged is not a sufficient basis upon which the businessman may effectively distinguish himself from countless others who live in the City. But, the fact that the businessman has been mugged carrying sufficient amounts of cash on his person to and from a bank a few times a week--and what constitutes a sufficient amount of cash is up to the NYPD Licensing Officer to decide--is deemed by the Officer to be an important factor, a critical, even decisive, factor for determining whether to issue the man a CCW license that he seeks.The NYPD Licensing Officer then asks the businessman whether the man has any disability that might hinder his ability to use a handgun. The man, semi-blind, though he is, says, he has some vision problems but that he is able to see well enough to transact his business, handle large sums of cash, and to handle a handgun. The NYPD licensing official thereupon agrees to issue the businessman his CCW license.Now, whether the businessman has had any training in the use of a handgun and, if not, whether the businessman intends to get that training so that he would be able to use a handgun effectively if the need should arise, that is another question entirely, and it is not one that is a requirement for being issued a handgun license and securing a handgun. Curiously, this latter point is true. The ability to handle a firearm is not a factor in and is altogether irrelevant to the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses by the Licensing Division of the NYPD. But, we are not yet done with this story.Another man, a New York resident, hale and hearty, has just moved to New York City, having served his Country as a U.S. Navy SEAL. Our U.S. Navy SEAL, recognizes how dangerous it is to live in the City and, like our semi-blind businessman, he also applies for a CCW license. The NYPD Licensing Officer asks the man why the man thinks he needs to carry a handgun. The U.S. Navy SEAL, now retired from the Navy and living in New York City, says he wishes to have a handgun for self-defense. The Licensing Officer asks the man whether he has a business and, if so, if the man transports substantial sums of cash to or from a bank, one or more times during the week. Our U.S. Navy SEAL says that he doesn’t have a business and does not transport substantial sums of cash to a bank. The Licensing Officer then asks the applicant, our U.S. Navy SEAL, retired from active duty, whether the applicant is presently the target of specific threats to the Navy SEAL’s life. The applicant, our retired U.S. Navy SEAL, replies, “none that he can think of.” The NYPD Licensing Officer then tells the applicant that he must deny the applicant a CCW because the applicant hasn’t demonstrated need, sufficient, to the satisfaction of the NYPD Licensing Officer, under the standards established by the NYPD, for issuance of a CCW to the applicant.The retired U.S. Navy SEAL doesn’t understand this. He points out that he knows full well how to use firearms—virtually any firearm and that he is an expert marksman, and that he operates coolly under threat to life, as his combat experience and training demanded. “Sorry,” replies the NYPD Licensing Officer. “You have failed to demonstrate to my satisfaction that you face, on a daily basis, more danger to your life and well-being than does any other average New York resident face, in the City. The fact that you know how to use a firearm effectively and would certainly be able to do so in a life threatening situation--and I have no reason to doubt that--is irrelevant. New York City doesn't recognize self-defense, in the absence of more to be sufficient reason to issue a restricted or unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. Again, I am sorry. But, City Government officials believe that too many guns in the hands of too many people--even the law-abiding--is considered dangerous to the well-being of the community even if law-abiding individuals are placed at risk for being denied access to a firearm when they truly need one and know how to use it."There is no moral to the story. But one may take note how logic may be turned on its head so that irrationality is perceived as presumptively rational. And, although, it appears to be far-fetched, the story, sadly, really isn’t. Of course, an NYPD Licensing Officer is hardly likely to issue a concealed handgun carry license—or any other kind of firearm’s license or permit—to an applicant who appears to have a difficulty seeing, but one’s ability to use a gun in a life-threatening situation is not a factor for consideration in the issuance of any firearm’s license or permit. Concerning issuance of CCW licenses, New York City, and any other City or County in the State, in accordance with State law, is a “may issue” State, like several other jurisdictions around the Country. A “may issue” State means a person requesting a CCW license, must convince to the appropriate licensing authority in the jurisdiction that he “needs” a gun and that “need” generally translates to meeting an arbitrary standard for the issuance of a CCW license to the person. If a person cannot meet the arbitrary standard the “may issue” jurisdiction has established, then the applicant is denied the CCW, unless the person is a VIP, such as a politician or a judge, or someone famous—a movie star for example. That means the life of one person is worth more than the life of another. If you are a VIP, you obtain what you want. If you are one of the hoi polloi who cannot otherwise satisfy the arbitrary standard, well, then, good luck.Whether a person is capable of using a firearm for self-defense is often, as we see in some jurisdictions, like New York, all but irrelevant. The need of a firearm for self-defense becomes nuanced, subject to the whim of the licensing official. This means that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is reduced inevitably to a privilege, a grant of Government and the import and imperative of the Second Amendment is simply ignored.Getting back to the requirements for obtaining a CCW license in Connecticut, that State, unlike New York, does require of its own residents and of non-residents, that they show proof of successfully completing a firearm’s training and safety course prior to issuance of a gun permit. So, if a holder, say, of a New York City concealed handgun license, wishes to secure, as well a Connecticut CCW, in order to carry a handgun lawfully in Connecticut, that person must show proof of having successfully completed a gun safety and training course. This means the holder of a New York City CCW license and those who hold a CCW from any other jurisdiction that does not require proof of completion of a firearms’ safety training course in the handling of firearms as a condition precedent to obtaining a CCW license, must obtain the necessary training. Having, then, successfully completed the firearms’ safety training course and receiving a certificate to that effect, the applicant, whether a resident of the State of Connecticut or not, who seeks a Connecticut CCW license, has, then, the necessary documentation to present to the DESSP Officer. Further processing of the application for the Connecticut CCW permit can then continue.Lastly, we have learned that a holder of a CCW from another jurisdiction who seeks to obtain a Connecticut CCW does not have to obtain a CCW in the jurisdiction he or she resides in.A resident of Hawaii, for example, who wishes to obtain a Connecticut CCW permit—a State permit to carry handguns or revolvers—need not demonstrate he or she has a CCW license from Hawaii. That’s a good thing. For although it is theoretically possible for the average law-abiding American citizen, who is a resident of Hawaii, to obtain a CCW license, for all practical purposes, that is impossible. Take a look at the Hawaii Police Department’s website.The website sets forth: “In exceptional cases when an adult applicant shows reason to fear injury or is engaged in the protection of life and property, the Hawaiʻi County police chief may grant a license to carry. For detailed information on who may be granted a license, see Section 134-9 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes.” Living in Hawaii may be paradise. But, in that paradise, “here there be tygers.” One must forsake one’s self of any pretense of access to firearms for self-defense. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 17 of Hawaii’s State Constitution, which mirrors the language of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution word for word, contain empty verbiage, devoid of effect.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

Obtaining A CCW From Multiple Jurisdictions Is Time-Consuming, Expensive, and Slow

A ROAD TRIP WITH A HANDGUN: The Case For Universal State Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT 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. WRIGHT.

SUBPART TWO

OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IN THE CONTEXT OF COUNFOUNDINGLY DIFFICULT AND WASTEFUL TIME AND MONEY ONE MUST SPEND ACQUIRING MULTIPLE CONCEALED CARRY HANDGUN LICENSES FROM MULTIPLE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AS ONE SEEKS NOTHING MORE THAN TO EXERCISE ONE'S NATURAL AND GUARANTEED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE, AS THE FOUNDERS OF OUR REPUBLIC INTENDED BOTH FOR THEM AND FOR US.

INTRODUCTION

In this section of our “ROAD TRIP” series of articles we lay out the necessity of National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would dramatically reduce the time, energy, and cost factors involved in obtaining handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions. We follow the experience of one American citizen as he deals with the complexity of applying for and acquiring multiple handgun licenses.For over two decades Mr. Wright has spent substantial time and exorbitant suns of money securing concealed handgun carry licenses from multiple jurisdictions. Most of the requirements are duplicative. He continues to spend time and money, renewing those licenses as required in each jurisdiction. The Arbalest Quarrel has laid out in detail the intricacies and difficulties in obtaining CCW handgun licenses. We have discussed Mr. Wright’s acquisition of handgun licenses in New York and in Maine.

LICENSING OF FIREARMS AND STATE PREEMPTION

Unlike many, if not most States, the New York State Legislature hasn’t preempted the field of firearms laws. That means cities and counties within New York may enact their own firearms’ codes and ordinances, consistent with State Statute—so long as the city and county codes and ordinances are not less stringent than State law. They aren’t. New York City’s codes, regulating the ownership, possession, and licensing of firearms, including handguns, shotguns, rifles and even black powder muskets and non-functioning replicas, are numerous, complex, and onerous.Mr. Wright is a resident of Nassau County, Long Island, New York. We wrote about Mr. Wright’s acquisition of a Nassau County handgun license. That license isn’t valid in New York City. Mr. Wright’s main business offices are in New York City. Under the firearms’ codes of New York City, Mr. Wright had to acquire a separate New York City handgun license to carry a handgun concealed, lawfully, in any of the Boroughs within the City because, unlike most jurisdictions, the New York State Legislature has not preempted the field of firearms’ licensing. This means that lower level government jurisdictions, Counties and Cities, within the State of New York, can institute their own codes and regulations, so long as those codes and regulations are no less stringent than and are consistent with State Statute. That results in codes and regulations much more complex and clearly more stringent than anything coming out of Albany.In a previous article we discussed the procedure for obtaining an unrestricted, “full carry” concealed handgun license in New York City. The procedure is costly, in both time and money. Mr. Wright had no alternative but to obtain an unrestricted New York City handgun license if he were to protect his life and safety conducting business in the City. He could not rely on the Nassau County gun permit. New York City does not have firearms' "reciprocity" with other Cities and Counties in the same State--a strange situation, but not unique. Other States, such as Hawaii, operate similarly. The result is a hodgepodge of firearms' codes and regulations across the State of New York.Mr. Wright also conducts business in Maine, and we discussed the procedure for obtaining a concealed handgun carry license, that would allow Mr. Wright, a law-abiding American citizen and inordinately busy entrepreneur, to carry, concealed, on his person, a handgun, in the State of Maine.

THE IMPACT OF THE HELLER CASE ON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

For over two decades Mr. Wright has spent substantial time and money securing handgun licenses. He should not have had to do so. The natural right of self-defense follows logically from the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. If there remain any doubt, about that, the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), laid such doubt to rest. Indeed, self-defense was a salient issue of Heller. The overview of the case sums up the holdings as follows: “The Court held that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home and its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purposes of immediate self-defense violated the Second Amendment. The Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court determined that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announced a purpose but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrated that it connoted an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the Court's reading of the operative clause was consistent with the announced purpose of the prefatory clause. None of the Court's precedents foreclosed its conclusions.”The majority in Heller stopped short of extending its holding to the carrying of a handgun for self-defense outside the home. But, the high Court generally tailors its decisions narrowly to the specific legal issues of the case. The central issue in Heller was whether the District of Columbia can lawfully ban outright a person’s use of a handgun for self-defense within one’s home. The District of Columbia attempted to do so, thereby reducing the effectiveness of a handgun for self-defense to that of a heavy paperweight, or hammer.The high Court made clear that the District of Columbia’s constraint on one’s ability to use a handgun for self-defense within one’s home is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the import of the Second Amendment. Since Heller, every State, including the District of Columbia must acknowledge, at least tacitly, and often enough, grudgingly, the right of a person to rely on a handgun for self-defense in one’s home. That right flows, logically, from the high Court’s determination in Heller, as the Court made clear and unequivocal, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected to an individual’s membership, if any, in a State militia.The laws of each State and the District of Columbia ostensibly make provision for the carrying of a handgun concealed for self-defense. Yet, in practice several States, including the District of Columbia, issue such licenses, rarely, if at all, and, if they do so, such licenses are issued only to a privileged, well-connected, few which raises, then, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection concerns as America is a class-less society. No American citizen’s rights are function of one’s personal wealth, or power, or connection to those who have extraordinary wealth or who wield extraordinary power. One’s rights and liberties as an American citizen are not expanded or reduced predicated on his net worth, or market value, or position, or status. At least that is not supposed to be the case, but that happens to be true where a law-abiding citizen seeks to exercise one particular natural and fundamental right: namely the right to keep and bear arms.Moreover, not all jurisdictions that do issue concealed handgun carry licenses maintain a reciprocal relationship with another State. Reciprocity agreements among States is often muddled and fluid—subject to change, often without adequate notice.

WOULD NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY LEGISLATION ENACTED BY CONGRESS REALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN ENABLING LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITZENS TO CARRY A HANDGUN CONCEALED ON THEIR PERSON, FOR SELF-DEFENSE?

To be sure, Congressional enactment of well-crafted national concealed handgun reciprocity legislation would do much to obviate confusion in the lawful carrying of concealed handguns in the several States as each State that provides for concealed handgun carry licensing would be required to recognize the validity of a concealed handgun carry license issued by another State. But that means States—those referred to as “may issue”—that, at present, turn a guaranteed right into a jurisdictional grant or privilege, issuing concealed handgun carry licenses rarely if at all—may not be required to recognize the validity of licenses issued by States that routinely issue such licenses to average, law-abiding citizens—those referred to as the “shall issue” States.There are several permutations of possible national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation formulae that Congress can consider when drafting national concealed carry bills. The Arbalest Quarrel will provide a detailed analysis of the pending bills in a forthcoming article. But, we will say this now: the most effective national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would require all States, including the District of Columbia and all U.S. territories, to recognize and accept, within their respective jurisdictions, and recognize and accept, unconditionally, the validity of every valid State issued concealed carry license whether one is a resident of the State that issued the license or not. That means that no American citizen , carrying a handgun concealed on his person, while also holding a valid concealed handgun carry license, validly issued by the appropriate licensing authority, shall not be subject to arrest.Suppose, then, a resident of Hawaii—where issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses is extremely rare and virtually impossible to secure unless one is well-connected—obtains a concealed handgun carry license from, say, Texas. Can the resident of Hawaii, then, rely on the validity of the Texas CCW license to lawfully carry a handgun concealed in Hawaii? Well, that depends on how the Congressional national concealed carry legislation is worded. If the legislation sets forth that every State must recognize and honor a valid State issued CCW license in every other State, regardless of a given State’s own firearms’ licensing laws, then the Hawaii resident, holding a valid CCW license issued, say, from Texas, is in safe waters and may utilize the Texas CCW license to carry a handgun concealed in every State, including, then, his home State of Hawaii. The Hawaii resident would be able, then, effectively, to override his home State’s draconian gun laws. But that would make, nugatory, Hawaii’s highly restrictive, draconian gun laws. What would Hawaii do? Hawaii wouldn’t sit idle seeing its “may issue” gun laws neutralized as its own residents, as well as non-residents, can then carry a handgun concealed on their person throughout the islands of Hawaii and the Hawaiian Government could not do a thing about it.Hawaii would undoubtedly file lawsuits, objecting to the constitutionality of such Congressional legislation. Antigun organizations and the Attorneys General of States such as New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would probably file their own amicus briefs in support of Hawaii’s lawsuits. Hawaii would argue, inter alia, that such Congressional legislation is a bald attempt to override Hawaii’s right under the Tenth Amendment to enact its own firearms’ laws, and that such national concealed handgun carry legislation enacted by Congress operates as an unconstitutional, impermissible infringement on Hawaii’s State as Congressional legislation enjoins States from exercising their own police powers. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Hawaii would also likely argue that such national concealed handgun carry legislation operates as an unconstitutional, unconscionable encroachment on State sovereignty as Congress preempts a traditional power of the States—regulation of firearms within a State’s own borders. So-called “may issue” States would argue that such impermissible encroachment means that, as residents of “shall issue” States enter their States carrying valid CCW licenses, with handguns in tow, Hawaii’s police could not arrest them. They would be immune from arrest and from prosecution. Residents of “may issue” States, on their part, who seek to carry a handgun concealed would be unhappy as well if Hawaii’s draconian gun laws prevent them from exercising the very right that non-residents may exercise in their own State—especially if residents of Hawaii would not recognize their own resident’s obtaining valid handgun licenses from another State. This would present a conundrum for Congress and for the Courts.Antigun proponent residents of those States that do not wish to see—what they perceive, albeit wrongly, to be—an extension of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms would raise a hailstorm of objections to guns coming into their State from other States, while those residents who seek to secure CCW licenses for themselves would argue that it makes no sense to deny to them the right to keep and bear arms that is extended to non-residents simply by virtue of less restrictive gun laws existent in non-resident States, especially if any handgun license they obtain from another State is considered invalid in Hawaii if one happens to be a resident of Hawaii.While antigun groups file lawsuits to curtail the effectiveness of Congressional national concealed handgun carry legislation, there would be, on the other side, plans afoot by residents of “may-issue” States to compel State Legislatures to repeal draconian firearms’ laws and to enact new less restrictive laws that cohere with the firearms’ laws of “shall issue” States and with the Congressional legislation.Anticipating problems, Republicans in Congress may seek to enact a weaker yet still improbable version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. A weaker version of the national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would require every State, including the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories, to recognize the validity of and therefore honor a validly issued CCW license of the issuing jurisdiction from a citizen’s own State of residence if and only if one’s resident State issues CCW licenses to its residents. But, for “may issue” States, the fact that they issue CCW licenses, theoretically, at least, means that they may be required to recognize and honor the CCW license of any non-resident who comes into their State, “packing” a gun anyway. In that event, we would undoubtedly see present “may issue” States modifying their gun laws, yet further, making their gun laws even more stringent—altogether proscribing the issuance of CCW licenses in their States. Those “may-issue” concealed handgun carry States, such as Hawaii and New York, and Illinois, would not, then, be required to recognize and honor a CCW license issued by another State since they do not, any longer issue CCW licenses. Thus, anyone entering the State with a firearm and a valid CCW license issued by another State would not be in safe harbor. That person would be subject to immediate arrest and prosecution for carrying a gun into the State at all. So, a weakened national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law would really not be a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law at all, but merely a qualified national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law.Nonetheless, even weakened versions of Congressional national concealed handgun carry legislation would likely see major battles in Congress. Those battles would then pour over into the Courts.Looking forward—let’s say the next ten years—assuming national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation of some sort or another is passed in the next few months, we would see—indeed would probably have to see—the Heller holding extended to the public domain—namely the domain outside one’s home. That may be the only way to finally snuff out the antigun movement’s efforts to curtail firearm’s ownership and possession once and for all.

HOW MIGHT PROPONENTS OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS COMBAT THE EFFORTS OF ANTIGUN GROUPS AND “MAY ISSUE” STATES THAT SEEK TO CURTAIL EXPANSION OF THE HELLER DECISION?

One tenable response to Hawaii’s objection is that the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, made applicable to the States under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, overrides a possible Tenth Amendment or police powers objection a State, might make, if, as a proponent of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, argues, as well, that the right of self-defense, a hallmark of the individual right to keep and bear arms, cannot be legitimately circumscribed by States. A framing of constitutional issues may look in part like this:The natural right of self-defense falls, one, within the right guaranteed under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and that right, is protected, two, under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the right of self-defense is protected, three, under the full faith and credit clause of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and perhaps a novel argument may set forth that the right of self-defense, embodied in and entailed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is complemented, four, in the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as one of the unenumerated rights and liberties underlying the Ninth Amendment. An argument of a Ninth Amendment right of self-defense would likely butt up against the argument that such right is inconsistent with the sovereignty of States under the Tenth Amendment and under the police powers of States to regulate firearms’ laws within their own borders, assuming one can draft a tenable Ninth Amendment argument of self-defense at all—apart from the application of the Second Amendment right to the matter of self-defense as now recognized as a result of the Heller decision, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment as set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court's McDonald decision, that came on the heels of Heller. See, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 557 U.S. 965, 130 S. Ct. 48 (2009).  The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Had Hillary Clinton succeeded to the U.S. Presidency, any thought of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation would be no more than a pipedream. With the Trump Administration, soon to be ensconced in the White House, passage of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation, in some form, will pass, notwithstanding efforts of virulent Antigun Legislators, like Senator Charles Schumer, who made very clear that he would oppose it. But, Americans will see enactment of such legislation even if it takes several months to do so, followed by years of Court battles.Thus, for now, those States that do not at the moment have concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreements with other jurisdictions, and that have no desire to enter into such concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreements with other States, place out-of-State residents in a bind. One must either forego the carrying of a handgun concealed in those jurisdictions that do not have a concealed handgun carry reciprocity agreement with another jurisdiction or one must—like Mr. Wright, who seeks to carry a weapon for self-defense in multiple jurisdictions that he travels to and through for business related purposes—apply for and obtain separate concealed handgun carry licenses, issued by multiple issuing authorities. That at present is the nature of the Country we live in. That is the case for Mr. Wright whose trials and tribulations we follow as he works his way through the obstacles of obtaining a concealed handgun carry license in various New England and mid-Atlantic States where he conducts business.Thus, the problems Mr. Wright faces simply to exercise his right of self-defense is hampered and constrained—making, for him, and for those of us who seek merely to exercise the natural right guaranteed to us, as codified in the Second Amendment—an elusive goal. Thus the antigun groups and antigun Congress and antigun State Legislatures and mainstream media, and the secretive, wealthy, powerful, ruthless, individuals and groups behind them all continue to make a mockery of the American citizen and continue to make a mockery of the American citizen’s Bill of Rights.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY MUST AMERICANS HAVE TO JUSTIFY THEIR RIGHT TO OWN AND POSSESS FIREARMS?

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

PART FOUR: THE CONNECTICUT 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. WRIGHT.

SUBPART ONE: RECAP

One year ago, the Arbalest Quarrel commenced a detailed examination of the perils, snares and frustrations the law-abiding American citizen encounters and faces for seeking no more than to exercise his or her natural right of self-defense. We followed an individual as he undertakes the time intensive, expensive, and exasperating task of acquiring concealed carry handgun licenses from multiple jurisdictions.The individual whom we followed in the exercise isn’t fictional. He is an actual person. We use a pseudonym for this person to protect his identity. We refer to this individual as Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright is an American citizen and successful businessman. He currently holds several handgun licenses. All but one are concealed handgun carry (CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON) (“CCW”) licenses.Mr. Wright conducts business in several States. The nature of Mr. Wright’s business involves the transporting of assets of considerable monetary value. Doing so, makes him a tempting target for armed robbers, jeopardizing his personal safety and well-being. A handgun provides Mr. Wright with the most effective means available for personal protection.

MANY JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE THE LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN TO JUSTIFY HIS NEED FOR A CCW.

Why should the law-abiding citizen have to justify the need for a CCW. After all, is not the right of self-defense basic, immutable, indisputable, and intrinsic? Did not the founders of the Republic recognize the primacy of the right of self-defense and, so, codify that quintessential right in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution? If so, why must the law-abiding American citizen have to justify the carrying of handgun for self-defense? Yet, a few jurisdictions, notably New York City—the City where Mr. Wright has his main business offices—require the prospective holder of an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license to do just that. An individual must convince, to the satisfaction of the NYPD licensing officer, why he or she feels the need to carry a handgun for personal protection.Establishing a rationale upon which to test the suitability for issuance of a concealed handgun license may, to some, may seem perfectly reasonable. It isn’t. The standards established may seem pragmatic and coherent. They aren’t. On close inspection, they are completely arbitrary and superficial. In existence in New York and in several other jurisdictions around the Country for many years—even decades in some instances—we may think the laws practical, necessary, “common-sense” application of the police powers of the State? But, are they? To grow accustomed to this or that law and practice and belief does not make such law reasonable, rational, or—if that law conflicts with our jurisprudence and with our Constitution —lawful. Thus we have "unlawful laws." That isn’t an oxymoron. An abundance of unlawful laws exists—and many of them are directed to firearms’ regulation, unlawfully restricting one's right to own, possess, and use firearms.

WHY MUST A LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN HAVE TO CONVINCE A GOVERNMENT LICENSING OFFICIAL THAT HE OR SHE REQUIRES A FIREARM FOR SELF-DEFENSE? WHY MUST A LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN HAVE TO JUSTIFY HIS OR HER RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENSE IF SELF-DEFENSE IS A QUINTESSENTIAL, NATURAL, PRIMARY AND PRIMORDIAL RIGHT AND IF A HANDGUN IN THE HANDS OF THE LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN, TRAINED IN THE USE OF THAT HANDGUN, HAS, THROUGH THE POSSESSION OF THAT HANDGUN, THE BEST MEANS AVAILABLE TO SECURE HIS OR HER LIFE AND WELL-BEING AGAINST THOSE WHO WOULD THREATEN THAT LIFE AND WELL-BEING?

A business person who does most of his business in cash and who carries thousands of dollars on his person on his way to a bank, a few times a week, is a tempting target indeed to a robber looking to make a killing through little effort. But a drug addled lunatic may be perfectly willing to kill another person for a few bucks and think nothing of it. If, then, a rational law-abiding person must justify to the satisfaction of a licensing official why issuance of a concealed handgun carry license is warranted for him but not for myriad others—which a prospective holder of a CCW must do in New York City if he is to have any real chance of securing a license to lawfully carry a handgun concealed on his person on the streets of New York City—the ludicrousness of the exercise becomes, on even a cursory inspection, painfully apparent.It really comes down to the fact that one person asks, begs really, for the privilege of defending his or her life and makes the case, why he or she faces more danger to life than someone else and therefore ought to be allowed to carry a handgun for self-defense? What must a person do to prove he or she needs a firearm for self-defense in the City of New York, but that others do not? How might one prove that certain  factors in his or her life satisfactorily distinguish his or her life from that of others, justifying the issuance of a CCW? In so doing, the right of self-defense—quintessential and primary, and primordial—reduces to mere privilege, an exercise one must excel in to justify one's right to exist. The right to be free from threats to life becomes a luxury, bestowed on a few through Government largess. The Government becomes a gatekeeper, deciding the value of human life--by extending to one individual the coveted unrestricted, concealed carry license, and withholding it from others.Of course, some might disagree with this assessment, arguing, on behalf of the antigun crowd, that the right of self-defense is not at issue. They would argue either that a handgun does not make a person safer or that, if it does, the danger to society outweighs the value a gun provides to individuals within society. Let’s parse that.Certainly, a person trained in the proper operation of a handgun has the most effective means currently available to protect his or her life and well-being against imminent threats to that life. We need not debate that. The statement is self-evident, axiomatic, true. But, do guns in society make for an unsafe society? The antigun crowd answers that question with an unequivocal, "yes." Yet, the antigun crowd begins with their conclusion, "guns in society make a society less safe," and then attempt to gather statistics to support the conclusion they assume to be true before the fact. Their conclusion is really not a conclusion derived from true premises, then, but an assumption. They take that assumption, and attempt to find data to support it, excluding data that refutes it. By emphasizing the gun, as an implement of harm, they minimize the import of the agent, the causal factor, truly responsible for harm. They also ignore that the agent may use other objects to harm innocent life: knives, axes, bombs and, as we have seen of late, both in Europe and in this Country, trucks. So, the availability or unavailability of guns is beside the point.The problem of violence in society is a function of the agent of violence in society, not the implement. Implements are not agents. Implements are not sentient beings. But antigun proponents place little, if any, emphasis on the agent. The value of life to the antigun proponent is a function of utility. Antigun proponents consider life and well-being from the standpoint of maximizing utility. For them, the truth of that statement is a given. They reason that getting guns out of the hands of more people—namely law-abiding citizens—will, ipso facto, reduce the number of deaths in society. That assertion is conjecture, not fact and it is false.Antigun proponents know criminals and lunatics and terrorists will harm individuals with guns, knives—and, as we have seen played out recently—trucks—truly anything at hand; and they will use whatever it is that is available to maximum effect, devising ever more devious ways to maximize the harm they are capable of doing to innocent life. So, as antigun proponents attempt to maximize utility for society by zeroing in on guns, alone, the violent among us are devising ways to maximize harm to individuals within society--through anything that is available. Ultimately, it is individuals within society that are harmed. They are harmed by two agents: the violent among us--predominately, criminals, and lunatics, and Islamic terrorists--and by antigun groups that would deny to law-abiding individuals the best means available to the law-abiding citizen in which to protect innocent human life, the firearm.Ultimately, antigun proponents do not really care if an innocent life is lost so long as society in general—the collective, the hive—is secure. That idea is blunt, but true, for it follows logically from and is implicit in the philosophy of antigun proponents even if they expressly deny it. That idea plays out in myriad restrictive, ludicrous gun laws existent in federal and State Statutes and existent in County and City ordinances and codes and regulations. But, that idea of antigun proponents--that ethical position, utilitarianism, specifically, consequentialism--a moral theory that looks to the consequences of an agent's actions and not on the intentions of the agent, a theory that seeks to maximize utility for society as a whole, placing greater value on the well-being of society, the collective, the hive, than on the well-being of the individual in society--is inconsistent with the ethical position of the founders of our Republic who saw the sanctity of the individual as preeminent.The founders remarked in their writings, and, as we see, they embodied in the Bill of Rights and in the Articles of our Constitution the idea of the transcendent supremacy of each American, as an individual.The founders realized that Government must have limited powers and that, ultimately, it is for the individual to take responsibility for his or her own life, and responsibility for his or her own well-being, and responsibility for his or her own happiness.Restricting the individual's access to firearms--thereby prohibiting the individual from possessing the best means available to reducing threat to life and well-being--operates no less than a refutation of the sanctity of the individual. The founders of the Republic would not be pleased.In our next article, we take a close look at the procedures for obtaining a CCW in Connecticut. We follow Mr. Wright as he familiarizes himself with the procedures for obtaining a Connecticut CCW and completes his application for a Connecticut concealed handgun carry license.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S “FAKE NEWS” DECEPTION

BAKERY FAKERY IN HALF-BAKED “FAKE NEWS”

PART ONE

"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." ~Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940

WHY THE SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF THE WORDS, ‘FAKE NEWS,’ AS BROADCAST BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA? WHAT BROUGHT THIS ON AND WHY IS ‘FAKE NEWS’ SUCH A HOT TOPIC TODAY?

In recent weeks, following the welcomed demise of Hillary Rodham’s Clinton’s bid for the White House, the American public encountered an expression that has become widespread in the mainstream media: ‘fake news.’The expression’s sudden appearance in the mainstream media and the public’s constant exposure to it is unsurprising. One might have expected this. Why? The owners of mass media pushed for Hillary Clinton for President. They were blindsided by alternative media sources that supported Donald Trump. The Arbalest Quarrel weblog was an early and fervent supporter of Donald Trump and an open skeptic of Hillary Clinton. Weblogs like the Arbalest Quarrel openly challenged the rationale and logic behind mainstream media’s news accounts, commentary and analysis of the campaigns and of the candidates.Mainstream media no longer has a monopoly on news coverage, news analysis, and commentary. The owners of mainstream media and the editors, writers, and pundits who work for them, don’t like this. They coined the phrase, ‘fake news.’ They did this to disparage anyone who offered a meaningful alternative to the contrived and scripted news, commentary, and analysis its organizations fed and continue to the public.The expression, ‘fake news,’ has become essentially synonymous with the phrase, ‘conspiracy theory,’ an earlier phrase mainstream media coined to discredit and disparage news coverage, commentary, and analysis provided by alternative news sources. Mainstream media uses both phrases to dismiss outright the notion that news coverage, commentary on the news, or news analysis presented by alternative media is worthy of public consumption.By dismissing, discrediting and discounting the legitimacy of alternative media outright, the owners of mainstream media hoped—indeed expected—the American public would, during this recent U.S. Presidential election cycle, look only to mainstream media for its news, for news commentary, and for news analysis as the public had done so in past election cycles. Mainstream media would remain preeminent. It would continue to dominate the central themes presented to the public and would continue to dominate the way those themes are presented to the public. Thus, mainstream media would continue to control and manipulate public opinion.The owners of mainstream media surmised, once again wrongly, that most Americans derive their news, today, primarily through major networks like MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX, and through major newspapers like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,  Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune. The owners of these and other major news vehicles, organizations, and outlets figured they had a lock on information about the world and the Nation—a lock on the news meted out to the public. That may once have been the case, but is so no longer. The election results proved them wrong.The owners of mainstream media did not figure on the power of alternative news media—independent weblogs and podcasts that obtained more traffic through the years, siphoning off audience that had relied heavily on the major television networks and the major newspapers for information—the core of the mainstream media.When Hillary Clinton lost the U.S. Presidential election, the owners of the major news networks and newspapers looked for a scapegoat. They did not blame themselves. But, they needed an explanation for the failure of mainstream media to woo the populace to accept Hillary Clinton as the preferred candidate for U.S. President. They contrived a scapegoat. They found it in two sources: alternative media, and in construction of a bogeyman: the Russians.

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONCOCTS A FANTASY

In their broadcasts and in their newspapers, the owners of major news organizations express their anger and scorn for alternative media. They lament how the weblogs had duped the public by giving the public analyses of candidates and of campaign events that amount to “fake news.” Mainstream media’s use of the phrase, ‘fake news,’ extends beyond the mere casting about for an errant news story appearing in one or the other alternative media source. It goes to the central theme of news reporting and news analysis and news commentary.But did alternative media dupe the public, really? Was not the public simply waking up to the reality behind the orchestrated campaign of misdirection projected on it through the mainstream media? Didn’t mainstream media seek to maintain the deception it had perennially achieved through its monopoly of news coverage, commentary, and analysis? And, isn’t this meticulous and insidious campaign of deception by the mainstream media—having failed to produce an electoral win for either one of the favored packaged candidates, Hillary Clinton for the Democrats or Jeb Bush for Republicans—ongoing? Isn’t the mainstream media attempting even now—well past the Eleventh Hour as Trump very soon takes the oath of Office—to discredit, and delegitimize him by casting blame for the election’s outcome on a couple of bogeymen: Vladimir Putin of Russia and, to a lesser extent, although quietly, curiously enough, no longer--James Comey, Director of the F.B.I.? Is not the mainstream media guilty of thrusting ‘fake news’ upon the public—the same thing it accuses alternative media of doing and, now, Russia.Let’s assume for purpose of argument that Russia did have a hand in giving a boost to Trump, as the CIA claims. For all the hoopla and clamoring of the mainstream media in its pious denunciation of Russia for having, as is claimed by the CIA, in a substantially redacted report, the audacity of attacking our democratic process, one should note that none of Trump’s detractors has claimed or so much as hinted that all or any part of the information the public obtained through the apparent hacking of DNC computers and through the hacking of the computers of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton, was false. None of it was.If, then, the information presented through the hacking of computers were true, why then should not the public be privy to that truth? Why didn’t the mainstream media provide the American public with the very information it claimed Russia handed to the public? Should not the public take umbrage with and express its moral outrage not at the Russians, nor with the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, but at the DNC, and at Hillary Clinton, and at the Democratic Party, and at the mainstream media that, together, have made a mockery of our own Democratic processes? Who, truly, is the greater threat to our Nation, to Americans' sacred rights and liberties, to our Nation's institutions, to our Democratic processes? Is it Putin and the Russians, really, and others from outside our Nation, or  is it those terrible individuals within our Nation that trounce on the very ideals of our Republic they sanctimoniously claim to adore and uphold?Consider, too, is our Nation so weak as to be unable to withstand the release of information Americans should have received anyway, through the mainstream media, had the mainstream media done its job to inform the public? Would the American public not then be able to make an informed choice as to whom it truly sought to be the next President of the United States? But, does the mainstream media ever truly seek to inform the public with the news, neutrally presented—all the news that's fit to print that the NY Times sanctifies as its motto and then patently ignores—so that the public can critically appraise the events of the day and the operations of our Government in dealing with serious dangers to our Nation? Wasn’t the information obtained through the hacking of DNC computers and through the hacking of computers of Democratic Party officials merely a comprehensive reflection of the depths of corruption existent in the DNC and in the Party and in its candidate of choice, Hillary Rodham Clinton? If the Russians, upon orders of Putin, did hack unceremoniously—and apparently effortlessly into the computers of the DNC, and into those of officials and functionaries or the Party, as those computers were never properly secured anyway and therefore invited hacking--did the information obtained for public consumption act no more nor less than a mirror held up to the face of the American public? Did not that mirror say to Americans: “take a good look at the DNC and at the Democratic Party and, especially, at this person, Hillary Rodham Clinton, a criminal, who seeks the Office of President of the United States--take a good look at the extent of corruption in the DNC, in the Democratic Party, and in that Party's leaders?”But, the puppet masters that control the mainstream media didn’t wish to project the truth. The puppet masters did not wish the public to perceive the actual duplicity present in this Country. They did not wish to do so, for, after all, aren’t they the cause of that duplicity? They didn’t wish for the American public to know the truth about Hillary Clinton, to know the truth about the DNC, to know the truth about the Democratic Party apparatus. They still don’t. So, leaving nothing to conjecture, they proclaim Donald Trump, to be an illegitimate, usurper of the Office of U.S. President. The alternative? They would rather sit a criminal, Hillary Clinton, in the seat of highest power.The mainstream media works in lockstep with the DNC and the Democratic Party to deceive the public. They are all very good at this; and they are relentless. Still, they failed to convince the public to accept their candidate of choice. They are puzzled and distraught and enraged that the public refused to be duped this election cycle. They haven’t given up, though.The Democratic Party and much of the present machinery of Government, infected with the disease of statism, will likely attack Donald Trump throughout his Presidency. The corrupting influences and forces at work for decades that seek continued concentration of power in Government at the expense of the rights and liberties of the American People, as the founders of our Republic understood those natural rights and liberties, do not wish for Trump’s success. The mainstream media is the vehicle through which the forces that had fought Trump throughout the election cycle will continue to attack him, will continue to frustrate his attempts to strengthen the Nation’s independence and sovereignty. These insidious, secretive, powerful forces will frustrate his attempts to serve the American people. These dark forces will frustrate his attempts to extricate this Nation and its people from foreign entanglements. These corrupting forces will attempt, worst of all, to alienate and isolate Trump, to fracture the public's trust in Trump, and to harm the public's relationship with Trump and with the Trump Administration--to make it difficult for Trump to do his work as U.S. President on behalf of this Nation, and on behalf of the Nation's people, and on behalf of the Nation's Constitution.These evil forces will attempt to place the Trump Administration in a container, a deep freeze, cut-off from the public. These evil, corrupting forces will do this to prevent Trump from creating and implementing policy designed to set this Nation on the right path—a path consistent with the intentions of the founders of our Republic, a path that invokes what the Nation meant to the founders of it.The public must remain vigilant—hyper vigilant—to the mainstream media’s onslaught on President-elect, Donald Trump. The public is getting a taste of the new avenue of attack—an attack on the very legitimacy of Trump’s Presidency.

WHAT IS ‘FAKE NEWS,’ REALLY, AND WHY DO WE SEE THIS MEME—THIS MENTAL VIRUS—IMPRINTED IN THE PSYCHE OF AMERICANS BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

Let’s parse the phrase, ‘fake news.’ Look up the word, ‘fake,’ in a dictionary. The word, ‘fake,’ means ‘not genuine,’ ‘not authentic,’ ‘sham,’ or ‘false.’ Although not explicit, the word is a pejorative. It connotes, fabrication, fraud, pretense, artifice. The word suggests, then, something more, much more, than the innocent presentation of falsehood in reporting. It suggests deliberate intention or desire to deceive the target audience.Now check out the word, ‘news.’ The word, ‘news,’ means, ‘information about recent or current events.’ This word, too, has a subjective meaning. The word, ‘news,’ connotes the media tools through which news events are conveyed to the public. How is news conveyed? News is conveyed to the public through many vehicles. It is conveyed through newspapers, magazines, fliers, journals, trade publications, radio, television, and, commonly today, through weblogs and websites—those of major television, radio, and newspapers and through the independents—for profit and non-profit organizations, not affiliated with the major newspapers, television and radio networks, that provide an alternative news, news analysis, and news commentary source for the public.Today, the public has a plethora of tools from which to gather news. The owners of the mainstream media don’t like this because of what this means to them. It means the public doesn’t rely on or need to rely on the mainstream media alone for its news and for its news analysis and for its news commentary. The mainstream media doesn’t like this because it seeks to control the news the public receives. That means control over dissemination of and analysis of news. That means, too, control over the stories that are told and the manner of the telling. That means controlling the thought processes of the public. That means insidiously projecting onto the public consciousness and conscience, and into the public’s thought processes those ideas the mainstream media seeks the public to accept, in line with prevailing Governmental objectives.The mainstream media once did this easily, for the mainstream media once maintained exclusive control over the delivery vehicles for the news. That was once the case, but no longer.Realizing it had lost exclusive control over news coverage, and news analysis and news commentary, the owners of mainstream media established their own websites and weblogs. But, would the public be drawn to the mainstream media’s weblogs and websites? Some members of the public would do so, yes, but not all, perhaps not even most. And, those that do could still contrast the news received through the mainstream media with the news delivered through the owners of independent websites, weblogs, and podcasts. Mainstream media has lost ground, but more, it has lost face as the public becomes aware of the deception—a monstrous deception played upon it. For mainstream media seeks less to inform the public and more to control it, to sway public opinion in one direction, to create an image of the world and of the Nation the owners of mainstream media wish for the public to see—a false image, to be sure, and one that promotes goals and policy objectives antithetical to the interests of the Nation, and of the Constitution, and of the Nation’s citizenry.Clearly, there’s more to fakery in the news, then, than meets the eye. It is fakery that goes beyond any snippet of news. It goes to a massive, orchestrated scheme of deception of which mainstream media plays a critical part. If there exists “fake news,” then it is fake news on an immense scale—the false projection of a world view that does not benefit this Nation, this Nation’s Constitution or this Nation’s citizenry.More about the expression, ‘fake news,’ in upcoming articles.Copyright © 2017 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

PART FIVE

The rationale for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is, from a logical viewpoint, a conclusion we derive from a set of postulates—predicate propositions—the truth of which, as we argue, support national concealed handgun carry reciprocity in our Country and in our Country’s territories.What we provide for you below is the Arbalest Quarrel’s formal argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity set forth in linear, syllogistic fashion. We invite reader comment.A FORMAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY BETWEEN AND AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES AND U.S. TERRITORIES.

1. The predicate instinct for survival, self-defense, is natural, primordial, and fundamental to any living creature or being, however lowly or lofty that creature or being is on the taxonomic scale of life. {Postulate}
2. As the instinct for survival is natural, primordial, and fundamental to all living creatures and beings, the moral imperative to defend one’s life and well-being stems from and is a corollary of the instinct for survival. {Corollary, derived from (1)}
3. A person has the moral right to defend his or her life against a threat to that life. {Inference, derived from (1) and (2)}
4. The right of self-defense is a preeminent right, pre-existent in and intrinsic to the sanctity and inviolability of a person as an autonomous individual. {Postulate}
5. Since the right of self-defense is intrinsic to one’s self, the right is not man-made or institutionally or governmentally derived. {Postulate}
6. A right inherent in the individual is not and cannot be rationally construed as a privilege granted by or ceded to or licensed by a governmental authority to a person. {Inference, derived from (5)}
7. Since the right of self-defense is an attribute of and inherent in individuals, no government can rightfully deny a person his or her natural, primordial, fundamental right to defend his or her life against those who would take that life without, just cause. {Inference, derived from Premises (4) through (6)}
8. Because the right of self-defense exists within the individual and does not emanate from a governmental body, no government can justifiably take that right from the individual. {Corollary of (5) and (6)}
9. If one is denied the natural right of self-defense—the right to preserve integrity of mind and body—the import of any other right becomes meaningless. {Postulate}
10. The right to protect oneself against serious bodily injury, harm, disability and/or death, which includes the right to preserve integrity of mind as well as body, is the quintessential preeminent right. {Postulate}
11. The right of self-defense precedes all other rights, pre-existent in a person. {Inference, derived from (10)}
12. From the right to safeguard one’s personal physical and psychological integrity flows the duty to do so—the duty to safeguard autonomy of self against any threat against that personal autonomy. {Corollary of Premises (20) and (11)}
13. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution codifies the inherent right of self-defense pre-existent in and preeminent in the individual. {Postulate}
14. Given the truth of premises (9) through (13), the Second Amendment is a codification of the fundamental and preeminent right of self-defense preexistent in the American citizen. {Inference, derived from Premises (7) through (13)}
15. The preservation of all other rights is dependent, first and foremost, on the preservation of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution {Corollary of Premise (14)}
16. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution preserves the integrity of the Nation as a free Republic through recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of each American citizen. {Inference, derived from Premises (10) through (15)}
17. One’s personal physical and psychological integrity would be compromised and therefore diminished or lost were our democratic Republic to devolve into an autocracy regardless of the form of autocracy: monarchy, plutocracy, oligarchy, technocracy, or theocracy—all of which proceed from the concept of an elite aristocratic ruling class that, alone, holds ultimate authority for determining what rights a person may enjoy and the nature of that person’s position and very existence in the body politic. {Postulate}
18. The drafters of the Nation’s Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution knew that nothing secures individual integrity and autonomy more ably and nobly and nothing preserves a free Republic more assuredly and resolutely as a guard against autocracy than personal ownership of and possession of a firearm in the hands of the American citizen. {Postulate}
19. The codification of the right of self-defense in the Second Amendment conveys the singular importance of the firearm in securing both the right of self-defense and securing and preserving the continued existence of our Nation as a free Republic. {Corollary of (18)}
20. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has neither import nor purport where a nation state constrains that right—where a nation state places restrictions on a free people’s natural, fundamental right to own and possess firearms—to own and possess firearms in each citizen’s individual capacity and to own and possess firearms as individual property. {Inference, derived from Premises (17) through (19)}
21. For the Second Amendment to have true efficacy, the right of each law-abiding American citizen to keep and bear arms must be understood as exemplifying that right in the broadest of terms. {Corollary of (20)}
22. For decades, this Nation has undergone a systematic transformation, devolving into autocracy while maintaining the trappings of a Free Republic. {Evidentiary proposition}
23. The transformation of our Nation from a Republic to an autocracy proceeds directly from the undermining of the codification of the individual citizen’s natural right to keep and bear arms. {Evidentiary proposition}
24. Any act by government—federal, state, or local—to constrain ownership and possession of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen—erodes the foundation of a free Republic, operates as an attack on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, and constitutes an attack on personal autonomy and personal integrity, thereby undermining and ultimately destroying the underpinnings of the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Inference derived from Premises (23) and (24)}.
25. Any act by government—federal, state, or local—to constrain ownership and possession of firearms in the hands of the law-abiding citizen—erodes the foundation of a free Republic, operates as an attack on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual, constitutes an attack on personal autonomy and personal integrity, and operates as a clear revocation of and repudiation of the rationale of and for the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Corollary of (24)}.
26. Governments—local, State, and Federal—posit that regulation of firearms is necessary to preserve public order and safety of the community and that restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens is therefore necessary to preserve the integrity of the Community. {Precept of Government which manifests as unlawful interference in the lives of citizens, resulting in denigration of personal autonomy and dissolution of individuality and personal integrity}.
27. Tension exists between a government’s attempt to wrest control from and to exert power over the individual and the individual’s attempt to maintain integrity of self against incursion of government over individual integrity and autonomy. {Postulate}
28. The Bill of Rights, as a critical component of the U.S. Constitution, operating as the singular mechanism that curbs government encroachment on, incursion in, and ultimate destruction of individual autonomy and inviolability. {Evidentiary Proposition}
29. Regulation of firearms in the hands of the citizenry—by government, regardless of stated purpose of government —invariably conveyed to the individual as an assertion of the need or desire to preserve and protect the viability of a community—amounts inevitably, and invariably, and tacitly as a drive to accumulate power over and at the expense of the individual, thereby undermining the individual’s ability to preserve and protect self and to preserve and protect the autonomy and integrity of self. {Inference, derived from Premises (23) through (28)}
30. The erosion, in recent decades, of the Nation’s sacred rights and liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights stems first and foremost from a direct, unequivocal, systematic attack on the fundamental, primordial, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. {Evidentiary Proposition}
31. Systematic erosion of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments stems from erosion of the Second Amendment. {Inference derived from Premise (30)}
32. The Destruction of a Free Republic and the erosion of individual autonomy follows from the undermining of the Second Amendment. {Inference derived from Premise (30) and Corollary of Premise (31)}
33. To counter the incremental, systematic destruction of a free Republic and to withstand the unceasing attack on individual autonomy, it is necessary to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; for, only if the Second Amendment is strengthened will further erosion of our free Republic, further erosion of the American citizenry’s other fundamental rights and liberties, and further erosion of the autonomy of self be forestalled. {Inference derived from Premises (30) through (32)}
34. National concealed handgun reciprocity operates at once as a renouncement of Government interference with, and as a renouncement of Government’s restraint on the citizen’s fundamental, natural right of self-defense under the Second Amendment; and proceeds as a rational, logical backlash against Government’s increasing encroachment on individual autonomy and unlawful usurpation of power over the American citizen, in direct contradistinction to and in violation of and in abject defiance of the limitations on the exercise of governmental power as expressly set forth in the U.S. Constitution; and in abject defiance to the citizen’s exercise of rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights. {Inference derived from Premise (33)}.
35. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a natural response to unlawful Government incursion into individual autonomy. (Corollary of Premise (34)}
36. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity promotes personal autonomy, personal safety and security, secures further rights and liberties codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, and prevents an otherwise inevitable slide of a free Republic into autocracy and tyranny. {Inference, derived from Premises (34) and (35)}.
37. The strengthening of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the only way to prevent, one, the Nation’s otherwise inexorable slide into autocracy; two, the dissolution of a free Republic; three, the inevitable destruction of the Bill of Rights; and four, the humbling of the individual to the dictates of Government. {Inference, derived from Premises (28) through (37)}
38. The slow demolishment of the United States as a free Republic, and the eradication of the notion of the autonomy of the individual proceeds silently but the effects are visible. {Evidentiary Proposition}
39. The American citizen has a duty to protect and preserve the Nation as a free Republic that the Founders of the Republic cemented and bequeathed to each American citizen. {Postulate}
40. It is therefore incumbent on each American citizen to preserve the Nation as a free Republic. {Inference, derived from Premise (39)}
41. To preserve the true import and purport of the entirety of this Nation’s Bill of Rights and to secure this Nation's continued existence as a free Republic, it is necessary to strengthen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. {Inference, derived from Premise (33)}
42. The realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a mandate for the American citizen if this Nation is to constrain and contain and, ultimately, reverse the inexorable slide toward oblivion of this Nation as a free Republic and to reverse the dangerous incursion of ideas antithetical to the notion of the supremacy of the individual embodied in the Bill of Rights. {Inference, derived from Premises (36) through (41)}
43. Thus, those Americans who value the continued survival of our Nation as a free Republic, and, who value the sanctity and inviolability and autonomy of the American citizen, and, who value the core precepts of our Bill of Rights, and who seek to reverse the trend of Government to usurp power beyond the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, and who seek to reverse the trend of Government to exert unlawful power over the lives of the citizenry, must work, together, to foster in all Americans a renewed respect for the Nation’s Bill of Rights. {Inference, derived from Premise (42)}
44. Working, together, toward the realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity will accomplish more than mere strengthening of the Bill of Rights; it will offset the machinations of those forces in this Country and outside it that seek to undermine the foundation of this Country as an Independent, Sovereign Nation and as a Free Republic, wherein the citizen stands supreme, and wherein government has no purpose but to serve at the behest of and at the pleasure of the People. {Inference, derived from Premise (43)}
45. The realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is an assertion of defiance against those among us who piously declare the sacred Second Amendment to be obsolete and who maintain the other nine Amendments to be malleable, subject to change or deletion in accordance with notions and values alien to this Nation, as our founders conceived and envisioned and implemented this Nation. {Postulate}
46. National concealed handgun carry reciprocity is a rejection of the current trend toward unlawful Government restrictions on, encroachment in, and unlawful interference with Americans' rights and liberties. {Inference, derived from Premise (45)}

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS’ PURSUIT OF RESTRAINTS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL REFLECT IDEAS CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT HEREINABOVE MADE IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY.

Antigun groups, the mainstream media, left leaning legislators, and the shadowy group of powerful, ruthless internationalists that fund them will undoubtedly take exception with several of the propositions comprising our argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve at length into possible objections supporters of antigun measures might draw. But, we wish to mention one theme that pervades antigun thought.Antigun groups and those who support a weakened Second Amendment argue that the safety and well-being of the community take precedence over the safety and well-being of the individual. Antigun groups may not say this expressly, but their position on gun ownership and possession entails that conclusion. Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors extol the virtue of the collective over the needs and aspirations and concerns of the individual. So, they look to ways in which society in general must curtail the rights and liberties of the individual in order—as they see it—to maintain the well-being of the greater society—of the hive.Restrictive gun laws gain their impetus through a theory of ethics called utilitarian consequentialism. That ethical theory is antithetical to the basic precepts of our Bill of Rights because it undercuts the notion that morality, a rational deontological ethical theory of good and evil, is based on the notion that a morally good act or a morally evil act is a product of an individual’s intentions and motives in acting, and not, as  antigun groups hold, based merely on the consequences of one’s actions—the impact a given action has on a community, irrespective of intention or motive behind a given act.So, for example, if a criminal happens to use a gun when committing a crime, the response of the antigun groups is to ignore the motive or intention of the sentient being in acting in the manner that he acted, but to emphasize merely the consequences of the act--the utility--good or bad that it has on the community as a whole. We see then, the antigun groups dealing with and emphasizing the implement used in the crime, rather than the nature of the individual who committed the crime. The common refrain we hear is: “we need to get rid of the gun” and, not, “let’s place these criminals in confinement where they will never again harm another individual.” By placing emphasis on the consequences of an act to the exclusion of the motive or intention of the actor, antigun groups draw attention away from the individual and onto the non-sentient object, the gun.Antigun groups and the billionaire internationalists that fund these groups, and that fund like-minded legislators look upon the individual in society as a component of an unruly mob, whose basic impulse is, as they see it, innately destructive, antithetical to the maintenance of an ordered society. Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors perceive American society as a bee hive. The individual has value to self and to the greater hive only to the extent the individual’s actions are constrained and his actions benefit the hive, rather than himself. They believe that the individual qua individual citizen cannot be trusted and, so, must be carefully watched and controlled, always. By constraining a person's actions, antigun groups believe they are able to create a better society. Protecting the Second Amendment right of millions of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is not part of the agenda of those whose goal, ultimately, is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment simply has no import or purport in the kind of society envisioned by antigun groups.Antigun groups, the mainstream media, left-wing legislators and wealthy, powerful, ruthless internationalists enlist stories of misuse of firearms by psychopaths, psychotics, and terrorists, as the ground to restrict gun ownership and possession, affecting, then, millions of citizens—sane, rational, law-abiding Americans—predicated on misuse of guns by the few.Seen in this light, it becomes clear why antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors find the Second Amendment archaic and dangerous. Antigun groups, their supporters and benefactors invariably provide anecdotal accounts of misuses of firearms by the worst sort of individuals—criminals, lunatics, Islamic terrorists—to justify their assault on gun ownership and possession, thereby ignoring outright—deliberately ignoring—the millions of law-abiding gun owners who have never misused a firearm, and never will.Allowing the individual to own and possess firearms is, from the perspective of the antigun groups, contrary to the maintenance of an ordered society—contrary to an ordered and orderly hive.The argument for restrictive gun laws makes no sense except through the ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism—an ethical theory that the founders of our Republic would discount and repudiate.Antigun groups and their supporters and benefactors have no regard for personal autonomy—the central unifying principal underlying and underscoring our Second Amendment, and, in fact, underscoring the entirety of our Bill of Rights. Thus, we would expect that antigun groups, the mainstream media, and the internationalist benefactors that fund them will attack vigorously, viciously, any attempt to realize national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.As foes of the Second Amendment, the antigun groups work tirelessly, unceasingly, rabidly toward constricting the Second Amendment. They obviously will not take kindly toward efforts to strengthen the Second Amendment. The Arbalest Quarrel will continue to explore the ideas raised in this article as we press the case for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. This will include an analysis of pending Congressional bills, directed toward national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY REQUIRES CAREFUL THOUGHT: AMERICANS HAVE MUCH WORK AHEAD OF THEM TO MAKE THIS A REALITY.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

PART FOUR

AMERICANS WHO CHERISH THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT AND WHO SEEK TO STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MUST BE MINDFUL OF DEEP-SEATED ANGER AND RESENTMENT OF THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THIS MOST CHERISHED RIGHT.

With the Nation’s Electoral College’s 538 Electors having cast their ballots—with the vast majority voting for President-elect Donald Trump, notwithstanding a last ditch effort by Clinton’s malcontent, insufferable supporters to prevent this—and with President-elect Donald Trump soon to take the oath of Office as the 45^th President of the United States, and with Donald Trump clearly supportive of our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, Americans can now say with assurance a mandate exists for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. No one can reasonably, rationally deny this. But, the foes of the Second Amendment will seek to prevent this, nonetheless.We know the foes of the Second Amendment well. They include, inter alia, antigun groups, the mainstream media, left-leaning legislators in Congress and in the States, ignorant and frightened supporters of antigun group propaganda, Hollywood Moguls and actors, and liberal academicians.But another foe exists: one both secretive and powerful; ruthless and dangerous. That foe comprises the internationalist power brokers. These internationalist power brokers—residing both here and abroad—seek the demise of the U.S. Constitution and destruction of our Nation State. This extraordinarily wealthy and dangerous foe machinates tirelessly and unceasingly toward the singular goal of a one World Government. America’s Bill of Rights is not compatible with their political, socio-economic blueprint. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is forever on the radar screen of these secretive, powerful, ruthless internationalists. They will fight vigorously to disrupt attempts to strengthen the Second Amendment.The antigun groups, the mainstream media, the internationalists, leftist legislators in the U.S. Congress and in the State Capitals, liberal academicians, among others, are stymied, flummoxed, baffled, and bewildered by the defeat of their darling child, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Had Clinton won the Presidency—as the prognosticators projected and hyped—the foes of the Second Amendment would have rubbed their palms and chuckled in glee. For they would then have found fair winds. They would whittle away at the Second Amendment with unrestrained ferocity. Now they cannot do so. The wind is in their faces and the seas are roiling. We, fervent supporters of the Bill of Rights and, particularly, of the Second Amendment, are now the gods of the sea. We control the oceans, and we intend to sink the ships of those who betray our birthright.Yes, those of us who voted for Donald Trump can be jubilant, but, even so, we must remain ever vigilant. We have stopped the foes of the Second Amendment in their tracks. But we cannot sit on our laurels, for the foes of the Second Amendment—are not sitting idly by. They are bracing for the true impact of a Trump Presidency and the strengthening of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms. No longer are we merely fighting a rearguard action. And on the matter of the Second Amendment, Trump must be true to his word. We will not stand for equivocation or compromise here.With Donald Trump as U.S. President we are victorious. We have stopped the foes of the Bill of Rights—the would-be killers of the Second Amendment—in their tracks.But, we cannot rest on our laurels, for the foes of the Second Amendment, are not sitting idly by. They are bracing for the true impact of a Trump Presidency and strengthening of the Second Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms. No longer are we, supporters of the Second Amendment, merely fighting a rearguard action. We have gained the high ground and we are on the offensive. Those groups that abhor the Second Amendment are not pleased with this new state of affairs and are, undoubtedly, more than just a trifle concerned.The prospect of strengthening the Second Amendment amounts to another order of reality—something the foes of the Second Amendment cannot and will not abide. Realization of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity will do much to strengthen the Second Amendment. Antigun Legislators in Congress are already marshaling their forces against this. Senator Charles Schumer said he will oppose national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. He has made plain his intention to fight “tooth and nail” against enactment of such legislation.These foes of the Second Amendment may try to ingratiate themselves with Trump. If that does not work—and it must not—they will attempt to place obstacles in his path and those obstacles we will destroy as fast as the foes of the Second Amendment raise them.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS UNIQUE. NO NATION OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, HAS, EITHER IN THEIR CONSTITUTIONS OR IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS A RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS THAT IS REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

No other Country has anything like our Second Amendment. The very existence of our Second Amendment is heresy for the power brokers—these internationalists—that seek to destroy it. For, the Second Amendment is a tacit assertion that Government is the servant of the People, not the other way around. The very existence of the Second Amendment serves as a reminder to the elected officials and bureaucrats of the federal Government that the American people are fully capable of—and have, in fact, a duty—as the founders of our Republic intended—to take back their Government from those who lose sight of the true rulers of this Country—the American People. The idea that authority—true and ultimate authority—resides in the American citizenry is anathema to the internationalists and to the puppets they control.These internationalists seek to controvert the notion that rights and liberties, as set forth in our Nation’s Bill of Rights, exist intrinsically in the person.These internationalists posit that such rights a citizen exercises and such liberties a citizen enjoys exist, not as inalienable, natural rights and liberties, preexistent in the individual, but as a grants or privileges bestowed by government on a citizen, or “subject.” For these internationalists, rights and liberties do not exist independently of government.The very existence of our Second Amendment is, to the power brokers, heresy. These power brokers—these internationalists--disavow that rights and liberties exist in the person and not in Government. They intend to dissuade those who believe otherwise.The Second Amendment—preeminent among rights and liberties is a tacit assertion that Government is the servant of the People, not the other way around. Hence, America’s Second Amendment is fertile ground for attack and its removal the first order of business for these internationalists and for the puppets who operate at the behest of these internationalists.

THE NOTION THAT CERTAIN RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES EXIST INTRINSICALLY IN THE PERSON IS NOT WIDELY ACCEPTED IN THE WORLD—NO LESS SO IN WESTERN NATIONS THAN IN DICTATORSHIPS AND IN MUSLIM THEOCRACIES.

Consider: President Obama and the defeated Democratic Party candidate for U.S. President, Hillary Clinton, have both overtly expressed their admiration of Australia’s restrictive gun laws. Most Americans, who keep abreast of politics, know this. They have made known their admiration for Australia’s outrageously restrictive, draconian gun laws on numerous occasions. That should sound the alarm for Americans. But there is something more ominous in this naked admiration. For, the Constitution of Australia is bereft of a bill of rights. Australia’s Government instituted restrictive, draconian gun laws easily because Australians—and they are less citizens and more mere subjects of the “Crown of England”—do not have rights or liberties but those that the Government deigns to bestow on Australia’s subjects.Curiously, the framers of the Australian Constitution considered inserting a Bill of Rights in their Constitution, and looked to the United States Constitution and our Country's Bill of Rights for guidance, but decided against this. One might speculate why the framers of Australia’s Constitution would forego a Bill of Rights for Australians. But this means that such rights and liberties that Australians happen to enjoy in Australia are man-made—concessions of Government to the people—the subjects of Australia--rights and liberties that are granted and withdrawn at will by Australia's Parliament. That is fact not speculation.  Australia’s Constitution does not recognize rights and liberties preexistent in and preeminent in the individual. So, members of Australia’s Parliament have no difficulty dismissing out-of-hand any notion of a right to keep and bear arms. No wonder that President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton emulate the actions of Australia’s Parliament.Australians owe their allegiance to the Queen of England. The Queen of England, and other “royalty” and “nobility,” have historically, distrusted the common man, and, so, have treated the common man with disdain.Far from recognizing the lack of a bill of rights in Australia’s Constitution as a flaw, some acknowledge this as a good thing.A few years ago, an Australian blogger, Mark Fletcher, published an article in a mainstream British newspaper, “The Guardian,” titled, “It’s a good thing that Australia isn’t burdened with human rights legislation.”Fletcher ends his polemic with this: “So let other countries puff their chests with empty slogans about rights. Let them use International Human Rights Day to reaffirm their ideological commitment to the inalienability and irrefutability of whichever rights happen to suit them most. Let their restrictions on legislative capability be a testament to their fear that parliament is forever tempted to commit atrocities. Instead of trying to emulate these mediocre, antiquated, constipated ways of other jurisdictions, Australians should take pride in our achievements, learn from our errors, and strive to show the rest of the world that bills and charters of rights are superfluous.”Reading this, one may understandably do a double-take. Is the author serious, or is this satire? Apparently, the author is serious. But, it is this very attitude that proponents of restrictive antigun measures have in our Country toward our own Bill of Rights that should raise the alarm. It is obviously a tacit idea held by the outgoing U.S. President, Barack Obama, and one also held by the defeated Democratic Party candidate for U.S. President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.Obama and Clinton do not respect our Bill of Rights and obviously consider such rights and liberties that are codified in our Bill of Rights to be ephemeral rather than real. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as with Australian Government officials, believe rights and liberties exist extrinsically, with Government, not intrinsically within the People.Consistent with this line of odd reasoning, Government can, at will, repudiate rights and liberties. Rights and liberties may be reduced, warped, changed, ignored, or discarded outright. Americans have seen Obama attempt to reduce the import of the Second Amendment by Government fiat. We have seen Obama ignore the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment, ostensibly to enhance national security. And we have seen Obama curtail the First Amendment free speech clause under the guise of and for the benefit of promoting “political correctness” in public discourse.Had Clinton won the Presidency—as the prognosticators projected and hoped for and hyped—the foes of America’s Bill of Rights would have rubbed their palms and chuckled in glee. For they would then be able to whittle away further at our rights and liberties even as they give lip-service to being of service to and protecting them.The foes of the Second Amendment would give the Second Amendment especial attention. These foes of America’s rights and liberties would whittle away at the Second Amendment with increasing and particular ferocity. With loss of the Second Amendment we would inevitably lose, essentially, the entirety of our Bill of Rights. Whatever remained would be a hollowed out shell, with no true import or significance.So, before engaging antigun groups—their supporters and their wealthy benefactors both here and abroad—and before considering the mechanics of making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity among the States and U.S. Territories a reality--we would do well to give serious consideration to the reason for making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality.As we work toward making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality, it behooves us to have an argument at the ready to be used against those who will surely oppose it and who will oppose it vehemently. Thus, there is a good reason for promulgating a formal argument in support of national handgun carry reciprocity.The Arbalest Quarrel has broached in an earlier article a thesis in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. But, we wish to set forth at length a cogent, comprehensive, analytic basis for making national concealed handgun carry reciprocity a reality, in anticipated response by foes of our sacred Second Amendment. What we provide for you in our next article, to be posted immediately as Part 5 of our ongoing series on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, shall serve as the Arbalest Quarrel’s formal argument in support of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity.Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

EVEN WITH TRUMP AS PRESIDENT NATIONAL HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY IS FAR FROM A DONE DEAL

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

PART THREE

WHY DO MANY AMERICANS OBLIGE THOSE WHO SEEK TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

Americans are fortunate Donald Trump won the election and will soon take the oath of Office. That assumes the Electors in the Electoral College don’t do the old switcheroo and elect someone else. And, make no mistake, there exist rogue elements within the Electoral College. They intend to cast their vote in a manner contrary to the will of the residents of their State. But, casting aside a nightmare scenario, we fully expect the President-elect, Donald Trump, to take the oath of Office as planned, on January 20, 2017.Even so, national concealed handgun carry reciprocity is and will remain far from a done deal. Donald Trump cannot order national concealed handgun carry reciprocity by Presidential edict, and Democrats in Congress will fight to constrain Republican attempts to enact such legislation. There is much resistance to this both inside and outside the Nation’s Capitol Building and we must be prepared for a drawn-out fight. Expect the new Senate Minority Leader, Democrat, Charles Schumer, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat-Connecticut, outspoken ardent--in fact, virulent--critics of the Second Amendment, to lead the charge against national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. Recently, both of these Senators, well aware of the American public's push to strengthen the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms--now that Hillary Clinton is politically dead and Donald Trump will soon occupy the White House--have blared out their intent to filibuster any Republican effort to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. The antigun movement has suffered an extraordinary setback and those of us who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, deeply engraved in our Bill of Rights, must press our advantage.But, we Americans who cherish our Bill of Rights and, especially, our sacred right to keep and bear arms, must overcome decades of resistance to gun ownership and possession. The seeds planted by the antigun groups have sprouted weeds throughout our Country. These weeds must be cut and their roots pulled out. There has been significant resistance to the very preservation of our sacred Second Amendment and the antigun forces will see national concealed handgun carry legislation as an unconscionable expansion of the right guaranteed to Americans under the Second Amendment, and not as a mere exemplification of our natural right to keep and bear arms. Resistance resides in the psyche of those individuals who resent the very idea of guns in the hands of civilian Americans; and such resistance that insinuates itself into the psyche of individuals is worse—far worse—to the preservation, let alone strengthening, of our Second Amendment, than any one piece of antigun legislation. We say this because psychological conditioning has, potentially, greater consequences and far more reaching and damaging impact on the preservation of our Second Amendment than any one piece of restrictive federal or State gun legislation.Antigun legislation, on federal, State, or local level, is more a symptom, the effect of insidious psychological conditioning on the collective American psyche. But for the weakening of the American psyche and spirit, such legislation would never—could never— achieve a foothold in our laws, in our legal system. That it does so is illustrative of the power of propaganda and demonstrative of the ruthlessness and power of forces at work in our Nation that seek to destroy our sacred Second Amendment.Already antigun groups are marshaling their forces in Congress. They are stiffening their resolve to fight and defeat any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. How might antigun groups and powerful, wealthy, ruthless, collaborators, here and abroad, who fund and support those groups, effectively thwart our efforts? We get an inkling through a look at the past strategies utilized by antigun groups.Antigun groups make substantial use of slogans. Slogans convey messages. Slogans allow for the creation of associations in the mind of the target audience. The public is familiar with two of these: “commonsense gun laws” and “gun laws we can live with.” Antigun groups use slogans to attract members to their cause.Organizational names of antigun groups carry antigun messages too. Consider Michael Bloomberg’s group: “Everytown for Gun Safety.” How did the well-heeled Bloomberg come up with that name? Did he invent it or did an advertising firm, retained by Bloomberg, come up with that through brainstorming sessions and group study of the effectiveness of the name as a device to shepherd the masses to the antigun cause? If the latter, we wouldn’t be surprised.Slogans are examples of memes. What is a ‘meme?’ A meme is a mental virus.Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject memes insidiously into the public psyche through their tool, the mainstream media.“Everytown for Gun Safety” and the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” are themselves examples of memes—of mental viruses. Antigun groups know the value of memes in shaping, molding, and manipulating public thought processes. They employ memes assiduously. It is part of their strategy, their plan for undermining our cherished Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms.Antigun groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety,” and “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” inject deadly memes into the public psyche, not unlike a heroin junkie who injects poison into his veins. The mainstream media is the syringe antigun groups employ to inject their venom, antigun memes, into the public’s psyche.The word, ‘gun,’ invariably factors into the memes of antigun groups. They employ the word, ‘gun,’ constantly and, whenever they do, they use the word, 'gun,' as a pejorative, as an invective. This is no accident. Their attack on guns--and on the very word, 'gun,'--is always carefully planned and calibrated, to leave no doubt in the mind of the target audience, the American public, that guns have--as they see it--no redeeming value. The public is expected to accept antigun group presumptions about guns at face value, without criticism, without scrutiny, no less so than a member of a cult is expected to accept, at face value, as self-evident true, cult dogma as spouted by the cult leader.Memes, utilized by antigun groups, induce, in those susceptible to the messaging, bizarre and ludicrous thoughts about guns.Antigun groups use memes to instill in the public psyche a phobic reaction toward guns. The antigun groups are very good at this. They have been at it for a long time. They have honed their skills well.The messaging operates both overtly on the conscious mind and subliminally on the subconscious of those individuals—and there are many—susceptible to reception of the message. Antigun groups, through the mainstream media, suggest that guns are more than mere inanimate objects. They suggest that guns are sentient beings—evil sentient beings.Antigun groups create the impression that the “the gun,” is a scourge on society—more a scourge on society than the lunatic, the psychopathic Islamic terrorist, or the common criminal, that wields “the gun” to harm others.The mainstream media propagates and bolsters dangerous memes about guns. It does so endlessly, relentlessly, vigorously, tediously, boisterously, indefatigably, shamelessly.The result: many Americans develop a morbid, unnatural, fear of guns. Those adults, susceptible to such messaging instill their pathological fear of guns in their children. Antigun groups intend to inculcate in the mind of each American, beginning in early childhood, an irrational fear and loathing toward “the gun.” The unreasonable fear of guns has a name. It’s called hoplophobia.The imbecilic notions antigun groups attribute to guns and the lunacy antigun groups project on the public about guns percolate and permeate throughout society. The antigun groups, through the mainstream media, thrust their lunacy on the public, creating hysteria in sensitive, susceptible individuals. Many individuals are immune. But many others are not. Not content to project their lunacy toward guns on adults, antigun groups shamelessly, unabashedly project that same lunacy onto impressionable children.The lunacy pervades our public school systems. Were they successful, antigun groups wouldn’t need to fight to repeal the Second Amendment. The public, molded and shaped like clay from early childhood, would demand it.How pervasive is this lunacy? Consider: in the 1950’s a child could bring a toy stainless steel cap gun to school and no one would raise an eyebrow—not parents, not school teachers, not school administrators—but not so today.Today, a child who so much as points a finger, suggestive of a gun, at another student at school, is suspended. Is that not strange? Click here for one example. Is this an anomaly? Unfortunately, no. The instances are legion. An internet search picks up many examples.School officials call their draconian measures zero-tolerance policy. But, zero-tolerance policy toward what: that we must fear our own shadow and instill such fear in our children too? Is not such draconian, bizarre action by school officials indicative of aberration in their own psyches rather than an indication of aberration in the psyches of school children? Yet, school officials find fault with the children, not themselves—removing them from school, suggesting, perhaps, these children undergo psychiatric counseling. Really?Antigun groups promote the nonsense, the lunacy, perpetrated by public school systems. Antigun groups proclaim that a harsh response toward gun possession is necessary. They argue such response bespeaks precautions both public schools and society at large are obliged to take and are obligated to take for the good of society, for the good of the societal collective—applying the dubious ethical theory of utilitarian consequentialism to the body politic.But, why? What is their motivation? Antigun gun groups say that draconian measures are necessary because we “live in a different world, today;” “we live in a more dangerous world.” We do? How so?Are we to conclude the threat of global thermonuclear war during the 1950s—over a half century ago—against an adversary like the Soviet Union and its allies, the Soviet Bloc Nations—infinitely more sophisticated and threatening than the Islamic radical savages we contend with today—bespoke a peaceful time, a tranquil era for Americans? Not so for those of us living during that period. And, we did not fear the gun then. Why should we fear the gun now? No need then; no more so now. The absurdity of antigun group assertions, when seen in this comparative light, is plain.What Americans are doing in response to such visible threats that do exist, toward criminals and Islamic terrorists, is contrary to the expectations and wishes of the antigun groups. Americans are arming themselves with—horror of horrors—guns; and they are doing so in record numbers.The self-arming of Americans is alarming to antigun groups. The self-arming of Americans isn’t the response antigun groups want; it isn’t the response antigun groups expect. But it is occurring.Yet, if we take the antigun groups at their word—if the world is a dangerous place today—we would expect Americans—resilient and resourceful Americans—to take personal responsibility for their own well-being. True that was in the past. True that is now. True that will always be so long as our Bill of Rights remains sacred. Why should the response of many Americans to threats to personal safety—acquisition of a firearm—be so unexpected even if unnerving to antigun groups?Perhaps antigun groups take too many of their cues from their international benefactors. Such people cannot appreciate the singular uniqueness of Americans’ Second Amendment. They cannot understand the import of notions of individual, personal responsibility and personal fortitude upon which our Bill of Rights is grounded.Most Americans realize personal safety and well-being devolve upon themselves, not on any greater authority, and not on the police. The court cases, Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975) and Riss vs. New York, 22, N.Y.2d, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968), make this point clear—a point antigun groups acutely ignore, postulating, misleadingly, disingenuously, that the police do serve the residents of their respective communities and that is enough, that is sufficient to provide for the residents of the community all the protection the residents need. But is it?Police departments do serve residents, yes. But, residents are served as a collective body. The police are required to provide for the welfare of the community as a whole. But, must they provide protection to individuals within a community, apart from offering protection to specific public officials? The answer is, “no.” They need not do so and, in fact, do not.Americans understand that possessing firearms ensures their own individual safety and well-being as is each American’s right, and each American’s duty to self and family. The police are not required by law to provide that task even if particular departments had the money and the manpower to do so. Even, then, there would be good reason for the police not to do so, as case law makes clear. Hence, the duty to provide for one’s personal safety rests invariably, inevitably, on the individual. Our Second Amendment codifies that sacred, natural right.A firearm—the gun—is the most effective means of ensuring one’s safety and well-being when one’s life is threatened. Still, the antigun groups attack our Second Amendment. They attack the sanctity of each American’s individual life. Their attack on the right of each individual American citizen to defend his or her life with the most effective means of doing so is facially inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. Their position is, rationally, altogether inexplicable, and, on moral grounds, indefensible and irreverent.Their attack against the Second Amendment of our Constitution is no less an attack on our Nation State and no less an attack on our National Identity insofar as their position is an affront against the sanctity of our Constitution; for our Constitution is the foundation of our Nation and the clearest expression of our National Identity. Yet, the concepts of ‘national identity’ and ‘nation State’ are anathema to powerful, ruthless internationalists—creatures that seek an end to the natural independence and sovereignty of our Nation State and of all nation states; an end to national heritage and history; an end to national identity; an end to each nation’s right to self-governance; an end to the right of each of us, as individuals, to be and remain individual.One only need concentrate on the collective horror the EU experience and experiment has wrought on individual Nation States: the insidious attack on notions of National Identity and National Sovereignty—to realize what can yet befall us. The Nations of Europe fell for the lies of EU proponents. They thought they could maintain their political identities even as they ceded their economic authority. They were wrong. But, there is now a most welcome backlash.We might learn from their example. Better it would be if we stay clear of the worst of entangling alliances as “free trade” agreements require, as they compel—as they move us inexorably closer to an EU style arrangement with other nations—leading inevitably to the destruction of our Nation State, our National Identity, our Constitution.The mere existence of our Second Amendment operates as a visible threat to those invisible, insidious forces, lurking in the shadows. These denizens of hell seek no less than the abject surrender of our National Sovereignty. They seek no less than the subordination of our laws to those of foreign courts and foreign tribunals. They seek no less than the shredding of our unique Constitution. The strengthening of our Second Amendment is something these powerful, ruthless interests cannot abide. They will use their tools and puppets—including the mainstream media, antigun groups, various members of Congress, and the ignorant, frightened, misguided sheep among us—to constrain any attempt to implement national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation. Passing such legislation is a major step toward preserving our singular way of life as an independent sovereign Nation and preserving the two most sacred pillars upon which our Nation rests: one, that government operates at the behest of the American people, not the other way around; and, two, that the Bill of Rights codifies natural rights that forever secure in the American citizen, sacred rights existent in that American as an individual.In our Country, the individual must never hear to be told that he must sacrifice his sacred right of self-defense to the seemingly greater need, the greater good, of an amorphous collective mass—that his right of personal self-defense through possession of a firearm manifests as a danger to the collective security of the masses and must, therefore, be curbed, restrained, denied.We have our work cut out for us. The depth and breadth of that work will become clear as we post further articles on national concealed handgun carry reciprocity._________________________________Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE FIFTY STATES AND IN ALL U.S. TERRITORIES MUST BECOME A REALITY.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE.

CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY RECIPROCITY AMONG THE FIFTY STATES AND IN ALL U.S. TERRITORIES MUST BECOME A REALITY.

PART TWO

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE IS EMBODIED IN OUR SECOND AMENDMENT.

The instinct for self-preservation is primary, primal, primordial. We take that statement as axiomatic, self-evident, true. It is fact, a given. The assertion requires no proof. A person need look but to his or her own response to a threat of attack to recognize the inherent truth of the assertion.A rational person will defend his or her life against any threat to that life. The urge to defend one’s life against a threat to it stems from the instinct for self-preservation. Those assertions, too, are axiomatic, self-evident, true. The assertions require no proof and they require no justification.Since we take, without need for proof or justification, the urge to defend one’s life from external harm as natural and universal, we draw from that notion a normative, ethical prescription. It is this: a person has the right to defend his or her life from threat of harm, and will do so. Most people, we think, would agree with this assertion as well.But, consider the assertion, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The assertion embodies two correlates. The first correlate is that a person has the inherent right of self-defense. The second correlate is that a person has the right to defend one’s life with a firearm. The first correlate is simply a reiteration of the aforesaid assertion that, “a person has the right to defend his or her life from threat of harm, and will do so,” which most people, we postulate would, accept as true without need for proof.Some people, though, namely, those who accept the rhetoric of antigun zealots would object to the second correlate. We, though, do not; nor would the founders of our Republic. For us, as with them, the natural right to defend one’s life with a firearm is axiomatic, self-evident, true. The truth of the assertion derives, straightforwardly, from the instinct for self-preservation. We need not proffer proof or justification for the truth of the second correlate.The firearm is the most effective means to defend one’s life, and the founders of our Republic knew this. The founders of our Republic codified this natural right of self-defense in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The right of the people to defend one’s life with the most effective means of doing so is prominently etched in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.The Second Amendment is one of ten basic, principal rights and liberties set forth in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The Nation’s Bill of Rights is a critical part of the Nation’s Constitution; and, our Nation’s Constitution would not be complete without it. For, our Bill of Rights operates as a check on federal Government power. Our Constitution establishes a Government, beholden to and answerable to the American people. The Bill of Rights makes that point poignantly clear. The Nation’s Constitution establishes a federal government, and establishes, as well, the parameters of the powers and authority of the three Branches of Government. But, the Constitution that creates the federal Government and that establishes the powers and authority of each Branch, does not also create the predicate rights and liberties of the People.The rights and liberties of the People predate the Constitution. Our sacred rights and liberties exist intrinsically in the very being of each American citizen. The Constitution didn’t create or ordain our fundamental rights and liberties. And, Government did not bestow those rights and liberties on us. So, neither the Government, nor the Constitution, can take our sacred rights and liberties from us.The Bill of Rights operates essentially as both an acknowledgement of the existence of our sacred rights and liberties—lest any Government functionary attempt to proscribe our rights and liberties—and as a constant reminder to those in the Government, that Government operates at the pleasure of the People. That means the People can dismantle Government when Government oversteps its authority and operates in accordance with its own mandate, contrary to the Will of the People.Government functionaries must understand they are not to toy with our sacred rights and liberties; nor are they to undercut any of our sacred rights and liberties. Yet some Government officials do just that. They believe that our Bill of Rights can be shaped, molded, changed, even done away with.They are wrong. Americans have demonstrated how out-of-touch such people are. With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. President, a vast swathe of the American populace has made abundantly clear: we want our Country back, and we will take our Country back from those, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe, essentially, that they operate by divine right. They most certainly do not.Our Bill of Rights and, especially our Second Amendment, exist as essential codifications of natural rights that remain as vibrant and as true today as they did during the birth of our Nation. Our public Officials cannot undermine, them, disregard them, or repeal them—ever! Hillary Clinton didn’t heed the warning. She sought, through the power of the mainstream media to persuade the American public to disavow its birthright, to passively permit its fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to be forfeited, done away with. Neither she, nor her powerful, wealthy sponsors appreciated the intelligence and determination and resolve of millions of Americans.

WE, AMERICANS, ARE AT A CROSSROADS.

The American people have seen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms eroded under the Obama Administration. With the election of Donald Trump as our 45^th President, we have thrown a wrench in the antigun agenda. For the moment, we have stopped the ruthless internationalist benefactors who fund the antigun agenda.With defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the antigun forces have lost their principal ally, their principal weapon for defeating the Second Amendment. The antigun forces are weakened but not undone.The paramount aim of national and international antigun efforts is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Make no mistake about that. They aim to destroy gun ownership and possession in our Country. That means they seek to undercut the individual’s right of self-defense. What is their motivation? The answer is simple. They seek to break the back of our National resolve, of our heritage, of our culture, of our National identity. If they can destroy our most sacred, natural right, they have eliminated a core, defining attribute of our Nation—the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Our Nation, as an independent, sovereign Republic would, if they were successful, totter on its very foundation.So, we know the impetus for the antigun forces. But, why do many average, law-abiding citizens fall prey to the messaging of the antigun forces?We discuss this in Part Three of the Arbalest Quarrel’s comprehensive multipart series on National concealed handgun carry. We also explain in Part Three how the Arbalest Quarrel has fought the myriad lies about firearms and about our Second Amendment as fomented and perpetrated on the American people by powerful, ruthless, internationalists and by antigun zealots and by those who, through their ignorance, support the actions, policies and goals of antigun groups, operating, as they do, through the mainstream media and through their puppets in Government.By exposing, to the light of day, the lies perpetuated by those bent on destroying our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, we succeed in strengthening our Second Amendment. It therefore will come to pass that we will see universal concealed handgun carry in the Nation’s fifty States and in the Nation’s sixteen territories. Understand, this will become a reality but only if the resolve of the American people never wavers. We must all do our part if we are to be successful in our endeavor.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TRUST PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP—HOLDER OF AN UNRESTRICTED NEW YORK HANDGUN CARRY LICENSE—TO STAY TRUE TO HIS WORD TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE GUN RIGHTS FOR EVERY LAW-ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN.

NATIONAL CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY—LIKE SELF-DEFENSE—IT’S A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE

PART ONE

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY HANDGUNS—LET’S GET CRACKING ON THIS!

In the past eighty years the American people have seen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms slowly whittled away through enactment of a multitude of restrictive federal and State gun legislation. Such gun rights that remain are treated more as a privilege, granted by Government, than as a right, embodied in the People, as codified in our Nation’s Bill of Rights.With the slow, inexorable, insidious movement toward de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, many Americans grow increasingly unaware of the loss of their most cherished right.Those who seek to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms find themselves frustrated. They see themselves treated like second class citizens.Now, no rational, sensible person inside of government or outside it would deny a person his or her natural right of self-defense. Yet, by prohibiting the average law-abiding American citizen from carrying a handgun in his or her own defense, Government is, nonetheless, effectively denying the American citizen his or her natural right of self-defense. For, a handgun is, in many life-threatening situations, the most effective means available for ensuring one’s life.The right of self-defense is a corollary to the Second Amendment, as the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, pointed out in the seminal Heller case. Yet, many States, including the District of Columbia, routinely ignore the import of Heller and, in so doing, denigrate the import and purport of the Second Amendment.The State Governments of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, and others, dole out handgun carry licenses sparingly, if at all, to a privileged few.And, who are those Privileged Few?

THIS IS WHAT WE SEE:

• Politicians can carry a handgun concealed because they make the laws.
• Police can carry a handgun concealed because they enforce the laws.
• Retired Police Officers can carry a handgun concealed because that is their entitlement.
• State and Municipal Judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices can carry a handgun concealed because they interpret the laws.
• The Rich and Famous can carry a handgun concealed because restrictive gun laws are generally waived for them.
• Private Bodyguards can carry a handgun concealed because they protect the Rich and Famous.

AND—Criminals can carry a handgun concealed because they simply disregard the laws.BUT YOU—THE AVERAGE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN—Cannot carry a handgun because you obey the laws, and are routinely denied the right guaranteed to you in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!WHAT DO YOU THINK?We would like to get your opinion.THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW:The President-elect, Donald Trump, championed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We trust that Donald Trump will not soften his stance once he takes the Oath of Office and that he will honor his promise and commitment to the American People.Even so, Americans must not rely on our President-elect alone to secure our Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Americans must make national handgun carry a reality. To accomplish that means we must make national handgun carry a priority.To effectively preserve and protect the Second Amendment we must strengthen it. The true strength of the Second Amendment, as a fundamental right, rests in the full, unrestricted exercise of it. Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry would do just that. National handgun carry impetus is, to date, the best exemplification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as our founders understood that right and had intended it to be exercised.Congressional draft legislation to effectuate national handgun carry does exist. Pending are three House bills, H.R. 923, H.R. 986, H.R. 402, and one Senate bill, S. 498. What is the status of these bills? They sit stalled in Congress. They have been suspended in Committee for over a year. But, as President-elect Donald Trump will soon assume the mantle of the U.S. Presidency, we must get Congress cracking on them. There is no longer any reason to sit idle.Those Congressmen fearful of incurring the wrath of Hillary Clinton, had they acted sooner on the national handgun carry legislation, can certainly rest easy now. Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions along with her antigun agenda are dead.Clinton’s political dreams and her antigun agenda both died when she lost the U.S. Presidential election. There is now no excuse, especially by Congressional Republicans—if any excuse previously existed—for foot dragging; nor is this a time for the American people to rest on their laurels now that Donald Trump has secured the U.S. Presidency. There is much work to be done and much in Obama’s un-American legacy to be undone.And, don’t for a minute think the antigun forces are going to forbear their destructive activity to defeat the Second Amendment just because they lost their most strident and powerful benefactor, Hillary Clinton. We must hit them hard. Getting national handgun carry legislation passed will be the most effective means at our disposal to defeat them and to defeat their destructive agenda.The Arbalest Quarrel is doing its part to get the ball rolling on national handgun carry legislation. The Arbalest Quarrel has, since its inception, been a strong, unwavering advocate of the Second Amendment. We have pointed out vociferously and unceasingly that the Second Amendment is not to be ignored or trifled with.The Arbalest Quarrel is currently working with several organizations and with public radio to get the message out that the American people want national handgun carry legislation.We want national handgun carry legislation passed quickly, and we want national handgun carry legislation passed with no strings attached.President-elect Donald Trump, the U.S. Congress, and the average law-abiding American citizen—all of us—need to work on this together and straightaway to see federal legislation enacted to level the playing field among the several States.All law-abiding American citizens of legal age should be allowed to carry a handgun concealed in every State of the Union. That is consistent with the true import and purport of the Second Amendment.Will you help us help all Americans preserve, protect, and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right? Please provide us with your thoughts.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

COMEY BUCKLES UNDER—A SECOND TIME!

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONGRESS HAVE BOTH FAILED THE NATION. IT’S UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW TO RIGHT THE WRONG.

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

“Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: ‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods.’”~“Horatius at the Bridge,” from “The Lays of Ancient Rome,” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay (1800—1859)Note to readers: You may read the entirety of this Poem at Bartleby.com. The Shadow Government comes out of the “shadows.” The Democratic Process is an illusion. It’s a sham. The media, controlled by the Shadow Government, continues to smear Donald Trump. It does so on behalf of its owners. The mainstream media’s owners cannot “buy” Trump. He won’t take their money. He won’t do their bidding. Trump represents America, not the internationalist financiers who seek to buy up Nation States, creating, as they hope, a single, unified corporate empire—their New World Order. So, not surprisingly, ‘nationalism,’ is, today, an obscenity.The mainstream media castigates Trump. It does so incessantly. It does so emphatically and relentlessly. But Trump has committed no crime. For all the nonsense spouted against Trump, the mainstream media has not said Trump is a criminal. Why not? The answer is simple. It has not said this because it cannot. Trump isn’t a criminal.That same mainstream media trumpets Hillary Clinton. This creature, though, is a criminal. She is an uncommon criminal because no one has committed more crimes, more often, and with more relish and audacity than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s crimes against this Country and against its citizenry are serious. Her crimes are legion. They will continue should she become U.S. President. She would not, then, suffer punishment. Rather, she would be rewarded for her crimes. She is a very successful criminal.The crimes of Clinton’s confidantes, hangers on, and toadies—such as John Podesta and Huma Abedin—are also serious and many in number. These are Clinton’s Captains in crime. Rest assured, they will serve their master, the Queen of Crime, well, if their master secures the Presidential suite.F.B.I. Director James Comey understands the horror this Country faces if a sociopathic criminal and her battalion of flunkies take control of the machinery of Government. Comey is the one man who could have prevented Clinton from running for President. If Clinton ascends to the throne, she can yet fall, unceremoniously, if honest, forthright, and courageous individuals in the FBI, in the Justice Department, and in Congress see to it that Clinton’s days in the Highest Office in the Land, are few—very few—in number. Likely though—and sad to say—there are few in Government who will stand up against this criminal should she gain the White House. Best, then, to see that she does not.The international financial banking cartel knows this. These Captains of Finance run the Shadow Government. Had Comey recommended indictment of Hillary Clinton, that singular act would have thrown a wrench in their plans to destroy America.One person, in a Nation of over 324 million, could have prevented Hillary Clinton from continuing her march to the U.S. Presidency. That person was James Comey, Director of the FBI. The international financial banking cartel realized that something had to be done to stop Comey. Something was done. Someone got to Comey. Clearly, someone threatened Comey.No matter. Comey did what he could in light of the threats. He warned the American people of the coming disaster of a Clinton Presidency. He did so in his statement, of July 5, 2016, to the American people. He delivered his statement one day after Independence Day. Consider the import of his statement to the American people. Consider its timing—one day after our National Holiday, proclaiming our independence from tyranny.Consider the thought that went into Comey’s statement to the American People.Consider the irrefutable proof pointing to Clinton’s felonies. But Comey did not recommend indictment. Yet, his arguments for not recommending indictment were lame. Comey obviously intended for them to be lame, ridiculous even, a stark counterpoint to his message of Clinton’s clear guilt.Comey told the American people in the clearest language he could muster, apparently fearing the suffering of retribution had he spoken more plainly, that Clinton has committed serious crimes against this Country; that she had committed them many times over; and that she had committed them over an extended period of time.We must assume that powerful, evil forces compelled Comey to forbear recommending indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. For, had Comey recommended indictment of Clinton, she could not rationally continue her bid for the U.S. Presidency. She would like to, of course. She would do so, indictment or not if she could. Hillary Clinton has no shame. But it would be unseemly. She would have to step down. The Democratic Party would be compelled to demand she step down.Still, more damning information about Clinton’s crimes came out in recent days. Copies of emails Clinton had destroyed, and thousands more, wound up on Anthony Weiner’s computer.Weiner is a disgraced U.S. Congressman. He was a close friend of Hillary Clinton. He remains, at the moment, Huma Abedin’s wayward husband. Abedin and Weiner have been separated since August 2016.FBI officials, in their probe, investigating Weiner for sex crimes, found 650,000 emails, implicating Huma Abedin, Clinton’s confidante and associate in the mishandling of classified information. They turned those emails over to Comey. Comey informed Congress.Powerful, corrupt, evil international financiers—the puppet masters who control the Clintons and who control our present President, Barack Obama—must have fretted over this. They realized they must do something. Comey had thrown another wrench into their plans for dismantling America. Would he now recommend indictment?Clearly, indictment or no, so long as the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s sordid conduct and dealings continued, she would live and operate under a cloud of suspicion. That was not something she would or could abide. That wasn’t something her benefactors could or would abide. What crimes have they committed—these sinister individuals in the shadows—that we can only obtain a glimmer of through the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton?These corrupt, evil, extraordinarily wealthy and powerful international financiers and power brokers intend to crush this Country. They intend to crush the Nation’s Constitution; to crush this Nation’s heritage; to crush this Nation’s culture; and to crush this Nation’s spirit. Their goal for a one world government would go off schedule, would go off kilter, if their puppet, Hillary Clinton, failed her bid for the U.S. Presidency.They had to do something. Something they did. They attacked the F.B.I. Director. They attacked the Nation’s Messenger.They attempted to smear Comey’s reputation. We speculate they found a willing accomplice. But that accomplice wasn’t a Democrat. Their accomplice, curiously, wasn’t a Democrat. He’s a Republican. Fancy that. The Republican’s name is Richard Painter. Painter filed an ethics complaint against Comey.Painter “served as the chief White House ethics attorney under President George W. Bush, and he’s now professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.”We know the Bush family detests Donald Trump. That’s no secret. The Bush family believes Trump stole the Republican Party nomination from Jeb. Donald Trump was supposed to be Jeb’s foil, not the other way around. The Bush family obviously supports Hillary Clinton. The Bush family says: “GOP be damned!”If we are to believe Painter, he is saying his motivation for filing a complaint against Comey is to ensure ethics in Government. We are to believe that no one suggested or urged Painter to file a complaint against Comey. The American people are to believe he did this on his own. Sure!Richard Painter filed his Complaint, on October 29, 2016. He filed it with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Office of Government Ethics. Painter says he filed a formal Complaint, claiming Comey violated the “Hatch Act.” Painter says, in his Complaint, that Comey “was going beyond what he needed to do. And so one could argue that Director Comey had animosity against Clinton, wanted her to lose. But that’s only one way to violate the Hatch Act.” Painter, continues, “The other is where you have a government official who - they are pressured by somebody else who wants to influence the election to perform an official act in their capacity as a government employee that will have a likely effect on the election, and there is no other good reason for that official action.” It is odd that neither NPR nor the New York Times--the mainstream news organization that published Painter's self-serving article, explaining his rationale for filing his Complaint--asked Richard Painter whether the Bush family or anyone else suggested he file a complaint against Comey. Apparently, no reporter posed this question to Painter. If, though, a reporter for NPR or with the New York Times did ask Painter whether anyone urged Painter to file a complaint, neither reporter bothered to mention that fact in his written piece on Painter.Yet in Painter's article, published in the Times article, we do have this: “For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I [Richard Painter] have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.”  Clearly, Painter would not take much persuading.Painter is also an obsequious apologist for Hillary Clinton. He is quick to condemn Comey. But he says Clinton has committed no crime. Really?We can surmise that Painter’s motivation for filing a complaint against Comey extends beyond the stated desire to promote ethics in Government. That point aside, let’s consider the merits of Richard Painter’s arguments.We discuss Painter’s arguments in Part Two of this Article.

PART TWO OF TWO PARTS

WHAT DOES THE HATCH ACT SAY?The “Hatch Act” was named for the sponsor of the original bill, Senator Carl Hatch, Democrat, New Mexico, in 1939. Then, as now, the import of the Act is to preclude federal bureaucrats from becoming involved in political campaign activities. The Act in its present form, diluted from the original Statute, is codified in 5 U.S.C.S. § 7323. The Statute is titled, “Political activity authorized; prohibitions.”The applicable portion of the Act Painter ostensibly relies on says:“(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. . . .”Now, in his letter to Congressional leaders, Comey says “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Comey also informed FBI employees of his action and the reason for it.The legal issue that Painter raises in his complaint is whether, through his letter to Congress, James Comey has “use[d] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”Specific intent to influence is required to support a charge under the Hatch Act. The FBI Director was simply doing what his duties require him to do. He was investigating violations of federal law. The fact that the FBI was investigating a person who happens to be running for Public Office doesn’t obviate the Director’s duty to investigate violations of federal law whether a person is running for political office or not. In the instant case, the FBI was investigating serious crimes, felonies, and multiple counts that Hillary Clinton and her henchmen and her henchwomen had committed over a period of several years.It is specious to make the argument, as Painter does, that the FBI is to forbear investigating violations of federal law simply because a person happens to be running for political office. But, that, in its essence is the foundation of Painter's argument that Comey violated the Hatch Act. In fact Painter undermines whatever merit he claims for having filed his Complaint by saying, “I do not know whether the Director of the FBI personally wanted to influence the outcome of an election, although the content and wording of this week’s letter is of concern.” So, Painter paints his Complaint against Comey on bald conjecture and opinion. Painter knows his Complaint has no legal basis.We can infer, then, that Painter filed his Complaint against Comey in bad faith. Painter, an expert on the law is not ignorant of the import and purport of the Hatch Act. We must, then, return to Painter’s motivations. Did someone approach Painter, asking him to file an ethics claim against Comey? That is certainly possible, even probable. Since Painter doesn’t support Trump, he would be a willing partner in filing a spurious claim against Comey to cast false aspersions on the FBI Director. Painter’s objective, then, in filing his Complaint, is clear. He seeks to prop up Clinton—to dupe the American people. He attempts to cast a vile criminal, Clinton, in a good light, by drawing attention to Comey, attempting to cast a basically honorable man in a bad light. Painter’s purpose? He seeks to draw votes, in these final hours, to Clinton, and away from Trump.We are not alone in our judgment that Painter filed a dubious Complaint against James Comey.A prominent legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, also took Painter to task. Turley points out that nothing in Painter’s complaint supports a reasonable inference that Comey intended to influence the outcome of the election through his notification to Congress. Turley’s legal analysis of Richard Painter’s complaint is instructive. Turley says,“Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that “We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway.”However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter’s justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations.  You can disagree with the timing of Comey’s disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using “[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.”In his Complaint to the Office of Special Counsel and to the Office of Government Ethics, Richard Painter also asks the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics to investigate the Director of the FBI to ascertain whether the Director violated 5 CFR § 2635.702 which forbids use of public office for private gain. The Statute says, in principal part that:“An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.”Beyond the naked request, Painter offers no reason at all for claiming the FBI Director has gained anything personally, from investigating violations of federal law. Isn’t the purpose of the FBI to do precisely what the FBI Director did: investigate violations of federal law?In his Complaint, Painter says, “Violations of the Hatch Act and of this ethics rule [5 CFR § 2635.702] are not permissible in any circumstances, including an executive branch official acting under pressure from persons such as the president and politically motivatedmembers of Congress.” Apart from stating the obvious, Painter says nothing that would paint a picture of wrongdoing on Comey’s part. Curiously, Painter has painted a most exquisite painting of Hillary Clinton’s violation of 5 CFR § 2635.702. Wasn’t the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation predicated on substantive and substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton used the Department of State as a mechanism through which she doled out favors for cash? Did she not use her position as Secretary of State to establish a grand “Pay to Play,” scheme reaping in tens of millions of dollars? Would she not extend that “Pay to Play” to the White House? Imagine the vast stores of money--the huge hoard of cash--Clinton could accumulate through the sale of the Office of the President of the United States? Such bribery and corruption this Nation has never before been seen! If Painter is truly concerned about Ethics in Government, why did he not file his Complaint against Hillary Clinton? The evidence supporting claims of Clinton’s ethics violations would fill volumes. He could certainly have made a much stronger case for ethics violations against Clinton than he has actually done, attempting to besmirch the FBI Director who was doing what was required of him: enforcing the Nation's laws. Letting Congress and the American public know that the FBI is investigating a person for criminal wrongdoing--a person who seeks the highest Office in the Land--is certainly not an ethics violations under federal law. He gains nothing personal from that: neither wealth nor position. He certainly isn't campaigning for Trump. One may just as well argue that, keeping the investigation and the findings a secret from the American people, amounts to campaigning for Clinton--a point that Jonathan Turley makes. The American people have a right to know what they are getting. If some Americans wish to vote for a vile criminal, then they should do so with both eyes open. For those Americans who vote for Clinton bear a measure of responsibility for the damage she can and would cause to the Office of the U.S. President, and to the Nation, and to the Nation's citizenry, and to the Nation's Constitution. Those Americans who vote for Clinton cannot be heard thereafter to plaintively say--in the event Hillary Clinton actually secures the Office--that they didn't know! They can't thereafter be heard to apologetically ask, "how could we know?" They can't justifiably say any of these things. They can't do so for the simple reason that the Director of the FBI, James Comey, has, explicitly as he can, forewarned them. He has forewarned all of us. Richard Painter should not be casting blame and aspersions on Comey. Comey isn't responsible for Clinton's criminal conduct. Hillary Clinton, herself, is responsible for her criminal conduct. The FBI didn't investigate Clinton because of a personal distaste for her. The FBI investigated Clinton because there existed and there does exist probable cause that she broke federal law; that she committed felonies; and that she did committed felonies many times over; and that she committed felonies over an extended and extensive period of time. Is Hillary Clinton still committing felonies? Possibly she is. Would Hillary Clinton commit felonies were she to secure the Office of the President? Undoubtedly, she will. She has a criminal nature. Holding high public Office doesn't change that. Holding high public Office can't change that. A zebra never changes its stripes. Holding high Office--the highest Office in the Land--would only allow Clinton to continue her criminal behavior. Even more, the Office of the U.S. President will allow Clinton to amplify that criminal behavior in a manner and to an extent that only a writer of horror fiction can imagine, except for the fact that the writer of such horror won't be writing fiction. He or she will be writing fact.

ALAS, NO HORATIUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Comey could have been America’s “Horatius at the Bridge.” Alas, at the Eleventh Hour, he failed the Nation and the American People. Comey buckled under to the forces that seek to push through a criminal for President.We then receive a bombshell from Fox News. Fox News reports, on November 3, 2016, that an indictment of Clinton is almost certain. Then, one day later, the same news network hits the public with another bombshell. Fox news not only retracts its statement that an indictment is almost certain but apologizes for making it.Fox News apparently heard that Comey would not recommend an indictment after all. The American public is then hit with the third bombshell, on November 6, 2016. Although it would ordinarily take weeks if not months to sift through all the emails found on Weiner’s computer, James Comey says the FBI won’t recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. It seems that whoever threatened James Comey, originally, reminded Comey that the threat still stands.Understand, if Trump becomes President, Clinton likely will be indicted on one or more charges of violations of federal law. If the U.S. Department of Justice cannot or will not indict and prosecute Clinton, Congress will likely enact legislation appointing independent counsel to investigate, indict, and prosecute both Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Foundation. Likely, Obama would be caught up in the investigation. Many other powerful, influential people would be caught up in the dragnet.

DO AMERICANS STILL LIVE IN A FREE REPUBLIC?

We infer that a quiet coup of our Government has occurred and only a Trump Presidency will be able to flush it out. Those who have much to lose have taken steps to thrust a Clinton Presidency down our throats.So, we come full circle. Powerful interests in Government—Centrist Democrats and Republicans—working on behalf of each other, and on behalf of powerful, wealthy, influential, and wholly corrupt international financial interests both here and abroad, do not want to see their power diminished and defused. They do not want to see their personal goals and aims for a one world government—one they have worked long and hard for—undermined and jeopardized.The destructive course they have set for our Nation will be set aright only by a Trump win in this election. The Bushes and Clintons—and their silent, powerful, secretive backers—have pulled out all the stops.They intend to seat, in the White House, the most venal, and vain, and vile individual ever to hold public office, Hillary Rodham Clinton. That says as much about them as it does about her.Only we, Americans, can bring this frightful, terrible juggernaut to a screeching halt. We have flushed these denizens of the night out into the light of day—these vampires of the night that would deny us our Birthright, that would break our Will, that would suck the lifeblood of our Nation. We cannot rely on Congress to preserve and protect our Nation. We cannot rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to secure our sacred Bill of Rights and to maintain the supremacy of our laws over those of other Nations and over those of extrajudicial foreign bodies. And, we certainly cannot rely on the Imperial Presidency to safeguard our freedoms.It is up to each and every American citizen to remind those who hold high Office in Government that they serve us, and they do so at our pleasure; that we do not serve them at their pleasure.“We are our own destiny. If we are victims at all, or conquerors, we have done it in our minds and our will, or with our faulty judgments or our illusions. If we permit others to exploit us, in private life or in government, we chose it. Or we made the fatal error of acquiescence, and for that we should be condemned. The world forgives everything but weakness and submission. It forgives everyone but a victim. For there is always battle, even if you die in it. In any event death comes to all men. How you died was your own choice, fighting or submitting.” ~Taylor Caldwell, “Captains and the Kings,” Part One, Chapter 17, page 178 (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972).We are at a definite crossroads. The founders bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights; and they made clear to all other Nations and to all foreign interests that we are an independent sovereign Nation composed of a free people—a people who control their own destiny. Our founders are watching us now. They are wondering whether we, Americans, their descendants, are worthy of retaining the Nation and the Constitution they bequeathed us.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TINKER, TAILOR, TERRORIST, TRAITOR

PART ONE OF FOUR PARTS

INTRODUCTION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, civil governance, philosophy, and jurisprudence into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

TREASON IS A CRIME AGAINST COUNTRY. THE HORROR OF TREASON IS ETCHED IN STONE FOR ALL TO SEE.

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!" ~ISAIAH 5:20—21Has Hillary Rodham Clinton committed treason? To Clinton’s benefactors and supporters, just asking this is heresy. They would like the question to go away. It won’t.The question of treason lies simmering like molten magna just below the Earth’s crust. It lies dormant, but potent. Only a few take notice, but should.Many say Hillary Clinton is a traitor. They hurl the word at her as invective, as an epithet. They are fervent in their denunciation of Clinton. But, truthfully, calling a person a traitor, if mere epithet, as invective, means nothing more than saying, “I hate you; go to Hell!” A mere assertion of indignation of moral outrage toward one—understandable though it be—carries no legal import or significance.A few others provide a rational basis for leveling the charge of treason against Clinton. But, a rational basis isn’t automatically a legal basis. It is the legal ground for charging Hillary Clinton with treason we must ponder. Treason is a most serious charge. For, treason is a crime against our Nation’s sovereignty. Treason is a crime against our Country. Treason is a crime against the founders of our Republic. Treason is a crime against our Constitution; and against our Bill of Rights; and against our institutions; and against our system of laws; and against the Rule of Law. Treason is a crime against our fellow Countrymen. Treason is a crime against those who gave their blood for our Country, that we may live, free—free from the control of those silent, secretive, seditious, and evil, corrupting influences and forces that seek to undermine the inviolability of our Nation’s sacred heritage, and of its precious birthright. Treason mocks the sanctity of our Nation’s past. Treason undercuts faith in the stability and security of our Nation at the present moment. Treason dashes our Nation’s hopes and dreams, leaving us fearful for our Nation’s future. Treason is Treachery incarnate to our Nation.Despicable behavior warrants our condemnation, surely. But, unless our laws forbid hateful behavior, such behavior isn’t subject to prosecution. Treason is forbidden conduct. Treason is prosecutable. The crime of treason is codified in our Constitution and in Statute. The crime of Treason is etched in stone.

DOES THE DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR OF THE ODIOUS HILLARY CLINTON AMOUNT TO TREASON?

Does concrete evidence exist in the public domain that might, legally, support a charge of treason against Hillary Clinton?A few commentators assert that Clinton’s conduct amounts to treason. Do their claims stand up to scrutiny? Do those claims hold up to analysis? Is there merit to charging Hillary Clinton with treason?The mainstream media won’t weigh in. It won’t touch the subject. Those media organizations and commentators not aligned to mainstream media that have broached the subject are few. So, there is little public outcry, only a palpable silence.But treason won’t go away. It is the four hundred pound silverback gorilla in the room. Does the gorilla exist? Or, is it shadow and mist? Let’s see.

CLINTON IS A CRIMINAL: OF THAT, NO REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTS. TREASON OR NOT, CLINTON MUST ACCOUNT FOR A MULTITUDE OF FELONIES. BUT NEITHER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOR CONGRESS CARES ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

We know Clinton has committed serious federal crimes. They include mishandling classified government information, lying to federal investigators; public corruption in high Office.These three federal crimes are not misdemeanors, much less mere infractions. They are felonies, the most serious of crimes. The public knows of them. If convicted of any one or more of them, Hillary Clinton would face both large monetary penalties and lengthy imprisonment in federal prison. Rudy Giuliani has pointed to fifteen other federal crimes warranting indictment of Clinton. Giuliani served as an Associate Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as a Mayor of New York City. He knows whereof he speaks. The mainstream media should listen to him and roundly condemn Hillary Clinton. The mainstream media chooses not to. Instead, it applauds her; it hails her; it worships her. It defiles the sacred right of the Press, engraved in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, our founders lovingly, lavished upon it.So, here we are. The Justice Department didn’t indict and prosecute Clinton and the mainstream media did not demand it do so. Why not? The F.B.I. Director’s stated reasons for recommending no indictment against Hillary Clinton remain weak and fallible and are clearly implausible. The Attorney General is an abject disgrace to her profession and to her Country. The F.B.I., within the Department of Justice, may yet come to our Nation’s rescue. James Comey, Director of the F.B.I., and the Bureau’s field agents of the F.B.I., may be our Nation’s Horatius at the Bridge.We have learned the Bureau may recommend indictment of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. See article in RealClear Politics.  Likely, the Bureau would recommend indictment of the Foundation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq. Understand, this does not mean indictment of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton in their individual capacity—at least not yet. But the Justice Department’s indictment of and prosecution of the Foundation, as a corporate entity, on federal RICO charges would be a good start!Evidence of Clinton’s criminal conduct is massive; the time frame of the criminal conduct, vast. Why didn’t the Justice Department indict Clinton on federal felony charges? We draw one inference: Political constraints, or threats, hindered the Justice Department’s legal duty to our Country, to our laws, and to our Constitution.Americans who committed any one or more of the crimes Hillary Clinton committed have suffered swift and severe retribution. Yet, Clinton, herself, emerges, and remains, to date, unscathed. That’s deeply perplexing. The scale of Clinton’s crimes dwarfs those of other Americans.Hillary Clinton must answer for her crimes. A double standard jeopardizes the integrity of our Nation, and the sanctity of our Republic. A double standard erodes the rule of law. A double standard mocks our Constitution; it mocks our system of laws; it mocks our jurisprudence; and it mocks the very idea of judicial fairness.The Executive Office of the President is beyond redemption. The Office of the Attorney General may yet redeem itself with an indictment of Hillary and Bill Clinton on federal felony charges. Congress, too, might redeem itself. It can do so with enactment of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 2016, H.R. 5271. But Congress must debate the Act on the Floor of the House and hold a public vote of its members. At the moment Congress has done nothing. It shows abject weakness in the face of the worst Constitutional crisis to face this Nation in decades.In Part Two we consider, one, the elements of treason, and, two, against whom federal prosecutors can bring a charge of treason.

PART TWO OF FOUR PARTS

THE DYNAMICS OF A TREASON CHARGE

“But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments. For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, ‘None seeth me.’ Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, ‘I am, and none else beside me.’ Therefore shall evil come upon thee; thou shalt not know from whence it riseth: and mischief shall fall upon thee; thou shalt not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon thee suddenly, which thou shalt not know.” ~ ISAIAH 47:9—11, King James Version

WHOM MAY FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CHARGE WITH TREASON?

Federal prosecutors may charge with treason those American citizens who betray their Country. A citizen owes loyalty to his Country. That is self-evident. Treason is treachery to one’s Country. But, may prosecutors charge non-citizens with treason? Non-citizens don’t owe their loyalty to our Country. They aren’t expected to.Some say Barack Obama isn’t a United States citizen and, so, prosecutors cannot indict him on treason. But is that true? No; it isn’t true. Obama is subject to our Nation’s treason law, citizen or not. A common misconception is that a person must be a citizen of the United States to face a charge of treason. That’s untrue. Non-citizens who reside in the United States must adhere to all laws of the United States while here. Federal prosecutors can charge noncitizens with treason as they may citizens. How do we know that? The U.S. Supreme Court says so.Over a century ago, the Supreme Court ruled that aliens, whether here legally or not, aren’t beyond our treason law. The Supreme Court ruling is more than one hundred years old, but it is still good law. The U.S. Supreme Court said, “The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.” Carlisle vs. United States, 83 U.S. 147 (1873). The high Court, in Carlisle, added, “. . . it is well known that, by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.” Id.

TREASON IN U.S. LAW

Treason comprises: levying war against the sovereign United States or adhering to the Nation’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Treason is a federal crime; a felony. The crime of treason appears in both our Constitution and federal Statute. We see it in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution. We see it in the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381. Treason is treachery to Nation. Treason is the supreme betrayal to Country. Long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made that point poignantly clear.“Treason is the most serious offense that may be committed against the United States.” Stephan vs. United States, 133 F2d 87 (6th Circuit, 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781 (1943), citing, Hanauer v. Doane, 79 U.S. 342, 79 U.S. 342, 20 L.Ed. 439, 12 Wall. 342 (1871). “No crime is greater than treason.”

WHAT DOES 'LEVYING WAR' MEAN?

The U.S. Supreme Court explained the meaning of ‘levying war,’ in a two-hundred year old case: Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ex parte Monti, 79 F Supp. 651 (DC NY 1948). The Supreme Court’s comprehensive explanation of ‘levying war’ has stood the test of time. The high Court said, “What is the natural import of the words ‘levying war?’ And who may be said to levy it? . . . Taken most literally, they are perhaps of the same import with the words raising or creating war, but as those who join after the commencement are equally the objects of punishment, there would probably be a general admission, that the term also comprehended making war, or carrying on war. . . . If for example, an army should be actually raised for the avowed purpose of carrying on open war against the United States and subverting their government, the point must be weighed very deliberately, before a judge would venture to decide that an overt act of levying war had not been committed by a commissary of purchases, who never saw the army, but who, knowing its object, and leaguing himself with the rebels, supplied that army with provisions, or by a recruiting officer holding a commission in the rebel service, who though never in camp, executed the particular duty assigned to him.” The Court added: “Taking this view of the subject, it appears to the court, that those who perform a part in the prosecution of the war may correctly be said to levy war and to commit treason under the constitution.” Let’s not obscure the meaning of the words, ‘levying war,’ by drawing a distinction between a formal Declaration of War and use of military force without formal Declaration. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution makes clear that Congress has sole authority to declare war. Yet, not since World War II did Congress declare war against a foreign actor. Congress agreed to a President’s use of the armed forces since then with no Congressional declaration of war. George W. Bush set up a war on terror to be sure. We are in armed conflict with Islamic extremists.Disagreement among legal experts exists over whether a charge of treason can stick without a formal Congressional declaration of war against a foreign actor. But, “if a congressional authorization to use military force can authorize the President to detain enemy combatants absent a declaration of war, such authorizations surely must also satisfy the enemy requirement of the Treason Clause. In short, if a person can be treated as an enemy combatant without a declaration of war, it would make little sense for that same person not to be considered an enemy for the purposes of the Treason Clause.” Article: Did The Court Kill The Treason Charge?: Reassessing Cramer v. United States And Its Significance, 36 Fla. St. U. L. Rev., Paul T. Crane, Solicitor General of the United States, 2008-2009.American citizens who join forces with radical Islam have levied war against the United States. Federal prosecutors can charge those citizens with treason. Yet, in the last sixty years, federal prosecutors charged and prosecuted only two treason cases: the latest in 2006; the earlier one in 1952. Id.A federal grand jury indicted Azzam al-Amriki Gadahn aka “Azzam the American,” on charges of treason in 2006 for giving aid to al-Qaeda. “The indictment alleged that Gadahn, an American citizen, ‘knowingly adhered to an enemy of the United States, namely, al-Qaeda, and gave al-Qaeda aid and comfort, within the United States and elsewhere, with intent to betray the United States.’ This charge was based on Gadahn’s participation in several videotapes produced by al-Qaeda between October 2004 and September 2006, in which he appeared with al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, espoused his support for the terrorist organization, praised the attacks of September 11th and the bombings in London and Madrid, and threatened future attacks against the United States. Notably, Gadahn was not in United States custody when the indictment was issued and currently remains at large.” Id. Fifty years earlier, federal prosecutors charged an American, Anthony Cramer, with treason. “The treason prosecution of Anthony Cramer has its roots in the infamous Nazi Saboteur Affair. In 1942, seven German soldiers traveled by submarine and secretly landed on the east coast of the United States with plans to destroy American industrial war facilities. The saboteurs were eventually caught, tried by military tribunal, and sentenced to either death or imprisonment. The Supreme Court denied the saboteurs’ habeas corpus petitions in Ex Parte Quirin. Anthony Cramer was not a saboteur but rather a friend of one.” Id. The lower federal Court convicted Cramer of treason. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. Cramer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court vacated the charge of treason.Still, “although the Court vacated Cramer’s conviction, the government did not let him go free. While treason charges could have been brought again, the two sides reached a plea agreement on a different charge. Cramer pled guilty to violating the Trading with the Enemy Act and was sentenced to six years in prison.” Id.Apart from “levying war” against the United States, a person also commits the crime of treason if that person gives aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies. What does the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ mean? The U.S. Supreme Court explained what the phrase, ‘giving aid and comfort,’ means in the case, Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952), rehearing denied, 344 US 850 (1952). The phrase, “aid and comfort,” is broad. It refers to any act that strengthens the enemy, and at once weakens the power of the United States to resist or to attack its enemies. But there’s a “kicker.” To satisfy the element of the crime, the act must be overt. “One may think disloyal thoughts and have his heart on the side of the enemy. Yet if he commits no act giving aid and comfort to the enemy, he is not guilty of treason. He may on the other hand commit acts which do give aid and comfort to the enemy and yet not be guilty of treason, as for example where he acts impulsively with no intent to betray.” Kawakita vs. United States, 343 US 717 (1952). “To give aid and comfort to our Nation’s enemies requires an act and an intent to act a desire to betray our Country.” Id. Further, “two witnesses are required, not to the disloyal and treacherous intention, but to the same overt act.” Id.Treason is notoriously difficult to prove in Court even if legitimately prosecuted.This takes us to Part Three: the penultimate, but not ultimate question. Did Hillary Clinton, commit treason?

PART THREE OF FOUR PARTS

THE PENULTIMATE QUESTION

DID HILLARY CLINTON LEVY WAR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR OTHERWISE GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO OUR NATION’S ENEMIES?

DID HILLARY CLINTON COMMIT TREASON?

“And Joram said, Make ready. And his chariot was made ready. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out against Jehu, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, ‘Is it peace, Jehu?’ And he answered, ‘What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?’ And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah.’ And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot.” ~2 KINGS, CHAPTER 9:21—24, King James Version

WHEREFORE DOES TREACHERY EXIST? DOES IT EXIST IN THE PEOPLE WHO TOPPLE A TYRANT? OR, DOES IT EXIST IN THE USURPER WHO PROCLAIMS, ‘I AM NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND AND RULE BY DIVINE RIGHT! OBEY ME OR FALL, FOR SUCH TREACHERY THAT EXISTS IN THE LAND IS TREACHERY TO ME, ONLY. NO OTHER TREACHERY CAN THERE BE.’

If Hillary Clinton obtains the mantle of U.S. President, she will proclaim that an attack against her right to reign as U.S. President is an attack against the Nation and, so, constitutes treachery to Nation. She will shred the U.S. Constitution—the Supreme Law of the Land that proclaims rulership in the People, not in those who hold high public Office. For those who hold Office—however lofty that Office may be—are but servants of the People, nothing more. Yet, Hillary Clinton will usurp the power the People rightfully hold. She will proclaim that “She,” not “We, the People,” is the rightful and true Ruler of our Nation.Hillary Clinton will substitute the Constitution for the law “She” makes. Hillary Clinton will say that her law is right, and just, and good, and superior to our old Canons. That may happen. Don’t think it cannot. If so, a Tyrant will rise in our midst. This Tyrant will rise through deception, through deceit, through the connivance of the Press, and through the ignorance of the People.No Greater Horror can beset this Nation than to seat a Deceiver in the Oval Office.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE OF CLINTON’S TREACHERY TO NATION

We look at a few specific assertions, referencing specific events that occurred when Clinton served as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. We analyze these assertions to determine whether they adequately support a charge of treason. The first is this:“While Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she supported a covert exchange of weapons to Libyan rebels, some of whom then conducted the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi.” See article in HGN. Under the Supreme Court’s treatment of treason this would not support a successful prosecution for treason because, even if true, the intent to betray the Nation—the guilty state of mind—is missing, or, at least, the state of mind cannot be gleaned from the aforesaid assertion.Nothing in the assertion, if true, suggests Clinton knew the Libyan rebels that she and Obama armed had planned to attack Americans. Even if Clinton suspected these Libyan rebels might turn those weapons on Americans, that presumption still does not support a charge of treason. For, treason, under our Constitution and under federal Statute, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires a specific state of mind—a specific intention, a specific guilty mind or mens rea, to harm our Nation—thus, satisfying the “knowingly adhering” to our Nation’s enemies requirement. Negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety of Americans is, simply, not enough to support a charge of treason, much less sustain a conviction on treason. Did Clinton know or suspect the rebels she had armed posed a potential threat to our Nation and to its citizenry? Perhaps she did. But, that presumption, too, does not support a charge of treason, reprehensible though her actions be if Clinton recognized a potential threat to Americans, posed by the rebels she armed, and decided to arm them anyway. Did Clinton know, in advance, that the Libyan rebels she armed would, in fact, attack Americans at Benghazi, or, at least, did Clinton arm the rebels with the expectation and hope they would attack Americans? Both inferences are a considerable stretch on the basis of the mere assertion that Clinton had armed the rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans. But, if this scenario were true, a charge of treason would stick. A prosecutor could then show intent—that Clinton had adhered to our Nation’s enemies—intent sufficient to support a charge of treason, necessary to secure a conviction. But, a prosecutor cannot legitimately draw either one of the two aforesaid inferences from the evidence given. Those inferences simply don’t follow logically, rationally, from the mere assertion that Clinton had armed Libyan rebels who did eventually carry out an attack on Americans in Benghazi. In point of fact the Obama Administration still provides weapons to so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels who, from one day to the next, may no longer be “moderate,” and who, thereafter may use our own weapons against us. Or, these “moderate” Islamic rebels may sell those weapons to “non-moderate” groups of Islamic rebels, that is to say, extremist Islamic rebel groups who, thereafter, use those weapons—our weapons—against us. Perhaps Clinton believed that the Libyan rebels she had armed were “moderate” Muslims, who posed no probable threat to Americans at the time she armed them, from what she knew about them; and that she could not, at that time, and did not, at that time, reasonably anticipate they would turn violent. She could make that claim and probably would make that claim in her defense were she tried for treason. The claim is plausible and difficult to controvert, if one buys into the notion that the term, 'moderate,' as applied to a Muslim rebel group makes sense.If Clinton did want Americans killed at Benghazi, we can only speculate as to a reason. Perhaps she sought to demoralize Americans—destabilizing our Country, weakening our resolve, making us malleable, so that she, on behalf of her wealthy, powerful, sordid benefactors, might reshape our Nation in a manner they wish--a reconfiguration that requires the destruction of our independence, and of our Constitution, and of our sovereignty—drawing us into the orbit of a one world governing body, a new world order. But these speculations would not support her conviction on treason.Was Clinton negligent in providing arms to these Libyan rebels? Sure. Again, the Obama Administration provides arms to Islamic groups across the Middle East. That's his policy. He does this all the time. Obama tells us his Administration supports arming only “moderate” rebel groups. But, the word, ‘moderate,’ is a dubious and fluid concept. President Obama uses it deviously to suggest such rebel Muslim groups are our friends. They aren’t. They have their own agenda. “Moderate” Muslim rebel groups turn on us regularly, constantly; and, within a Muslim rebel group, one faction may be "moderate" and another faction may be "hostile." Who can really say? These rebel groups, "moderate" or "hostile" do use our weapons against us. The Benghazi tragedy illustrates that point well. If the group Clinton armed were deemed, "moderate," at the time she armed that group, that Muslim rebel group certainly  turned "hostile" once it took up arms--our own weapons--against us!Muslim rebel groups hate us. None, we can trust. That's the only safe bet. The appellation, ‘moderate,’ applied to some groups at any particular point in time is no more than a political nicety. Obama uses it for expediency, for propaganda purposes to deceive the American public. It means nothing. Our Nation should be circumspect in arming any Muslim rebel group. Rebel groups that seem friendly toward us one day or, at least, benign, can turn hostile toward us, the next, and do. We should not supply these groups with weapons they can turn against us, ever. Obama’s entire foreign policy is suspect. The policy is based on ill-formed goals. Military tactics and strategy in the Middle East change daily, even hourly. We, Americans, are caught up in an expensive and unending, seething maelstrom the Bush Administration--that of George W. Bush, not that of his father, George H. W. Bush--created through his ostensibly preemptive--actually, aggressive and premeditated--war in Iraq--a war the Obama Administration worsened through its tentative handling of the conflict.Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have behaved negligently, at the very least, in the conduct of our Nation’s foreign policy. Their actions may support a claim of gross negligence. Their actions may even support both a claim of reckless indifference to the security of our Nation, and reckless indifference to the lives of our citizens. But, their policy formulations, endangering our Nation as they do, do not support a charge of treason, on the basis of negligent conduct, gross negligent conduct, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of American lives they have a duty to protect. So a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama cannot rest on the specific act of having armed Libyan rebel groups that attacked and killed Americans, in the absence of evidence of specific intent on the part of Obama and Clinton--a deliberate desire to kill Americans through the act of arming Libyan rebel groups.Did Clinton fail to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection? If so, does that support a charge of treason?Some commentators point to Clinton’s failure to provide adequate military support to State Department personnel in Libya after our Ambassador made several requests for protection. See Politifact article.Although reprehensible, that assertion, too, if true, does not support a charge of treason. Once again, on its face that assertion shows negligence, gross negligence, or even reckless disregard for the safety and security of Americans. That assertion doesn’t entail a clear, irrefutable intention, on Clinton’s part, and, by implication, on Obama’s part, to kill Americans. So, that fact does not support a charge of treason. Did Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refuse to send troops to protect our people once the attack against Americans in Benghazi was underway? Does that fact support a charge of treason against Clinton and Obama?The tacit premise here is that Clinton and Obama were aware that an attack against our people was occurring, and they deliberately told our military to “stand down.” If true, would this might support a prima facie case of treason against Hillary Clinton and against the President Obama? One thing is clear. If federal or special prosecutors charge Clinton with treason, they should charge Obama too. For, they operated in concert. So, Obama has a clear vested interest in having Clinton succeed him. He faces more than loss of his legacy—poor as it is—if Clinton is defeated in this Presidential election. For, if prosecutors charge Hillary Clinton with treason, they will charge Barack Obama with treason, too. Their actions in the Middle East are inextricably linked.Let’s suppose that Clinton and Obama had knowledge of the Benghazi attack in real time, while it was unfolding, and that they did nothing to protect Americans. Still, federal prosecutors would have a difficult time prosecuting the case against Clinton and Obama to a successful conclusion. The reason is that the legal issue here is one here of first impression: “Does the omission to act, where a legal duty to act exists, constitute an overt act, sufficient to support a charge of treason?” Remember, treason, according to U.S. Supreme Court decisional law, requires an overt act of betrayal to the Nation.Federal prosecutors must prove that Obama and Clinton knew Americans were under attack and intentionally did not provide military assistance to those Americans. But, even in this scenario, conviction on treason is, at best, uncertain.In their defense, Obama and Clinton would argue they did not know of the attack on Americans at Benghazi as it was unfolding in real time. If true, a treason charge would collapse. If false, then failing to send troops to protect our Ambassador and his staff does amount to an “omission to act” where there is a clear duty to act. There’s no question about it. But, then, the follow-up question is this: does a failure to act amount to an overt act of betrayal to Nation? Are the two equivalents? It may seem so, and but this is not a legal certainty, distasteful though such omission to act is to our conscience. Obama and Clinton would claim that failure to act—even where duty demands they act—does not mean they gave direct aid and comfort to our enemies. Is an act of omission equivalent to an act of commission, under the law of treason? That’s unclear. How would a court of competent jurisdiction decide that question? We don’t know. What we do know is that: “The Constitution has left no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has no undertaken to restrict or enlarge the constitutional definition.” Stephan v United States, 133 F2d 87 (CA6 Mich 1943), certiorari denied, 318 US 781, 87 L Ed 1148, 63 S Ct 858 (1943), rehearing denied, 319 US 783, 87 L Ed 1727, 63 S Ct 1172 (1943). This raises hairy logical, linguistic, and legal issues concerning the meaning of "constructive knowledge" and "actual knowledge" and "constructive intent to commit a crime" and "actual intent to commit a crime."Evidence exists, according to The Daily Caller, that the Clinton Foundation received money from Arab Countries, namely and specifically, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that are giving financial and logistical support to extremist Sunni groups, including "Islamic State." If true does that support a treason charge against Clinton? Once again, the critical question goes to whether Hillary Clinton has given aid and comfort to our Nation's enemies. Islamic State and other extremist groups definitely are our Nation's enemies. If Hillary Clinton accepted money from Nations with knowledge that these Countries were supporting the Nation's enemies, like Islamic State, that fact, although, despicable, probably doesn't support a charge of treason, for she is receiving support--money--from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She isn't giving money to those Countries with the intent that such money be used on behalf of Islamic State and other such extremist groups. She is taking money from Countries that are construed as allies or, at least, as benign. That is to say, that, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar may be actively supporting our Nation's enemies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not, they themselves, are not treated as enemies of the United States. But, reasonably, they should be so treated. The fact that Clinton does receive illicit monies from Countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, does show that Clinton doesn't give a damn about the welfare of our Country and its citizenry so long as her Foundation is making a profit. That fact, alone, also makes abundantly clear that Hillary Clinton is hardly a person to be entrusted with our Nation's secrets; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with designing foreign policy for our Nation; and she is hardly the person to be entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation. But, does that fact alone--receiving money from Nations who do assist our enemies--support a charge of treason against Clinton.  Probably not. But, give Hillary Clinton time and rest assured she will weaken this Country's defenses as she cares not for the well-being of our Nation. She cares not for the preservation of our Bill of Rights. She cares not for the safety and security of our Nation's citizenry.So, where does all this leave us? If solid evidence to support Clinton’s indictment on treason exists—and, hence, evidence, by logical extension, to support Obama’s indictment of treason, too—that evidence lies buried in the bowels of Government. The Justice Department may in fact have that evidence. The American public, unfortunately, does not. But, if a charge of treason can’t feasibly stick against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, that doesn’t end the matter. We have terrorism Statutes. We ask: Can a charge of terrorism be brought against them? To our knowledge, no one has considered this. We do. The question is not beyond the pale. We take it up in Part Four.

PART FOUR OF FOUR PARTS

THE ULTIMATE QUESTION

IS HILLARY CLINTON A TERRORIST?

WHAT MONSTERS HAVE WE AWAKENED THAT DARE THREATEN THE EQUANIMITY OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATION?

“It is absolutely necessary, for the peace and safety of mankind, that some of earth’s dark, dead corners and unplumbed depths be let alone; lest sleeping abnormalities wake to resurgent life, and blasphemously surviving nightmares squirm and splash out of their black lairs to newer and wider conquests.” ~H. P. Lovecraft (At the Mountains of Madness, 24 February to 22 March 1931)

CAN WE NOT CHARGE HIGH PUBLIC OFFICIALS WITH TERRORISM WHEN THEIR POLICIES ENDANGER: THE SECURITY OF THE NATION; THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF THE CITIZENRY; THE STABILITY OF THE SOCIAL ORDER; AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INSTITUTIONS AND OUR WAY OF LIFE?

A plethora of federal terrorism statutes exist today. Prosecutors could charge Muslim Extremists who commit acts of terrorism here with treason. We have seen many Islamic extremist attacks against Americans, stretching back to the 1970s.Many of these criminal acts fall under the category of treason. But the perpetrators are charged under other criminal statutes. These include the crime of Terrorism, codified in law in 2001, with passage of the Patriot Act. The Nation’s “Terrorism” statutes fall under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et. seq.Might not prosecutors bring a charge of terrorism against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Neither President George W. Bush nor Congress intended these Statutes to apply to high Government Officials. The idea of applying our terrorism laws against the U.S. President or Cabinet level officials under one or more terrorism charges is, admittedly, singularly odd, incongruous, and bizarre. After all, we expect the U.S. President and his Cabinet to protect the Nation and its citizenry from terrorism, not to lend their power and authority to terrorism’s promotion. How might federal prosecutors apply terrorism statutes to our own Government officials? Under what set of facts or under what circumstances might federal prosecutors indict high Government officials on a charge of terrorism? Let’s take a look at one of the Terrorism Statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 2331 says in part, “The term ‘international terrorism’ means activities that—(A)  involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;(B)  appear to be intended—(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii)  to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping; and(C)  occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;(2)  the term ‘national of the United States’ has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;(3)  the term ‘person’ means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;(4)  the term ‘act of war’ means any act occurring in the course of—(A)  declared war;(B)  armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or(C)  armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and(5)  the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that—(A)  involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B)  appear to be intended—(i)  to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;(ii)  to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”This Nation is fully capable of containing the criminal actions of individual Islamic extremists who seek to disrupt the lives of our citizenry and the tranquility of our Nation. Horrible as such criminal conduct is, its impact on the foundation of our Country’s laws, our Country’s Constitution, and our Country’s institutions is nonetheless, narrow.A U.S. Government Official’s terrorist acts, though, disrupt the foundation of our Republic. We see a paradox in this. The public presumes that domestic and foreign policy objectives mandate, inter alia, combating Islamic terrorism. But, suppose policy objectives promote the converse? Suppose the U.S. President and his Cabinet design and implement policies destructive to the Nation’s survival? If the policy threatens or intimidates the citizenry, then the President and his Cabinet are the terrorists. This may seem incongruous, but the possibility exists.18 U.S.C. § 2331 discusses terrorism apropos of actions of those on Government, of those affecting the conduct of Government. But, officials of Government, from the highest to the lowest, are servants of the People. True power and authority rests in the American people not in Government. So, if Government officials design and implement policies deliberately causing harm to or provoking harm in the citizenry, those officials are terrorists and they do fall under the purview of the terrorism laws. Through sanctimonious words and pseudo moral imperatives the President, Barack Obama, and his hopeful replacement, Hillary Clinton, implement policies detrimental to, anathema to the well-being of the Nation. They conduct their treacherous acts through the sanctity of the Office of the Chief Executive. That makes their treachery easier to hide. But the horror these reprehensible creatures unleash on our Country is far greater than any horror one or more loathsome Islamic terrorists desire to unleash upon us, and more insidious, too, since public officials can hide their evil deeds in the cloak of their Office. Radical Islamic terrorists cannot. Obama and Clinton turn the inviolability of high public office into a travesty, into an abomination.Consider: by implementing policy bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslims into this Country whom the F.B.I. and other counterintelligence officials cannot reasonably examine for potential threat to our Nation and to our citizenry, the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has endangered the American citizenry. Once here, they spread like locust over the landscape of our Country. They are difficult to locate; difficult to keep track of. Far better it would be to keep them from crossing our borders. Problematic enough it is to have to deal with illegal infiltration by Islamic extremists into our Country were our borders closed to Muslims. It is quite another matter where Presidential edict allows infiltration easily through lax immigration policies or policies specifically designed to contravene immigration laws enacted by Congress. Obama has permitted tens of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East to enter our Country—notwithstanding the problems Muslim refugees have caused for Europe. Clinton intends to allow hundreds of thousands more Muslims to enter our Country. That is insane.Hillary Clinton intends to continue Obama’s policy if she becomes President. She has admitted as much. Indeed, she revels in it. Both Clinton and Obama hide their goal—undermining the stability of our institutions and threatening the social order.Their policy doesn’t stand rational scrutiny, even as it is cloaked in high-sounding moral rhetoric. For, their domestic policy threatens the safety and well-being of the American citizenry. Such policy is, arguably, an act of terrorism perpetrated against the American citizenry. They mask their treacherous aims under the color of high Office, under the cloak of moral necessity, and under the guise of bald exigency. They are safe from potential harm their seemingly high-minded policies cause. The average American is not. Europeans have learned well the dangers posed by Muslims. What is the response of Obama and Clinton? Americans are expected to take upon themselves the same dangers that Europeans face. It is the right thing to do, so Obama and Clinton say. Application of the dubious ethical scheme of Consequential utilitarianism supersedes the duty owed to our Nation under our Constitution. Terrorism indeed, swathed in an infant’s soft blanket.

CONCLUSION; IMPORTANT REITERATION

Barack Obama’s destructive Administration is rapidly drawing to a close. Our Nation’s Constitution, its institutions, and our security have survived relatively intact. If Hillary Clinton succeeds Obama, our Nation will not survive. She will dismantle our Bill of Rights. She will destroy our economy. She will endanger our citizenry. Clinton will subordinate our laws and jurisprudence to that of other Nations and international tribunals. She will misuse our military, financing unwinnable wars with our tax dollars, sacrificing the lives of our soldiers on military campaigns and escapades that have nothing to do with defending our freedoms or preserving our National Security. Clinton will engage in Nation building, while dismantling our own Nation. She will distribute hundreds of billions of dollars to other Countries, underwriting their debt and serving their needs, while destroying the credit of our own Country and ignoring our Nation’s needs. Clinton will rewrite our Nation’s history. She will thrust alien ideas of culture, morality, religion, and into the Nation’s psyche. Clinton will undermine our National Sovereignty, our National pride our uniqueness. She will compel uniformity in thought and deed. Hillary Clinton will become the Imperial Presidency.Hillary Clinton does not have the best interests of our Nation at heart. She never did. She never will. Hillary Clinton and her family prove, through their deeds, that they serve only their own personal, selfish interests and those of their secretive benefactors both in this Country and abroad. Hillary Clinton’s needs are not our Nation’s needs. Clinton’s desires and goals are not our Nation’s desires and goals. She used the Department of State as a vehicle to amass personal wealth. She will use the Office of the U.S. Presidency in the same way, dispensing ever more favors to those willing to fill her personal coffers. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.This Nation has had enough of the Clintons and of all other family dynasties. Hopefully, the American People will see through the mask of this Viper, Hillary Clinton, before it is too late. Americans must refrain from voting for Clinton. The fate of our Country rests in the balance.

[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.